| Archive for langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Come in and have your daily cup of languages! |
| Porthos |
Great Britain: Torn between European and Anglo-Saxon identithttp://www.cafebabel.com/en/article.asp?T=A&Id=326Great Britain is known for being at times less than enthusiastic approach to European integration. Opting out of the single European currency was hardly an encouraging sign to the continent that Britain was serious about the Union. What seems to be the problem? Do the British not feel European? Are they spiritually and culturally closer to other Anglo-Saxon countries, such as the United States, Canada or Australia? Can the British as a nation honestly speak of having a European identity? Great Britain is only now fully emerging from the effects of the decline of its empire. Following the Cold War and the rise of a new world order, Britain has been searching for a sense of belonging and a new role it can feel comfortable in. Despite the decline of its empire, Britain still retains strong ties to most of its former colonies. The Commonwealth organisation, although more of a symbolic organisation than anything else, links former colonies together and many of those countries still acknowledge the Queen as their Head of State, including Australia and Canada. In addition, the much commented on special relationship with the United States of America consists not only of a political component, it also has a strong cultural and social element. Great Britain is more receptive to media from Anglo-Saxon countries, it imports nearly all of its foreign television programmes from the US and much of its cultural life is shaped by trends coming from America. Furthermore, the language connection is impossible to overlook. The geographical drawback of being an island has other profound psychological implications for the British identity. The effects of this situation are that Britain has remained virtually untouched by revolution and radical change over the centuries, in a way that its European neighbours have not. Thus arguably, the British are not as receptive to ‘changing things’ clinging to their 1000 year political history. Even now the British people cannot and don’t travel or intersperse as well and as easily as their counterparts in mainland Europe. If indeed they had land borders with several other European states, the feeling of European identity would be stronger between the British and other European peoples. So can the British still assert a European identity and stake a claim to European citizenship. I believe they can, however, the true nature of British European-ness is obscured by a lot of the Europhobe rhetoric in the press and on the street, but British perception of Europe often differs wildly from the reality. The British are by default European from a geographic standpoint. The United Kingdom is part of the European continent, thus we are all European. However, everyday language does often not reflect that fact. The Brits habitually refer to “going to Europe”, when in fact they mean visiting the European mainland. Much of this feeling stems from a policy of ‘splendid isolation’ which characterised British foreign politics for centuries. Therefore, we need to look further than a purely geographic reason for European Britishness. What we need to look for is a cultural and social convergence of values and interests, something that would characterise the Brits’ common points with the other peoples of Europe. The European Union’s stance on European identity is “unity in diversity” as for instance there is no common language among the peoples of Europe. Such a common language which is part of the bond between the British and the Americans, would help develop a European identity. But the British do hold common values with their friends in Europe. A commitment to democracy, human rights, social welfare and environmental protection are central to British as well as European Union concerns. Britain has worked towards making the operation of the European Union more transparent and has been leading in the creation of the European Rapid Reaction Force. However European identity is not to be found solely in the European Union, even if it has increasingly been associated strongly with the Union in anti-European discussion. Thus, Britain played its part in taking responsibility for stability in Europe through its joint leadership of the Kosovo war , as well as its commitment to peace on the Balkans. And perhaps this is where the real difficulty lies in finding the European identity of the British people. Discussion which equate a sense of European identity to an absolute commitment to the European Union is bound to leave certain parts of the population unsatisfied. This is what can be observed in British public discourse. But the European Union is not the only expression of Europe, even if it is planning to expand to cover those countries which include the ‘real Europe’, and it can often appear to be remote and bureaucratic. The danger is that the negative aspects of the European Union are associated with Europe. Whenever negative European issues came to the fore in the British press, the ‘splendid isolation’ sentiment provides protection. This needs to be countered to foster the European identity in Britain Britain is torn between its special connection with America and the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world and its newer commitment to Europe. It is probably fair to say that the Anglo-Saxon component of its identity still has quite a strong influence, but this does not mean that the European identity is non-existent. The British do feel European, but not quite in the same way as their European counterparts, whose geographic proximity has allowed a deeper interconnection to evolve. Maybe it could be said that the British have a secondary or complementary European identity, while the national image remains primary. The Anglo-Saxon link can be seen as a part of the primary identity. As Europe plays an ever greater part in British lives, as the European Union asserts itself more and more on the world stage, the secondary identity will grow and become more natural for the British people. But the ‘splendid isolation’ syndrome will prevent that from happening as fast as in other European countries. |
||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
The ironic thing is that there isn't really a very strong sense of 'British' identity anymore either. In all honesty, I can't see the UK as a single country lasting for more than another 20 years as an absolute maximum; it wouldn't surprise me if it actually happens much sooner (and no I'm not mainly talking about Northern Ireland).
As for the euro and the European Union... Switzerland is a multilingual country right in the middle of Continental Western Europe which has not joined either (and has no intentions of doing so in the foreseeable future). Ireland, on the other hand, is arguably the most pro-EU country in Europe. |
||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Perhaps because it hasn't paid much until now. |
||||||||||||||
| Loic |
I wonder where Porthos has been. He has receded into the background in the last couple of days.
If Britain doesn't have a common identity nowadays, I feel that it is largely the fault of the Scots. When they even refuse to support the England football team in international competitions out of malice and spite, that's a bit too much. |
||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
The very ironic thing is that support for Scottish independence is actually higher in England than in Scotland, lol. But the most recent opinion polls suggest that it's still supported by the majority in both countries — it's now higher than it's ever been before and has grown considerably in recent years (six years ago it was only 27% in Scotland). The most recent projections for the Scottish Parliament Elections next year predict the following composition (in number of seats): 43 — Scottish National Party 38 — Scottish Labour Party 25 — Scottish Liberal Democrats 14 — Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party _5 — Scottish Green Party _2 — Scottish Socialist Party _2 — others http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1754062006 It is thought that the most likely result will be a coalition government between the Scottish National Party and the Liberal Democrats, replacing the current coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. If this be the case, there will probably be a referendum on Scottish independence during their first term. If support for Scottish independence continues to grow, the result will be 'YES', the Scottish Parliament will proceed with indepdendence negotiations with the UK Parliament and then that will be the end of it. |
||||||||||||||
| Loic |
I can argue that support for Scottish independence in England stems first from anglophobia in Scotland. Scotland might bitch about their North Sea oil, but figures have shown that government subsidies per head in Scotland is actually higher than per capita spending in England. Also, Scottish MPs in Westminister are able to vote on laws that pertain only to the administration of England while English MPs are unable to do the same for Scotland.
