Unionism - Page 9 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

I

 

I would say the descendants of the britons of strathclyde and the fact we are on the island of britain is why we naturally produce ppl with a strong british identity. Also the emigration of northern irish brits into lowland scotland(effectively returning to their homeland)in the last 150+ years has helped push more scots towards british identity.

Thats just pish

As exile says it is how you have been brought up and British Propaganda

https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/census-results/at-a-glance/national-identity/

82.7% of people said they had some Scottish national identity.

That's 4.4 million people.

Scottish national identity was most common in:

  • North Lanarkshire
  • Inverclyde
  • East Ayrshire
  • West Dunbartonshire

Around 90% of people in each of these areas said they had some Scottish national identity.

70.5% of City of Edinburgh residents claimed some Scottish national identity. This was the lowest in Scotland.

Scottish identity only

62.4% of Scotland's population said they were ‘Scottish only’.

3.3 million people had Scottish identity only. This was most common in 10 to 14 year olds, at 71.5%.

It was least common among 30 to 34 year olds, at 56.7%.

18.3% of the population said their national identity was ‘Scottish and British identities only’.

8.4% of the population said they had ‘British identity only’.

443,000 people said they were British only. This was most common in the 50 to 54 age group, at 9.7%.

2.3% of the population had 'English identity only'.

 

This is from 2011

If as you say there has been an increase in Britishness (which i dont believe) it will have fuck all to do with hereditary or descendents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

2 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

The romans referred to these islands as the british isles and the picts and other celtic tribes may have been considered british by the romans or even by themselves. Its something thats hard to tell due no newspapers or opinion polls back then.

Its a fascinating topic and I agree it's a difficult thing to pin down, and there is lots that is debatable. We are talking about a long span of history (Roman involvement in Britain) and presumably different usages were applied at different times. 

For what it's worth, to the present debate (!), I would say is that it is not a simple matter of saying that Britannia always (or ever) referred to the whole of GB, far less the 'British Isles', by the Romans never mind the indigenous 'Scots'. I haven't come across a Roman map showing the whole set of islands as British, (but maybe you have?) but I have seen maps that show Britannia only applying to the English part of GB.

Here are four examples

Tribes of Roman Britain. | European history, English history, British  history

This first one above shows Caledonia and Britannia as separate entities, not one common entity, and Caledonia not a subset of Britannia. There are probably better (clearer) examples. Here's one...

Theodosius in Britain - Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire  Chapter 25 Part 5

This one (above) clearly differentiates Caledonia from Britannia. Britannia was an occupied province integrated into the Union (sorry, Empire). Caledonia was not. 

Britannia Romana, Caledonia, et Hibernian : r/mapmaking

This one (above) implies Britannia is one island - but split politically so Scotland is Britannia Barbara (!).  You could interpret it as 'all Britain' at this stage.

But alternatively it could be Roman imperial mindset to think of its as one island where their bit is the Roman bit and the other bit is the Barbarian bit that just isn't conquered yet. It doesn't mean the locals of 'Scotland' considered themselves British any more than thet considered themselves Roman. Hibernia is clearly separate.

And finally

Britannia Inferior - Total War: Attila Wiki Guide - IGN

This one (above) actually puts Caledonia and Hibernia together as being clearly not Britannia.

I just googled those in a few seconds, I dont know the dates.

What I do know is that Scotland was never a province of Rome, though part of it was occupied temporarily (like Afghanistan in modern times.) Whatever the Romans called the island, I am pretty sure the 'Caledonians' at the time didn't consider themselves Roman, Britannic or even Caledonian (those being Roman names).

On the contrary, from a Scottish national identity point of view, I'd say the very clear border at Hadrian's wall, and the cultural and political divide between what is now 'Scotland' and the rest of 'Britain' (Northumbria apart!) is the most striking and enduring thing.

Modern British propaganda tends to assert that "all of Britain" was conquered and/or occupied by the Romans. That in turn was based on Roman propaganda, that was accepted by the occupied territories to make themselves feel better about being conquered. If you think everything on these maps was all British, and everyone was one bog Romano-British happy family (long before Scotland existed) that sounds like accepting British propaganda!

Edited by exile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, exile said:

But you don't address my Williamite v Jacobite point about culture trumping ethnicity.

Culture can trump ethnicity if you are a group of incomers in small numbers and you get swallowed up by the majority who surround you. Its obvious a catholic jacobite or an anti british highlander would probably bring his kids up to be irish rather than british especially if he chooses to mix with catholic irish.

