Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Threviel]

I think without the space for cultural and sporting expressions of Scottish and Welsh identity - which means that England needs to be England, as uncomfortable as some people find that - you'd force the question of the union a lot more strongly and probably a lot earlier. And I think sporting fans get it - the idea that they wave Scottish or English flags for one tournament and then change shirt into Team GB ones for the next. That's part of living in a multi-national state that I think sporting fans actually possibly get a little more than people who are snobbish about sport.

Interesting and you are probably correct. My impression is that scot/welsh as an identity in contrast to brit was more or less dead until the late 19th century when it was revived by the romantic movement. If football had given birth to team GB back then it would possibly have had a uniting force and you wouldn't have been annoyed a hundred years later.

Or the union would have broken up in the fifties, who knows.

[OttoVonBismarck]

There has been a decent bit of historical analysis that does link the Romantic era, the works of Walter Scott and such to a revival in Scottish identity. I think probably the case is often overstated, but it is fair to say the Romantic era did increase a declining cultural identity among the Scots.

I think it is relatively fair to say that the Lowland Scots, who comprise most of the population, were somewhat heavily Anglicized by the beginning of the 19th century--their distinct language is functionally extinct in terms of primary speakers, and I think only survives through deliberate efforts to give people a bit of exposure to it in school. Scottish Gaelic I think still has a few very small enclaves where it is spoken as a primary language. Welsh held on a little better as a language, but in terms of being people's primary language was largely dead by the 20th century--and was only revived through deliberate work of Welsh nationalists.

[Tamas]

But the country does itself no favors in making it clear to foreigners when it tries to promote the idea that it's all "Britain" but then fields confusing teams in international sport where most observers casually assume each team represents a distinct and separate country.

But they are distinct! Except they are not! Not sure what's so confusing...

[Sheilbh]

Interesting and you are probably correct. My impression is that scot/welsh as an identity in contrast to brit was more or less dead until the late 19th century when it was revived by the romantic movement. If football had given birth to team GB back then it would possibly have had a uniting force and you wouldn't have been annoyed a hundred years later.

I might well be very wrong and it could be my own experience tilting me on this

I'm not sure on Scottish/Welsh identity. I think in a way it's maybe an example of how identities aren't fixed but creations that shift over time. So while there wasn't Scottish or Welsh "nationalism" in the way we'd understand after the romantic revival, there were very distinctive churches that I think were core parts of Welsh and Scottish identity at that point - before the invention of "nationalism". The triggering event of the civil wars was a dual monarch trying to impose English-style worship on his Scottish church. In Wales you have a Tudor Welsh language Bible and Welsh liturgy - and in the 18th century huge spread of Methodism so Wales becomes a country of the chapel not the Church. Again I think that is a distinctive part of a "Welshness" before Welsh nationalism or language revival.

And there's a class angle - of course But, you know, what became symbols of Welshness and Scottishness - the language, traditional dress, in Scotland the dances etc - were culturally parts of more backward, isolated, rural communities that were then re-appropriated by the middle class and elites as ways of expressing their identity within a concept of Britishness. It's similar to what happens across Europe except not normally positioned as counter to England/Britain as the stronger party - instead Sir Walter Scott dresses George IV in tartan which was identified as Jacobite only 50 years earlier. It becomes a part of Britain - and I think Walter Scott is key in the creation of Britishness and Scottishness.

But I basically agree with the Linda Colley theory that Britishness was a project and a creation of elites across all countries in the UK that cohered around Protestantism, empire and opposing France in Europe. One by one those cohering identities dropped away - I am still not sure what replaces them. I think for much of the twentieth century it was the wars and the common experiences of both world wars - I think the NHS and BBC are probably big parts of that identity now. I think one of the problems we have in the union is that I'm not sure Britishness has a reason that justifies its existence at this point and needs to find one.

Scottish Gaelic I think still has a few very small enclaves where it is spoken as a primary language.

Yeah my parents were involved in the Gaelic education scene when I was growing up but the language isn't very healthy. We also had challenges - that I don't think happen in Wales or Ireland - around why Gaelic.

