Posted on 03/31/2007 8:56:20 PM PDT by GMMAC
Will auld acquaintance be forgot as Scots go it alone?
30 years ago Gordon Brown was the toast of student radicals in Edinburgh. Now he is seen as part of the Establishment — and out of touch with the Scotland’s new direction.
Martin Fletcher
timesonline.co.uk
March 31, 2007
In 1974 Gordon Brown was Rector of Edinburgh University, elected after a campaign that featured the “Brown Sugars” — girls sporting miniskirts and T-shirts emblazoned “Gordon for Me”.
I was a first-year student, and remember him as a striking figure with long black hair and trenchcoat, surrounded by acolytes. He was intense and ambitious, but he also lived with Princess Margarita of Romania, threw celebrated parties and enjoyed an almost glamorous reputation.
As editor of Student, besides filling the pages with bare flesh, his great scoop was to catch the university lying about its investments in apartheid South Africa. He used the rectorship — traditionally a ceremonial post — to flay a fusty university establishment. When Sir Michael Swann, the principal, sought to stop him chairing meetings of the University Court, the Duke of Edinburgh, the university’s chancellor, intervened: Princess Margarita was the Duke’s goddaughter.
While the young firebrand was shaking up Edinburgh, another movement was shaking up Scotland. Buoyed by the discovery of North Sea oil, the Scottish Nationalist Party won 11 Westminster seats that October, and forced Harold Wilson’s weak and panicky Labour Government to concede a referendum on devolution in 1979 that only narrowly failed.
Three decades on, Mr Brown will shortly become my prime minister, not rector, and the SNP is surging again. A poll for The Times this week suggested that the party was heading for a victory in the Scottish Parliament elections on May 3, paving the way for a referendum on independence by 2010. But today it is Mr Brown who represents an unpopular Establishment in distant London, Mr Brown who looks out of step with Scottish public opinion, and Mr Brown who faces the prospect — albeit remote — of finding himself prime minister of a foreign country. How the wheel has turned.
Back in the 1970s Edinburgh was an austere place that even the Bay City Rollers struggled to enliven. Pubs shut at 10pm and never opened on Sundays. Staid life assurance companies pottered along in genteel Charlotte Square. The economy was wretched. The city felt cut off from the world. It was an uncomfortable place to be an English student. The Scottish nationalism of those days was angry, confrontational and fiercely antiEnglish, as summed up by the SNP slogan: “It’s Scotland’s oil”.
The theatrical sensation of 1974 was John McGrath’s play The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil, which charted the exploitation of Scotland from the 19th-century Highland clearances to the plundering of North Sea oil. English students were resented, and regularly told that we were taking Scottish students’ places.
Today, behind its immutable granite face, Edinburgh is a city transformed. It is cosmopolitan and fun. Dismal bars and corner shops selling that peculiarly disgusting Scottish invention, the bridie, have been replaced by fancy pubs and classy alfresco restaurants. The Grassmarket, Seventies refuge of down-and-outs, is now hip. The breweries, whose sickly smell blanketed the city, have gone. You hear foreign accents everywhere, and can fly directly to Europe and America without changing in London.
Edinburgh has become Europe’s fifth biggest financial centre, employing 135,000 people. The Royal Bank of Scotland is a world top-ten bank with a market capitalisation larger than Coca-Cola. Elegant New Town houses sell for a million or two.
Gavin Don, a Scot who returned from London to set up a corporate finance business in 1994, says that as an Edinburgh student in the 1970s he used to play Porsche-spotting. “You could go a whole year and not see one. Now they are two a penny. Bentleys are pretty commonplace, and Rolls-Royces are not unheard of.” There is a cultural revival, too. The Scottish executive is pouring money into the arts. The bestselling authors Iain Rankin, Iain Banks, Alexander McCall Smith, Irvine Welsh and J.K. Rowling all live in or near the city. Its once-proud publishing industry is booming again.
Where Edinburgh leads, the rest of Scotland is slowly following. The country still has pockets of intense poverty, but its unemployment rate has fallen below the UK average, its per capita GDP is higher than most English regions, and two decades of steady population decline have been reversed.
As self-confidence has risen so the nature of Scottish nationalism has changed. It is more positive, less Anglophobic. It emphasises future potential, not past grievances. It asks merely for Scotland to be liberated so it can prosper within the European Union like a dozen other countries as small or smaller. Indeed, the EU allows Scotland to break away from England without condemning itself to isolation on Europe’s northern fringe.
Alex Salmond, the SNP’s wily leader, is still demanding the repatriation of North Sea oil revenues and the removal of nuclear missiles from the Clyde. But as he seeks to portray his party as mainstream, not extreme, he emphasises a desire for cooperation not confrontation with Westminster, and avoids overt England-bashing. He says an independent Scotland would keep the Queen and the pound.
