Review: Breaking up Britain

"The contrast [over the last 25 years] has been between a determined (if stricken) agent of history and a mere sleep-walker. In 1977 the Cold War political palsy still prevailed, a profound inertia favouring all the tropes of states, parties and intellectuals I have described. By 2000 most instinctive allegiance to ‘establishments' had drained away, leaving hollow routines and vacant symbols behind. A combination of official servility with violent socio-economic changes led to universal ‘apathy'; but such withdrawal is also a still voiceless wish for better political things - for democratic nations that peoples can more honourably call their own."

Tom Nairn, The Break-up of Britain, 2003 on the difference between the context of the first and latest edition

Breaking Up Britain summons in its introduction The Break-up of Britain, Tom Nairn's powerful and controversial thesis, written over the course of a series of inter-lapping domestic and global crises in the 1970s and originally published in the year of the Queen's Jubilee.

Here in part lies the problem for the outset. Nairn's thesis was not just a blast from a northern outpost about Scottish nationalism, but a counterblast about the whole edifice. Nairn examined and took apart the English, Welsh and Northern Irish dimensions, while addressing the problematic nature of the British state and irrevocable way in which the European project challenged this and the small nation, little islander British left..

I feel at the outset quite a degree of unease with the number of official party perspectives littering this book. Four out of sixteen chapters come from such sources: Gerry Adams (Sinn Fein), Leanne Wood (Plaid Cymru), Salma Yaqoob (Respect) and Richard Thomson (SNP), the first three all elected representatives, the latter hoping to be at the next UK election. And I can't imagine I am the only one feeling a tad uncomfortable at the inclusion of Gerry Adams. Dialogue and engagement are necessary, but there is something profoundly nasty and nauseating at the heart of Sinn Finn's politics which is vindicated in some way by being included.

The Missing Stories of Britain

Given the time and space I am going to concentrate on two areas which I see as problematic: one core to its argument, and the other more emblematic.

The first is the missing British dimension. Breaking Up Britain is a set of 4 by 4 conversations. Thus, we have the four nations of the UK each having their own parallel conversations alongside four cross-cutting themes: national identity, civic nationalism, exclusions of nationalism, and states of independence. There is a clumsy, closed nature to these non-conversations, which don't engage with each other or across nations, and instead sit like a choreographed set of peace or endgame discussions, but without the context or drama.

This cannot be rectified by just stating or believing that the British story is dead, which seems to be the collection's attempt to answer this issue. The old British story might well be dead, and I for one think it is, but that is a very different proposition to assuming that Britain as an entity is over.

For a start it is possible that the old Frankenstein beast can stumble on half-dead - going through the motions with an element or memory of life or energy still in it somewhere - continuing its role and functions in part for want of an alternative.

Secondly, even in a Break Up State an element and articulation of Britishness will continue into the foreseeable future - culturally, socially, economically and politically. This is I think a significant omission and flawed assumption at the heart of the book, which is representative of a small rump of a left which has switched from believing in the inevitability of socialism to one which believes in the Break up as its new historic project.

Twenty years ago, two Scottish writers, Craig Beveridge and Ronald Turnbull wrote a fascinating book on Scottish culture and nationalism which launched a powerful and savage critique of Tom Nairn and Nairnism. They argued that Nairn had shifted from his early 1960s writings and a Marxist determinism focused on class to a nationalist determinism centred on nation and stressing Scottish autonomy and statehood. It was a little bit of a caricature, but it contains some elements of truth, and certainly caught a wider truth, that can now be found in Breaking Up Britain.

Whither Radical Scotland?

Finally, there is the Scottish section of the book which throws up all sorts of questions, in part representing that left journey, and in part, celebrating the last forty years of the rising Scottish dimension without critical examination. None of the four chapters on Scotland come from any of the key or influential commentators over the last decade.

Kevin Williamson and Gregor Gall have a romanticism about Scottish radicalism, its history, place and stories, which has for too long been part of the culture of the Scottish left, and an over-interest in the Scottish Socialist Party, which briefly shot to prominence, managing to win just over 6% of the vote in one election before falling apart and into oblivion. This is a story which occurs to many anti-system and flash parties the world over: the UK Independence Party aided by the charisma and glow of Robert Kilroy Silk (someone with many characteristics in common with Tommy Sheridan, one time leader of the SSP), managed to win 18% in the 2004 Euro elections, and similarly feel apart in a farcical leadership conflict. But lefties don't write and obsess about the appeal and nature of UKIP the way they like to do about the SSP.