If independence were to be realised in future, the Labour party plotted their own downfall by devolving power to Holyrood in 1997. |
||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Or because the UK government's entire economic policy is arguably designed for the economy of Southeast England. Also, the policies of the UK government are quite far removed from mainstream political thinking in Scotland (it doesn't matter that a large percentage of the most powerful British politicians are Scottish). An independent Scotland would never again have to be governed by a politician like Margaret Thatcher as they wouldn't ellect such a person — they didn't first time around either. They would be able to manage their own affairs and would have to stand on their own two feet, rather than being included as an afterthought by a government based in London. I'm hoping to move to Scotland next year. If I do, I will join the independence campaign.
I'm not surprised — Scotland is poorer than England. Or perhaps I should say that Scotland is poorer than Southeast England, which is considerably richer than the rest of England.
Yes, the Scottish National Party is opposed to this. Pro-independence Scottish politicians do not want to vote on laws that pertain only to the administration of England — they will not see this as a valid argument.
This is essentially why Labour are largely opposed to independence — it will be much more difficult to stop the Conservatives from winning at Westminster without Scotland (and Wales, which may well be next if Scottish independence is realised). |
||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Is it true that some in England want this region to regain its independence ? | ||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Yes, of course. See here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/m...xml=/news/2006/11/26/nunion26.xml (Note: The Telegraph is a conservative newspaper; it is thus unlikely to be biased in favour of Scottish independence). Essentially, according to the recent opinion polls, 48% of people in England support full independence for England (only 43% are specifically opposed), whilst 59% of people in England support full independence for Scotland. Presumably the 11% of people in England who support Scottish independence but not English independence support a continued union with Wales only (probably not Northern Ireland). Apparently, younger people are more likely to favour a break-up than older people. |
||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Wow, I never realized the situation was so dire accross the pond. As an American, it would be hard for me to contemplate a divided Britain, and end to the Union Jack. Such a dissolution would result in a considerable loss of geo-political strength for Great Britain or in particular, England. | ||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Well perhaps you'd better start contemplating it if all this is anything to go by!  However, I wouldn't describe it as 'dire' because I don't think that the desire to split UK really has anything to do with hatred in most cases; I think that we've instead come to realise that we are essentially different countries who should be free to make our own decisions.
Good — I think that it would reduce the dilusions of self-grandeur that are held by many of the leading politicians at Westminster. But actually, considering that about 85% of British people live in England anyway, it might not make all that much difference to England's geopolitical influence. I'd also say that Scotland would have greater influence if it were independent — does Wisconsin as a US state on its own really have more influence on a global scale than Denmark? The populations are similar, as is the population of Scotland. |
||||||||||||||
| Loic |
I don't know about you, but if I were a civil servant working in Whitehall, I'd emphatically make sure that the financial tap would be turned off to any region contemplating independence. There is a price to pay for a move that'd lead to the dissolution of the Crown and the sonner some people realise it, the better.
Anyway, survey results must always be taken with a pinch of salt. For argument's sake, let's assume that the results are 100% legimtimate. What about the 40% odd Scotchmen who do not favour independence? Are their sentiments not taken into account here? |
||||||||||||||
| Lazar |
I agree with Benjamin - I think independence for Scotland would be a good idea. (Although I wasn't aware that it was actually supported by majorities on both sides of the border.) As far as flags go, I think St. Andrew's cross and St. George's cross work fine on their own.
My late grandmother (who came here from England back in the 40s) grew oddly supportive of dissolving the UK in her old age. She said that she couldn't stand the phrase "United Kingdom" because it sounded too much like "United Arab Emirates". 
|
||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Presumably they'd stop collecting taxes from that region as well though? What you're suggesting wouldn't really be possible, because there are still things like the European Union Regional Development Fund.
I don't know. I feel that Scotland would be better off if it were able to control its own affairs with policy designed for Scotland rather than for Southeast England. No-one ever suggests that Denmark might like to hand its sovereignity over to Germany, for example. Likewise, no-one ever questions the ability of Luxembourg to support its own economy.
If there is a referendum which produces a 'YES' vote, they will be in the minority — their preferences would have been taken into account when they voted. Over 50 countries have achieved independence from England, mostly over the past 50 years. None of these have since re-applied to be governed from London. |
||||||||||||||
| Loic |
The issue of former colonies not wanting to be ruled again from London is moot. These former colonies were milked and exploited and frankly, who would be so sadistic as to subject themselves to something as anarchronistic as colonialism today?
Scotland is different. She might have been overlooked in many ways by the capital, but I can argue that it is the same phenomenon everywhere where fringe regions often suffer from negligence. It is notable that James VI of Scotland later became James I of England and the current monarch is able to trace her lineage indirectly to the Scottish House of Stuarts. Union between these two countries have existed at the highest level since the 1600s and there is no reason to suppose why England and Scotland are not able to co-operate in a mutually beneficial agreement. From my point of view, going separate ways sets a highly dangerous precedent by giving a fillip to independence-minded regions such as Catalonia and Basque country in Spain, Corsica in France and who knows, other disgruntled areas in other parts of the world. I only agree about the Ulster question: She should be returned to Ireland pronto. Besides, the appellation of Great Britain does not technically encompass Northern Ireland anyway. I recognise that Scotland is a distinct nation with their particular way of life. Their auld traditions which they have steadfastedly clung on to are admirable, although the authenticity of their many 'Highlander' traditions are suspect. Besides, how racially different is Scotland from Northern England or in fact, from England as a whole? The Celtic character of Scotland is stated out of proportion. Self-determination is only granted to people of distinct ethnicity with separate language, religion and traditions. Scotland, in my opinion, does not remotely fulfill any of the stated criterion for independence. |
||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
I can't speak for Catalonia in Spain, but the overwhelming majority of French people living in the Basque Country and Corsica don't want to break away from France. I may be wrong, but I don't think an independent Scotland would change anything to that respect — no more anyway than the Czech-Slowak & Montenegrin-Serbian divorces. |
||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
That's definitely true. Arguably, everywhere in the UK outside of Southeast England is overlooked by the government in many ways.