We lived in the far North and it was a fair point that basically there was no Gaelic heritage in that area. They went from speaking Norse to Norse-inflected Scots to English. I also think the Scottish government's focus is more on recognition and revival of Scots - to be cynical I'd say that might be because it is an easier to learn for English speakers so a relatively low cost way to create difference with England in a way that Gaelic isn't.

Welsh held on a little better as a language, but in terms of being people's primary language was largely dead by the 20th century--and was only revived through deliberate work of Welsh nationalists.

I think that's slightly overstated - you're right on the Welsh nationalists. But even at its lowest point, about 20% of the country and the majority of several counties were Welsh-speakers. It was very geographically split - like Ireland or Scotland. But I know Irish language activists have always been quite impressed and jealous of Wales for how successfully its held onto its language.  When I was at university (in England) I knew someone who grew up speaking Welsh in Gwynedd which is a very Welsh-speaking area and didn't start studying English at school until he was 8. Even their big song this tournament Yma o Hyd ("despite everyone and everything, we're still here today!") has its origins in the language movement.

And on the nationalist point it's an uncomfortable fact for the SNP and Plaid Cymru that their founders were often, early twentieth century romantic nationalists attached to language and soil with some really dodgy politics - like their equivalents in Europe. The founder of Plaid Cymru was a very early twentieth century figure - he was an elitist, integralist Catholic convert (loved Action Francaise - thought most Welsh were pathetic sheep) who sympathised with Hitler. Both forms of nationalism have transformed, but it is an awkward reality.

But they are distinct! Except they are not! Not sure what's so confusing...

I really don't think it's that confusing

I also think it's something everyone's going to have to get used to if the EU is on a path of state formation (and I think it is) - but also as we all have our own complex, overlapping, sometimes contradictory identities that express in different ways at different times. And it doesn't bother me from normal people - it's journalists and politicians who I think should just roughly have a sense of what they're talking about.

[Gups]

Right--the German States, at least some of them, have a much stronger "logical" argument because they didn't technically get merged into a truly united Germany until after WWI.

What do you refer to? Germany had a federal structure since the 1867 NGF constitution. That established the competences of member states and the federal government, which has been adjusted many times since, but in principle is still the same. And of course goes back to the HRE constitution. 

The only time Germany was a centralized state without remaining powers on the state level was after the Gleichschaltung in late 1933. That ended with the postwar order established by the Allies in 1945.

The constituent States of the German Empire still retained their own monarchs until after WWI, which IMO is a substantially stronger claim to being a separate entity than you have in Wales / Scotland. The Kaiser was also the Kaiser explicitly by virtue of being the King of Prussia, which again somewhat emphasizes the still distinct entities and the nature of the Empire.

Certain even if you want to argue 1867, that is still 160 years more recent than Scotland's latest reasonable claim of being a separate country—and 500 years more recent than Wales.

The trouble is that you're perspective is history in general rather than football history. England, Scotland and Wales were the first national football teams. They were playing each other for more than 10 years before any other international games were played (USA v Canada funnily enough), 40 years before Germany had a national team and nearly 50 years before FIFA was formed. They were therefore well-established as sporting entities and as there weren't that many teams playing football then, FIFA was glad off the additional numbers.

If football had been codified in Germany in the mid C19th and Britain started playing 40 years later, I've no doubt that there would have been a single GB team.

[PJL]

If football had been codified in Germany in the mid C19th and Britain started playing 40 years later, I've no doubt that there would have been a single GB team.

If that had actually happened the way it did here, they'd be about 300 'national' teams, of which about 150 of them being German... 

[Zanza]

The constituent States of the German Empire still retained their own monarchs until after WWI, which IMO is a substantially stronger claim to being a separate entity than you have in Wales / Scotland. The Kaiser was also the Kaiser explicitly by virtue of being the King of Prussia, which again somewhat emphasizes the still distinct entities and the nature of the Empire.

Certain even if you want to argue 1867, that is still 160 years more recent than Scotland's latest reasonable claim of being a separate country—and 500 years more recent than Wales.

