The Scottish Government

Show me the money!!!

I personally don't buy into all the sentimentalist, nationalist stuff. I think that the whole idea of nationalism is a fantasy. Think about it, supposedly there is a commonality of consciousness which is shared between individuals, capable of transcending time and space, based purely on the arbitrary fact of place of birth. This is the basis for speaking of "a nation" or "a nation's history". It is this assumption, that there is something fundamentally Scottish, inherited at birth by all persons born above Hadrian's wall and south of the Faroes (an arbitrarilly defined land mass) which lies at the heart of the Nationalist story/destiny. It is but one of a number of competing narratives on the history of human experiences, and I don't buy it.

Consciousness is formed by experience, and the ypes of experience to which an individual will be privy can be determined by many more factors than place of birth (such as religion, economic position, language). I mean not to deny that, generally, persons born in the same geographical space will share similar experiences. However, I am convinced that to assume that an individual should privilege the effect of those shared experiences on the formation of their consciousness is entirely arbitrary.

I share just as many experiences with "foreigners" as with "fellow Scots". For instance, I share a similare economic experience with German professionals. I share religious conviction with much of the Latin world. Am I not entitled to privilege my experiences with them above my "shared" geographical experience with a more wealthy Aberdonian, or a poorer Glawsegian?

The difference between my solidarity and feeling of belonging in these Communities, and the idea of the nation, is that the narrative of nationhood is linked to the Governance of the State. The Catholic Church doesn't have an army that can conscript me; there is no Association of Global Professionals which can throw me in prison.

So basically, and to return to the very first sentence at the top of the page, I am interested only in the economic and governmental aspects of this debate. None of this "The Great Scottish People" or "the proud Scottish Nation" gibberish for me. There will be no hoodwinking to fool me. Show me the money.

Show me the money...or alternatively a better form of government.

I Don't buy into the sentimentalist nationalist stuff to be honest. If we chanegd the named of the place to Narnia, or had a yellow flag with a zebra doing backflips, and a national anthem, written by my nine year old wee cousin I wouldn't care less if we had accountable government, and more money.

Personally, I think we're better off staying in the UK, haven't heard a convincing enough economic argument to the contrary. It doesn't mean I wrap myself in the flag and sing God Save the Queen at every opportunity...

When I was studying for my history degree, I started out by regarding many established historians as stuck-in-the-muds. But I gradually became aware that many are in fact willing to revise their views if new evidence comes to their attention. Being willing to revise your opinions in the light of new research seems, to me, the only scientific way to approach history. However, for some True Believers, revisionism is a sin. Andrew Hoolachan (1777) says "Nationalism is no other than a tactic of historical revisionism".

Did you know that it was Comrade Joseph Stalin who started the practice of denouncing "historical revisionism", Andrew? Are you deliberately following his example, or only by accident?

"the concept of the nation-state was only conceived gradually throughout the 18th century, after the union of 1707 has taken place" - complete and utter nonsense of course, but, nevertheless, your ability to quote straight from the editorial column of "Socalled Worker" is noted.

"The Southeast of England actually produces around 40% of the UK's entire GDP output per capital" - an alternative viewpoint would be that while some parts of the South East of England do actually produce a few things which amount to about three and a half percent of the UK's wealth, London itself has produced sweet Fanella Adams, but benefits from massive and literally uncounted government spending. The mere existence of wealth in a place does NOT prove that wealth is "produced" there.

In the course of regurgitating a rather ill-digested So-called Workers Party mish-mash, most of which isn’t even worth commenting on, Andrew Hoolachan (1777) says “Let us not also forget, that there are some 400'000 Scots like myself living in England” - why should you imagine that anybody forgets it, Andrew? “the vast majority of them in London” - yes, I spent around twenty four years of my life in England, about half of that time in London. “Many of these people leave Scotland to take advantage of greater opportunities” - look, Andrew, there are also several hundred thousand English people living in Scotland. In fact, they are our largest “ethnic minority”. And believe it or not, Andrew, the English in Scotland vote in much the same way as the native-born Scots: that is to say, roughly the same percentage of English people living in Scotland vote SNP as amongst the “natives”. How do you explain that, eh? How does THAT fit in with your indigestible SW Party Line? “Can we justify nationalism with such a diaspora?” - Andrew, your political party justifies independence for Ireland, and Ireland has a very widespread diaspora. So, how about regurgitating your party line on why one diaspora justifies independence, while the other does not? “having lived in London for some time” - so has everybody, Andrew, so has everybody. London doesn’t actually produce anything, apart from government, and bureaucracy, and work for those who service the government and the bureaucracy. I was a building worker, but even as a bricklayer I was building either offices or houses for bureaucrats. Maybe I should have stayed a bit longer, I could have worked on building the Millenium Dome. Or the new Olympics-related constructions. After all, there is always plenty of Government money being spent in London. London’s historic position as the capital of the United Kingdom, and therefore the capital of the British Empire, its continuing position as a centre of world banking, make it a place with money. And of course folk will go where there is money. This is a simple fact of life. “Right-wing politics in Europe takes a stronger hold on small towns and small countries” - I suppose I must have IMAGINED the London dockers marching in support of Enoch Powell. I suppose I must have IMAGINED having to join with others in physically preventing the National Front from marching through a racially-mixed area of Lewisham.