This is what Gordon Brown has been emphasising — the fact that millions of Scottish people have English relatives, the fact that 10% of people in Scotland were born in England etc. — in order to try to disuade Scottish people from the idea of independence, he even mentioned that they would have to refer to their English relatives as 'foreigners'. I find this race-based view of things rather disturbing, especially considering that millions of British people have their ancestral origins outside of Britain. From my perspective, it all seems rather pre-1945.
I know, and many Scottish people hate it. It's what's known as Tartanary — taking a misrepresented 19th century view of the 17th century Highlands and projecting it onto the whole country. However, the main explicitly pro-independence parties in the Scottish Parliament — the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish Socialist Party — all have an ethnically inclusive vision of Scotland and 'Scottish'. They do not focus on 'Celtic character' or any other sentimental romanticised visions of the place.
All recent British prime ministers, including Margaret Thatcher, have admitted that Scotland can have full independence if the majority of its people want it (by referendum). If they oppose it, they have accepted that all they can do is try to encourage the people of Scotland to vote against it. Even if Scotland does not fulfil United Nations criteria for independence, this is largely irrelevant.
I agree with Greg — independence being granted to a region formally part of a larger country is nothing new. And ultimately, I don't think that the possibility of a similar break-up of Spain is really the concern of Britain or Scotland — in my view, this should not be taken into consideration. I'm fairly sure that at least the Green Party would support Catalan and Basque independence anyway — I don't view those as fundamentally bad things either. |
||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
How is the situation in spain with catalunya and the basque country ? I think, that the basques would prefer spearate but I didn't heared that in catalunya they wanted this so much, alhtough it would be logic as they have another lanaguaeg and is the most wealthiest region of the country.
It's just the fashion the countrys getting smaller !! In belgium it's all the time discussed, that flanders and wallonie will split up, but it don't happen because flanders would lose brussels. If scotland will be another country that england, I'm wondering if belgium will split because many people want this. I think it will create more bureaucracy: passports, permits of residence, workign, and all documents etc.. |
||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
My understanding is that an independent Scotland would be similar to Ireland in this respect. At the moment, it is not necessary to have a passport, a residence permet or a work permet for a British person to live, work and even vote in Ireland and vice versa. The Scottish National Party propose a similar system for an independent Scotland; indeed, their vision for Scottish citizenship is very inclusive. |
||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
So, why split up ? They've a government for the region and another school system so what more things they would change ? It's similar with here I think, except here there's different languages also. Maybe for get more chance to win the olympiques LOL !! In football scotland and england are already two countrys. i don't mind at all but i think that it's silly make very small countrys ; wallonie has 3,5 millions, how much has scotland ? it's weird compare this situation with the US or china, india where for sure there's more diversity of ethnie, language, culture etc that between england and scotland but those countrys are remaining not split up. | ||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
Benjamin wrote:
Do such criteria exist? loic: Why are you so opposed to the dissolution of states? I can see the problems of a fully integrated region suddenly wanting independence, but Scotland is essentially only bound to the UK through the Acts of Union of 1707. Thus their union has always been of a rather contractual nature. And didn't England threaten Scotland with a trade war if they didn't agree to the English terms of the contract? I absolutely agree with Benjamin, that England and Scotland don't need to worry whether their divorce will inflame the slumbering passions elsewhere. A political dussolution is not a sin, like a marital divorce, so there is no reason why it can't be conducted in an amiable manner worthy of gentlefolks. If they wish to end their union, they can hopefully set a good example, like Norway and Sweden did in 1905. |
||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Although they do have their own regional parliament, it is still very much subordinate to the overall British government, which is very much dominated by (Southern) England and its more right-wing voting. It does not give them sufficient control of their economy.
Scotland has about 5 million people. What I say though is this: if Denmark is viable, why can't Scotland be? Similar size, similar population, similar resources, similar location... the only issue is that Scotland is perhaps about 20 years or so behind in terms of standard of living, lol.
I have absolutely no idea. I assumed that loic was talking about something to that effect.
You're right — it is not as though Scotland and England are fully integrated together (although I would suggest that Scotland's relationship to England is largely subordinate). It would be very different if, say, Yorkshire started calling for independence from the rest of England. |
||||||||||||||
| fab |
We would have to learn to recognise this
as the English flag... which a lot of people don't even know. |
||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I personally prefer the English and Scottish flags separately; the British flag has mainly imperialistic connotations for me.
Actually, this reminds me of when I was in Poland with school. We, the German students and the Polish students all had to paint something about the country in which we lived on a plank of wood — we painted the English flag. Then our German teacher came in, and said that most people wouldn't recognise it, and that she had never seen it before she moved to England about 30 years ago. I love the Scottish flag though.... pure, simple, peaceful... okay, so I'm kind of obsessed with Scotland at the moment, in case you hadn't noticed. 
|
||||||||||||||
| fab |
actually during the world cup I saw the English flag painted on the face of a group of tourists..; At first sight I thought it was the flag of a nordic country, it took me some time to realise after hearing them that they were English !
Most scandinavian countries have a crossed-flag too, it is a bit confusing to recognise them : 
|
||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
And to make it even more confusing, here is the unofficial flag of the North of England, which is occasionally used:
|
||||||||||||||
| Loic |
It is dishonest to use the cross of St Andrew when the majority of the Scots do not probably even know when is the feast day of St Andrew.