Not sure i understand your point regarding the dutchman. I think william of orange obviously chose to be british because most of his supporters and ppl loyal to him were british and were helping him retain his crown and maintain protestant control over the british isles. If some random dutchman were to move to ni he would probably mix more with fellow protestants especially 100 years ago. I think nowadays if a random dutch person moved with his dutch wife then he would probably try not to involve himself to much in identity politics and might choose irish unification based on ecomonics. Again i am not sure why this is relevant or has any bearing on what we are talking about. Its only relevant if huge numbers of dutch were to move to ni and hypothetically what way they might side with culture wise and their loyality to the brits or irish.

It has no relevance to the situation that happened where huge amounts of scots who were loyal to the british crown colonised northern ireland and kept themselves largely separated from the indigenous irish and maintained their british identity.

Also armies often had different nationalities and different loyalities back then. Many were probably wanting to be on the winning side and reap the benefits regardless of religion or nationality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, exile said:

Its a fascinating topic and I agree it's a difficult thing to pin down, and there is lots that is debatable. We are talking about a long span of history (Roman involvement in Britain) and presumably different usages were applied at different times. 

For what it's worth, to the present debate (!), I would say is that it is not a simple matter of saying that Britannia always (or ever) referred to the whole of GB, far less the 'British Isles', by the Romans never mind the indigenous 'Scots'. I haven't come across a Roman map showing the whole set of islands as British, (but maybe you have?) but I have seen maps that show Britannia only applying to the English part of GB.

Here are four examples

Tribes of Roman Britain. | European history, English history, British  history

This first one above shows Caledonia and Britannia as separate entities, not one common entity, and Caledonia not a subset of Britannia. There are probably better (clearer) examples. Here's one...

Theodosius in Britain - Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire  Chapter 25 Part 5

This one (above) clearly differentiates Caledonia from Britannia. Britannia was an occupied province integrated into the Union (sorry, Empire). Caledonia was not. 

Britannia Romana, Caledonia, et Hibernian : r/mapmaking

This one (above) implies Britannia is one island - but split politically so Scotland is Britannia Barbara (!).  You could interpret it as 'all Britain' at this stage.

But alternatively it could be Roman imperial mindset to think of its as one island where their bit is the Roman bit and the other bit is the Barbarian bit that just isn't conquered yet. It doesn't mean the locals of 'Scotland' considered themselves British any more than thet considered themselves Roman. Hibernia is clearly separate.

And finally

Britannia Inferior - Total War: Attila Wiki Guide - IGN

This one (above) actually puts Caledonia and Hibernia together as being clearly not Britannia.

I just googled those in a few seconds, I dont know the dates.

What I do know is that Scotland was never a province of Rome, though part of it was occupied temporarily (like Afghanistan in modern times.) Whatever the Romans called the island, I am pretty sure the 'Caledonians' at the time didn't consider themselves Roman, Britannic or even Caledonian (those being Roman names).

On the contrary, from a Scottish national identity point of view, I'd say the very clear border at Hadrian's wall, and the cultural and political divide between what is now 'Scotland' and the rest of 'Britain' (Northumbria apart!) is the most striking and enduring thing.

Modern British propaganda tends to assert that "all of Britain" was conquered and/or occupied by the Romans. That in turn was based on Roman propaganda, that was accepted by the occupied territories to make themselves feel better about being conquered. If you think everything on these maps was all British, and everyone was one bog Romano-British happy family (long before Scotland existed) that sounds like accepting British propaganda!

Yeh i get your point regarding britannia and how romans used it to only refer to england, however i would say the label of britain for the whole of the island probably evolved from the romans using the name britannia. 

End of the day we can label britain whatever we want but we are still on this island and many of our fellow countrymen have a huge attachment to being from the island as a whole rather than just the northern part(scotland).

Also i have never said that roman britain was full of tribes identifying as british. I actually dont know, they might have identified as being british(or whatever their name was for britain) or they might have had not much understanding of the geography of britain or europe at that time. They maybe just considered themselves the tribe they were from. 

I know that there was a tribe referred to as the britons in strathclyde after the roman empire but i am not sure if they refferred to themselves or thought of themselves as british. Again there was no polling and ppl running around checking the identity of ppl and how they felt. The picts appear to have banded together to fight the romans, i wonder how they saw themselves in terms of the island and wether they attached themselves to an overall island(british)identity.