Instead, too many thinking-lefties assume that if only the SSP had been different and not a vehicle for a messianic, machismo, workerist leader, it could have become a potent, permanent force - rarely considering that, maybe, to a part of its constituency all, or some, of these things were positive factors. Maybe there is a demand for a politics part-machismo, part-populist and anti-democratic, which was filled with contradictions and which would have always when confronted with them, faced crisis?

There are all sorts of caricatures in these essays which make up the ‘left Scotland' account of recent times. Williamson calls the Thatcher years ‘the dark years' when we can surely recognise this far away that there was an upside in Scotland as well as a downside - the death of the insular, clientist Labour local state being one.

There is no acknowledgement of the power of Scottish conservatism within the heart of Scottish radicalism, whether it in Labour, STUC or self-styled ‘outside left'. Scottish progressive opinion has had a whole host of complacencies and orthodoxies: thinking itself radical, when it has been unimaginative, lacking understanding of diversity and new social movements, and having an ill-ease about plurality beyond its cosy ‘civic Scotland' conversations or propagating workerist myths. There is a deep and powerful pseudo-leftism in Scotland which this kind of romanticism validates: invoking ‘Red Clydeside' and ancient battles while upholding some of the most mean spirited, right-wing politics anywhere in the UK.

The Lesley Riddoch and Richard Thomson chapters feed into the ‘official story' of civic Scotland. The Thomson chapter is interesting for promising in its title to explore, ‘the social democratisation of the SNP'. Sadly, it offers no definition of social democracy or the SNP's understanding and advancement of it.

This lack of focus mirrors the paucity of the SNP's thinking. The party is not at its roots and in its ethos - about social democracy, but nationalism, nationhood and statehood. Its late embrace of it, while genuine, is a problematic one, at a point where social democracy is in crisis the world over. In part, while this leftward shift was a genuine one by the Nationalists, it was also a positioning one to outflank Labour. Thomson talks of ‘the power of Scottishness' and this puts the emphasis in his argument revealingly in the right place, namely, priotising national identity above political values and policies.

There is no exploration in this chapter or others of the uneasy alliance in the SNP as in Labour of social democratic thinking and neo-liberal logic, and that all these parties have given voice to the global governing credo which has bought about such widespread damage and dislocation.

There are many subtleties, insights and reflections contained in the essays within this collection, and I apologise for not giving time and space to them. Several of the chapters challenge or divert from the core argument; Arthur Aughey and John Osmond being two examples, but they cannot break out of the structure of the book. Mark Perryman deserves plaudits and encouragement over his many political interventions over the last decade, and in particular, his want to explore a sense of English space, identity and politics.

However, I can't help but feel that there is something profoundly frustrating and lacking from the central arguments of this book, while at the same time feeling a little guilty for being critical of such a worthy project. What it boils down to is that there is a false promise at the core of this project: of giving us the hope of an exploration of the decoupling of the Ukanian state, but then offering nothing of the kind. More than that the prospectus which the book starts out from is shaky: assuming that we can just bury the rotting carcases of the Imperial British State and move into the sunny uplands of small nation, civic minded nationalisms.

It is going to be a much more messy, contradictory and difficult endgame: the sinking below the waves of the good ship Late Britannia could take a lot of us with it and we will need to think about many more unpleasant and problematic issues than addressed in this collection, if we are to take to the lifeboats in time.

Gerry Hassan is a writer, commentator and researcher who has written extensively on Scottish and UK politics. His books include After Blair: Politics after the New Labour Decade and The Scottish Labour Party: History, Institutions and Ideas. He published the third revised edition of Tom Nairn's The Break-up of Britain and his The Modern SNP: From Protest to Power is published by Edinburgh University Press in October this year. Gerry can be contacted on: gerry.hassan@virgin.net

This article is published by Gerry Hassan, and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it without needing further permission, with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. These rules apply to one-off or infrequent use. For all re-print, syndication and educational use please see read our republishing guidelines or contact us. Some articles on this site are published under different terms. No images on the site or in articles may be re-used without permission unless specifically licensed under Creative Commons.

Comments

Mark P (not verified)
7 May 2009 - 12:19pm

I have a huge amount of respect for Gerry's writing but in responding to Breaking up Britain I feel he has three points more than a shade wrong.