Ditto for St George. Benjamin: I still vehemently disagree that it'd be of mutual interest to both parties for Scotland to go solo. Actually, do you have an imperialistic chip on your shoulder? You seem profoundly ashamed of Britain's recent past and I wonder if your desire for Scottish independence and ultimately the dissolution of the United Kingdom boils down to your need to rectify the perceived errors of history. Besides, a substantial proportion of those interviewed oppose fully-fledged independence. It is the duty of the central government to protect the interests of her subjects everywhere and if 40% of Scotchmen want to remain British, are we going to treat them as transparent entities? Anyway, we must always take surveys with a pinch of salt. We have no idea how unbiased it is. Many of those polled favouring independence may actually be making a strong cultural statement and in doing so, asserting their 'Scottishness' to the outside world. When it comes to the crunch, how many of them would truly want independence and risk the security and stability of the status quo? What might be possible is a further devolution of power to Holyrood with Scotland exercising more autonomy than she already does. London would continue to remain the apex of a loose federation with the Crown as the common link. Such an arrangement already exists between Whitehall and the various British Overseas Dependencies such as Bermuda. In my opinion, this is a much more plausible scenario than outright secession. Even the Quebecois, who are fiercely proud of their distinctness, have not yet voted to be independent from Canada. In my opinion, the French-speaking Quebecois are more different from their Canadian compatriots than the largely English-speaking Scots from their English cousins. |
||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Fred: Why am I instinctively opposed to the breakup of any country? I think I am a bit of a sentimental git at heart who is reactionary and languishes hopelessly in the past.
When it comes to the issue of China and Taiwan, I am already fundamentally opposed to Taiwan being an independent country. I am also strongly opposed to Tibet being independent. I believe most political commentators would agree that Taiwan and Tibet have more grounds to be separate sovereign entities than Scotland: the former has exercised de facto independence since 1948 while the latter has been culturally oppressed ever since the Communists marched into Lhasa in the 1950s. It is a question of keeping a country together, for better or for worse. When the Confederates wanted to cede from the Union, the Yanks did not magnaminiously say, "Oh! Be my guest." The Yanks fought their hearts out to keep the South, didn't they? Besides, Scotland was never treated as a colony unlike Ireland. In fact, Scotland and England were effective partners in empire building. Half the directors of the EIC (East India Company) were Scottish. The Scots were also disproportionately represented in the colonial armies overseas. Indeed, the last British regiment to retreat to Singapore after putting up a last-ditch fight against the Japanese in Malaya were the Argyll Regiment. Scottish anglophobia, especially in sport, boils down to jealousy. Their football team can't make it to the World Cup and everyone from their First Minister down right to a tennis player (read: Andy Murray) said in disgust that they'd support any team that are playing against England. It is not a very sporting attitude, I tell you. Do you know why? They don't play cricket and lack the concept of fair play. I always hear this hymn in sporting contests and I suppose it is as popular in England as it is in Scotland: Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves. Britons never shall be slaves. PS: With regards to the English flag, is it really that obscure to continental Europeans? I think almost every Singaporean is able to identify the flag of St George as English in a bat of an eyelid. |
||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
fab, you forgot some beautiful, but less known Nordic flags:
My favourite - Iceland: 
Another beautiful one - the Faroese Islands: 
Another colourful one - the (Finnish) Åland Islands: 
And then the similar flag of two Swedish outposts - Scania and Swedish Finland: 
I don't think many Norwegians would have recognized the Flag of St. George, perhaps a few football fans. Most of my friends and family have enough problems recognizing all the Nordic flags I put on the Christmas tree (instead of the traditional Norwegian-flags-only garlands). If you fab have problems remembering the Nordic flags you posted, just remember: Denmark's is the oldest - a white cross on red, very basic and religious (it fell from the sky during a crusade!) Sweden's is the opposite of Denmark's: Cold blue instead of warm red. Finland - the land of snow and 1000 lakes - is blue on white. Norway, a long-time Danish colony, just painted a blue line on the Danish flag! Benjamin: How could the North of England be so stupid and unimaginitive as to adopt St. George's flag as their own? Do they feel especially English versus the Scots? loic: Although Scotland might not fare better on their own, they will have to fail and learn the lesson themselves if they insist on it. That's the scary, but fantastic thing about democracy, I guess. loic wrote:
Good point, but the situation is a bit different when 1/3 of the population of the ceceding region are slaves without any voting rights in a referendum. |
||||||||||||||
| Julian |
That's also the flag of Genoa, which can be seen flying proudly atop the Porta Soprana: 
and the Dragonara Castle in Portofino: 
When I visited Genoa several years ago, I overhead British tourists wonder out loud why the English flag was flying atop one of the hotels. One person answered that it was probably under English ownership. 
|
||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
My thoughts exactly when reading the above posts. Slavery may have been the popular rallying point of the Civil War, but in actuality it was fought to keep the South from setting a precedent for other regions of the US that might want to break away -- "A house divided against itself cannot stand". Many northerners were in fact relived by the secession of the South -- a collective "good riddance" to a region that was increasingly a political thorn in the national side. But had the South succeeded in seceding, many other areas might have broken away as well to become small but viable independent republics, and the collective combined strength of the US as we know it today would not now exist. Things would be very different not only for us, but for the rest of the course of modern history. But instead of splintering, the US has had a history of adding on -- not only ultimately keeping the South, but annexing the (briefly) independent republics of Texas and California, who recognized that they would be better off joining the Union than remaining free entities after breaking away from Mexico (Texas in particular had to beg for 6 years to join, as the US was fully aware that this would start an ineveitable war with Mexico), annexing the kingdom of Hawaii, and making large land purchases such as Louisiana, Gadsden, and Alaska. It can be argued that plenty of states in the US are backwaters whose needs are overlooked in favor of more powerful, populous states. It technically only takes 11 key states to win a presidential election, and there are whole regions that languish as American "Siberias". But sometimes it is better to be the backwater of a large, powerful nation than a middling-to-second-rate free state. |
||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Except that they are the tradtional flags of England and Scotland, so I'm not quite sure what the alternative would be, other than to design new flags.
Yes, I suppose so. I don't like the concept of a 'British national identity' -- I'd like to see the notion of 'British' reduced to something similar to the notion of 'Scandinavian'.
