Brexit

[Augustus]

That seems an odd point. Such as, if Irish reunification and Scottish independence happen it will be because of a sense of nationalism and righting centuries of wrongs done to those nations. In fact most places that have been colonized, invaded and occupied, and had their very cultural foundations robbed of them resort to nationalism as a means to unite and fight against the oppressors.

It's funny that Scottish nationalism is seen as an overwhelmingly positive force, and that asserting a largely mythicised past in order to break away from a voluntary political union supported by around half of the population is noble and progressive.

On the other hand, English nationalism, based on an equally mythicised past, in order to break away from a voluntary political union supported by around half of the population is seen as entirely negative and regressive.

 

[LuisDantas]

Globalisation is 2 things, one unavoidable, the other very much avoidable.

Technological globalisation is unavoidable, as communication and transport techs will always make the world smaller.

Political globalisation is simply the result of governmental decisions to make a country more integrated int global markets and open a country up to FDI, immigration, etc.

I don't see how anyone can look at the past couple of years with covid, supply chain crises, the blockage of the Suez canal, Ukraine War and over-reliance on countries like China and Russia for essential products and resources and not be concerned about the over-integration of the global economy.

Global efficiency comes at the expense of global fragility, and some degree of de-globalisation is necessary to reduce systemic risk.

Of course there is a balance to be reached, but an over-optimised global economy will sooner or later lead to disaster. What is most efficient when everything is working properly, can easily collapse with a couple of adverse events.

I guess I don't use quite the same concept of globalization that you do.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's funny that Scottish nationalism is seen as an overwhelmingly positive force, and that asserting a largely mythicised past in order to break away from a voluntary political union supported by around half of the population is noble and progressive.

On the other hand, English nationalism, based on an equally mythicised past, in order to break away from a voluntary political union supported by around half of the population is seen as entirely negative and regressive.

It is really easy to explain, and has been. Repeatedly.

 

[Augustus]

I guess I don't use quite the same concept of globalization that you do.

How do you use it then?

It is really easy to explain, and has been. Repeatedly.

Usually by people who have never so much as set foot in Scotland, but have watched Braveheart and are easily fooled by the mythology.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's funny that Scottish nationalism is seen as an overwhelmingly positive force, and that asserting a largely mythicised past in order to break away from a voluntary political union supported by around half of the population is noble and progressive.

On the other hand, English nationalism, based on an equally mythicised past, in order to break away from a voluntary political union supported by around half of the population is seen as entirely negative and regressive.

Mythicized past? One of the lesser things the English did the Scots was to ban the Kilt, and that happened after Scotland was in the UK. Robert the Bruce did lead the first war for Scottish Independence.
And it's not just long ago, but historically because of what England did as late as the 1990s there was violence in Ireland due to centuries of repression and deliberate interfering in Ireland (such as discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland where the English historically gave preferred treatment to Protestants). Border disputes between Northumbria and Scots over a thousand years ago or Catholics vs Protestants 30 years ago, there's nothing mythical about the claim England has **** on the Briton and Irish Celts for so long they were doing it before it was even formally known as Angleland. And the prejudice continued for a very long time.
"But I am haunted by the human chimpanzees I saw along that hundred miles of horrible country. I don’t believe they are our fault, I believe that there are not only more of them than of old, but that they are happier, better, more comfortably fed and lodged under our rule than they ever were. But to see white chimpanzees is dreadful; if they were black, one would not feel it so much, but their skins, except where tanned by exposure, are as white as ours.
-Charles Kingsley, 19th Century English Wanker writing about the Irish.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And of course Anglo-Saxon apologetics excuse and doubt and deny they **** all over world, and even deny the prejudice spilled over into the New World.
But the "Myth of No Irish Need Apply" is itself a myth.
Teen Debunks Professor’s Claim That Anti-Irish Signs Never Existed

 

[LuisDantas]

How do you use it then?

Globalization is acknowledgement of how fictional national frontiers are, and accepting the duties (and benefits) that result.

I'm sort of radical on that regard. I try very hard not to treat nations as if they were real entities.

For the purposes of this thread, that means that the convenience of access to benefits such as Erasmus and the Single Market is plenty reason enough for Scotland to have a right to pursue membership in the EU. And if the UK is an obstacle, that means that Scotland has a moral right or even a duty to pursue separation from it.

It probably helps that there is such a bloody history to encourage the Scottish, of course.

Similarly, Brexit is an act of pride and propaganda with no benefit for anyone. Therefore it deserves no respect. Simple as that.

Usually by people who have never so much as set foot in Scotland, but have watched Braveheart and are easily fooled by the mythology.

If you do not want to listen, don't hint otherwise.

 

[Augustus]

Mythicized past? One of the lesser things the English did the Scots was to ban the Kilt, and that happened after Scotland was in the UK. Robert the Bruce did lead the first war for Scottish Independence.

Robert de Brus was an Anglo-Norman aristocrat, with lands on both side of the border, who cared mostly about his own personal power, not some proto-nationalist "Scottish independence" a la Braveheart. William Wallace conducted some of the most brutal raids on English civilians. These were not "good" people simply because they fought against a bunch of other equally violent noblemen.