Agreed. I had actually wondered what post-WW1 event signified a "truly united" Germany for you as both the Weimar and the post-WW2 constitution kept the federal structure of Germany.

[Sheilbh]

Supreme Court have unanimously decided that the Scottish government does not have the power to hold an independence referendum.

That was the expected result, especially after the Brexit litigation.

[Tamas]

Good, we have enough chaos to deal with for a while.

[celedhring]

Sturgeon is sounding like the Catalan separatist leaders did in 2012, though. You might be in for a ride.

[Sheilbh]

Good, we have enough chaos to deal with for a while.

Yeah - interesting that they looked at the international right to self-determination and basically followed the Canadian court's approach on that question in Quebec. That right is limited to situations of colonialism or military oppression which, though many SNP supporters disagree, do not apply to Scotland.

Don't quite know how you square that with the ongoing dispossession of Chagos islanders

Sturgeon is sounding like the Catalan separatist leaders did in 2012, though. You might be in for a ride.

It's a huge challenge for her. She's come under a lot of pressure from the SNP fundamentalist wing because her approach is perceived as too incremental. Part of the reason Alex Salmond set up a (so far failed) rival party was to push for a more aggressive approach.

Her current line seems to be that they'll turn the 2024 election into a referendum by proxy (a bit like Johnson in 2019). They're going to hold a special party conference on how to do that/what approach to take - I think possibly to buy her time from attacks by the fundamentalist wing. But I think there's a risk for the SNP that - as in Catalonia I think - it splits the independence movement. The SNP have always had a fundamentalist/gradualist divide and this might force that into the open. And it'll be interesting to see if they can balance that to keep power in the Scottish Parliament which is their current source of legitimacy for claiming a referendum.

My suspicion is the SNP trying to turn it into a default referendum will play into Labour's hands.

[Josquius]

Yeah - interesting that they looked at the international right to self-determination and basically followed the Canadian court's approach on that question in Quebec. That right is limited to situations of colonialism or military oppression which, though many SNP supporters disagree, do not apply to Scotland.

Don't quite know how you square that with the ongoing dispossession of Chagos islanders

Referendum just for the Highlands?

Her current line seems to be that they'll turn the 2024 election into a referendum by proxy (a bit like Johnson in 2019). They're going to hold a special party conference on how to do that/what approach to take - I think possibly to buy her time from attacks by the fundamentalist wing. But I think there's a risk for the SNP that - as in Catalonia I think - it splits the independence movement. The SNP have always had a fundamentalist/gradualist divide and this might force that into the open. And it'll be interesting to see if they can balance that to keep power in the Scottish Parliament which is their current source of legitimacy for claiming a referendum.

Probably. I guess this is what they actually want even. Far better to be constantly fighting for independence than to actually get it and have to deliver the unicorns.

[mongers]

Good, we have enough chaos to deal with for a while.

I think they'll take the matter to the streets, once the weather improves, say April next year.

[Sheilbh]

Probably. I guess this is what they actually want even. Far better to be constantly fighting for independence than to actually get it and have to deliver the unicorns.

No, I think they really want independence and think that's best for Scotland and Scots.

Also the story so far has been broadly one of positive incremental steps to independence which I think makes unity easier. From a fringe party to an opposition that could never form a government in Scotland because of the electoral system, to a minority government, referendum, majority government and coalitions. There's a story of progress there - and this is, I think, the first big setback.

That's why I think it might make divisions within the independence movement deeper. I think for want of a better way of putting it, you'll have a Catalan wing and a Quebecois wing. I doubt there'll be formal splits before the 2024 election or while Sturgeon's in charge - but I think there is an expectation she'll stand down before the next Scottish election.

My suspicion is that plays into the hands of Labour - I think the Scottish Labour response this morning is pretty smart.

[OttoVonBismarck]

You need to start seeding more of your immigrants into Scotland--they will have no Scottish cultural identification and will dilute the independence vote, since they will be more likely to favor being in a larger union that has more economic opportunities.

Speaking of which wasn't there some scheme to accept Hong Kong expats? Set up New Hong Kong somewhere in Scotland.