And if 60% want independence, as your 40% figure would suggest? What would happen then?
I agree that this survey should be taken with a pinch of salt. However, I feel that the very real possibility, as shown by a large number of opinion polls and surveys, that the Scottish National Party will become the largest party in the Scottish Parliament after the elections next year and may form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, should be taken seriously. This, according to the SNP's manifesto, will probably lead to a referendum on Scottish independence during their first term. Then we shall just have to wait and see what happens.
I believe that this is essentially what the Liberal Democrats suggest. That wouldn't be so bad either, although the Scottish National Party would be divided over this. Essentially, there is the more gradualist wing of the SNP, including the current leadership, who support a more gradual approach to independence, but there is also the fundamentalist or 'Sinn Féin' wing who opposed the devolved Scottish Parliament because they are only willing to support full independence.
Yes, probably. I would also suggest that there are far larger differences within the United States than there are within the British Isles. But this is not the issue.
I don't mind the tune, but I hate the words. Same goes for Land of Hope and Glory -- actually, new alternative words to that song were recently published in one of the Unitarian magazines. |
||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Actually, a lot of people in Northern England feel that they have more in common with Scotland than with Southern England. I'd be inclined to agree with them. But actually, the Flag of St George and the unofficial Northern England flag are not quite the same; the latter is actually a Nordic cross. Look:
Here are some other Nordic flags which haven't been posted on this thread yet: Shetland: 
Orkney: 
Yorkshire: 
Normandy: 
|
||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
Benjamin wrote:
I see, but be aware of that Scandinavianess or more probably Nordicness often carries its own notions of "superiority": Of moral, humanitarian, social and democratic superiority. Most Norwegians will easily admit that life in the other Nordic countries can be just as good as life as Norway, but many will be somewhat sceptical towards the UK, Germany, France, the US etc. They are not "safe" in the same way as the Nordic countries are. And we can also drag in Scotland here. Although Norway and Scotland may seem to share a lot of characteristics, you very seldom hear of Norwegians discovering lots of similarities with Scots. Indeed, my impression is that the long persistence of feudalism in Scotland combined with the affront of the Clearances and rather militant nationalism has created a Scottish tendency for unbalanced extremism (or in loic's words: lack of fair play) that is quite alien to the Nordic mind. Lovely flags, Benjamin! Perhaps I should include those of the Orkneys and the Shetlands in my Christmas tree garland, as those islands are partially Nordic! What do you think of the English Jerusalem anthem, Benjamin? (Here is a link for those who haven't heard this beautiful song: http://www.gazza.ru/MP3/Jerusalem.mp3 ) Uriel: So you agree with loic about the unhealthiness of dissolution of states? |
||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Benjamin: As long as a single Scotsman still wants to remain emphatically British, it is the duty of Her Majesty's government to ensure that his rights to British nationality would not be denied.
I have nothing against Scottish independence, or in fact, independence of any renegade region. They have their right to exercise home rule; we have our right to send in the army to crush dissent. Let them exercise their customs and we'll exercise ours. Fred: I have heard many British patriotic hymns being sung in football, rugby and cricket matches when England are playing. I was once reading an article penned by a brainwashed Singaporean studying in Eton and he said that 'listening to Jereusalem gives him goosebumps'. He meant that in a positive way, I think. Personally, I think that the only cool patriotic hymns are 'Land of Hope and Glory' as well as 'Rule Britannia'. Of course, spectators at sporting meets always seem to dig God Save the Queen although I personally feel that it is not a very rousing anthem. A slight diversion here, but when we speak of national anthems, I think La Marseillaise, the Star-Spangled Banner as well as the Russian anthem are the best in the world when it comes to exciting passions. The German anthem would be markedly better if they only include the stanza that ends in Deutschland Uber Alles. Yes, I've clearly given quite a bit of thought to the matter. Although Benjamin hates the lyrics, I feel that they are rather charming and even inspiring, from an outsider's point of view. |
||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
I find the nation-state practical and convenient as a political entity. I don't know that I would call the dissolution of them unhealthy per se, just unwieldy, I suppose. And largely a European obsession, not found in most of the rest of the world. Perhaps it will work, I don't know. I find it interesting that people often decry the modern political boundaries of ex-colonial states that lump together disparate cultures and peoples under one nationality -- like many African nations or modern Iraq -- as "artificial" states created willy-nilly by imperial cartographers who had no respect for the natural differences that already existed between the local inhabitants. They often point to that as an explanation for why the states are failing, lack internal cohesion, or are being torn apart by ethnic wars. The implication here is that it would have been better to draw boundaries that acknowledged differences in culture, language, religion -- or whatever else is causing the major social turmoil within. Yet on the other hand, you have Europe trying to do something very similar on an even more ambitious scale -- to create a superconglomeration of many disparate cultures and languages and "tribes", if you will, with one big artificial boundary around them. Are you better than the Serbs and the Croats? The Hutus and the Tutsis? The Sunnis and the Shi'ites? We shall see. Most of them managed to coexist peacefully for many years, until something set them off -- usually a sudden power vacuum. I think the post-WWII ideals that are espoused in such supranational entities as the EU and the UN are certainly noble and admirable -- but they are as fragile as the next crisis, and entirely dependent on internal cooperation and loyalty. There is a Dutch poster on another forum I frequent who says that in this day and age, coming as she does from such a small country, she cannot imagine the nation-state being a viable entity. But for hundreds of years, the nations of Europe flourished as separate entities. Why do they now feel so skeptical about it? Sure, Europe looks at the US as a rival, and the US is a very large country that also happens to be very powerful. But Canada is larger, and far less powerful. So size and power don't go hand in hand. Look at huge China and little Japan. I think Europe feels like they have to emulate the size of the US in order to be a viable rival to it. But I think they are not taking into account the different historical factors that have made each region the way it is -- the US and Europe are not directly comparable. |
||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Thus I suppose that when Czechia and Slovakia parted, not a single person there wanted to remain emphatically Czechoslovakian?