First on Gerry Adams. I hold no brief for Sinn Fein but the point is they are the majority nationalist party in Northern Ireland, a significant political force in the Republic and their politics are now essentially social-democratic. Gerry's chapter is prt of section which examines the politics of civic nationalism from the SNP, PLaid and from England Salma Yaqoob examing the potential for a cross-community politics out of Muslim community activism To dismiss the place of Sinn Fein in such a dialogue in the way Gerry does takes us back to an era I have no desire to return to.

Secondly on Scotland. One contribution, which admittedky Gerry for some reason doesn't likem is about the SNP, a second examines the causes of Labour's defeat in the 07 Scottish Parliament elections. A third examines cultual nationalism and a fourth the role of trade unions in any independence settlement. And Gerry characterises this as narrow? Yes there is plenty on the Scottish Socialist Party, precisely because thy for a period fused nationalism with a leftist politics, something unheard of on this island, this surely makes them of interest for any progressives committed to the Break-Up.

Thirdly on Britishness. No its not extensively covered, hiugh at least two contributors doubt its passing, Charlotte Williams and Arthur Aughey who you can read here on this site. But the point of the book is to consider the shape of a politics after the Unio, its not an effort to shore up Britishness.

Gerry doesn't believe the book is a dialogue? I would disagree, has anybody attempted such a collection before? Its the beginning of a conversation that has hardly started yet.

Mark Perryman

Sean Mac Bradaigh (not verified)
7 May 2009 - 2:16pm

Re the review of Breaking up Britain. The sweeping assertion that "there is something profoundly nasty and nauseating at the heart of Sinn Finn's politics" is not backed up by any examples or evidence. It is a disgraceful, arrogant and unnecessary comment that is an insult to the hundreds and thousands of people in Ireland, North and South who vote for Sinn Féin.

Tom Griffin
7 May 2009 - 4:01pm

I can't imagine I am the only one feeling a tad uncomfortable at the inclusion of Gerry Adams. Dialogue and engagement are necessary, but there is something profoundly nasty and nauseating at the heart of Sinn Finn's politics which is vindicated in some way by being included.

There's no doubt that Irish republicans face profound and unresolved questions over their role in the Troubles, but that is true of unionism and of the British state as well.

Clichés about the dark heart of Sinn Féin risk shoring up the kind of rigid essentialism which has characterised the most hardline narratives on both sides and closing down any deeper analysis of why people in the North made the various choices that they did.

Some of the recent writing from people like Eoin Ó Broin suggests that Sinn Féin is beginning to develop a more critical reassessment of its own past. http://tinyurl.com/dz76ns

Those developments aren't really reflected in Adams' contribution which is based on his speech to this year's party conference. That speech was largely around domestic economic issues in the Republic, and attempted to reposition the party as an alternative to neo-liberalism after a period in which the Celtic Tiger had been seen as a key driver for Irish unity. (There are significant parallels with the dilemmas which Gerry has identified facing the post credit crunch SNP. http://tinyurl.com/dy94aq)

It isn't however a direct engagement with the overall argument of the book, which is a particular pity given that Sinn Féin is supposed to be launching a campaign in support of Irish unity in Britain next year.

I'm not surprised by that given that Sinn Féin is a relatively small organisation facing some big political challenges in both parts of Ireland.

Perhaps similarly parochial priorities elsewhere prevent the conversation from gelling more as a whole, and maybe that's in the nature of the various nationalisms.

I don't think however, that you have to be a unionist to see the significance of the pan-UK strategic dimension, especially not with the prospect of a Conservative Government to concentrate minds on the left. In that respect, this is a very timely book.

naldo (not verified)
8 May 2009 - 3:17pm

I haven't read the book myself but am surprised at some of your assertions in the review, the most glaring of which is:

"There is a deep and powerful pseudo-leftism in Scotland which this kind of romanticism validates: invoking ‘Red Clydeside' and ancient battles while upholding some of the most mean spirited, right-wing politics anywhere in the UK."

Can you explain what these mean spirited, right-wing politics are?

