Nationalism the fashionable form of government

On matters London-centric... hate to mention the loathsome Rees-Mogg but remember his little recent stunt when he went into a Whitehall office and left a snide card saying sorry to have missed you. It was an attempt to further divide the nation and for civil servants who are working from home to be derided.

I know any number of people who are successfully working from home, for major private companies, and this would not be happening if said companies were not happy with productivity or the bottom line.

I was recently in Somerset and met a young professional woman who was WFH in a job that she started during Lockdown - she said that previously this role would not have been done from home, for no other reason that it never was done from home, in that company. She goes to London HQ a couple of times a month and in a role that wouldn't be out-sourced to India.

If employees, public or private sector, can do their job from home then why not - it would open up careers for many people from outside London and the SE and go some way to levelling-up and the feeling that those furthest from London are alienated from those that govern us.

Good post Granny23 11:34.

Whitewavemark2

I have always thought that countries do better forming a union of some sort than going at it alone.

There is strength in unity.

I do however respect the democratic process however and therein lies the conundrum.

Entitled as you are to your opinion, I would respectfully suggest that whether a country does better or worse as part of a union depends on the union.

Scotland is, I believe, the only country in the world, whose king upon inheriting another kingdom, upped sticks and moved himself and his advisors to the other country's capital, as James VI did in 1603. A century or so later a group of politicians, stigmatised by, I think ,Rabbie Burns as "sich a parcel of rogues in a nation" dissolved Scotland's parliament and moved cosily into the English parliament at Westminster.

Since that happen, Scotland has basically had a raw deal- the Scots being welcome to fight and die for the U.K. but having had to put up with the majority of MPs governing the union knowning nowt and caring less about Scotland, and have been the butt of English scorn and contempt to boot.

Probably most Scots, opting for independence, feel like the auld wife of Glasgow who contemplating hard times said "Dinna worry aboot us - we will be all right: we're Clyde-built."

And dare I say it? Sein Fein winning votes in Ulster is presumably a direct result of Brexit!

You can't even agree amongst yourselves. When I said Cranky I meant cranky not The Krankies.

Yes. Of course you did.

That's why you capitalised it.

paddyann54

Apparently notCallistemon look at the comments about Scots and Scotland and you can clearly see the attitude toward all things Scottish...well all things pertaining to Scotland as anything but a region of England which we are not and never have been .

paddyann as English schoolgirls a group of us had a fascination with all things Scottish, we even made ourselves little badges shaped like bagpipes and formed a clan.

Yammy Aye Richt

Paddyann54 that is rather a sweeping statement regarding what the English think of all things Scottish

I and many others I know, love Scotland, along with its food and a penchant for a wee dram.

volver

Yes. Of course you did.

That's why you capitalised it.

You can't stop yourself can you always got to rise to the goad. They call it a Crankie because they think she is a crank with cranky ideas.

No Yammy, you're wrong.

People use that name against Sturgeon because she is a short Scottish woman and they are comparing her with a comic character. Its sexist and its misogynist. If your Aberdonian family truly think as you say, they need to buck their ideas up a bit and understand what they have been fooled into.

grandtanteJe55

I refer you to my earlier post with voting results in N Ireland.

I understand that Scotland (and Wales, and Northumbria and Mercia and Cornwall) were separate from England until 400 years ago, but that doesn't really get to the root of what I am saying, which is that borders were artificially created as a result of gang fights, yet people remain fiercely loyal to their own gang, even centuries after the people who did the fighting have died, and I find it a bit difficult to understand. The borders between the territories aren't natural law either.

I'm not just talking about the UK - it happens everywhere.

Scotland - 300 years.

Wales - I'll let someone else explain. But more than 400 years.

The others are pre-medieval kingdoms, I think.

My gang find their character not from the people who died, or where the border lies, but from those who lived and made a country out of literature, education, attitudes and culture. All different to the other parts of the island of Britain.

Doodledog

I understand that Scotland (and Wales, and Northumbria and Mercia and Cornwall) were separate from England until 400 years ago, but that doesn't really get to the root of what I am saying, which is that borders were artificially created as a result of gang fights, yet people remain fiercely loyal to their own gang, even centuries after the people who did the fighting have died, and I find it a bit difficult to understand. The borders between the territories aren't natural law either.

I'm not just talking about the UK - it happens everywhere.

I understand what you're saying, Doodledog. I agree about borders not being 'natural law'. In fact, over the centuries whole countries changed hands because of marriage alliances as well as wars. But you can't ossify a county's governance structures because of past wars, marriage alliances or even old treaties.

If Scotland no longer wishes to be a country in a 'united' kingdom which is essentially ruled from Westminster to what it perceives to be its detriment, I can't see any compelling reason why it shouldn't be independent. Other countries managed it in the 20th C. They mostly achieved it through violent struggle, but in this day and age we could surely do it in a civilised fashion.

Wales was conquered by 1283 by Edward 1, who claimed it as part of England (!). It’s never worked like that in the minds of the Welsh of course, a stubborn lot.

(Can I just add, that this is a lovely civilised conversation)

Oh, I'm not saying that Scotland, or anywhere else, should be forced to stay as part of the UK (and neither was I calling the Scots a 'gang', as I hope was obvious). As I said, it's something that I find difficult to get my head around, and I was really just thinking aloud about why so much suffering, wars and violence happens because of artificial borders, and the thread is about nationalism.

As an aside, I thought the union between Scotland and England happened in 1606, which is more than 400 years ago? It's very far from being my area of expertise, though, so I'm not going to argue.

I wasn't offended by the gang comment, not at all Doodledog.

Its a fair comment you make about nationalism.

The Union of Parliaments between Scotland and England was in 1707. There was a Union of the Crowns in 1606, but in the intervening years Scotland was still an independent country with its own Parliament.

Over the years Ulster, Scotland and Wales have gained power and money - English have not and are the one form of nationalism despised by the other 3. We need to explain what the UNITED KINGDOM is, and to value the alliance of E/S/W. Ulster is part of a different island (in our group) so I think if a majority of those living on that island want their own government that is up to them. What we need is a good relationship with them

The kingdoms of Scotland and England were united under one crown because of James VI & I being descended from monarchs of both countries, but political union was 100 years or so later.

Apologies for repeating what volver had already clarified.

I think that believing that Ireland have a better claim to independence just because they are a different island to the rest of us plays right into the form of nationalism that DoodleDog is talking about. Conversely, just because two countries share an island that doesn't mean they have to be the same country, or even in a union with each other.

I don't despise anything English. Nothing. Except maybe Boris Johnson.

Doodledog

I understand that Scotland (and Wales, and Northumbria and Mercia and Cornwall) were separate from England until 400 years ago, but that doesn't really get to the root of what I am saying, which is that borders were artificially created as a result of gang fights, yet people remain fiercely loyal to their own gang, even centuries after the people who did the fighting have died, and I find it a bit difficult to understand. The borders between the territories aren't natural law either.

I'm not just talking about the UK - it happens everywhere.

We were all perfectly happy in our little tribes fighting each other until the Roman's arrived and started causing trouble.

Superfluous ' there

What did the Romans ever do for us?