There is growing support within Scotland for independence. As well as forecasting that the SNP will be the largest party with about one-third of the total vote, opinion polls show that more Scots favour independence than oppose it. One recent poll registered 52% support for full independence....
As long as the English and Scots saw each other as primarily British, members of the same national community, such things didn't matter. Once devolution emphasized the differences between them, however, the English began to resent these transfers as unfair. Fifty-nine per cent of English voters now support Scottish independence.
In my early days over at Brothersjudd, there was a lot of rage and resentment directed at Canada, and frequently I had to bite my virtual tongue in the face of splenetic posts and comments demanding the Marines finally fulfill the promise of Manifest Destiny, grab the limitless oil and shut the ungrateful whiners up. As leftist Canadians never stop musing darkly how the rapacious Yankee trader may move at any moment if we let our progressive guard down and cease wielding that big stick of soft power, it was all a little surreal for a pro-American Canadian conservative. But I soon learned I could relax. Dependably, by about the fifth comment, somebody would point out that would only result in twenty million more Democratic voters, and then where would they be? Plus they would have to pay for welfare in the Maritimes. And did they really want to import ten million frogs? I mean, c’mon man, press two for French!?
Among Orrin’s favourite maxims is “Any people that thinks of themselves as a nation is one”, which at times seems to translate into over-admiration for any disaffected nationalist with a bomb. What he doesn’t seem to acknowledge is how easy it all is in the modern West, where intellectual establishments seem to have lost any ability to rally for a whole greater than the sum of its parts, argue with inspiration against disaffected nationalism and warn minorities to pipe down if they know what’s good for them. Whether the issue is Scottish devolution, aboriginal self-government, immigration or the “burden” of Iraq, the zeitgeist seems to be driven by a compulsive and neurotic yearning to confess all manner of past sin and exploitation, bar the door and be left alone to enjoy ourselves. Slowly, we are abjuring any connection to or responsibility for “others” in our midst. More and more we even resent their presence, and if the only solution is to shrink the geographical or political limits of the midst, so be it. You don’t have to be a nostalgic imperialist to sense that is the hallmark of a tired, doubting civilization with very limited resiliency.
Not a problem for the Islamists.
4 comments:
Well, I think Orrin correctly contrasts transnational projects like the EU with the reality of people's desires: which is for smaller self-governing states with direct accountability.
Re: Scottish devolution. There is some speculation that complete Scottish independence is coming. I think it's a little way off yet, but what will really drive it is not the Scottish attitude, but the English attitude. It would be disastrous for Scotland, by the way.
All a nation needs is a sports team to root for. That's pretty much what nationalism is at the emotional level, a fan club, an identity group.
Rage directed at Canada? I deny the concept.
We don't always separate into different teams though. The different sports teams of the UK are all a matter of historical accident. In typical British style, it is completely irrational.
Remember, we are officially the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." ("Great Britain" comprises England, Scotland and Wales). Eire is obviously a separate nation. Now get a load of this!...
In football, we separate into England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Eire.
In the Olympics, we compete as the UK (obviously excluding Eire).
In Rugby Union, we normally compete as England, Scotland, Wales and, bizzarely, "Ireland" - which incoporates NI and Eire! Except every two years we all club together as the 'British Lions' to play New Zealand, Australia or South Africa - except that this INCLUDES Eire, so it's really the 'British and Irish Lions' (sic).
In Rugby League we normally compete as 'Great Britain', which is really a UK team, not just Great Britain, because NI players qualify!... Except at the Rugby League World Cup, when there aren't enough teams to go round, so we split down into England, Scotland etc again.
But cricket, as you might expect, is the most nonsensical of all.
The team called "England" is really a UK PLUS Eire team, because Scottish, Welsh and all Irish players can be in it. Except for the World Cup, when there are also seperate Scottish and Irish teams - but still Scots and Irishmen can play for 'England' against their fellow countrymen.
But to make matters yet more absurdly complicated, 'Scotland' and 'Ireland' (but not Wales) also play in some domestic cricket competitions, against other counties (Gloucestershire, Essex etc). But just like any other counties, these 'Scotland' and 'Ireland' teams can be made up of anybody who is British, plus two overseas players. So last season the 'Ireland' team briefly included two Pakistani internationals.
Personally, I love it.
Post a Comment