Also the Dress Act was very much in the aftermath of a Jacobite Army invading England who also encouraging a French invasion of England and very nearly succeeded. It was hardly the most significant thing that happened in the highlands after that either, even though any regime would have to take some steps to prevent future rebellion, Cumberland's "pacification" of the highlands was considered excessive even by the standards of the day.

Also, if we are going to engage in rampant presentism whereby we try to anachronistically fit the past into our modern prejudices, we can say Bonnie Prince Charlie, as a believer in Divine Right wanted to roll back the democratic reforms and so was a "baddie". That's how it works, isn't it?

Border disputes between Northumbria and Scots over a thousand years ago or Catholics vs Protestants 30 years ago, there's nothing mythical about the claim England has **** on the Briton and Irish Celts for so long they were doing it before it was even formally known as Angleland. And the prejudice continued for a very long time.

This is exactly the kind of mythology that takes some modern political entities and reifies them in the past.

"England" was oppressing "Scotland" before either actually existed?

Much of what is now Lowland and Border Scotland was part of Northumbria, or Strathclyde or some other Kingdom that wasn't "Scotland". "Scotland" was really several different cultures that were eventually united by conquest and later on became Scotland. Your beloved "Celts" (a modern myth, not a meaningful historical people) violently eradicated Brittonic culture from Scotland, not the English. The "Celts" were imperialists and colonisers too.

The idea that everything that is now Scotland has some intrinsic "Scottishness" that has existed since time immemorial is entirely mythical. It was a product of conquest and violence, a bit like England.

Both "Ireland" and "Scotland" have long traditions of raiding, thieving, raping, and slaving in England, but this tends to be overlooked in favour of some fanciful notion that they were a brave band of freedom loving warrior-poets who desired peace but were unfairly oppressed. It was a load of violent rich folk fighting over who had the biggest ****.

All sides were brutal, engaged in atrocities and saw violence as a legitimate tool for expanding power both internally and externally. All sides were a serious threat to each other too. So they fought, because that's what people did in such circumstances.

England was invaded by Normans. Ireland was invaded by Anglo-Normans. Scotland was ruled by Anglo-Normans, after "Celts" had conquered non-"Celtic" people. The North of England suffered the worst of it, yet for some reason this is all "England" oppressing the "Britons and Celts".

That people were neatly divided into "goodies" and "baddies" whose politics align with our modern fancies, especially those of the American diaspora, is very much mythical.

Braveheart and Bonnie Prince Charlie kitsch shortbread box nationalism is not a modern and progressive force any more than Little Englander nationalism is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Braveheart

That's your problem there is you apparently think I'm taking everything as fact and basing my entire argument on a botched Mel Brooks flick that couldn't even get the time frame for highland face paint and kilts right.

England was invaded by Normans. Ireland was invaded by Anglo-Normans. Scotland was ruled by Anglo-Normans, after "Celts" had conquered non-"Celtic" people. The North of England suffered the worst of it, yet for some reason this is all "England" oppressing the "Britons and Celts".

Did I mention the Norman Invasion? I've been talking about England and the Anglo-Saxons.

The idea that everything that is now Scotland has some intrinsic "Scottishness" that has existed since time immemorial is entirely mythical. It was a product of conquest and violence, a bit like England.

a modern myth, not a meaningful historical people)

Yes, the Celts were very much a historic people, much like the Germanic tribes that included the Angles and the Saxons.

Robert de Brus was an Anglo-Norman aristocrat, with lands on both side of the border, who cared mostly about his own personal power, not some proto-nationalist "Scottish independence" a la Braveheart. William Wallace conducted some of the most brutal raids on English civilians. These were not "good" people simply because they fought against a bunch of other equally violent noblemen.

What rebellions are peaceful? Edward expected the Scots to kiss his *** and a rebellion formed over it.
And I'll ask, when the Great Heathen Army invaded, were those fighting against them "not 'good'" people" for attacking settlements that the invaders established? Like when the Irish drove the House of Ivar from Dublin? Did that make them bad people?

 

[RestlessSoul]

This might be a good point at which to point out that while the English, Scots, Irish, Welsh, French, Dutch, Danes, Germans etc have been fighting each other for over a thousand years, they have also been intermarrying, mixing peacefully, and contributing positively to each other’s culture. I doubt there are many Irish (or Scottish) families who do not have some English relatives, and vice versa.

 

[Augustus]

If you do not want to listen, don't hint otherwise.

You seem to misunderstand.

I don't think that people who have never so much as set foot in my country and seem to be basing their opinions on having watched Braveheart twice have a more nuanced and realistic view of a complex cultural phenomenon than someone who actually grew up in that particular culture.

People who think Scottish nationalism is overwhelmingly a rational, noble and progressive movement are delusional. Show me any nationalism that doesn't have a mythicised, regressive, bigoted and prejudiced side to it.