Either way i would certainly say that the scots in the lowlands developed a british identity mainly due to being native to this island and this britishness was perhaps solidified by the british empires colonisation of the world and them being heavily involved in that.

Whats clear is that they would never have developed this british identity if they were not on the island of britain or whatever you choose to label it.

End of the day many scots want to be british, thats life, we need to learn how to deal with it and not let it affect independence or the sovereignty of our nation. Ignoring it or pretending it hardly exists is just delusional.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mccaughey85 said:

Culture can trump ethnicity if you are a group of incomers in small numbers and you get swallowed up by the majority who surround you. Its obvious a catholic jacobite or an anti british highlander would probably bring his kids up to be irish rather than british especially if he chooses to mix with catholic irish.

Not sure i understand your point regarding the dutchman. I think william of orange obviously chose to be british because most of his supporters and ppl loyal to him were british and were helping him retain his crown and maintain protestant control over the british isles. If some random dutchman were to move to ni he would probably mix more with fellow protestants especially 100 years ago. I think nowadays if a random dutch person moved with his dutch wife then he would probably try not to involve himself to much in identity politics and might choose irish unification based on ecomonics. Again i am not sure why this is relevant or has any bearing on what we are talking about. Its only relevant if huge numbers of dutch were to move to ni and hypothetically what way they might side with culture wise and their loyality to the brits or irish.

It has no relevance to the situation that happened where huge amounts of scots who were loyal to the british crown colonised northern ireland and kept themselves largely separated from the indigenous irish and maintained their british identity.

Also armies often had different nationalities and different loyalities back then. Many were probably wanting to be on the winning side and reap the benefits regardless of religion or nationality.

The point I am making is that if you take a random British-identifying person from the six counties, it would not matter so much if they descended from a 1600s Scotsman (i.e. a Brit) or Dutchman (i.e. non Brit), what matters is that their parents brought them up to be British. That's the same in Scotland. You could descend from Italians or Pakistanis, but whether you end up being more British than Scottish, or vice versa, is to do with how you were brought up, not where your ancestors came from. You need look no further than the existence of both Irish-descended Celtic-supporting Labour British Unionists and Irish-descended Celtic-supporting SNP Scottish nationalists, to make the same point. It's culture, not ethnicity, and it doesn't depend on 'huge numbers'.

I think I've covered all the things I was trying to get at as far as it's possible or worthwhile (!).

Edited by exile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Either way i would certainly say that the scots in the lowlands developed a british identity mainly due to being native to this island and this britishness was perhaps solidified by the british empires colonisation of the world and them being heavily involved in that.

But before the 1600s there wasn't really a British identity in the way the term is used today. There were separate tribes or kingdoms. Though they shared an island with a name, it didn't mean they'd feel particularly defined by that island (just like like Haitians are Hiatians, probably don't feel bdefined by being on the island of Hispaniola). Another example would be Iberians - I've never heard a Portuguese or Spaniard ientifying as Iberian, even though they are from the geographical region of Iberia. Or did you ever a hear a Frenchman say he identifies as Eurasian? Those are geographically true in principle but in practice don't mean much. Anyway that's how I see it - it was only once there was union of crowns, good old king Jim 6.0/1.0 decided to embark on his 'British' project.

So I'd say Scots in the lowlands, the highlands - and indeed islands - did not develop a British identity 'mainly due to being native to this island', but due to the political/cultural factors introduced with the Union.

Regarding the 'Britons' of Strathclyde, they were no more 'British' in the modern sense than the equally native-to-Britain Picts. As I understand it the Britons name refers to some peoples indigenous to (parts of) Britain before the arrival of Angles, Saxons, Vikings, etc. Of course those invaders were originally 'Eurasians' but they assimilated, so despite their origins and ethnicity, and 'huge numbers', they became naturalised 'British' and did not cling to their ethnic Angle, Saxon roots. Their parents brought 'em up British, and they have remained British for over a thousand years. But they are now indistinguishable from Brits whose thousand-year-old ancestors lived in Wales or Strathclyde.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, exile said:

The point I am making is that if you take a random British-identifying person from the six counties, it would not matter so much if they descended from a 1600s Scotsman (i.e. a Brit) or Dutchman (i.e. non Brit), what matters is that their parents brought them up to be British. That's the same in Scotland. You could descend from Italians or Pakistanis, but whether you end up being more British than Scottish, or vice versa, is to do with how you were brought up, not where your ancestors came from. You need look no further than the existence of both Irish-descended Celtic-supporting Labour British Unionists and Irish-descended Celtic-supporting SNP Scottish nationalists, to make the same point. It's culture, not ethnicity, and it doesn't depend on 'huge numbers'.