Mark Perryman
10 May 2009 - 5:16am

Like you I'm confused by that comment of Gerry's. The Scottish contributions are wide-ranging including BBC Radio Scotland broadcaster Lesley Riddoch and former SNP Head of Campaigns Richard Thomson. Gerry and I disagree on the scale of the importance of the SSP 'moment', I happen to think the biggest electoral breakthrough by an outside left party since the CP in 1945 merits some consideration including the reasons for the subsequent implosion, Gerry doesn't. Which is rather strange since the best analysis I've read of the SSP's electoral growth was in a book Gerry himself edited. I can only think he is referring to Kevin Williamson's superb review of the revival of a Scottish cultural nationalism. You can read Kevin's chapter as a FREE download here> http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/books/archive/Breaking_up_Britain_Williamson.pdf 

Gerry Hassan1 (not verified)
10 May 2009 - 1:08pm

I going to try and respond to as many of the comments on my review as possible.

First, on Sinn Fein Tom Griffin makes a good set of points about developments in the party and I agree with him. There is however something off with Adam’s contribution coming from a speech: an air of the official, unreflective and tribalist.

Second, this takes me to a wider problem with many of the contributors: how there is a strange feel of ‘official perspective’ or more accurately received wisdom ‘counter-official’ perspective. This comes across fundamentally in the Scottish contributions – which articulate a very tired, not very subtle set of assumptions about ‘official Scotland’ and that ‘counter-story’.

Let me explore this briefly. In the Scottish contributions, there are two discernable strands. One goes on about a romantic leftdom and seeing neo-liberalism everywhere along with their approved ‘red shoots’ of resistance (SSP etc): Williamson, Gall. Another identifies a social democratic politics which has reshaped Scotland without defining this centre-left politics and how it has been corroded by neo-liberalism: Riddoch, Thomson.

Now there are good points in all of the chapters but these approaches: a romantic leftdom seeing neo-libs everywhere and an unreflective social democracy oblivious to how burnt out and damaged it is doesn’t get us very far. They don’t explore the subtleties and nuance of Scottish politics: the negotiation between social democracy and neo-liberalism in all the main parties, or the SNP’s attempt in government to develop a ‘neo-liberalism with a heart’ while winning centre-left plaudits.

Where is ‘pseudo-leftism in Scotland justifying right-wing politics’? Some of the most right-wing Labour politicians: Brown, John Reid, Brian Wilson, have invoked Scotland’s radical traditions going on at points about various struggles (UCS, Highland radicalism) while selling the family silver. And there is a bit of this in the SNP’s advance of neo-liberalism. Similarly, left romantics who overstate the reach and significance of some of these struggles as Williamson and Gall do in their chapters, do no service to a radical politics challenging this conservative sentiment.

The problem with this left romanticism can be seen in the present day obsession with the SSP, a totally spent force, They were a fascinating force to write on in 1999-2003 when I published a survey on them which Mark Perryman approves of and destroyed themselves in 2004-5. The current story of multi-party politics in Scotland beyond the Westminster established parties isn’t the SSP, but the fascinating story – completely unexplored in the book – of the permanent fixture and real influence of the Greens.

Finally, Tom Griffin makes the point that you don’t have ‘to be a unionist to see the significance of the pan-UK strategic dimension’. Despite what Tom then says this book sadly completely ignores this, assuming we are heading for a politics of Balkanisation and fragmentation. This argument has to be made not taken as given, and the nature of fragmentation and remaking will be influenced by the British state and how Britishness evolves across the four nations, This book does not acknowledge or advance those kind of conversations and dialogues.

Mark Perryman
10 May 2009 - 2:47pm

Gerry makes two good points and two not so good ones. Tho' all are most helpful in terms of the debate. First good one, the enduring electoral presence of the Greens in the Scottish Parliament. This is briefly referred to in the book, but not enough. Tho' on the green dimension to civic nationalism Gery might have mentioned Leanne Wood's excellent chapter on this which is available as a free download here>http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/books/archive/Breaking_up_Britain_wood.pdf Second good point, the process of the break up has to be made not assumed. It will be subject to all sorts of stops n starts and the outcome to be certain will be bitterly contested, particularly in England. However the point of the book is a wake up call to that section of the Left, again particularly in England, which has scarcely noted the consequences of ten years of devolution for a 'British' politics and remans blithely unaware of the potential of acceleration towards the break up in the next ten years. This isn't the politics of asumption, its the politics of preparedness. First bad point. There is no obsession with the SSP, it is Gerry who appears obsessed with the fact that the SSP gets a mention. What is noted is the momentary fusion of nationalism and hard left politics which combined with the charismatic leadership of Tommy Sheridan secured six MSPs. Living in England this is a breakthrough we can only dream of. With a similar PR electoral system for the Greater London Assembly not a single outside left candidate has ever been elected. The SSP scarcely merited a mention in the London-centric media so that imbalance is corrected in this book, nothing more, nothing less. Second bad point. Gerry describes the book once again as carrying too much of the 'party line'. Readers will have to make up their own mind on that but I find the point unfair, I would I'm the collection's editor! But the point of the collection was a meaningful 4-nation dialogue, to somehow bypass nationalist politicians would be perverse, pleasingly they all wrote innovative and original pirces rather than the party line Gerry accuses them of, including Gerry Adams' speech. Sinn Fein's Ard Fheis is barely covered outside of Ireland, Adam's speech is an interesting document, in large measure providing the kind of definition of social-democracy Gerry demands of the book. Mark Perryman    

