All bound for Bongo-Bongo Land
Posted on
August 07, 2013 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
You might want to wrap some bandaging around your jaw before listening to this BBC News interview with UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom this morning, to keep it off the floor.
It gets more and more mindboggling as it goes on. But it’s not the chilling thing.
The chilling thing comes after Mr Bloom stops speaking.
“Let us know what you think”, says presenter Carrie Gracie, inviting viewer comments.
“A lot of you already are”, notes co-presenter Simon McCoy, interrupting her with a rueful chuckle. “Most, at the moment, are supporting him.”
Let’s just hear that again.
“Most, at the moment, are supporting him.”
“Most, at the moment, are supporting him.”
“Most, at the moment, are supporting him.”
Vote No in 2014 to stay part of that country, readers.
This guy is a serial offender in this regard:
link to youtube.com
Sorry Rev but just getting an error 404 message. Not sure I really want to see it though!
Is the pic supposed to link to the interview Rev.? I’m getting a 404.
My god. These are our representatives. Time for a change.
Just mental.
The fella has a valid point raising questions of how the aid budget is being used and if we can afford it in these times of austerity.
However, thats all been forgotten with his frankly racist language, and this guy is an MEP, someone elected in a multi national parliament. Can’t wait to hear Farage’s thoughts
“Sorry Rev but just getting an error 404 message. Not sure I really want to see it though!”
Gah, stupid sodding WordPress. Fixed now. But you realise all you have to do when that happens is delete the “wingsoverscotland” bit in the address bar, right?
I do now Rev.!
Saw it and heard it live and couldn’t believe it!
No doubt he will be regarded as a “Fecking Hero” by some knuckledragers both sides of the border and will increase UKIPs vote. Sad, but there is no point trying to show them the error of their ways. UKOK?
If YES campaigners had wished their very hardest for the most favourable atmosphere possible in which to gain support, they would never in a million years have dared to think the opposition would be in so many absolutely crazy car crashes.
Just don’t give a single excuse to the unionistas to deflect attention from it all!
Utterly disgusting man. I actually agree that £1bn a month should be looked at and made sure it isbl being used properly. But “bongo bongo land”? Ridiculous!
Hi Stu: There’s a Firefox extension which will record streaming video if that’s any help in future.
Rev Stu,
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
“There’s a Firefox extension which will record streaming video if that’s any help in future.”
Ack, Firefox. If Firefox gets any slower for me time might actually start going backwards. But I’ll give it a shot – what’s it called?
The future for UK plc is frightening.
link to rollingout.com
My God, how out of touch can a man be? Ray-Ban’s are soooooo 1980’s.
The Guardian Vid:
Bongo Bongo Land
What a bigoted knuckledragger
Some of the best advice I have heard is; before putting anything down in writing, imagine you have headed paper which reads “to the judge and jury”.
Re: the salient point made by Godfrey Bloom. The Aid budget is a criminal disgrace, often used to fund British arms sales to the countries we are supposedly supporting. I support the assisted development of poorer nations, I just don’t see why the arms manufacturers should get a slice.
Here is the reason for all the noise:
The United Kingdom Independence Party leader welcomed news that the local and European elections will be held on the same day, 22 May 2014.
The change is seen by experts as a boost for Ukip because it will increase turnout for the Euro elections, which Mr Farage is hoping to win.
link to telegraph.co.uk
“The fella has a valid point raising questions of how the aid budget is being used and if we can afford it in these times of austerity.”
Agreed
I may be wrong, but I was always under the impression that the UK foreign aid budget was mainly used as a sort of slush fund to encourage foreign governments, of impoverished nations, to sign favourable arms deals, energy projects, military and give political international support etc. etc. all to the benefit of British industry and GDP.
I don’t have the figures or a link but just the general memory of a report that justified the aid budget in just such terms. That is, for each £ spent by the international aid budget, X£s were returned in GDP.
Wooly and hardly hardnosed investigative journalism on my part I know, but there you go. sadgeneralisedsmily
Braco
You can’t have forgotten about the Pergau Dam?
I think you are right, Braco, but with the added advantage that the £x that comes back goes into the pockets of the MPs and Lords’ Westminster business associates and cronies. So much more “ethical” than just bunging them public money direct.
And the extra go Balfour Beatty got, tendering for Holyrood’s construction. How much did that over-run on budget?
Cameron B,
Don’t you know, I forget nothing?! I just temporarily misplace things.
Simon,
Yes, public money cleverly and efficiently turned into private profit. 1 billion a month abroad and how much more at home via PPI, privatisations and banker bailouts etc.? !!!
I heard him on ‘Today’. My first thought was to wonder what on Earth our fellow Europeans think of a country that can send this person as a representative to parliament. At least, by voting Yes, we can ensure he’s no longer a representative for us.
Kininvie,
rest assured, many of our fellow Europeans send just the same type of uninformed populists to represent them as ‘we’ currently do.
Unjustified and ancient?
scaredy cat
Off Moo Moo? Sorry your probably too young to get that.
@ Cameron B.
Unfortunately I am old enough to remember it. Indeed it was the title of the post that brought it to mind. Whatever happened to them I wonder.
And here was me thinking Alf Garnett was a comic caricature…
I forgot to agree, the man is a little behind the times. Though the new laws of physics that we are apparently experiencing north of the border, might mean that he is a taste of the future.
Stay tuned for further gripping installments……
Vote Yes and show which laws of physics you believe in.
