Saturday, 3 December 2016

To see ourselves as others see us


There is a stuffy consensus in Scotland. There always has been. Perhaps it has to do with the Presbyterian idea of the elect. We are exceptional. We are different. Wha’s like us. It makes our newspapers exceptionally dull, because almost no-one questions the assumptions which are shared even by political opponents. Ruth Davidson, Nicola Sturgeon, Kezia Dugdale and the Liberal who no-one now remembers may shout at each other and sometimes even pretend to be rude, but they are best friends really. It’s like a cosy little student union debate. They disagree of course, but they all share each other’s assumptions.

I have always preferred heresy. Some of the most interesting ideas are heretical. With a different turn of events they may have become orthodoxy. It’s always worth questioning everything. In this way you just might arrive at the truth.

It is a truth universally acknowledged in Scotland that Robert Burns is our greatest writer. I think Walter Scott is incomparably more important. But Scott was a Tory and could write about both Scotland and England with sensitivity, understanding, love and truth. Without Scott the history of the novel is quite different, because others throughout the world first imitated him and then reacted against that legacy.

One of the biggest problems in Scotland is our lack of understanding of both our own history and the history of other places. Waverley is now no more than a train station and so we have lost touch with the complexity of the reaction of Scott’s readers.  They could both support Charles Edward Stuart’s adventure while being pleased that he failed. Now our history is more cartoon like and single dimensional. We have given up reading and prefer to get our history from films where people paint their faces blue. Some of us even imitate this practice.



But although I prefer Walter Scott, Robert Burns has some moments of brilliance:

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion

We are so stuck in our cosy little consensus in Scotland that we are not even aware of how others see the situation.

Language is not a solitary thing. What was learned from Ludwig Wittgenstein is that a solipsistic idea of language is not really even conceivable. For instance the word “red” is learned by my describing things like post boxes as red. My mother and other people correct me if I describe grass as red. They do this correcting without being able to get inside my mind. What is going on in my mind is irrelevant and drops out of the equation. What matters is how I use the word “red” and that I use it in a way that is consistent with other people. Language is social, because that is how it is learned.

But what have we learned in the few months since June? We have learned that in Scotland we use certain words in way that is peculiar to us. It is as if we maintain that grass is red.

Nicola Sturgeon’s grievance was that Scotland didn’t vote for Brexit. Well so what? In any democracy parts vote differently to the whole. But that is not really her grievance. Her complaint is that Scotland is a country and we didn’t vote for Brexit. This is the essence of her argument. She thinks that Scotland ought to be independent because in the European Union referendum we didn’t get what we voted for. But if there were to be a referendum on Scottish independence she would not think that every region of Scotland ought to vote for independence in order for this independence to be achieved. If Aberdeenshire were to vote to remain in the UK, Nicola Sturgeon would argue that Aberdeenshire should be dragged out of the UK against our will. But what is the difference between Aberdeenshire and Scotland? The difference according to Sturgeon is that Scotland is a country while Aberdeenshire is not a country. If Scotland were not a country, then Nicola Sturgeon would have no more reason for a grievance than Aberdeenshire.

But what has happened in the past few months as Nicola Sturgeon and her fellow travellers have gone around Europe with their grievance. People have been nice to her. Some people have tried to use her complaints to undermine the UK Government. But will anyone officially negotiate with Sturgeon? The answer is No. They do not recognise her as the leader the leader of a country.

In international relations you are either a country or a region. In order to be a country you have to be a sovereign independent nation state. This in fact is the normal usage of the word "country". Belgium is a country because since 1830 it has been a sovereign, independent nation state, which has had international relations with other such states. Up until this point in time it had been a region of the Netherlands and before that both a region of France and Austria.  It is the fact that Belgium has had international relations that makes Belgium a country. The Treaty of London (1839) may have been described as a scrap of paper, but it may well also have caused the UK to take part in the First World War.



Other countries do not recognise regions as countries and they do not have international relations with such regions. There is a very good reason for this. In huge numbers of countries around the world there are separatist movements. For example in Belgium there are some people in the region of Flanders who want Flemish independence. There are also, no doubt, some people in Wallonia who want Walloon independence. But the Belgium Government would be very angry indeed if the UK or Germany began negotiating with a region of Belgium. They would justly see this as interfering with their internal affairs. In many instances this would be considered to be a hostile act. 

But all around Europe there are regions that have as good or better claim to be sovereign, independent, nation states as Scotland does. The people in Flanders speak Dutch, while their Walloon neighbours speak French. The people in Catalonia speak a language that is quite different from Spanish. The Basques speak a language which isn’t even Indo-European. The Republic of Venice was one of the great European nation states until it was taken over by Napoleon’s troops and eventually incorporated into Italy. Sometimes the regions of today’s Europe became part of their present day countries due to war, sometimes there was a treaty or an act of parliament. This is all ancient history and irrelevant.

