AS a nation our identity is under threat on several sides and is faced with a relentless march towards absorption into a British national identity. It could be said that the deracination of Scotland continues apace. It brings to mind the response to McDuff in Shakespeare’s Macbeth when he asks: “Stands Scotland where it did?”; Ross: “Alas, poor country! Almost afraid to know itself.”
At the most basic level Scotland struggles to assert its identity. We are one part of a supposed Union of four equals. This Union may have started as a trade agreement or economic and military alliance against the ambitions of our European neighbours, and it may have been facilitated through the bribing of our landed gentry in the aftermath of the Darien disaster. After a series of unsuccessful Jacobite uprisings, a reluctant acceptance of the reality developed into what has now become a fully incorporating Union.
Within this Union there is little of partnership between the four nations. No matter how we vote, Scotland gets what England wants because it boils down to the arithmetic and numbers: the democratic deficit. Some might say that we have devolution but that was a long struggle and we should be mindful that “power devolved is power retained”.
This is confirmed in Westminster’s response to Holyrood regarding another referendum – “Now is not the time”. Further evidence is shown by Theresa May’s complete disregard of the Scottish Government paper Scotland’s Place in Europe. When it comes down to the Brexit negotiations it is conveniently forgotten that Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain; we have been subsumed into England without any requirement being given to separate consideration and consultation. At the risk of being tedious I would mention the “re-interpretation” of the Sewel Convention and the arrogant proposal to use Henry VIII powers in Westminster’s power grab. A bit rich, since Henry predates even the Union of Crowns!
What are we to make of EVEL on the one hand and the ability of English MPs on the other hand to be involved in Scottish Affairs session at Parliament? If Scotland has its own legal system, why was it necessary to defer to the UK Supreme Court on the recent minimum unit pricing case? I am sure we can all think of situations where Scotland is minimised and disrespected.
At the more symbolic level readers will be well aware of the ongoing Save Our Scotland Brand campaign. I have been toiling on this matter for the best part of a year now but my impression is we are only having minor victories. All the supermarkets are guilty. I have complained to all these shops with different reactions. What has become abundantly obvious is the recent explosion and proliferation of Union flags – not exactly what we wanted. Perhaps we need to change our targets. I am thinking of a well-known potato producer with its headquarters in Scotland. Its products are sold all over UK and their potatoes – grown in Fife, Angus, etc – are adorned with the Union flag and country of origin assigned as UK. Are such sources the real target?
For me the most annoying example of the denial of my identity is the imposition of the Union flag on my driving licence. I only became aware of this when I had to renew my licence on reaching the age of 70 and have been engaged in disputes with the DVLA ever since.
I am told that since July 2015 the Union flag has been introduced in order “to support national identity”, and that it would be cost prohibitive to have separate flags and that no consultation was necessary as there was no legislative change. When I moved to step two of their complaints procedure I used the argument that in the age of digital printing it seems most unlikely there would be significant additional costs in printing four different flags. In response to the DVLA’s aim of supporting “the UK’s sense of national identity” I replied that I am Scottish and my flag is the Saltire and if I cannot have this I wanted the Union flag removed. In support I quoted the references to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). In particular I used the provisions “Everyone has the right to a nationality” and “No-one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality”.
The DVLA inform me I must have the Union flag and that they do not believe my human rights have been affected. It does not change the fact that I have been arbitrarily denied my nationality, so my fight will continue.
JF Davidson
Bonnyrigg
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