He was on Radio Two yesterday doing an interview along side Niki Hodgson about woman in the workplace and maternity leave. I couldn’t find the actual interview although it was a heated debate – the man’s a cave man.
Hi WOS
I’m a regular reader of this great site and agree with most of the content, but on this occasion I think you haven’t put much thought into this reaction. I think a lot of people just hear “bongo bongo land” in the accent of Bloom and automatically disregard what he has to say, but listening to the whole interview he makes some valid points. As people above have pointed out, much of how this budget is spent is the design of the British military-industrial complex, something we as supporters of independence should be far more hostile to than the use of a crass phrase like “bongo bongo land”. The suggestion made by Bloom that it should only go towards emergency disaster funds is something worth debating at least.
I don’t want Scotland to be an independent country that gives away lots of citizen’s money for foreign dictators to spend on arms and corruption. Where the money goes to is something we should always question and debate. I think this is a complex and serious issue, so trying to make this into another reason to vote yes seems a bit knee-jerk and cheap.
“The suggestion made by Bloom that it should only go towards emergency disaster funds”
That’s not what he said, of course. He said, absolutely explicitly, that there should be NO aid budget at all, only charity donations from individuals.
There is something poetic, though, about Wonga Wonga Land sending money to Bongo Bongo Land.
He is obviously going by the maxim that its better to leave a bad impression than none at all.
I’ve some opinion on foreign aid as I worked on an Aid scheme in West Africa for many years.A lot of foreign aid gets nowhere near its targets and a lot of it indeed is tied to buying British goods and services. What we set aside for foreign aid is derisory in real terms and I have little time for the populist nonsense which rails against it .
I would however use it largely differently. Sending technical and educational assistance to struggling countries is the best use of it and there is a case for sending more of our young people out as well to enrich their lives and show them more of the world we all have to live in. I worked with VSO, CUSO and Peace Corp people in Africa and it did them as much good as it did the communities they were sent to help.
O/T
I note an alarming lack of attack on the SNP in many of our normally throbbing organs of misinformation this morning. Apart from a risible piece by Helen Puttick attacking Alex Neil in the Herald I have met nothing so far.
This is worrying. Is Project Fear being abandoned? Are they going to be nice to us. That’ll be more difficult to beat
alot of people may disagree with his language but many will agree with his point
Pakistan doesn’t have any F-18s, or F/A-18s – perhaps he means JF-17. But why would the UK need more fast jets?
For those concerned about the gent in question supposedly ‘representing’ Scotland on the European stage…
Europe is quite aware that neither UKIP nor the Tories represent Scotland. The SNP MEPs are considered the most representative, particularly given Scotland has an SNP government and there’s a referendum next year. Watch European Parliament debates and this is obvious (think Madame Ecosse).
People must remember that Europe considers Scotland as Scotland and England as England etc. They don’t think of GB as a country, but a state made up of countries which for most of their history had relations with other European countries as independent countries. That’s why people ask if you are English when in Europe (and smile/laugh when you correct them that you are Scottish), not British.
As I’ve posted about before, for example, in France legally my nationality is ‘Scottish’ as clearly stated on my French marriage certificate. I may be a British Citizen as I am a European Citizen, but my nationality as far as European countries are concerned is Scottish.
There’s endless examples of differentiation of Scotland and England with little mention of Britain. Only the other day I was reading a new scientist type French magazine and there was an article on tidal/wave energy. Developments in different countries in Europe were highlighted. There was a section on developments in Scotland, in England, in France, Germany…
And of course people come to visit Scotland on holiday, on business etc. Step of the plane from Paris in Edinburgh and you are greeted with ‘Welcome to Scotland’, ‘Welcome to Edinburgh, Scotland’s Capital’, saltires, tartan etc. Unless you look really closely, there’s little evidence you’ve arrived in ‘North Britain’. Nope, Scotland is Scotland globally for most.
The concept of being ‘British’ is something largely confined to Britain, certainly in Europe. Outside of Britain it’s Scotland, England, Wales etc.
Re. what scottish_skier said. How can one country have an internal border and two distinct legal systems? Sounds more like two countries to me.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Hmm. I thought he meant routine state aid should be completely replaced by charitable donations from individuals, but state aid would still be forthcoming for emergency disaster relief.
“Hmm. I thought he meant routine state aid should be completely replaced by charitable donations from individuals, but state aid would still be forthcoming for emergency disaster relief.”
His answer seems unambiguous:
“McCOY: If UKIP came to power at the next election and you had a wider stage, what would you do with the aid budget?
BLOOM: I’d cancel it completely.“
With regard to emergencies, he goes on to say: “What I would do, I would reduce taxes to give more people money in their pocket, and then they can be philanthropic with it as they chose… people should give money to charity, I believe they should, I do myself. It is not the government’s role to take money by threats of force, which is what taxation is, and give it to countries.”
To be honest – I’m not shocked at all by this. You can hear bollocks of this calibre in any pub in Britain any night of the week. Not that I think that’s a good thing.
The phrase “Bongo Bongo Land” was popularised by the late Alan Clark, a well known Tory MP.
So it does have a political lineage associated with right wing politics in England.
Alan Clark also told Dennis Skinner once, “I’d rather live in a socialist Britain than one ruled by a lot of foreigners.”
scottish_skier – “The concept of being ‘British’ is something largely confined to Britain, certainly in Europe. Outside of Britain it’s Scotland, England, Wales etc.”
