Nationalism the fashionable form of government

Like most British people, my grandchildren have Scots, English, Welsh and Irish antecedents, so it is hardly surprising that so many British families are against the break up of our country.

I was born and brought up in Scotland but now live in England. Why should I have to produce a passport to drive from Car;lisle to Gretna? The separatists want to make us foreigners in our own country.

I get all that, paddyann - my point is not that people don't feel that way, as it's clear that many do - but to ask why it happens.

To go back to the 9th century, the king of the Scots would be fighting with the king of Northumbria and both of them would fight with the other kingdom on the borders, that took up parts of what are now Scotland and England - Benicia?

Who knows why? Territorialism, probably. There would be gains and losses over the years, and some ancient families will have lost and gained land and titles as a result. The vast majority of people would have had enough to do staying alive and feeding themselves without being bothered about who owned which bits of the land that they paid rent on. One king would be much like another, and probably none of them would be benevolent rulers - they were all thugs, really (on all sides).

Also, people have always come and gone over the various borders, which haven't been static anyway, so very many people are 'pure' English/Scots/Welsh/Irish anyway. I am technically English, but have Scots and Irish ancestors that I know of, (and maybe all sorts of others If I could go back to the 9th century) and many, if not most people on this tiny island will be similarly 'mixed'.

The bit that I find difficult to understand is that all these years later, people still bear allegiance to the old boundaries, and I wonder why.

I do hope someone tells all those ancient kingdoms that "nationalism" is a new fashion....lolThe Scottish flag has been in use since the mid 9th centuryand I'm fairly sure there are lots of others who have been independent countries for many centuries .
Our "nationalism" has been around since the union took place ,there were riots on the streets when people learned of the treachery of being handed over to our neighbour and long time enemy .
There have been ongoing campaigns over the centuries ,with Scottish Independence being in the first mandate of the Labour party led by Keir Hardie,the first Scottish National MP followed when Robert Bontine Cunningham Graham who was Hardies deputy left and formed the new National Party of Scotland .
Its not "fashionable" its whats right for us .
If its not what peoplewant why have the SNP just won their 13th election in a row..with an increased majority 20 more seats .A remarkable feat even mentioned on the biased BEEB

I'll forgive your ahistorical statement, Callistemon because it's fairly amusing...

I think you'll find that we went on being little tribes for quite some time after the Romans left us. We even acquired a few more tribes from overseas...

What did the Romans ever do for us?

Superfluous ' there

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.

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.

Apologies for repeating what volver had already clarified.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

grandtanteJe55

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

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.

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.

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.

Yammy Aye Richt

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.

Yes. Of course you did.

That's why you capitalised it.