Kevin Williamson (not verified)
10 May 2009 - 3:26pm

It's always interesting to read Gerry's views on various matters but this time round it's difficult to ascertain exactly what his problems with this new book are.

The remit of the book is pretty clear. It attempts to shed some light on the subterreanean forces which are inexorably pulling apart UK plc into four separate entities. The book achieves this, as far any such book could. Bear in mind that this book breaks new ground, bringing these ideas into the public domain in all four countures simultaneously.

Lets be fair here. There's already a mountain of essays and articles which defend the Act of Union and all who sail in her. These can be found in every newsagent, library and bookshop. I dont doubt that thousands more lie on the intellectual (and non intellectual) production line.

Gerry's political outlook is mainly concerned with mainstream social democratic perspectives. Gerry believes that the Thatcher revolution - which put publicly-owned and publiclyfinanced industries into the hands of private shareholders - was in some way progressive because it was responsible for the break-up of the labourist state. Fair enough. He's not alone in that respect. I'll agree to disagree.

But on the national question he also seems to have a problem the wisdom or veracity of "lefties" like myself moving from the centrality of an economistic/statist position (my words) to one where national liberation is centre stage (also my words). Why? Surely a better response would be: "aboot time an aw".

For the progressive left to understand that democratic change and the decentralisation of power can lead to radical or profound economic changes - but not the other way round - will be what marks its maturity into a credible force capable of challenging the hegemony of neoliberal orthodoxies.

Reading Gerry's other concerns about the four Scottish essays in the collection - including my own - makes me wonder if he read them properly or simply glossed over them, perhaps while working on other projects, in a rush to write the above review.

I also suspect from his comments that Gerry's feels he should have picked the four contributors himself, and only then would they provide the necessary weight!

But who are these recognised influential people Gerry feels should have been included, those he feels have created the Scotland of today? Tom Nairn? Perhaps. But more so than, say, Alasdair Gray? This is a matter of opinion. In this case the book's editor. You pays yer money.

There was another misleading observation in Gerry's review. The main thrust of my own chapter was not raking over the embers of the SSP project as he implicitly claims - this only merited a few short paragraphs in mine and none at all in two of the other three Scottish contributors - but was to take a longer historical and cultural perspective and make the case for why Scotland's creative artists, writers and radical thinkers have been more influential (in my opinion) than mainstream politicans or political commentators and analysts in preparing the ground for Scottish independence.

After reading Gerry's contribution to Imagined Nation: England After Britain (a previous book also edited by Mark Perryman) I wonder too if Gerry is beginning to realise that his analysis of the process of Devolution-Independence may get the pace of events all wrong.

2010 and 2011 loom very large on the horizon. When the Scottish people are finally alowed to speak as a majority for independence - no matter how slim that majority may be - all bets are off. The Break of Britain will take on its own momentum. The timescale will not be determined by London.

Gerry concludes his review suggesting that "the sinking below the waves of the good ship Late Britannia could take a lot of us with it ". If, by this, he means unionist politicians, and political analysts who cant quite let go of the concept of the UK, then perhaps he's right. And we'll be the better off as a result.

However, if his complaint is regarding the lack of analysis of the specific constitutional problems that will be faced by the four new democratic spaces emerging from the wreckage of UK plc.... then that is surely outwith the remit of this particular book.

Have no fear, this a subject which will pre-occupy the thoughts of our country soon enough, once an Independence referendum in Scotland becomes a reality. Only a thin red, white and blue line of fearty anti-democratic LibDems are preventing this from becoming a reality in 2010. It's that close.