I'm sorry, but the invasion of Scotland by England in modern times is absolutely out the of the question. |
||||||||||||||
| fab |
Lot of crosses in scandinavia !
|
||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Here is an interesting report by the BBC on the number of Brits (or ex-pats) living abroad at the mo. I've taken the key destination countries and list them here:
1. Australia - 1,300,000 2. Spain - 761,000 3. United States - 678,000 4. Canada - 603,000 5. Ireland - 291,000 6. New Zealand - 215,000 7. South Africa - 212,000 8. France - 200,000 Well, it seems to me that most Brits still choose to live in countries with a strong Anglo-Saxon culture, don't they? I once argued that Australia and NZ, in particular, share the closest cultural relationship with Britain. I forget to add that one of my reasons for making such a point is the disproportionately high ratio of Britons who continue to make their way to these two countries. Australia only has a population of 21 million while NZ only has 4 million. The cultural impact which the British are hence able to make in their new countries outweigh the influence which British expatriates in other countries such as the United States or Spain are able to play. Out of curiosity, I checked the figures of some other countries and I think it may be of interest to the members of this forum: The Orient: 1. Singapore - 45,000 2. Thailand - 41,000 3. China - 36,000 (the majority is in HK) Asia: 1. Pakistan - 47,000 2. India - 32,000 3. Bangladesh - 9,200 4. Sri Lanka - 4,400 5. Nepal - 2,700 It puzzles me as to why there are more Brits in Pakistan than in India. Africa: 1. South Africa - 212,000 2. Kenya - 29,000 3. Nigeria - 16,000 4. Egypt - 14,000 5. Malawi - 7,400 Middle East: 1. United Arab Emirates - 55,000 2. Israel - 44,000 3. Saudi Arabia - 26,000 4. Gaza & W Bank - 11,000 5. Bahrain - 11,000 South America: 1. Brazil - 11,000 2. Argentina - 8,300 3. Venezuela - 7,200 4. Chile - 5,200 5. Peru - 4,600 Carribean: 1. Barbados - 27,000 2. Jamaica - 25,000 3. Trinidad & Tobago - 11,000 4. Bahamas - 4,100 5. Antigua/Barbuda - 2,800 N America: 1. United States - 678,000 2. Canada - 603,000 3. Mexico - 8,500 4. Costa Rica - 4,800 5. Belize - 2000 Europe: 1. Spain - 761,000 2. Ireland - 291,000 3. France - 200,000 4. Germany - 115,000 5. Cyprus - 59,000 PS: I am surprised that there are more Brits in Cyprus than in Italy (26,000) or Switzerland (45,000). It is notable that the number of expatriates in the US and Canada combined only equals the number in Australia. I heard that they are having a very unpleasant time Down Under at the present, those poor Pommies. |
||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Spain? I don't find it surprising that British people (sorry, but I view 'Brit' as a derogatory term, even though you probably didn't mean it that way) are more likely to live in English-speaking countries (I find the concept of 'Anglo-Saxon culture' rather more tenuous) than non-English-speaking countries. Generally, I find that most British people are not sufficiently proficient in a foreign language to be able to obtain a reasonable job where the language would not be English. By the way, I find it difficult to believe that the number of British citizens living in Zimbabwe is really lower than 7,400.
Probably because British people of Pakistani descent are more likely to go to Pakistan on a long-term basis than British people of Indian descent are likely to Indian on a long term basis. This is at least partly because British Pakistanis often marry people from Pakistan, whilst it tends to be much more accepted/normal for British Indians to marry white British people (my aunt is an example of this). |
||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
I've met two British ex-pats who have lived in Spain for decades, on another forum. It seems to be a popular choice. Of course, obviously they speak Spanish fluently at this point.
I thought Zimbabwe was not the place to be these days. Perhaps I have it confused with another country. |
||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
That's right, but there are still quite a lot of white people there — my understanding is that a significant proportion of them were actually still British citizens (mass emigration to Rhodesia [now Zimbabwe] from Britain was highest in the 1970s). Perhaps I was wrong. |
||||||||||||||
| fab |
The british people that move to Spain or France do it for second home "in the sun", or to retire. they generally don't speak so much the local language and don't excpect to find a job. |
||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
Not really. Most whites there have left Zimbabwe, courtesy of the madman in control there. There are only about 80 000 whites (probably less) left, and these actually include a significant number of Afrikaners. In the old Rhodesia, many whites had dual citizenship (British and Rhodesian), but it's safe to assume those still left there only have Zimbabwean citizenship (as far as I know it's illegal to have dual citizenship there now anyway). So it's very likely that the number of British citizens in Zimbabwe is less than 7 400. In five years time there will probably be no whites there. And unless something is done about Mugabe, there won't be many blacks left either... Two million black Zimbabweans are already in South Africa, having fled from Mugabe, and for those who remain, life expectancy is less than 40... and dropping. |
||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Well, the census only applies to British expatriates who still hold a British passport. It does not apply to people who were born British but later become naturalised citizens in their adopted countries, not to mention people of British descent like Kevin Pietersen or Andrew Strauss, both of whom are now playing for the England cricket side.
According to the census taken by the BBC called "Brits Abroad", the number of British expatriates in Zimbabwe number 6,100. Pensioners number 2,921 alone. I far prefer the old name for Zimbabwe - Southern Rhodesia. Zimbabwe is just so....colourless and awful. |
||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Mugabe is a raving mad despot. And he seemed like such a decent chap when he first became Prime Minister after independence. Say Andre, do you know he's also a KCB?