In St Andrew Square I asked a dozen Scots to sum up the English in one word. The answers were not flattering — “pompous”, “egotistical”, “smug”, “arrogant”, “loud”, “pig-headed”. But they were given with smiles, and for all the tales of Scots backing Trinidad and Tobago against England in the football World Cup their antipathy to sassenachs appears more muted. Indeed, Flower of Scotland, the unofficial national anthem, which was written for The Corries in 1967 and celebrates England’s defeat at Bannockburn, seems a little out of tune with the times. “People are a tad embarrassed by it,” one veteran Scottish journalist said.
What has undoubtedly weakened, however, is the Scots’ sense of Britishness. Three hundred years after the Act of Union England and Scotland no longer have a common enemy in France. The British Empire, on which Scotland’s 19th-century prosperity was built, has gone. Memories of Scottish soldiers fighting alongside the English in two world wars have faded. Scottish industries such as shipbuilding and coal that depended on London subsidies have been privatised or closed. Margaret Thatcher’s use of socialist Scotland as a test-bed for hated policies such as the poll tax fuelled Scottish disenchantment with Westminster.
A recent British Social Attitudes Survey found four fifths of Scots consider themselves Scottish first and British second. The Scottish Saltire, flown only by a few wild-eyed radicals in the 1970s, is everywhere in Edinburgh, and the Union Jack has largely disappeared. It does fly outside The Scotsman newspaper — but only at the insistence of Andrew Neil, its former editor-in-chief.
At the same time the much-derided Scottish Parliament, which the Scot George Robertson, a former Defence Secretary, said would kill separatism “stone dead”, appears merely to have fostered a sense of Scottishness. It receives more coverage than Westminster in the Scottish media and The Times poll this week showed 52 per cent of Scots want it to have more power, only 7 per cent less.
The other great change since the 1970s is England’s attitude to Scottish independence. Polls suggest that an idea unthinkable then is today quite popular.
Many English resent Scots receiving £1,500 more per capita in public spending each year, and that the Government requires the support of Scottish MPs to ram through controversial legislation such as university top-up fees and foundation hospitals that do not apply north of the border. They are offended by Scotland’s perceived Anglophobia. The English have yet to back Roger Federer against Andy Murray, but my equally unscientific survey of a dozen English colleagues produced adjectives about the Scots just as unflattering — “difficult”, “chippy”, “aggressive”, “ungrateful”, “angry”, “brooding”.
Few minded if Scotland broke away. As the Saltire flies in Scotland, so the flag of St George has become increasingly common in England. It is as if the Union Jack, like the UK, is breaking down into its constituent parts.
All this leaves Mr Brown in a hole. As a Scot preparing to move into No 10 he needs to reassure the English, and has delivered no fewer than ten speeches or statements on the importance of Britishness since late 2004. He opposes further devolution. The Raith Rovers fan even cited Paul Gascoigne’s goal against Scotland in Euro 96 as a favourite football moment.
But the more Mr Brown champions Britishness, the more out of touch he looks in Scotland — and the more he fuels his compatriots’ disaffection with Labour before next month’s elections.
Scots dislike Tony Blair, whom they consider neo-Thatcherite. They hate his war in Iraq. Today’s equivalent of The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil is The Black Watch, which tells of Scottish soldiers going to fight a pointless war foisted on them by an English Prime Minister. Mr Brown is widely seen in Scotland as the Iraq war’s paymaster.
In Edinburgh in the Seventies, Mr Brown wrote his doctoral thesis on how Labour established itself as the alternative to the Conservatives in Scotland in the early 20th century. Its battle now is to prevent itself being usurped by the SNP.
The stakes are enormous. Were Scotland to gain independence Labour — shorn of its 39 Scottish MPs — would never win power in England again.
Nationalists head for power
–– A Populus poll for The Times this week put the SNP ahead of Labour in both the first-past-the-post and proportional-representation sections
–– The Nationalists are on track to win 50 seats in the 129-seat Scottish Parliament, seven more than Labour. The Lib Dems would have 18 MSPs, the Conservatives 17 and the Greens one
–– A majority of Scots (52 per cent) are in favour of more devolved powers for their Parliament. Just over one in four (27 per cent) backed full independence
–– On the constituency or first-past-the-post vote, the SNP is on 38 per cent; Labour 28; Lib Dems 15; Tories 14; others 6 In the proportional representation section, the SNP is on 35 per cent; Labour 30; Lib Dems 14; Tories 14
Source: www.populuslimited.com
I thought this might interest some of the Canadian Scotland-haters on here:
The long and enduring relationship between Scotland and Canada
“The bonds that tie Scotland and Canada are very strong. There are over four million Canadians who can claim Scots ancestry. Canada’s first Prime Minister, Sir John A Macdonald was a Scot. And many of Canada’s place names, from Renfrew to Bannockburn, have their roots in Scotland.