Gerry Hassan1 (not verified)
10 May 2009 - 11:30pm

Thank you Mark for your comments and responding acknowledging the relevance of some of them.

However, you have misunderstood significantly what I wrote in one respect in my recent post. At no point or place do I talk about the ‘party line’ of one-quarter of the book in my post. What I am talking about is the sense of an ‘official story’ or more accurately the perceived wisdom of the ‘counter official’ perspective.

As I said this comes across very powerfully in the Scottish chapters which are defined by this account of the story of ‘official Scotland’ and the ‘counter-stories’ we know so well. This is a much deeper issue than ‘party’, but about an inability to go beyond conventional wisdoms – either sometimes of the mainstream, or of the supposed alternatives.

Thus, we have in the Scottish contributions two chapters seeing neo-liberalism everywhere and two which don’t take into account the battering of Scots social democracy by the onslaught of the last thirty years.

It is also true that none of these contributions really get to grips with the inter-relationship of Scottish nationalism to social democracy – although this is the explicit aim of one chapter, which just does not do it – and also – to neo-liberalism. It is a complex beast Scottish nationalism and we need to acknowledge that – as it has reshaped Scottish politics these last forty years - while paradoxically being a very conservative and very British form of nationalism.

naldo (not verified)
11 May 2009 - 10:49pm

Gerry, you're at it again:

"It is a complex beast Scottish nationalism and we need to acknowledge that – as it has reshaped Scottish politics these last forty years - while paradoxically being a very conservative and very British form of nationalism."

What is very conservative and very British about Scottish nationalism?

The people i know who support Scotish independence do so out of a desire to break away from the conservative two party state that the UK has become and they genuinely want to change the whole of the UK, for the better not just Scotland.

I don't know what you mean by a British form of nationalism (and maybe you'll enlighten me) but it sounds far more sinister than the cause of Scottish independence.

joe.middleton
25 May 2009 - 4:29pm

I think what is coming across from this article is that Mr Hassan does not understand the SNP and his past allegiance to Labour has left him with an irrational hatred and fear of all nationalism.

I also don’t recognise the description provided of the book ‘Eclipse of Scottish Culture’. This in fact argued that Nairn was to an extent viewing Scotland unfairly through a British/Marxist prism of understanding while still agreeing with his ultimate conclusions that the British state deserved to break up.

The SNP are a principled left of centre party. In UK terms they and Plaid Cymru are considerably to the left of Labour as indeed are Sinn Fein.

Isobel Lindsay (who has been a member of both Labour and SNP) in the current issue of Scottish left review analyses the SNP programme in office and comes to this overall conclusion.

The few right wing twitches which she does identify are very few and far between. The position on the 48 hour week (not advocating the cut off in working hours) is unfortunate and is a fair example.

If this issue was discussed at a party conference however I have little doubt it would be adjusted the other way and I suggest that insufficient internal debate have allowed the SNP's MEP's to take such a stance.

Finishing off an uncompleted motorway is not an betrayal of leftist values however but a logical end to a half done job! The reduction in rates for business is an attempt to equalise an area where Scots business had been paying a traditionally higher rate. It has been party policy for ten years to do this so it is not a change in direction.

Overall the SNP as a minority Government have did the best they can despite a unionist opposition which has worked together when required.

Labour in London denied them funds with a lower than normal block grant and Labour, Tories and Lib Dems all banded together to force through the expensive Edinburgh trams project. This has left the SNP vulnerable to attacks that they have not fulfilled their entire manifesto by those same parties who deliberately denied then the funds to do so! 

Nonetheless they did remove Tuition fees and have taken what progressive measures they can within a restricted budget.

I am looking forward to reading the full book but certainly the chapters I have read have been a valid and indeed important contribution to the ongoing debate. Kev's concentration on the culture of nationalism is I think a lot more important and relevant than any person within the current British establishment would like to admit.

It is a cultural fight and onslaught we face with a constant stream of British flag waving entertainment (much of it trivial but the underlying jingoism is there)  and a deliberate campaign to ignore Gaelic and our other national language, Scots.

Those who have championed the Scots language like Kelman and Welsh have therefore engaged Britain at a level where it is most vulnerable and the cultural connection is extremely important to understanding the state we are in today. It is also crucial to providing the confidence to vote us out of it.

Post new comment

  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <h2> <h3> <div> <span> <blockquote> <!--break--> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <hr> <table> <td> <tr> <img> <map>
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.

More information about formatting options