Say Benjamin, why is 'Brit' a derogatory label? Does it strike you as being mildly disparaging or violently abusive? I once watched a programme on the BBC where they interviewed a number of retired pensioners living it off under the Spanish sun. They were playing croquet despite their wobbly knees and when asked if they speak Spanish, one of the old geezers guffawed and said, 'No!' He has lived there for over a decade. On another note, I'd like to point out that the word 'Anglo-Saxon' is not a newfangled creation coined in recent times. Rudyard Kipling used the word liberally when he spoke of an 'Anglo-Saxon' race. Lord Tennyson himself was also not averse to the word. So as far as its authenthicity is concerned, it is surely as old as Queen Victoria. |
||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
That was the first name of course, and became simply Rhodesia when the Central African Federation (also known as the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyassaland) broke up (1964). The former Northern Rhodesia is now Zambia, and Nyassaland is now Malawi. |
||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
I find "Zimbabwe" much more colorful and vivid, and "Rhodesia" rather chilly and artificial. Why would you name an African country after someone named "Rhodes", anyway? Obviously not an African name.... 
|
||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
Cecil John Rhodes was an imperialist with only one purpose, to exploit Africa to the benefit of Britain. His vision was one large British controlled state stretching from Cape Town to Cairo. He certainly did not deserve to have an entire country in Africa named after him.  He played a major part in instigating the Anglo Boer War.
BTW, the alternative name suggested for South Africa is Azania. But changing the name of the country has never become a serious discussion point, and the name Azania is only supported by a few small radical groups. |
||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Mildly disparaging.
Keyword: race The concept of 'race' in this sense became unfashionable in much of Western Europe (at least) after World War II. My grandparents' generation (aged 70+) tend to talk about 'races' quite a lot, whilst younger people tend not to think in this way. I see it as outdated. You might also be interested to know that my grandfather habitually refers to the Germans as 'Anglo-Saxon beer drinkers' — suggesting that he feels that Germany ought to be included under an 'Anglo-Saxon' umbrella as well. |
||||||||||||||
| Loic |
I thought people of your grandfather's generation would have referred to the German as Bochs or Huns, Benjamin. Was your grandfather old enough to fight in the war back then?
As for Sir Cecil Rhodes, I think he was a great visionary which was grand and illuminating for his time, but racist and anarchronistic when judged against our values today. I don't know if only Afrikaaners view Rhodes as a reviled figure for he did try to incorporate the then independent republics of Transvaal and the Orange Free State into the British colonies of Cape and Natal. The ill-fated Jameson Raid which he sponsored was testimony to his ambitions which knew no geographical bounds. But do remember that although the Boer war was a great disaster for the Afrikaaners, it actually allowed the Afrikaaners to rule over the whole swathe of South Africa in the end when Louis Botha as well as other Afrikaaner heroes of the war were sworn into government to form the first ministry of the Dominion of South Africa. The Afrikaaners ended up ruling not only over Transvaal and the Orange Free State, but also over British territory as well. Incidentally, I do not find it inappropriate to have a country or region named after a person. Wasn't Louisiana named after a certain Sun King? What'd the original red indian name have been? |
||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
That's putting it mildly. The result was a three year war in which not only 26 000 women and children were killed in the British concentration camps, but which had also left the Afrikaners impoverished.
Union of South Africa. Although the country later became a dominion, it was never officially called the Dominion of South Africa. Before the Anglo Boer War, the Afrikaners ruled most of the present South Africa anyway. Transvaal and the Orange Free State were independent Boer republics, while the Cape Colony had selfrule (which effectively put the Afrikaners in charge). The only exception was Natal, where there were very few Afrikaners. The facts are that the Anglo Boer War had devastating effects for the Afrikaners, which would take decades to recover from. The War was one of the dark spots in Britain's history, and we're still waiting for the Queen to apologise...* Many historians today believe that, if the Anglo Boer War never happened, apartheid would never have happened. The war caused great bitterness, and paved the way for a reactionay nationalism, leading in turn to apartheid. It is debatable whether Union in 1910 was the best thing for the Afrikaners. Rhodes was a vicious, violent and arrogant bastard who also caused much hardship in the very country that was named after him.
As I said, the Afrikaners ruled over Transvaal and the OFS before the war anyway, and indeed over the Cape Colony (which was taken by the British through violent means in the first place). And the Boers created Natal, and ruled it until the British took that by violent means as well... |
||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
I don't find it inappropriate so much as I find that it sounds somewhat imposed and pretentious, especially when viewed side by side with a native name that sounds much more "natural" in the same setting. We have several different kinds of names in the US. Those states first settled by the English, mainly on the East Coast, were largely either named for important people of the day -- Maryland, Georgia, North and South Carolina (for King Charles), Virginia (for the Virgin Queen, Elizabeth I), Delaware, etc -- or for places back in the British Isles -- New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire. As you move south and into the midwest, Indian names begin to prevail -- Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Tennessee, Nebraska, Texas. Louisiana is a bit of an anomaly, but of course it was named by a different group -- the original French. The Spanish left plenty of names behind, but unlike the British and the French, they tended to choose descriptive terms instead -- Florida (flowery), Colorado (red-colored), Nevada (snowy), Montana (mountain). The west is a mixed bag of all of the above -- with states named for people (Washington), places (New Mexico), descriptions (Colorado, etc.), and native names (Utah, Wyoming). And of course there are states that just have odd names or plays on words -- Vermont (rearrangement of monts verts), Pennsylvania (Penn's Woods), Rhode Island (which is not an island), Indiana, Maine (literally meant "main"). I do tend to think that our Indian-named places have much more of a sense of place and history inherent in them and sound much more uniquely American. Any place could be named Washington, there's already another Georgia, and "snowy" and "red" sound pretty generic and uninspired once you translate them. But a name like Massachusetts or Illinois could only come from one specific part of the world. Same as in Australia, with all their wonderfully unpronounceable Aboriginal names, or to the south of us, when they bust out with showstoppers like Oaxaca and Tenochtitlan and Tlaxcala and Ixtapa. |
||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
He would have been 16 when World War II ended, so no. However, he was actually exempt from military service when he would have been old enough because he had asthma. It's true that the rather 'pro-German' attitudes of my grandparents are unusual for their generation. However, they have been to Germany and have often got talking to Germans in pubs and things (they're like that). They realise that daily life in German is extremely similar to daily life in England — most people their age don't. However, the difference here is that my grandparents seem to largely attribute this similarity to the notion of 'race' — the theory being that the Germans are 'ethnically' the same as the English — whilst it doesn't really occur to me to take this into account at all. |
||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Andre: Granted, your strong views against Sir Cecil Rhodes are coloured by the Anglo-Boer Wars and the humanitarian disaster which happened at the concentrentation camps under British watch. This reminds me of a story where the British ambassador to Nazi Germany implored the German government to do something in the Jewish concentration camps. The German minister replied by taking an encyclopaedia and flipping to the entry of concentration camps which read: First started by the British in the Anglo-Boer War....