“Indeed Scots have been making the journey to Canada for over 400 years, helping to shape your history, and your future too.
“Tales of the ancient nation of Scotland - with its misty mountains and glens, and tales of courage and enterprise, are famous the world over.
“But what is not so well known is the story of modern Fresh Talent brings new opportunities Scotland, a confident 21st century country, proud of its traditions, but looking forward to an exciting future. Six years ago Scotland underwent its biggest constitutional change for 300 years. The creation of the Scottish parliament has changed Scotland forever.
“We have a new spring in our step, and a renewed purpose to be strong business, cultural and educational links between and energy. Our young people are confident and ambitious for their country’s future, as well as for their own. the two countries. And they have a lot to be confident about.
“Just as Scotland helped build the modern world, through thinkers such as Adam Smith and David Hume, and inventions such as the telephone and penicillin, then Scotland today is helping to shape our 21st century world.
“In recent years we have give the world the MRI scanner and the ATM machine and we hope to play our part in discovering cures for cancer.
“The foundation stones of our country - our education and legal systems and banking and financial services - are trusted and valued across the world, from China to Sub-Saharan Africa.
“We are home to one of Europe’s biggest life sciences clusters, and our universities publish more academic papers than any other OECD country. We still have some of the world’s most stunning landscapes and our are cities are regarded as some of the most lively and dynamic in Europe.
“As we look forward to the future with confidence, we want to renew old relationships here in Canada and build new ones. We want to develop closer business ties, building on the success of Scottish companies such as the Wood Group here in Canada, and encouraging Canadian companies to follow the example of Mitel and Endpoint and contribute to our growth.
“And we want to strengthen friendships, encouraging our young people to travel across the Atlantic - Scots learning from Canada and Canadians learning from Scotland.
“Above all else we look forward to a further 400 years of friendship with Canada - the country many Scots call home.”
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/News-Extras/scotcanada
The position of the Scots and Scots-Irish who are bastions of Conservatism, Patriotism, Religiosity and success here in the U.S. as compared to the Socialist dregs of modern Sotland speaks for itself.
My, my, you English do go on and on.
Who’s English?
You must lack something if you feel you have to jump into a debate just to insult. LOL
""Britain fought for two years against tyranny alone""
... then replace "hysterical" with "rightly appalled".
So have you given up on the original debate and just want to search through my posts to get hysterical at something not said?
Don’t go over the edge. I would rather say sorry than get you so emotional.
British, English, Scottish, Americans - they’re all Anglo-Saxons to me.
Scots are not Anglo-Saxon, but if you want to change history and genetics that is fine by me.
As long as I can call you German.
Continuing to deny what you plainly said - a claim Britain had no Allies, who thus suffered no casualties, for 2 years during WW2 - as well as your name-calling & general belligerent attitude right from the outset, puts you well beyond any hope whatsoever of not being considered a Troll & treated as one.
Die Franken? Or the Flemish? Well, they were certainly Germanic. But that is long, long ago. And anyway you speak English, and language is the dominant feature of any culture which distinguishes it from all the others. The French don’t speak German. And you have the English Queen. Normandie is not represented in the Bundestag. France and Germany are not as far apart as history has made them out to be, but to an outsider, the difference is clear. No doubt the Bretons are not Provencale, or vice-versa, and the Scottish are not Saxons, but Breton and and Provencale and Alsacien are all French, and English and Scottish are all Anglo-Saxons: common language, common country, common Queen, common government, common concepts of law (if not the same laws).
The Breton are Celts, but they’re French.
The Scottish are Celts, but they’re Anglo-Saxons.
This was all caused by you calling the people of Scotland, Ireland and Ukraine the “dregs”.
You have deliberately tried to avoid this and attempted to obsessively search my past posts to find something to be hysterically offended about. You have embarrassed yourself in front of your fellow Canadians and are now trying to deflect that embarrassment.
I hope in future posts you will refrain from being so obsessive and leave me alone.
Best Wishes, Jack.
How can you be a Celt and an Anglo-Saxon? That is just impossible. An Anglo-Saxon or Celt is a genetic difference, not one of nationality.
As for the British Monarchy, the first British Monarch was not from the English throne, but was the King of Scots. It was the Scottish King who took the English throne and united both crowns, not the other way about.
On speaking English, the Irish speak English, but they are not Anglo-Saxon either. You also speak English - does that mean you are Anglo-Saxon too?
Scotland and England have completely different legal systems, so your shared law part is wrong as well. Britain has two completely different legal systems - Scots Law and English Common Law.
We also have completely different religious and education systems.