“As for this ‘National Conversation’… what a load of propaganda! How can we have objective platform for open debate when the hosts are Nationalists themselves?” - ! While I distrust politicians in general, I think Alex Salmond has proved he is more open to debate than Gordon Brown; the Scottish Parliament/Scottish Government has proved it is more open to debate than Westminster/Whitehall; and as for having an objective platform for open debate with your So-called Workers Party running things, they don’t even allow open debate amongst their own members!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#1791

So you admit I am right again!!!

Why would I learn a dead language like Gaelic any more than I would learn Greek or Latin?

Your command of the English allows you to check spelling errors but not grasp the basic argument. The Faroes broadcasts are in Faroese because the people who live there speak Faroese (100%)! Sorry if the logic is over your head. My basic language is Glaswegian but I prefer to communicate in a laguage that 99% of the population understand!! Even with spelling errors.

Why does no-one complain that you don't use your own name?

#1788. Faroes Statistics???? - Fife
Thursday, January 3, 2008 14:10

Just a thought, but had you taken Gaelic as a second language, even as a child, then it might've improved your command of English and other comprehension skills.
Przepraszam

1788. Faroes Statistics???? - Fife
Thursday, January 3, 2008 14:10


""I can teach anybody how to get what they want out of life.
The problem is I can't find anybody who can tell me what they want""
Mark Twain

""...Not holiday in some remote part of the country where the winds are so strong that trees cannot be grown...""

""...If its in a mess its because we Scots have ran it fir the best part the 300 years!...""
And you insist that you are Scottish!! or just that you habite en Methil?

Ahh I know, you're really Alex Salmond, in disguise or someone in cahoots with him, trying to make it look as though unionists are slow witted and mean spirited!

Do I get a prize for spotting you?

Btw as a kid at school if the option to study Gaelic had been there alongside French, Latin, Italian, Greek, Spanish, German and English, I would have taken the Gaelic.

I have since tried to compensate by indulging the occasional wee 12 bliadhna Poit Dhubh or Té Bheag nan Eilean, but apart from experiencing the warm Mac na Braiche glow I'm still no nearer joining the Gaeltach.

My whisky label Gaelic has however spared me from the attentions of persistant time share touts in Tenerife who never twigged that I was using pidgin gaelic to feign ignorance of the line they were trying to sell me.

Dobranoc

1788. Faroes Statistics???? - Fife
Seems a bit of a shame for those on the Hebrides where Gaelic is the native tongue, to dismiss it so lightly. I do business in the Western Isles, and find the humour in the Outer Hebrides very refreshing - as different from, say, West Coast humour as is the Fife humour. Perhaps an element of the Outer Hebridean humour is derived from the language, as much as from the goegraphy and people.

Wales now has 2 native languages, Belgium has 3, Switzerland 4 plus English. Why shouldn't Scotland have 2 or 3, and have those languages properly supported by the government? I'm trying to learn a little Gaelic - at least as much as to be able to say "hello", as I do business there, and it's part of Scotland, not of a foreign country.

If language were to be solely based on majority, then it's about time the whole planet learnt to speak Chinese, and maybe we should standardise on that.

An Indpendent Scotland should support its native tongues at least as much as the Westminster government does already.

#1785

There lies, damned lies then statistics, perhaps the SNP should remember that quote from Mark Twain.

The First minister claimed that the inclusion of Gaelic as a full time broadcasting medium when only 60,000 speakers were registered in Scotland was based on the premise that the Faroes Islands had TWO TV and TWO radio services when only 48,000 spoke the language! He did forget to state that 48,000 represents 100% of the population of the Faroes and it is their OFFICIAL language, a further 12,000 Faroe speakers live in DENMARK who administer them!

60,000 people represents around 1% of the population of Scotland and in land mass represents 100? x more in area than the Faroes.

'Scots' as a language has 25x more people who converse in this dialect, so why doesn't he push for that as well?

Could it be that not enough people are interested in displacing a language we ALL understand.

If you want to learn Gaelic then by all means do what every adult can do, who wants to converse in another language, PAY FOR IT. Spanish, French, German, Mandarin Chinese....., all available to help you to go on holiday or do business all over the world, where we Scots have already made our mark in a quite dramatic way. Not holiday in some remote part of the country where the winds are so strong that trees cannot be grown.

Who runs the country anyway? If its in a mess its because we Scots have ran it fir the best part the 300 years!

Alex at #1785
If that is indeed the sum total of your case then it isn't just resting my friend ....... it is dead.

ardnafearn at #1784
It will be interesting to see how many comments from the Scottish public the new Unionist Commission will allow.