“Largely” being the operative word, of course – I’m sure we can all think of a country across the Atlantic that is obsessed with the idea of Britishness
Bizarrely I urge you to support this man and vote UKIP in the forthcoming European elections.
Imagine, if every Yes supporter in the country did this. UKIP would win by a landslide. They’d be in a position of great influence on the UK EU in or out referendum, and we could shout Vote YES to stay in the EU.
After a successful yes vote we’ll get shot of them anyway, so Vote UKIP to have them represent us in Europe for a couple of months. No harm done.
; )
How can one country have an internal border an two distinct legal systems?
By having an internal border and two distinct legal systems. The reason we’re relying on democracy to end the union is because semantics has proven an ineffective method.
John Lyons,
that’s not funny man!
Jiggsbro
Fair comment. Just thought I’d give it another go.
The Foreign aid budget is a means to influence the poorer countries in the world, if trade was fairer they would be better placed to help themselves. The WTO is biased towards the rich countries and prevents the development of these countries.
Criticism of the World Trade Organization
Jiggsboro,
It’s semantics that have kept this Union together for so long. The establishment’s abandonment of the semantics of 4 Nations in one State and the political gymnastics required to make the semantics believable that has, in my opinion, sped us to our current democratic window of opportunity.
20 years ago and it would have been the Unionists spouting that crap, not Cameron B. No offence Camereenb (bigsmile!)
Sadly casual racism is all to common, at least among the working class here in Scotland. I’m a joiner, and I’ve lost count of the references to Paki’s and Chinkies in general conversation during the course of a working day. I’ll grant you that sectarian bigotry is still a bigger problem, but many people use racist language without even realising it.
This guy won’t have damaged his chances of re-election because he’s speaking in a populist language that people understand. He’s putting distance between himself and the Eton educated politicians who people hear on the news every day and have learned not to trust.
Braco
Whit? Some might be taken.
Cameron B. How can one country have an internal border and two distinct legal systems?
Which is the reason you’ll find you are legally Scottish in terms of nationality as far as other countries are concerned. Yes a British Citizen, but that’s not nationality for the two are technically different.
I suggest proud Scots ‘Britain/the UK is my country’ unionists don’t look at their birth certificate (issued by the Register General for Scotland with no mention of Britain) or e.g. go and get married in Europe. Horror of horrors; they’re Scottish!
Even on their European Passport issued by GB they’ll find they aren’t ‘British’ in terms of nationality, but a ‘British Citizen’ of that Union as they are a citizen of the European Union (in contrast, if you are e.g. French, German, then your nationality according to your passport is ‘French’ or ‘German”).
The aid industry is quite simply money laundering, as most aid packages as we saw recently to India, (who have their own space industry,) are hung around arms deals, the UK claims 20% of the arms deals in the world.
So taxpayers money is siphoned to these regimes, whose rulers use the money as we see on ego boosting toys, that money that was siphoned then comes back to the UK tenfold, to the government of the days pet arms companies who grease the right palms, and flatter the egos of the right movers and shakers in the UK. These companies also keep an open door to ex ministers and civil servants who have helped them in the past. Check the number of director ships handed to Adam Ingram, the ex defense secretary who lied his way through his career, failing so badly he was denied the Ermine he so coveted and watched his arse licking comrades slither in to, such as Des Brown. Ingrams lies and cover up on the Nimrod disaster in Afghanistan would in most countries have seen him in jail. The recent scandal with Liam Fox and The Atlantic Bridge scam is but another example skillfully buried.
I am a great fan of John Pilger, who flays these crooks wide open, yet they still saunter away smirking with cash falling out of their pockets.
“In his arms-to-Iraq enquiry, Lord Richard Scott heard evidence that an entire tier of the Thatcher government, from senior civil servants to ministers, had lied and broken the law in selling weapons to Saddam Hussein. These were her “boys”. Thumb through old copies of the Baghdad Observer, and there are pictures of her boys, mostly cabinet ministers, on the front page sitting with Saddam on his famous white couch. There is Douglas Hurd and there is a grinning David Mellor, also of the Foreign Office, around the time his host was ordering the gassing of 5,000 Kurds. Following this atrocity, the Thatcher government doubled trade credits to Saddam.”
CameronB,
just saying that the whole internal borders, 4 Countries/Nations one State crap, spouted throughout my lifetime by Unionists, while all the time three of those Nations/Countries have in fact had NO real power or influence in the running of that State, is what we are in the process of exposing as the cynical Unionist real politic semantics it always was.
I don’t think it helps our cause to deny the realities of our Political situation by quoting the realities of our perceptions of Nationhood or ‘Country’ status. Those ‘realities’ could after all be desolved by a sovereign Westminster tomorrow, could they not?
The Camereenb thing was just a bit of fun, as I really liked the sound of that moniker when the WOS system decided to unilaterally re name you. (wink)
Nasty, aggressive man. Of course he was being offensive – the term “Bongo bongo land” has only ever been used as a dismissive description of any part of Africa that our empirical ancestors thought primitive and undeveloped. Whether it was because they weren’t interested in the area’s real name, or they couldn’t pronounce words like Bechuanaland or Matabeleland, is unclear, but the implication in using the name is obvious.
His valid point is completely smothered by his casual contempt for other countries and his arrogant aggressive attitude. Even if I agreed with all his policies, I could NEVER bring myself to vote for a man like this.
I think a lot of people just hear “bongo bongo land” in the accent of Bloom and automatically disregard what he has to say
‘Valid’ points or not, it doesn’t stop him being a wee bit racist.