I think I've covered all the things I was trying to get at as far as it's possible or worthwhile (!).

Thats simply not the case. The vast majority of northern irish unionists will have ancestors from britain(scotland). The reason they get brought up british is because of this and because their fathers and grandfathers before them got brought up to be british because they originally come from britain. If thousands of dutch or danish ppl colonised northern ireland then there might of been a situation where northern ireland would have a huge amount of ppl who consider themselves dutch or danish. That didnt happen so i dont know why its relevant to bring up some lone dutchman who might or might not bring his kids up as british.

Another dimension to the problem is britains proximity and close relationship to ireland. It could be argued that ireland is part of the british isles and ireland had a political union and was occupied by the uk. These links have helped allow the british in ireland to keep their british identity better than decendants of other commonwealth countrys. But that still doesnt change the fact that had this huge amount of scots and northern english not moved to ireland then ireland wouldnt have a massive british population in northern ireland. Not sure how this can be argued as not true. Its pretty much a known fact. The brits in ni are originally from britain. The brits in scotland are from scotland which is in britain and therefore british. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exile said:

But before the 1600s there wasn't really a British identity in the way the term is used today. There were separate tribes or kingdoms. Though they shared an island with a name, it didn't mean they'd feel particularly defined by that island (just like like Haitians are Hiatians, probably don't feel bdefined by being on the island of Hispaniola). Another example would be Iberians - I've never heard a Portuguese or Spaniard ientifying as Iberian, even though they are from the geographical region of Iberia. Or did you ever a hear a Frenchman say he identifies as Eurasian? Those are geographically true in principle but in practice don't mean much. Anyway that's how I see it - it was only once there was union of crowns, good old king Jim 6.0/1.0 decided to embark on his 'British' project.

So I'd say Scots in the lowlands, the highlands - and indeed islands - did not develop a British identity 'mainly due to being native to this island', but due to the political/cultural factors introduced with the Union.

Regarding the 'Britons' of Strathclyde, they were no more 'British' in the modern sense than the equally native-to-Britain Picts. As I understand it the Britons name refers to some peoples indigenous to (parts of) Britain before the arrival of Angles, Saxons, Vikings, etc. Of course those invaders were originally 'Eurasians' but they assimilated, so despite their origins and ethnicity, and 'huge numbers', they became naturalised 'British' and did not cling to their ethnic Angle, Saxon roots. Their parents brought 'em up British, and they have remained British for over a thousand years. But they are now indistinguishable from Brits whose thousand-year-old ancestors lived in Wales or Strathclyde.

To be honest i dont know if ppl considered themselves british before the 1600s and i doubt you do as well. The world was vastly different back then, the formation of many countries was still taking shape and national identities of many countries had only been around for a few hundred years.

Globalisation of the world has been happening since roman times. Its hard to consider yourself british when your only understanding of the world is that theres an island(britain) and a land mass to the east of it. Many of the tribes of roman britain probably didnt know much beyond the island they were on, maybe even some didnt know much about the island and only knew the local area especially before roman times. I am from the northern highlands originally. If my knowledge of the world was only the highlands and i didnt even know anywhere else existed then there would never be any reason to identify as a highlander as i would not know there could be anything alternative to being from the highlands. 

I would say they were more likely to identify with being from their local tribe as they didnt have any concept of there being a world outside of the island they were on which is how i think some of the tribes of ancient britain would of thought.

I would say britishness grew with the globalistion and expansion of english/british empire and european empires into the new world. Once it was clear that there was more to the world than just western europe the ppl of britain could choose to identify with being british in a far away world as they were technically from the island of britain. Personally i think ppl began to be proud of being british because they were considered british when out in the new world and technically you could say they were, this probably helped evolve into a feeling of british nationhood for scots and some scots chose this new nationhood and identity and placed it nearly as high as being scottish or in some cases equal.

Arguably the union of scotland and england into the uk could be compared to the amalgamation of picts and scots into modern scotland. Both situations resulted in two countrys/tribes choosing to amalgamate and create something new and bigger. Both these key moments created new countries, the picts and scots made scotland(most of it) and the union between scotland and england created the uk which many consider a country.