It doesn’t matter how Veneto came to be part of Italy. It may have been just or unjust, by war or by treaty, but it is not a country today because it is a part of Italy. This situation is so commonplace in Europe as to be mundane. It is for this reason that when Nicola Sturgeon goes on her extensive travels she is continually reminded that European countries will only have international relations with other European countries. Moreover Nicola Sturgeon’s demands are incompatible with Scotland’s real status as a region of the UK. Scotland did not join the EU, because Scotland is not a country. The UK joined the EU by an act of the UK Parliament in 1972. Scotland had no more to do with this than Aberdeenshire, Gwent or Antrim. For this reason also Scotland cannot remain in the EU when the UK leaves and Scotland cannot have a different EU status to any other region of the UK. The reason for this is that Scotland cannot enter into international relations at all. The clue is in the word “international”.

But then really in linguistic terms Nicola Sturgeon is being told continually by representatives of various EU member states that you have a rather odd usage of the word “country” and “nation”. We don’t use these words in the way that you do, just as we don’t say that grass is red. Once this is understood then Nicola Sturgeon’s whole argument collapses. Her grievance about the UK leaving the EU is no more valid than Aberdeenshire’s grievance about leaving the UK. If the one is valid then so is the other. But then the whole SNP argument that Scotland votes differently from other parts of the UK is no more valid than Aberdeenshire complaining that it votes differently from the rest of Scotland.  Scotland is no different from any other formerly independent region in Europe and it is commonplace in any democracy for regions to sometimes not get the government they voted for.

The problem is the cosy Scottish consensus. We all think we are special. We think we are so special indeed that most of us think that although we are neither, sovereign, independent nor a nation state we are nevertheless a country in the same way that Belgium is a country. This assumption is so universal and accepted by all Scottish politicians and newspapers and both sides of the argument that when I question it I always get howls of horror.

Scotland has become a grumpy toddler who is indulged, but no matter how much you indulge it wants more. Yes you are a grown up girl. What a big girl you are. Have some more sweets, but please stop flailing around on the floor of the supermarket. Yes you are a nation, yes you are a country. After all you play “international” football matches just like the grownups do. It’s embarrassing. It’s time to break the cosy consensus or the toddler will never grow up. Once it is realised that Scotland has exactly the same international status as Saxony, Burgundy or Flanders, it immediately becomes obvious that Scotland has no more reason to seek independence than they do. It is a pity that so many apparently pro UK politicians just don’t get this and instead prefer to indulge the toddler. One more bag of sweets and dear little Nicola will stop wailing. How’s that working out for you?



Scotland is frequently called a country, but then again I can call something anything I please, words can mean what I want them to mean. But the meaning of the word “island” in the end is determined by the ability to sail round it. For this reason while I may refer to the “Black Isle” I will find in reality it is a peninsular. Nicola Sturgeon may go on and on about Scotland being a country, but she has just fallen off her wall. No-one else in Europe thinks she is the leader of a country, because Scotland lacks the qualities that internationally define places as being countries. Scotland is not an independent, sovereign, nation state. There is no use pretending that it is something that it is not.  It is for this reason that her negotiations are going nowhere. Regions cannot have international relations.  Words don't mean what I want them to mean.


  

20 comments:

  1. Wha’s like us = Damn few an they’re all deid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Billions - and they are all alive. Ms. Sturgeon's "grievance" is based on emotions (mostly hatred of 'England' aka 'Westminster') driven by egotism.

      Delete
    2. That's your grievence and inferiority complex showing right there Michael.....

      Why only yesterday we were told in Court that WM can dissolve the Scottish parliament at will, despite other promises post referendum. You'll see now why we think they are sleekit.

      Delete
  2. Some good points too from the Courier and from the Adam Smith Institute
    https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opinion/jenny-hjul/320609/snps-doomed-european-voyage-wasting-everyones-time/
    and here https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/why-scotland-cant-afford-the-eu

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ms Sturgeon hasn't got the intellect of the author here and so she fails to see the argument. The same goes for all SNP members of the regional 'parliament'. None of them have any intellectual thought about anything because it's an unknown parameter in their thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Glasgow was a district that voted 'Yes' in the 2014 referendum. On that basis should Glasgow be pushing for independence from the rest of the UK?

    ReplyDelete
  5. If the Nationalist argument about being removed from the EU against our will was valid , they would have no complaints if Wales , England or Northern Ireland demanded a vote on any second plebiscite as it would be unfair for them to be removed from union with Scotland against there will !

    The SNP are the gift that keeps on giving and even stopping any split of the UK could now be subject to legal challenge .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Utter nonsense, its nothing of the sort. No one is asking the Germans or the French if its unfair...Thats the correct argument and its not happening.

      Where your infantile argument runs out of steam is that Scotland was very recently held in the UK union with one of the key arguments that it was the ONLY way to retain EU membership. Then in 2016 62% of Scots said they STILL want to retain EU membership.

      Delete
    2. 62% of those Scots who chose to vote on a below UK average turnout. A detail I agree Wings, but an important one nonetheless, a bit like a certain SNP high-up trying to claim that 5 million Scots voted to remain and that not a single SNP member voted to leave.

      Delete
  6. Scotland was a sovereign country for 1000 years before forced/bribed English colonisation ....... the author of this really should study Burns and Scott ........... and the line whether Just or Unjust by War or Treaty sums up the stinking morals of an establishment toady

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes circa 800 AD , we had Kingdom of Picts , Kingdom of Strathclyde, Earldom of Northumbria , and Norwegian territory , can we ensure each get a referendum ?