I think it is possible to appraise a man by the standards of his day. Otherwise, where would we also place Alexander the Great who probably massaccred a million souls in his Near Eastern campaigns? Do you think Genghis Khan would be placed on a pedestral today if we were to judge him by our own standards? Sir Cecil Rhodes lived in a racist age where people believed in a firm dichotomy between races. The fact that he genuinely believed in the superiority of the 'English-speaking race' has no bearing, in my opinion, on his leadership, his vision, his ambition and his drive. To me, any man who dares to dream of colouring the map red from 'Cape to Cairo' deserves to be given credit at least for entertaining bold ideas. Uriel: That is an educational explanation, or is it elucidation? However, I am given to understand that many of the so-called Indian names are just anglicised variants of actual Red Indian words. Moreover, some names like Idaho are pure nonsense and mean nothing. They were taught up by some imaginative senator who thought that they sounded sufficiently 'indian'. |
||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Well, I was thinking about your comment, and it got me to thinking about all of our Indian names, and how they make me feel. Then I had to contrast this with the non-Indian names, and it occured to me that the English and Spanish had had entirely differnt approaches to the process of naming. So that was just me going off on a tangent, really!
You are correct -- many Indian names have been wrestled into shape to be compatible with English pronunciation, and are really bastardized versions. Some Indian languages contain a plethora of sounds you just don't ever make in English! I had a Navajo coworker who introduced us to all sorts of odd consonant combinations and unusual sounds I could never reproduce, let alone spell. You also are well-advised to take most "accepted" translations with a grain of salt -- some mean no such thing, or are completely meaningless in the first place. Indians themselves were occasionally not above pulling ethnographer/linguists' legs, often as a passive-aggressive response to being poked and prodded by well-meaning anthropologist types who didn't understand how annoying they were to their subjects. |
||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
As this was mentioned on the previous page, I have discovered a number of other Nordic-style flags in use for various regions, some official, some not:
The Scottish Highlands, in Scotland (duh): 
Apparently, the blue and white represent Scotland, whilst the green represents the Gaelic heritage of the region. I'm not sure if the Nordic cross here is a reference to the Norse-Gaels, or if it simply represents the area's northerly location. However, I am disappointed that there is no unofficially used flag for the Scottish Lowlands, as that is the region I will probably be moving to later this year. South Uist, Western Isles, Scotland: 
Barra, Western Isles, Scotland: 
Proposed alternative flag of Estonia: 
Ingria, Russia 
Vepsia, Russia 
Flag of the Karelian people, Russia 
|
||||||||||||||
| Loic |
All these flags are confusingly similar in design. It hints at a lack of originality and innovation if those wags are really proposing them. | ||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I was just thinking about a flag for the Scottish Lowlands. I was going to suggest taking the Scottish Highlands flag, and replacing the green cross with a red cross, to symbolise the fact that most people from that region are essentially English. But then I realised that that probably wouldn't go down to well, and that it would look far too similar to the Icelandic flag anyway. | ||||||||||||||
| Icke |
There is another flag which is based on the Scandinavian ones:
This used to be the flag of the German state Saarland during its independece after WWII! A Scandinavian cross with the colors of the French flag. |
||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
Flag of the Karelian people, Russia
I like this one. |
||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
Oh, yes, green must be the colour of Karjala, for the endless woods which sheltered the runic chanters of Kalevala. | ||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
"The the runic chanters of Kalevala"? Tell, tell! | ||||||||||||||
| Julian |
It reminds me of Christmas wrapping.
|
||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
If the green were darker, it would remind me of an Amish quilt. | ||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
Because Elias Lönnrot collected the fragments of Finland's national epic, Kalevala, in Karelia in the 19th century, Karjala (= Karelia) has earned the nickname The Songlands of Kalevala, thanks to people like Arhippainen Miihkali, the blind rune-singer in Latvajärvi, Russian Karelia: 
Accompanied by the kantele they would chant the beginning of the first runo (= chapter): Veli kulta, veikkoseni, kaunis kasvinkumppalini! Lähe nyt kanssa laulamahan, saa kera sanelemahan yhtehen yhyttyämme, kahta'alta käytyämme! Harvoin yhtehen yhymme, saamme toinen toisihimme näillä raukoilla rajoilla, poloisilla Pohjan mailla. Lyökämme käsi kätehen, sormet sormien lomahan, lauloaksemme hyviä, parahia pannaksemme, kuulla noien kultaisien, tietä mielitehtoisien, nuorisossa nousevassa, kansassa kasuavassa: noita saamia sanoja, virsiä virittämiä vyöltä vanhan Väinämöisen, alta ahjon Ilmarisen, päästä kalvan Kaukomielen, Joukahaisen jousen tiestä, Pohjan peltojen periltä, Kalevalan kankahilta. = Golden friend, and dearest brother, Brother dear of mine in childhood, Come and sing with me the stories, Come and chant with me the legends, Legends of the times forgotten, Since we now are here together, Come together from our roamings. Seldom do we come for singing, Seldom to the one, the other, O'er this cold and cruel country, O'er the poor soil of the Northland. Let us clasp our hands together That we thus may best remember. Join we now in merry singing, Chant we now the oldest folk-lore, That the dear ones all may hear them, That the well-inclined may hear them, Of this rising generation. These are words in childhood taught me, Songs preserved from distant ages, Legends they that once were taken From the belt of Väinämöinen, From the forge of Ilmarinen, From the sword of Kaukomieli, From the bow of Youkahainen, From the pastures of the Northland, From the meads of Kalevala. |
||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
And they'd end by feasting on karjalanpiirakat, no doubt. |
||||||||||||||