The whole british/scottish identity is one of the root causes of why we are split as a country. Many scots have a strong emotional attachment with being british and choose to preserve what they see as a nation by keeping the union together. 

The nationalists want scotland to be just scotland and not a extension of britain which is how many perceive us as right now.

Obviously theres a fair amount of ppl in the middle who will sway each way depending of finances etc. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

Thats just pish

As exile says it is how you have been brought up and British Propaganda

https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/census-results/at-a-glance/national-identity/

82.7% of people said they had some Scottish national identity.

That's 4.4 million people.

Scottish national identity was most common in:

  • North Lanarkshire
  • Inverclyde
  • East Ayrshire
  • West Dunbartonshire

Around 90% of people in each of these areas said they had some Scottish national identity.

70.5% of City of Edinburgh residents claimed some Scottish national identity. This was the lowest in Scotland.

Scottish identity only

62.4% of Scotland's population said they were ‘Scottish only’.

3.3 million people had Scottish identity only. This was most common in 10 to 14 year olds, at 71.5%.

It was least common among 30 to 34 year olds, at 56.7%.

18.3% of the population said their national identity was ‘Scottish and British identities only’.

8.4% of the population said they had ‘British identity only’.

443,000 people said they were British only. This was most common in the 50 to 54 age group, at 9.7%.

2.3% of the population had 'English identity only'.

 

This is from 2011

If as you say there has been an increase in Britishness (which i dont believe) it will have fuck all to do with hereditary or descendents

So your saying that us being on the island of britain has nothing to do with scottish ppl feeling british?

Are you suggesting that scots parents just randomly pick the british and scottish identity for their kids to be brought up as?

If thats the case then why not pick european or american? We were in the european union so why not. 

Theres one simple reason why a certain section of scots have a strong attachment to being british. Me having to explain this to you is like explaining the earth is round to flat earthers. 

Like it or not but we are on an island called britain and that will always have an influence on how scots feel. 

Its very encouraging to see that stat of 62% of scots feeling scottish only. It was actually me who brought it up first several pages ago. Lets hope its true because the graph shows otherwise. 

Tbh i dont necessarily think theres been a surge in hardline unionism but theres certainly been an slight swing in the polls towards staying in the uk. After brexit there was a period of maybe 2 years where most polls showed us ahead. The last couple of years its evened out or even went slightly to the union side. Thats not good reading for us. 

There doesnt need to necessarily be a surge in unionism. Theres already nearly a third(18% + 8% + "english and british" which isnt mentioned)of our population who are strong unionists. If they can persuade the swing voters like they did in 2014 then we will have a repeat of the 2014 vote. Also there must be fair amount of the scottish only group voting no to independence otherwise we would be voting for independence quite easily.

Also do you think that theres only 8.4 hardline unionists in our country. Just because someone doesnt regard themselves as "british only" doesnt mean they are not a strong unionist.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key is winning over the don't knows and soft no's. There are not enough uber-unionists to push No comfortably over the line and likewise for Yes. My guess would say about 35 to 40% are uber-unionists and around 35% are pro-independence regardless of how the campaigning goes. The other 20 to 30% are the don't knows and undecided and if Yes can seal a majority of those undecided we are in business.

Edited by Caledonian Craig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

Thats simply not the case. The vast majority of northern irish unionists will have ancestors from britain(scotland). The reason they get brought up british is because of this and because their fathers and grandfathers before them got brought up to be british because they originally come from britain.

But you don't deny that you could be of Italian, Indian or Irish descent - therefore not descended or "originally from Britain" - and still come out for or against indy, due to being brought up as Scottish or British, not due to the landmass your ancestors came from.

Edited by exile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exile said:

But you don't deny that you could be of Italian, Indian or Irish descent - therefore not descended or "originally from Britain" - and still come out for or against indy, due to being brought up as Scottish or British, not due to the landmass your ancestors came from.

Precisely. Look at English people their descendants of the Germanic race who settled in England thousands of years ago. But now culturally amongst many English Pepe Germany are seen as their sporting arch rival and industrial rivals too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, exile said:

But you don't deny that you could be of Italian, Indian or Irish descent - therefore not descended or "originally from Britain" - and still come out for or against indy, due to being brought up as Scottish or British, not due to the landmass your ancestors came from.