I am sorry but because you are not sure of these things doesn’t make them any less factual.
Would you please stop following my posts to others so you can insult me. This obsessiveness against me is not pleasant.
A little disappointing, my crazy, alcohol-loving ancestors. My Grandfather Angus....Obnoxious warfighters, though. Ladies from Hell.
You wrote: “How can you be a Celt and an Anglo-Saxon? That is just impossible. An Anglo-Saxon or Celt is a genetic difference, not one of nationality.”
Who says it is a genetic difference? Anglo-Saxon culture doesn’t run in genes. There was recently a study that said most people in England are predominantly Celtic in origin. So, they speak English (like the Welsh, Irish and Scottish), and perhaps a bit more of the German “leavening” (but then, there is a lot of Scandinavian genetics in both the Scots, especially in the North of Scotland), but still Celts, if one speaks of genetic markers. For that matter, the French are still predominantly Celtic, in the northern half of the country (Langue d’oil) anyway, Alsace and Flanders excepted, perhaps. “Nos ancetres les Gaulois” really ARE, for the most part, our ancestors, and they’re the ancestors of the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish too. So, at least in a genetic sense, we’re all one big happy semi-Celtic northwestern European gemutlichkeit. For that matter, the tribe for which the Teutons got their name, the Teutones, who harrassed the Romans in the first century or so, were living in the southern part of what the Romans called Germania (in what is called Swabia today) and so points north were named after then “Teutonic” by the influence of classical scholars, but the actual Teutones from which the Teutons got their name, were Celts, and not “Teutons” at all.
Celt is the catch-all race for the West of Europe. It’s what was there BEFORE the influx of Scandinavians from the North, Germans from the East, etc. Italians, or rather Romans, for that matter, are probably “Yugo-Celts”. Latin’s closest linguistic relative was ancient Gaulish.
So, what’s a Celt? It’s European ethnic soupstock. It’s the base broth that you toss the rest of the ingredients in...various folks from the East. Did the Celts come from the East? Who knows? Well, actually, of course we know, because Western Europe was under a hundred feet of ice a hundred thousand years ago, so clearly the Celts walked in from the South and East. They didn’t spring forth from the soil!
Were they the FIRST to walk in? Who knows. Were Firbolgs Celts? Basques aren’t, but who was there first? Nobody really knows. Everybody in the British Isles who isn’t a recent arrival from the Empire is a Celt in some degree or other. Scottish and Irish, of course, are less mixed...more soupstock broth, less chunks. But there ain’t been a “purebred” in Europe since, well, ever (ethnic manias of the 19th and early 20th Century not-withstanding).
So, what makes Anglo-Saxons distinctive, such that Scottish, Irish, Welsh, English, Canadians (outside of Quebec), Americans, Australians, New Zealanders, Falkland Islanders and (some) South Africans clearly are? Language is first, but it’s not enough. Ugandans speak English, but they’re not Anglo-Saxons.
Government and ethnicity are very tertiary: Americans have no Queen, but they’re clearly Anglo-Saxons (most of them anyway).
Anglo-Saxons recognize each other as sharing something in common. Language is a key, but there is a kinship that goes beyond that. They can always be expected to hang together on the same side of just about everything, and appreciate each other as somehow kin, in a way that, for example, common Celt-hood does not cause the Scots and French to recognize each other as kin, common civil law systems don’t cause French and Scots to see each other as kin, and common language doesn’t cause Scots and black Zimbabweans to see each other as kin.
Certainly everybody ELSE in the world sees this Anglo-Saxonism. Perhaps it is like the glue that makes Catholics one like another, even though one may be Filipino, one may be Irish and one may be Mexican. It’s not a race or a genetic thing, but a meta-culture.
As for the British Monarchy, the first British Monarch was not from the English throne, but was the King of Scots. It was the Scottish King who took the English throne and united both crowns, not the other way about.
On speaking English, the Irish speak English, but they are not Anglo-Saxon either. You also speak English - does that mean you are Anglo-Saxon too?
Scotland and England have completely different legal systems, so your shared law part is wrong as well. Britain has two completely different legal systems - Scots Law and English Common Law.
We also have completely different religious and education systems.
I am sorry but because you are not sure of these things doesn’t make them any less factual.
I suppose your obsessive web-stalking is a compliment that you want to continue communicating with me.
But, again I ask you nicely can you please stop posting insults at me on FR and leave me in peace. It is quite disturbing that you are searching my posts to be offended at something I didn’t say.
Keep away from me. Thank-you.
Whats wrong , Jack, as a self proclaimed Scot, are you just beginning to realize what American Scots truly are?
We eat your type for breakfast and $hit you out by nightfall.
BTW, you are always welcome to journey over here and retrieve some backbone and tenacity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.