      Delete
    2. Scotland as a recognisable polity came into being between the 950s ad under Malcolm when Strathclyde and the Lothians were annexed to the existing Alba, and the Davidian revolution of roughly 100 years later. So if we take a mean of say the year 1000ad then the nation state of Scotland lasted about 700 years, though the definition of a nation or country was somewhat different in the mediaeval period than it is understood now. Strathclyde on the other hand, welsh speaking and ruled from Dumbarton rock, did indeed endure as an independent polity for around 1000 years. Does historical longevity confer some form of legitimacy?

      Delete
  7. The 'democracy' argument was one of the more irritating of the referendum and since. The notion a) assumes democracy is only about majoritarian rule - it isn't - see De Toqueville among others b)That majoritarian rule is only applicable in a prior national sense c) That multi level government and the division of powers are less efficacious in democratic terms than full singular representative mono-government.

    Simply put, as Effie has pointed out, you have to be a nationalist is the first place to assume Scotland 'doesn't always get the government it votes for' as this is equally applicable to all other regions of the UK. Also, if the complaint is that it is anti democratic for (a minority under FPTP) one majoritarian government (UK) superceding another Scotland, then this reductive argument also applies to others. The consequence is that everyone should have some sort of representation of their views - this can only be achieved if you have an overlapping and interacting web of sovereignty such as a Federal system. Not complete separation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The author is conflating two arguments; Scotland being a country or not, and the democratic process not respecting the electorate, to try and further her argument that as the UK voted for Brexit, Scotland should accept the decision.
    Instead, remove the emotions of Brexit from the discussion and consider at what level government is most effective, efficient, appropriate etc., and maybe Freedom for Fyvie is, somewhat improbably, the appropriate level. Or consider Turriff, with its population of about 5,000. If one third of the inhabitants earn the average wage (£27000) of which they lose about one third in various taxes, what would Turriff do with £130,000,000? Apart from local civic costs, it would probably have to form allegiances with other ‘states’ to get economies of scale for such things as health, education, water, electricity, etc. which may scale up to Aberdeenshire being the logical administrative unit, or Scotland. And there may be bits, trading agreements, manufacturing standards etc., which are best done at a British or European level.
    Information Technology is both reducing the distances at which administration work – Brussels and Banff are the same on Skype, and reducing the headcount required for administrative work, so it is appropriate to reconsider state size and the distribution of function. If you want to criticise the Scottish government, highlight their timidity in this area.
    Finally, Scotland is a country, as may well be emphasised in the UK Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete
  9. A well made point.. something I have occasionally pondered on. I side with the arching substance of your point, although there are some reasonable counters to be made.

    For instance, Scotland does partake in many team sports on it's own basis in international competitions (like all "home nations" and unlike say Saxony or Venice) and the United Kingdom - the title alone signifies unity drawn of distinct fundamental parts coming together. The fundamentals being England and Scotland and the crazy history (influenced by line of monarchs) that led to Britain as an independent sovereign state.

    It's funny you mention Belgium as just recently international negotiations did occur between Walloon, the EU and Canada over the Canadian/EU trade deal. This is because due Belgium's federal makeup, they require constituent states to ratify international treaties. Walloon resisted, heavily, and thus direct negotiations took place Canadian ministers and Walloon ministers. Does that make Walloon an independent sovereign state or a "country" because it was recognised by a foreign power and accorded much grace & favour by Canada?

    And in all of this, what of Wales and Northern Ireland? Do their own devolved politicians speak of their lands as countries? I suspect so. Even though Wales is a principality and Ulster a province.

    Linguistics in geography and politics is ever the minefield.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The question for Effie is how long do Finland or Belgium need to to exist before they are recognised by Effie ?

      Maybe she thinks Finland is really just Russia or even Sweden......

      Delete
  10. Enjoyed this Effie and a good interesting thread as well. Just a couple of things. Scott's influence was immense on other national cultures and Mark Twain damned him for a pernicious effect on America - indeed Twain asserted that his novels and their romantic history caused the Civil War. A tad sweeping perhaps, but he was especially popular in the south and the KKK later took inspiration from their warped view of Scottish history (which Scot would have despised).

    Burns is possibly even more complex and actually his more radical views were highly popular in England.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "No one will negotiate with you if you are a region".....

    A huge surprise to Walloons who incidently don't want to be a country but who recently negotiated an EU trade treaty with Canada.... Facts as they say are chiels that winna ding....

    ReplyDelete
  13. That argument from Effie would hold some water if Scotland had never existed, if it didn't have a parliament today and that the EU membership had not played a significant part in denying it independence very recently.

    Scotland is a country, it has been and it has many facets of a nation.

    The actual fear of the Brexiter is that through time the UK in EU finds itself in the poor state of affairs that Scotland has within the UK. Powerless and told its pennyless.... Yet the same Brexit stooges almost unanimously argue with us that its too late for us to save ourselves from their very own evil Union.......

    ReplyDelete