Yes i agree that you could originally come from any country in the world and emigrate to scotland and then choose to be for or against indy. In that specific instance the land mass or your ancestory will have no bearing.

However that question has no relevance to what we are talking about. If you have no historical links through dna or heritage to scotland or brirain then you will pick a side based on how you feel or how each option will benefit you and your family. I have never ever suggested that not to be true

The case with northern ireland is completely different to that situation. Ireland had a huge number of british ppl placed into the north with the specific job of colonising it and keeping it under british rule. Scotland never had that, the british in scotland originate in scotland and are native scots.

Comparing that situation to random immigration that has no political aspect  and what choices and loyalties these immigrants make has no relevance to colonising a place that you invaded hundreds of years ago and have occupied ever since.

Your trying to compare random immigration to colonisation that had a specific task of keeping a country occupied and under british rule.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Precisely. Look at English people their descendants of the Germanic race who settled in England thousands of years ago. But now culturally amongst many English Pepe Germany are seen as their sporting arch rival and industrial rivals too.

Completely different.

1.The idea of germany as a country didnt exist back then, infact germany only really became what it is today in the past couple of hundred years. The germanic ppls who emigrated did so at a time when there was no modern german country and they probably didnt even think of themselves as german. They were just a collection of tribes from what is now denmark,holland and germany looking to conquer the southern part of britain and they ended forming the early basis of england at a time when nations were forming and nationhood was replacing tribal identities. Obviously these germanic ppls chose to become loyal to the idea of english nationhood in the same way the picts and scots became loyal to the idea of being scottish. 

2. Germany has never occupied england for any length of time and hasnt purposely sent over large amounts of german ppl to colonise parts of england with the intention of using those immigrants to control england and divide it. Comparing england and germanys relationship with the relationship of ireland and britain is wrong and daft.

There were movements of tribes in europe before nations were formed. However these movements were generally not orchestrated in any way and were just random movements with no real higher motive other than trying to seek out land in order to prosper and help their tribe grow.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earlier point made on this topic was spot on in that it is all to do with family upbringing. A family steeped in unionism through the generations will pass that on to their children. The same goes with indy-backers. That number has improved massively following the Thatcher years. The damage she and her government did to Scotland affected many, many families. In their case it broke that cycle wherein many developed an anti-Westminster mindset (independence for Scotland).

To me unionism mindset is engrained into people from upbringing and educational and media brainwashing. I know when I went to school I was never taught of the evil done by the British Empire throughout history or Winston Churchill's time in a position of power. It was all smokescreens of heroism and greatness. Many will buy all of that and not know any different.

Independence-backers have chosen a new mindset by abandoning indoctrination and opening their eyes to the real truth of unionism. It is not all great as some have developed an anti- English mindset which, to me, is wrong. That may be explained away as sporting rivalry but in some cases it runs deeper. For me independence is about self-governance and the ability for Scotland to choose its own path in this world breaking all Westminster ties.

Of course in an independent Scotland there will be split opinions but there will be in a Scotland in union too. There is no escaping that. The only way of gradually changing that is by gaining independence and showing the non-believers that unionism is an archaic form of rule that has no place in the modern world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

Yes i agree that you could originally come from any country in the world and emigrate to scotland and then choose to be for or against indy. In that specific instance the land mass or your ancestory will have no bearing.

However that question has no relevance to what we are talking about. If you have no historical links through dna or heritage to scotland or brirain then you will pick a side based on how you feel or how each option will benefit you and your family. I have never ever suggested that not to be true

The case with northern ireland is completely different to that situation. Ireland had a huge number of british ppl placed into the north with the specific job of colonising it and keeping it under british rule. Scotland never had that, the british in scotland originate in scotland and are native scots.

Comparing that situation to random immigration that has no political aspect  and what choices and loyalties these immigrants make has no relevance to colonising a place that you invaded hundreds of years ago and have occupied ever since.

Your trying to compare random immigration to colonisation that had a specific task of keeping a country occupied and under british rule.

 

The point of relevance is that unionism and Scottish nationalism are political choices, often associated with identity, but that identity is cultural and so malleable in a way that is not hardwired into DNA or landmass of ancestral origin. So it is not as hardwired into specific tribal groups corresponding to geography as in Northern Ireland, making partition a non starter. Which was my original point.

We've already seen massive shifts to Scottish independence in what used to be a rock solid Labour unionist majority country. It's all to play for in Scotland: the whole of Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...