But we need a simple "good guys" and "bad guys" narrative, so English nationalism and opposition to EU = bad and regressive, but Scottish nationalism and opposition to the union = good and progressive.

There are certainly many arguments in favour of Scottish independence, but they are pretty similar to the arguments in favour of Britain leaving the EU, and the arguments against are pretty similar too.

But if you don't want to listen, don't hint otherwise

 

[Augustus]

Did I mention the Norman Invasion? I've been talking about England and the Anglo-Saxons.

You mean before Scotland actually existed and Britain was full of different warring kingdoms who all engaged in offensive wars and raids?

Why would this be evidence of some nefarious "Englishness"?

Many of the "Lowland Scots" were as "Anglo-Saxon" as the "Northern English". The border tended to divide these people, it wasn't some demarcation of "Celts" and "Anglo-Saxons".

What rebellions are peaceful? Edward expected the Scots to kiss his *** and a rebellion formed over it.

No more than Robert expected the Scots to kiss his arse.

When 2 rich Anglo-Norman noblemen fight over which of them gets to be king, they are rarely doing it for the good of the people.

And I'll ask, when the Great Heathen Army invaded, were those fighting against them "not 'good'" people" for attacking settlements that the invaders established? Like when the Irish drove the House of Ivar from Dublin? Did that make them bad people?

They were largely peas from a pod.

Holding one side up as noble and the other as oppressive and cruel is the problem.

 

[Augustus]

Did I mention the Norman Invasion? I've been talking about England and the Anglo-Saxons.

Also, why not talk about an "Irish" invasion, given those who conquered Scotland were seen as Irish, and they conquered the Brittonic, Pictish and Anglo-Saxon residents of "Scotland". Only by anachronistically melding them together into "Celts" does it fit the preferred good guys and bad guys narrative. It was the "right kind" of aggressive imperialism.


As Keith Stringer has perceptively observed "one of the most fundamental - if inconvenient points about Britain's medieval foundations is that there were two powerful core areas seeking to absorb peripheral regions."

Patrick Wormald emphasised how England was not the logical outcome of a natural process, but was created by conquest, the same is essentially true of Scotland as well, though beginning with a much smaller core area extending almost from the Forth in the south to the Spey in the north and the Grampians in the west.

Scotland's early history was different from England's however... as the idea of 'the Scottish people' did not precede the expansion of royal control - as the idea of 'the English people' was able to underpin the creation of an English state.

An equivalent notion of Scottish ethnicity only emerged rather late in the day - probably as late as c.1300.

When did Scotland become Scotland - Dauvit Broun

 

[Yerda]

You fail to see the importance of rampant propaganda in the English media regarding the EU.

And immigration.

Like Rival has said, most people had made their minds up before the campaign. The UK media treatment of immigration issues and freedom of movement combined with the relatively higher levels of asylum seekers coming into the EU from the wars in the Middle East created a lot of fear, anger and frankly hysterical resentment.

For decades our most widely circulated papers and most popular online news sites have been publishing negative stories about immigrants and immigration. How 'they' are coming here and taking our things. Being given unfair advantages. Bringing crime and disease. And then later, raping 'our' women.

In the two years before the referendum the number of immigration stories in the print media roughly doubled. Editorialising about how our communities couldn't handle it. Our schools were over run. Our hospitals creaking under the strain. Housing depleted. In those two years immigration moved from being the main preoccupation of the racists to the primary concern of the UK public. Peaking right at the time of referendum. It is worth noting that immigration is still higher now than for most of UK history. Yet as the media scare stories have decreased so also has public concern on the issue.

It's funny that Scottish nationalism is seen as an overwhelmingly positive force, and that asserting a largely mythicised past in order to break away from a voluntary political union supported by around half of the population is noble and progressive.

On the other hand, English nationalism, based on an equally mythicised past, in order to break away from a voluntary political union supported by around half of the population is seen as entirely negative and regressive.

English nationalism has mostly been taken over (colonised, to speak) by the racist lunatics. Scottish nationalism has been dominated by moderates for decades and the "kilt and claymore" types are seen as a joke fringe.

This feels particularly unfair given England's rich history of egalitarianism, tolerance and charity while Scotland was a violent backwards madhouse for most of its history.

 

[England my lionheart]

And of course Anglo-Saxon apologetics excuse and doubt and deny they **** all over world, and even deny the prejudice spilled over into the New World.
But the "Myth of No Irish Need Apply" is itself a myth.
Teen Debunks Professor’s Claim That Anti-Irish Signs Never Existed

There is no doubt whatever that many many crimes were committed in our group of islands in the past,not only our islands but a sizeable part of the world but the people who committed them are long gone,you cannot influence the future by regurgitating history,if you do you have already failed imo.

The “troubles in Ireland” as they are apt to be called,and to the disappointment of many was and even still is religion and the base of division which is sad but I still see north and southern Irish as British,we are of mixed blood,English Welsh Irish and Scottish mixed with Anglo Saxon Celts Norman (basically Viking) and Scandinavian,the Geats too,although an interesting past it is just that.