Braco
Naw, that’s far too complicated for me. All I was trying to suggest was that there is a border between Scotland and England (the constituent nations that make up Britain), and each has it’s own distinct legal system.
I’m not offended but I just couldn’t see how you could interpret my comment as being supportive of the Union.
The name thing. So I’m not perfect, unlike yourself.
P.S. As s_s was pointing out, the clue is in the names. Scotland AND England.
CameronB,
At least we are clear on that! (wink)
On this one country with internal borders and different legal systems malarkey, any federal state has exactly that! The legal system in Louisiana is quite distinct from the legal system in Texas, for example, and there’s certainly a border between those two states.
Are you sure he’s Ukip or Yorkshire tea party maybe
Holebender,
exactly. It has been used as a sop by Unionists to Scottish National Identity while they have at the same time payed no attention to it in any real National sense.
It has also performed the function of helping preserve that sense of National Identity by the Scots nationalists (small n) throughout the long dark years. All I am saying is that with less than a year and a half until our referendum, I do not think it’s either wise or necessary to keep portraying the situation as somehow proof of our Nationhood Status. It isn’t.
The proof of our Nationhood status is in our heads and attitudes and will be proven so in 2014. If we vote NO, we will still have a border and a legal system and an education system and cultural icons, but we will still not be Independent.
If you are not Independent as a Country, then technically and legally you are not a Country and no amount of Scottish Skier up beat chat can or will change that. That is why September 2014 is such high stakes and quite frankly nerve wrecking for me. This is all of course just my opinion.
We will win though!
“Even on their European Passport issued by GB they’ll find they aren’t ‘British’ in terms of nationality, but a ‘British Citizen’ of that Union as they are a citizen of the European Union”
Total garbage.
Countries choose for themselves how to express nationality on a passport.
This country – the United Kingdom – has chosen the term “British Citizen” because there are OTHER forms of British nationality in addition to citizenship.
You can, of course, look all that up.
@ Currywurst
This country – the United Kingdom
Come off it man, what the hell have you been smoking? How can one unite with oneself? Or are you suggesting the UK = England (the largest partner in the union between Scotland and England)?
@Currywurst
This country – the United Kingdom – has chosen the term “British Citizen” because there are OTHER forms of British nationality in addition to citizenship.
You can, of course, look all that up.
You appear not to know the difference between a nation/country and a state. Scotland is a nation, but not a state. That is why people refer to Scotland as a ‘stateless nation’. However, British nationalists do not recognise Scotland as a nation. I presume you are one of them.
Muttley79
Did you also notice the way Currwurst tried to conflate Britain and the UK?
CameronB
’20 years ago and it would have been the Unionists spouting that crap, not Cameron B.’
Cameron, I have just re read my above post and would like to apologise for my intemperate language.
Sometimes my own crap slips through inspite of my best intentions. There was no intended inference that you were supporting the Union in your statement. I have been reading you long enough to know how ridiculous an idea that is! So, sorry for any misunderstandings that have ensued.
Braco
No worries at all, I was just taken by surprise.
CameronB,
left a post for you over on quarantine.
link to tinyurl.com
This country – the United Kingdom – has chosen the term “British Citizen” because there are OTHER forms of British nationality in addition to citizenship.
As I have posted in the past. Yes, you can get passports saying ‘British National’. Good that you agree with me anyway, i.e. about citizenship being one form of relationship between the individual and the state or union of states. In the UK and USA, citizenship and nationality are commonly mixed up as terms but as you note, they are not the same; various forms of association with Britain being possible.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Citizenship denotes the link between a person and a state or an association of states. It is normally synonymous with the term nationality although the latter term may also refer to ethnic connotations. Possession of citizenship is normally associated with the right to work and live in a country and to participate in political life. A person who does not have citizenship in any state is said to be stateless.
Nationality is often used as a synonym for citizenship in English – notably in international law – although the term is sometimes understood as denoting a person’s membership of a nation. In some countries, e.g. the United States and the United Kingdom, “nationality” and “citizenship” have different meanings, and it is possible to be a national of the country but not a citizen.
As I was saying; nationality and citizenship are not the same thing although can be synonymous. I don’t have a European birth certificate as Europe is not a country. I do however have European passport and citizenship. Same applies for the UKoGB. I’m a Scottish national with British Citizenship thanks to the Treaty of Union (latest version from ~1921).
That’s why they ask this on the census (if you are Scottish, English etc); they are interested in the nationality of British Citizens for purposes of understanding demographics, migration between the different UK Union countries etc.
My wife is French. She can get British Citizenship (passport saying British Citizen) but her nationality will still be French.
My boss is Iranian but is a British Citizen. I doubt you’d argue his nationality is British! He puts Iranian on the census for good reason.
I’m not sure how this is rubbish. It’s just the way it is. The UK would need to be a single country and legal jurisdiction for British to be an actual nationality legally as opposed to a form of citizenship. Then my French marriage certificate would say I was ‘British’ not ‘Scottish’ as it currently states. Likewise my birth certificate would be issued by the e.g General Register for Britain as opposed to Scotland.
Braco. I’m not trying to prove Scotland is a country. As I said, legally and ‘socially’ across the globe Scotland is a country/nation, just not a nation state. There’s no need to prove that and following a Yes vote the world would recognise Scotland as a country (now independent) as it already does.
If anything I was questioning the idea of British as a nationality as opposed to a form of citizenship. As noted, only in Britain do some people claim their country/nationality is Britain/the UK. Other countries see the UK as a state made up of countries/nations which is the correct interpretation. I can appreciate some people feel British as a national identity (often because they have e.g. parents from two sides of the border) but it’s not a legal nationality in the strictest sense. Legally, Scotland, N. Ireland and England+Wales are different countries. Like a mini-EU, but older and more integrated.
Currywurst has been outed as being Duncan Hothersall (allegedly).
He/She, of course, has the right to deny this ‘outing’ if he/she is definitely not Duncan Hothersall.
Yesterday, although D. Hothersall twitted about how much he loved the dish, currywurst, supplying picture and all, this could only stand up as circumstantial evidence only if a case was attempted to be made when denial(s) is/are issued.
Yet, the possibly circumstantial choice of favoured dish by D. Hothersall, and the use of the moniker, ‘Currywurst’ by a pro-Union poster who has posting habits similar to D.Hothersall before he was banned from this site, might just lead people to conclude that Currywurst and Duncan Hothersall are one and the same.
So, Currywurst, what say you?
I’m inclined to let Duncan post. He produces such absolute rubbish that it does us a favour. He appears to have been banned/abandoned ? Labour Hame. Perhaps they recognised what a liability he was as well
“As noted, only in Britain do some people claim their country/nationality is Britain/the UK.”
Really? I can think of few hundred million Americans who claim to be, er, American. As well as being Texan / Californian / whatever.
Then there are all those Germans, Indians, Russians and so on. It’s really no great problem, this dual-identity business. You just need a flexible, open mind.
As for my “outing”, I am not going to confirm or deny anything about my identity, location, job, affiliation or even gender.
I’ve been outed as both George Foulkes and Murdo Fraser in the past. Not at the same time though.
Think what you like.
@Currywurst
Your identity is yours to confirm or deny. Incredible coincidence though, don’t you think, your site-name here being Currywurst and currywurst being one of Duncan Hothersall’s favourite dishes?
You know the line, ‘In all the bars in all the towns…’ Spooky! Who would have thought, eh!?
“As noted, only in Britain do some people claim their country/nationality is Britain/the UK.” Really? I can think of few hundred million Americans who claim to be, er, American. As well as being Texan / Californian / whatever. Then there are all those Germans, Indians, Russians and so on. It’s really no great problem, this dual-identity business. You just need a flexible, open mind.
It would be good if you could read my posts before responding to them. I mentioned national identity which is what you are talking about mainly. It is different from legal nationality. I’m not sure what the situation is regarding the federal states you mention; i.e. different legal jurisdictions. In Scotland it’s quite clear; it is a distinct country in a union with others under international treaty. Nobody seriously argues against that; not even you it seems.
National identity is whatever you personally want it to be, whether it is related to an existing nation state or not. I quite clearly stated people having British as part of or their primary national identity made a lot of sense, e.g. if they had parents from both sides of the border/lived on both sides for long periods hence had an attachment to both Scotland and England.
I am Scottish and European in my identity, flexible like yourself. I’ll even squeeze a touch of French in there as it is the country I spend most of my time in after Scotland and I feel a close association with it. My wife is French-Scots and European (hence the attachment; half my friends and extended family are French). My Daughter Scots-French (I haven’t got to the EU yet as she’s only 5). These are not official nationalities, i.e. Scofranc or Francsco birth certificate etc, but dual national identities. It is possible e.g. for me as a Scottish national to get French citizenship via my wife but I’d still be both Scottish and French legally, not a amalgamation.
Being Scottish and British is quite normal as a national identity (not a legal nationality though). It’s like being French and European. Being just British is generally reserved for immigrants to England who feel they can’t be English as that’s reserved for native whites (in Scotland and Wales immigrants commonly adopt a Scottish or Welsh identity respectively). There are some non-immigrants who call themselves just British (often older people who remember when Scotland and the rUK shared national institutions / nationalised industries which created a temporary form of British society) but these are a very small fraction of the population of Scotland.
link to ethnos.co.uk
I can understand some people might wish Britain to be one country and have a British birth certificate, a single British international football team etc. However, history has not made that so. Legally the majority of Scots are Scottish nationals (and feel so at ~80% with that as their primary identity) and British citizens. Most Scots feel more Scottish than British, but that’s normal as Scotland is their country and Britain is simply a union it is part of.
Does Bloom drive an ice cream van?
I’m Scottish, have a Scottish birth cert etc and will soon have a Scottish passport.
“It is different from legal nationality.”
Oh really? I’m sure you be able to find me an authoritative definition of “legal nationality”. The only document I have stating “nationality” is my passport, which says “BRITISH”.
“In Scotland it’s quite clear; it is a distinct country in a union with others under international treaty.”
No it is not. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, it is simply a part of the United Kingdom. As you know, Scotland was extinguished AS A MATTER OF INTERNATIONAL LAW in 1707. (Of course, so was England. De jure at least.)
The internal arrangements of the UK are a matter for the UK. Period. If we choose to change borders, abolish (or extend) Scots Law, whatever, no external country or agency would have any interest or focus in the matter. Just as if the US decided to move the border between California and Oregon.
@Currywurst/Duncan Hothersall
Is Scotland a nation/country? Yes or No? Britain is not a country/nation. It is a state.
@ Currywurst
The internal arrangements of the UK are a matter for the UK. Period. If we choose to change borders, abolish (or extend) Scots Law, whatever, no external country or agency would have any interest or focus in the matter. Just as if the US decided to move the border between California and Oregon.
Under who’s authority would we abolish or extend Scots law? Who do you mean by the UK? I can’t imagine the Federal government has the authority to arbitrarily change State boundaries. Would you mind providing a source please?
@Muttey79
Britain is not a country/nation. It is a state.
It certainly is – whichever way you look at it.
@Currywurst
‘As you know, Scotland was extinguished AS A MATTER OF INTERNATIONAL LAW in 1707. (Of course, so was England. De jure at least.)’
The church of your particular religion only agrees with the first part of that statement.
‘SCOTLAND was “extinguished” as a state by the Treaty of Union in 1707, according to the academics who provided the UK Government’s legal advice on the constitutional implications of independence.Professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle reject the notion that Scottish independence would undo the Treaty of Union, which created the UK, allowing Scotland and England to revert to their pre-1707 status
They do not reach a view on whether 1707 marked the creation of a new state in international law or the expansion of England under a new name.
But they add: “It is not necessary to decide between these two views of the union of 1707. Whether or not England was also extinguished by the union, Scotland certainly was extinguished as a matter of international law, by merger into either an enlarged and renamed England or into an entirely new state.”‘
link to tinyurl.com
The only document I have stating “nationality” is my passport, which says “BRITISH”.
Are you sure there isn’t another word after British? Like CITIZEN?
Which is not the same as nationality. You said yourself there are various options here. I’ve seen French passports saying ‘French’, German passports saying ‘German’ etc, but never a British passport saying just ‘British’. That’s because the former are countries, the later is a unitary state containing 4 nations, some of which are countries too.
On your birth certificate it will say ‘Register General for XCountryX’. I won’t bother asking what yours says, but I imagine the country name is not ‘Britain’. Mine doesn’t mention Britain it all. Not a remote hint of it. Neither does my kid’s. Also not a peep on all the other legal documentation I have (marriage, property etc). Everything is Scotland. I know exactly what country I’m in; only have to go to Tesco to confirm I’m definitely in Scotland. I’ll be lucky if I spot a Union flag anywhere.
The Government of France consider my nationality as ‘Scottish’. Try getting married there and you’ll see. You are Scottish if (that is where you live) and you want your French marriage to be legal in Scotland. Scotland may not be a nation state under certain aspects of international law, but sorry, it’s a country and Britain isn’t. Britain is a unitary state.
Speaking to tourists on the plane back from France the other day, they’re coming to visit Scotland. Some were planning to visit England aft wards None mentioned Britain as for them it’s not a country. I can assure you than none were coming to visit ‘North Britain’.
I have never once in my life in all my travels been asked if I was British. English yes, American too. Never British. Sorry, British people might think they’re British but that’s rarely the opinion overseas, especially in Europe.
Jeez man. Even wikipedia is spot on.
Get over it. All I’m saying is ‘British’ is not a nationality like ‘French’ or ‘Danish’ is and that’s due to UK being a union. Why do you think the party leading the UK government call themselves the Conservative and Unionist Party? It’s not there for a laugh.
If you can’t comprehend the simple difference between a Union of countries and a country in it’s own right (hence the implications for primary nationality) I’m giving up.
The intention may have been in 1707 to make one country, but it singularly failed as people didn’t want it to be one country. If it had succeeded to create one country, we’d not be where we are today and I’d be getting off the plane in Edinburgh to signs saying ‘Welcome to Britain’.
“Under who’s authority would we abolish or extend Scots law?”
The Parliament of the United Kingdom, of course. The Acts of Union don’t specify the location of the border, do they? The border is only given legal existence via various Local Government and Interpretation Acts.
“I can’t imagine the Federal government has the authority to arbitrarily change State boundaries.”
US State boundaries have been and are adjusted via various mechanisms, including via rulings of the US Supreme Court. Quite a few state boundaries are based on rivers. Thing is, rivers move.
@S_S
Scotland may not be a nation state under certain aspects of international law, but sorry, it’s a country and Britain isn’t. Britain is a unitary state.
Correct. It is also a fact that British Nationalists have a very great difficulty in accepting.
“You said yourself there are various options here. I’ve seen French passports saying ‘French’, German passports saying ‘German’ etc, but never a British passport saying just ‘British’. That’s because the former are countries,”
Wrong.
It is because – for its own reasons and through its own choice – the United Kingdom distinguishes between British Citizens, British Subjects, British Overseas Citizens, British Protected Persons and all the rest.
Look it up.
While you’re at it, find that authoritative definition of “legal nationality” I asked for.
I’m not interested in the ignorant opinions of tourists on planes or signs at airports.
And as for my birth certificate, so what? I’ve just googled “US birth certificate” and hey, whaddaya know, there’s actually no such thing for someone born inside the US, it’s all done by the individual states.
So according to your logic, the USA is not a country. Did you mean to say that?
@S_S Scotland may not be a nation state under certain aspects of international law, but sorry, it’s a country and Britain isn’t. Britain is a unitary state.
Correct. It is also a fact that British Nationalists have a very great difficulty in accepting.
Here comes Currywurst/Duncan Hothersall to prove the point.
“Under who’s authority would we abolish or extend Scots law?” The Parliament of the United Kingdom, of course.
Which would end the union as it would breach the Treaty of Union which protects Scots law.
Scots could of course vote for the abolishment of Scots law. However, without any British law to adopt, we’d need to have English law and N. Irish Law abolished too, with the myth that is ‘British Law’ turned into something real. Adopting English law would make Scotland a region of England.
Canny see these things happening.
But really CW. I respect your right to feel Scottish and British or just British or whatever it is you feel. Best way to get Scots on side is not to tell them Scotland is not a country etc. That’s really the worst thing you can do if you want to maintain the union. It’s the sort of stuff some rampant Tory nutter comes out with. You’d be far better agreeing and saying ‘Yes, your nationality is Scottish but there are lots of benefits to being a British citizen’.
Personally, my main issue with being ‘British’ is that a pre-requisite for this is I must accept Westminster rule. Falklanders don’t have to, neither do the Gibraltans etc, but Scotland must for some reason.
@ Currywurst
“Under who’s authority would we abolish or extend Scots law?”
The Parliament of the United Kingdom, of course.
Does Westminster have the authority? Again, would you be kind enough to supply a source please?
@S_S
Best way to get Scots on side is not to tell them Scotland is not a country etc. That’s really the worst thing you can do if you want to maintain the union.
They believe that, but do not have the courage to tell the people of Scotland that they don’t think we are a nation. However, as CW/Duncan Hothersall makes clear, Scotland to them is the same as Virginia, Mississippi, New Mexico, etc is to Washington DC. As Sir Walter Scott said: “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”
“Which would end the union as it would breach the Treaty of Union which protects Scots law.”
“Does Westminster have the authority?”
There is no “Treaty” of Union. The only legal documents in existence are the two Acts.
Go look them up. (And consider: how exactly could Queen Anne sign a “treaty” with herself?)
And since the Acts don’t specify the boundary between the two jurisdictions – apart from the English Act’s mention of Berwick as falling under the CofE – then the position of the border is matter of tradition and of *subsequent* *UK* legislation. Legally, it can be moved. Politically would be another matter.
“do not have the courage to tell the people of Scotland that they don’t think we are a nation. However, as CW/Duncan Hothersall makes clear, Scotland to them is the same as Virginia, Mississippi”
I think Scotland is a nation and a country. I think the UK is a nation, a country and a state. You are in no position to tell me otherwise, since there is no clear and accepted definition of either “nation” or “country”.
And, *legally*, the position of Scotland is more or less identical to that of the original 13 US States and of a few others like Texas and California – formerly independent and sovereign entities which chose to enter a larger union via a process of negotiation. The politics may be different, but the legalities are identical.
“Does Westminster have the authority? Again, would you be kind enough to supply a source please?”
Sorry, I forgot.
link to legislation.gov.uk
“I That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain…”
“III That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be Represented by one and the same Parliament to be stiled the Parliament of Great Britain”
OK?
MacCormick vs Lord Advocate 1953
‘ “the principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law”. The case was thus constitutionally interesting as “the Lord Advocate conceded this point by admitting that the Parliament of the United Kingdom ‘could not’ repeal or alter [certain] ‘fundamental and essential’ conditions” of the Act of Union.’
and, of course
link to journalonline.co.uk
“‘could not’ repeal or alter [certain] ‘fundamental and essential’ conditions” of the Act of Union.’”
And I repeat:
the location of the boundary between the former states of Scotland and England is nowhere defined in the Acts of Union.
Is it?
I’m sure if I were wrong, somebody would have found a ref by now.
Moreover, the idea of “Scottish popular sovereignty” existing pre 1707 is a fairy tale made up by George Buchanan, and others.
Dreadful way to make a valid point. I think they are trying to keep UKIP in the media timeline with shock tactics.
@ Currywurst
Did you see Jiggsbro’s comment earlier, at 12.15pm? I think we have just proven his point.
CW: I think Scotland is a nation and a country.
Thanks for clarifying. Some long posts could probably have been avoided if you’d said so clearly earlier!
You seem to like this site a lot given your frequent visits. Maybe you could write a guest piece on what you see as the benefits of the union? A proper positive case?
And note for the definition of a nation… Well, that’s when people agree they are a nation. It’s how countries form generally; most people in a geographic area decide they belong to a shared community.
To quote Prof C in the SSAS
link to scotcen.org.uk
“in so far as the independence debate is about identity, it is the intensity of people’s British identity that matters, not that of their Scottish identity. Scottish identity is a near ubiquitous attachment that unites rather than divides most people in Scotland. It is how British they feel that divides them, and is reflected in different attitudes in the independence debate.”
Scotland is Scotland; it is united as a nation/country. That is not in doubt.
It is being part of the British Union that the electorate are divided on. Hence the referendum.
CW/Duncan Hothersall is a British Nationalist. That much is clear by this feat of intellectual twisting:
I think Scotland is a nation and a country. I think the UK is a nation, a country and a state. You are in no position to tell me otherwise, since there is no clear and accepted definition of either “nation” or “country”.
The UK/Britain is not a country/nation. It is a state. I see you have acknowledged that Scotland is a nation and a country. Given this acknowledgement, why should Scotland not take on all the powers that similar sized European states have at their disposal, such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Republic of Ireland, Belgium etc?
As for your final sentence:
Moreover, the idea of “Scottish popular sovereignty” existing pre 1707 is a fairy tale made up by George Buchanan, and others.
How do you explain the reference in the Declaration of Arbroath, about the head of state (Robert Bruce at the time) losing legitimacy, and therefore the right to govern, if he/she does not govern in the interests of the people in general? Is this a “fairy tale”?
Why did Blair and Dewar go to all the bother of moving the maritime boundary between Scotland and England in 1999 if no border existed in the first place?
@Currywurst
No amount of verbal gymnastics can alter the fact that Scotland and England are distinct entities bound together by Treaty, a treaty which falls under the jurisdiction of the Vienna Convention by the way. Even a cursory glance of the definition of ‘treaty’ sheds some unambiguous light on the ‘status’ of Scotland within that union. Were that status truly under question, HM Government would not have been party to the Edinburgh Agreement. That borders and there placement are nowhere to be found in the Treaty or Acts therein is irrelevant and of little consequence to the debate in general.
Why fuck around with the likes of CurryWurst, who simply swim around in the constitutional ambiguities and machinations engineered into the UK of GB and Norn Irn by long dead genius British statescraftsmen.
This shit will be sorted out quite simply and surgically the moment the Scots decide whatever they decide each time they decide. The first Is coming in less than 15 months and I, for one, am confident of the answer.
Part of that confidence is the knowledge that throughout the three hundred years plus of this ‘overwhelmingly popular’ Union, the British Unionist establishment have moved heaven and earth to avoid actually asking a specific question to the Scots electorate.
Should Scotland be an Independent Country?
Well Currywurst, hold on tight cause it’s going to happen…and on your watch too! (BigBigSmile)
I will risk repeating myself here, because what seemed ‘too complicated’ earlier in the thread, now, after this curriedactofunionwurst meal/history lesson, it appears as simplicity itself!
‘Holebender,
exactly. It has been used as a sop by Unionists to Scottish National Identity while they have at the same time payed no attention to it in any real National sense.
It has also performed the function of helping preserve that sense of National Identity by the Scots nationalists (small n) throughout the long dark years. All I am saying is that with less than a year and a half until our referendum, I do not think it’s either wise or necessary to keep portraying the situation as somehow proof of our Nationhood Status. It isn’t.
The proof of our Nationhood status is in our heads and attitudes and will be proven so in 2014. If we vote NO, we will still have a border and a legal system and an education system and cultural icons, but we will still not be Independent.
If you are not Independent as a Country, then technically and legally you are not a Country and no amount of Scottish Skier up beat chat can or will change that. That is why September 2014 is such high stakes and quite frankly nerve wrecking for me. This is all of course just my opinion.
We will win though!’
Thanks CurryWurst for encouraging a YES vote within Scotland (and incidentally proving my point). wink
@Braco
No offense, but we are only really a year away from the referendum. This time next year we will be in the closing weeks of the referendum campaign.
Muttley79,
you are so right, doesn’t time fly! Too late to edit though, sorry min.
Are you reading this Currywurst? Here we come!
@Braco
No worries. Time seems to be flying towards the referendum!!
Muttley,
I had subconsciously set my ‘one year to go’ clock at the release of the white paper…….and it really isn’t!
Thanks for the reminder pal, it’s put a rocket up my arse!
Rev you are operating double standards on this forum. I was taken to task by you for suggesting that Norsewarrior was the AM2 troll from the Scotsman. I was even threatened with a ban. Yet i see all over this thread the speculation about the Currwurst troll and who he she may or may not be, and not a bloody peep from you. WTF?
I’ve been AT THE MOVIES.
True what is said regarding Scotland not being a country whilst it does not
have it’s independence. Upon leaving the Union it will then gain this independence
but only to loose it again if it decides to join the EU.
and no amount of Scottish Skier up beat chat can or will change that.
Note I’m not trying to change anything, nor am I attempting to be up beat.
I’m simply setting the scene/stating what the situation is.There are reasons we are where we are…why the UK never became seen as one country by most of the Scottish electorate…why Scots never became British, but were Scottish and British… why Britishness peaked in the 1950’s but has been in decline since then…
This is a major factor in the history of why the UK – with it’s original purpose (empire) gone – is on the brink of ending.
People go on about politics being the major factor; power concentrated in London…unhappy with Westminster/Tories/Labour/Libs…Scottish Parliament popular etc… It is a major factor, but driven by an underlying force far greater.
The fact that Scotland is a country/nation in the eyes of its people is behind everything and it is that ultimately which will decide the fate of the UK.
Scotland is the unifying force, Britain is the dividing one. That can only lead things in one direction. It has been doing so for ~70 years now and shows no sign of stopping.
scottish skier
The inevitability of independence for Scotland is becoming a widely perceived factor in the way people react and decide how they will vote.
Once they have decided that the future is independent they will modify their plans to accommodate this then vote firmly for it. We are at that tipping point
@HenBroon
It was me who speculated that Currywurst and D. Hothersall are one and the same for the reason stated in above posts.
Note the use of the word “speculated”. Also, in my first post on the subject I used the word “allegedly”.
More importantly, I have not called Currywurst a troll. You, however, have called Currywurst a troll in your above post. Their is a difference in alleging that ‘X’ is perhaps, in real life, ‘Y’, rather than saying ‘troll X’ is, in real life, ‘Y’ (or ‘troll Y’).
Currywurst
Correct me if I’m wrong but the other day I asked you a question on another thread and you didn’t reply.
I’ll repeat it again so you can have the chance to reply:
What are your aspirations for Scotland after the Referendum?
Dal Riata says:
8 August, 2013 at 9:34 am
“@HenBroon It was me who speculated that Currywurst and D. Hothersall are one and the same for the reason stated in above posts.”
semantic bollocks