I HAD always thought the British state originated in the 17th century AD with the Union of the Crowns, although arguably it was not secured until the defeat of the second Jacobite rebellion in the 18th century.
Imagine my surprise, therefore, when I heard on the BBC that in 3500 BC neolithic Orkney was “Britain’s” first capital!
This is the title chosen by the BBC for an otherwise excellent series, Britain’s Ancient Capital: Secrets of Orkney, about the remarkable excavations at the Ness of Brodgar showing the sophisticated structures being revealed there and how this culture spread southward.
Is there a department at the BBC that does nothing but add the word “Britain” to every possible programme, however misleading and inappropriate?
Whatever Orkney was in 3500 BC, and it was obviously a very important and influential place in the northern European neolithic world, it could not be the capital of a state that did not exist for another 5000 years!
So, another example of: “Is it true? Or did I just hear it on the BBC?”
Peter Craigie
Edinburgh
------------------------------------------------------------------
We can counter the lies of powerful anti-indy forces
THE article by international Customs consultants Bill Austin and Peter Henderson is a good example illustrating how we must be prepared to rebut the often false arguments of major anti-independence forces, such as the UK Government, as soon as they are voiced (It’s a smart border we need, not a hard one, The National, January 12).
We must not wait until the official indyref2 campaign commences.
It matters not whether a “hard” border would actually be required between England and Scotland; Theresa May will insist there will have to be one, simply to try to frighten Scottish voters into feeling their country will be “isolated”.
This is exactly the same kind of technique that was employed by Better Together when the then chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne “refused” Alex Salmond’s suggestion of a shared pound.
It also reminds me of the spurious arguments made by Tony Blair to the effect that Scotland would be “cutting itself off” by becoming independent. He was insulting not only our intelligence, but his own, as he knew it was perfect rubbish.
At that very time, when the Irish border was still one of the most contentious in Europe, I crossed by car from County Derry into the Republic, with no passports. True, we noticed a deserted British roadside gun post, but the only sign we were in a “foreign” country was the subtly different colour of the road markings and signposts in kilometres. Scotland with a hard border, while Ireland keeps its open frontier? Tommy rot! Mrs May is trying to hoodwink us, just like Mr Blair of old. How much longer are they going to go on with these tricks? We must rebut, rebut, rebut, on this and all other issues, till those most easily persuaded by Unionist fibbing come to understand our arguments.
Michael F Troon
Gauldry, Fife
SCOTTISH independence will never happen, they continue to tell us, mocking our plans while they have none of their own. “Support for independence plummets” announces the far-right press ecstatically, when one poll drops by a percentage point. We cannot afford it, apparently. And the EU doesn’t want us, they lecture.
It can at times feel frustrating, one step forward one step back. At such times, we need only take a look in the rear-view mirror to see how far we have come and how little we still need to go. It is not that long ago when the very idea of an independent Scotland was frankly farcical, present only in the secret dreams of the romantic.
In my youth, when I dreamed of independence, there were just two SNP MPs, and Labour had a monopoly. In Edinburgh of the 1980s, I took lonely walks past the seemingly haunted shell of the Old Royal High School.
I remembered hearing of wistful demands that our parliament be in the Signet Library itself. What parliament though? Politics was dreary, unconsensual, crushing. It was the era of Thatcherist arrogance and the economic dismembering of Scotland’s industry, of the poll tax and direct rule. Yet independence was not on the cards. Even devolution was out of reach. But little by little, step by step the journey inched forward. A Scottish Parliament was re-established and with it the first delicious sip of the waters of freedom.
Still, the consensus was that devolution would settle matters.
I never believed that. I believed it was a stepping stone to sovereignty.
In time, a pro-independence majority formed a Scottish Government. A decade or so earlier this very idea would have been revolutionary. When the indyef was announced, support for independence was quite low, as it always had been. The level of support grew with campaigning. Forty-five per cent of Scottish voters chose independence. It was a disappointment, of course. Yet that 45 per cent is unlikely to fall back much. Support for independence tends to work like a ratchet, with little offered by the Union to induce a change of heart.
To sum up, in my lifetime we have moved from a time when our proposed parliament building was sealed and empty, two SNP MPs and direct rule from London and support for independence peaking at the 30 per cent mark at best to a point where we are dispirited when a poll shows support dip under 45 per cent, when virtually every Scottish MP is pro-independence and when the Scottish Parliament has a pro-independence Government.
Now to the future. What lies ahead? A Scottish electorate whose appetite for independence grows with each new cohort of 16-year-olds, and is supplemented with EU citizens who now make Scotland their home. With each passing month the shambles of Brexit further erodes the allure of the Union, and each utterance of May and Davis rams home the message that Scotland is not going to be heard and must simply comply. I do not feel we are quite there, and I am reluctant to go into a second referendum without an overwhelming chance of victory. But when I feel impatient or dispirited, a quick look in the rear-view mirror is not a bad idea.
Andrew Reid Wildman
Loughton
IAN Greenhalgh’s excellent letter on “Britishness” should be compulsory reading for all seriously interested in making an objective decision in answering the question: “should Scotland be an independent country?” (Letters, January 13). If Ian has not already sent it to other newspapers I would encourage him to do so in the hope, perhaps forlorn, that they will publish it to at least maintain a semblance of the “impartiality” that some avow.
Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel