Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Browne forced to defend aide after e-mail leaked

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 21 January 2008
By PETER MACMAHON
DES Browne was yesterday forced to defend a political aide accused by the Nationalists of showing "contempt for the Scottish people".
The Scottish Secretary intervened after the SNP seized on an e-mail written by John McTernan – now a special adviser to Mr Browne at the Scotland Office – making unfavourable comparisons between Scotland and Sweden.

In the e-mail, sent to Labour M
SP Karen Gillon in 2002, Mr McTernan said: "If you've not been to Sweden before I think you'll really like it – it's the country Scotland would be if it was not narrow, Presbyterian, racist, etc etc. Social democracy in action."

Yesterday Mr Browne said the e-mail, written while Mr McTernan was working for the Scottish Arts Council, had been taken out of context. It was of "no relevance to Mr McTernan's current job" as his senior special adviser.

Mr Browne added: "It is widely recognised that John makes a valued contribution to the Scotland Office team, which remains firmly focused on working in the interests of the people of Scotland."

However, Alex Salmond, the First Minister, yesterday questioned whether Mr McTernan should keep his job.

Mr Salmond said: "It's a remarkable insight into the attitudes of the special adviser that London put in charge of Labour's (Holyrood] election campaign last year. It shows why Labour lost the election, they seem to have developed a unique contempt for the Scottish people."



The full article contains 242 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 20 January 2008 9:47 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

,

21/01/2008 00:07:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

FrancesP,

21/01/2008 01:06:03
#2. AM2, if an SNP aide had called the English 'narrow, Anglican and racist' (and you could just as easily find a barrage of statistics to justify that claim), are you seriously telling us you wouldn't be having a field day with it? It would by now be enjoying pride of place in your doomsday database of 'evidence' revealing the 'true nature of the SNP'.
3

,

21/01/2008 01:12:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

FrancesP,

21/01/2008 01:29:32
Oh, and while I'm thinking of it, another contradiction alert concerning the AMR doomsday database. AM2 has been relentless in his efforts to convince us that Scots are at least moderately proud of being British - how exactly does that square with his claim that "38% of people in Scotland harbour negative views of the English, which indicates narrowness to me!"

As a nation, we might well be narrow-minded anti-English bigots, or we might be patriotic, flag-waving Brits who sniffle to the strains of Land of Hope and Glory, but I struggle to see how we can be both simultaneously. Just goes to show what I've long suspected - there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics selectively culled from the AM2 doomsday database.
5

The Strategist,

21/01/2008 02:20:36
Sweden: Home of Ericcson the global electronics company, Saab that make some of best aircraft around, Saab the car maker and Volvo although owned now by Ford still one of the best car manufacturers, big shipbuilding industry....

Scotland: None of the above.
6

Tumbler,

Glasgow 21/01/2008 02:32:31
#9 And you point?
7

An Beal Bacht,

21/01/2008 02:37:43
John McTernan – now a special adviser to Mr Browne at the Scotland Office...

How do you justify having a man that says Scots are "narrow, Presbyterian and racist" working at the Scotland Office? Perhaps the Foreign Office should employ Osama Bin Laden as ambassador to the US.
8

Willie Macleod,

Wick 21/01/2008 03:38:50
Scots and Scotland as a whole are not Narrow Presbyterian and Racist But we have a problem There is alot of racism and hate within our country We need to tackle this head on.
9

An Beal Bacht,

21/01/2008 03:46:15
2 Willie Macleod, Wick:

Ach!

Don't be scared Wullie - Ah'm sure the polis wull protect ye. Aye - thurs a loat ae they teuchter hatin, hied bashin neds aboot the noo. But it's nice tae be nice.
10

Pilrig.,

Livingston 21/01/2008 06:29:08
Bigot to keep his job.
11

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/01/2008 08:12:51
It continues to disappoint me that the reaction to this quote has been to deny that we are any of these things, instead of to take the opportunity to recognise some of our failings and try to find ways to change.

We are a racist country. You only have to listen to people on the street, on the bus or in the pub to know that. I challenged a bit of casual racism the other day, and was astonished by the ferocity of the response - and this was a young girl in her twenties. Instead of pretending we aren't racist, let's try to find ways to educate people out of it.
12

Beth Boyle,

Snow belt, NY 21/01/2008 08:29:37
John McTernan should resign. There is no excuse for that kind of bigotry. Sweden is in deep trouble do to their overly liberal social programs and handouts. Norway now employs thousands of you Swedes as their economy is booming. Aspiring to be like Sweden is not something I think Scotland should do. Scotland should hold onto its Scottishness. To copy England or the Swedish model is wrong.
13

Beth Boyle,

NY 21/01/2008 08:30:20
That should read young Swedes, sorry
14

Erse,

Middle East 21/01/2008 09:06:43
Hi Duncan #15. I've been fortunate to be able to travel and experience a lot of different countries and cultures and I can assure you that the average Scot is, kinder, more compassionate, more understanding, less racist and more tolerant of other cultures than a lot of other nationalities out there.
15

Queen D,

Glasgow 21/01/2008 09:08:22
Duncan,perhaps the young lady was indulging in free speech,which you then interrupted when it was none of your business.She took offense at you!
I frankly could'nt care less what the chap thinks of the Scots,I'd never heard of him before and I probably won't hear of him again.
I am so tired of the racist card being played by all and sundry.It has been totally devalued in my eyes and goes along with political correctness as a means of stifling free speech.
The easiest way to make people uncomfortable and to silence them is to shout racist,they are left defending themselves with the feeble sounding protestation of ,'no I'm not'
I'm not anti anyone white ,black,green,male, female of any nationality.
I'm sick of research,by some academic twerp, that tells me Scotland is an anti English society,anti anything society.No-one has ever asked me my views in any poll taken of anything and I'm very old so I've been around long enough for them to so do!
16

malcolmcean,

21/01/2008 09:55:22
AM2 writes: "Next, if we assume the word “narrow” to be conceptually linked to “Presbyterian” in his comment, and (without any implied value judgement) loosely define it as lacking doctrinal breadth, then Presbyterianism is undoubtedly narrower than Anglicanism, which ranges from “High Church” Anglo-Catholicism through to Biblical Evangelicalism."


This is an absolutely disgraceful comment.

I will not compalin about it (it is sectarian, ignorant, and outright offensive) as it serves to remind everyone of the sort of bigotry lies at the heart your 'philosophy' (a philosophy which is informed by one thing: your fanatical devotion to the British state).



17

Jimmy the Pie,

21/01/2008 10:03:16
AM2
I wish I could say "it's good to have you back to your rambling best", but I can't!!!
18

malcolmcean,

21/01/2008 10:08:30
It is not a factual statement. It is your pig-ignorant opinion masquerading as fact.

There is disagreement (doctrinal and political) within Presbyterianism. Soteriological disagreements abound - there are many and vaired sects of Calvinist/Presbyterian thought which all espouse and are informed by varying doctrinal codes.

I will not insult the episcopalians in the way you have insulted Calvinist/Presbyterians with a spurious and ill-judged comparison.

Attacking Presbyterianism (and passing your pig-ignorant opinion off as fact!) in order to excuse the poorly executed statement by ojne of your political bedfellows is the lowest of the low.



19

the_figures_are _fudged,

Galashiels 21/01/2008 10:15:00
What place does someone with views like McTernan have in politics ?

Sounds more like a comment from the BNP than the Labour party, is this attitude commonplace in the Labour party ?
20

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 21/01/2008 10:16:56
I can understand why FM Salmond is playing politics with this, McTernan is a snide character who as Blair's Director of Political Operations was up to his neck in the 'cash for honours' scandal, he certainly put lots of Scottish Labour noses out of joint when he was parachuted in to sort out Labour's campaign for last years Scottish election, notably McConnell and Jamieson briefed against him.

However, in my opinion the crux of what McTernan is saying is true, every day on our streets, we see the narrowness and racism he refers to. Now rather than say well his party presided over decades of societal ills in Scotland that did nothing to address these problems, and it's all their fault, we should be recognising the claims, be they in an off the cuff remark and debating what makes the perception of Scotland being narrow and racist and what more can be done to change it.

As Duncan at #15 has pointed out challenging casual racism in the street brings nothing but hostility, do we walk away from this or suck it up and keep challenging?

21

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 21/01/2008 10:36:15
No AM2. Not when there are comments like the following on order-order.com to ruffle the feathers.

http://www.order-order.com/2007/01/snp-welcome-downing-streets-mcternan.html#c116844818765222156

"Peter Hitchens said...
The SNP could win it for Cameron. Let them have independence rather than just dependence on England.
Let the miserable ginger haired fu*kers sit up there pi*s wet through and cold and see how long they last. Good riddance. Without Scotland we would never again have to endure a socialist government (providing we get rid of commie Dave)"
22

malcolmcean,

21/01/2008 10:39:28
AM2 writes: "Nor am I entirely unaware of some of the soteriological issues, but given that you may find most such differences within the evangelical wing of the Anglican church, which then extends far beyond Presbyterian territory, particularly in eucharistic and liturgical terms, the offence which you seem to have taken to my remarks has no grounding in reality"

I am not going to play your totally offensive game of 'compare and contrast the religious doctrines to see which one is the narrowest'.

I am sure that Anglicanism, Mormonism, Zionist Baptism, and all the other Chrstian sects have their doctrinal differences. Good luck to them.

You have singled out Presbyterianism and have coupled it with a usage (McTiernan's) of 'narrow' which is totally pejorative (it is comparing the 'narrowness' of Scotland unfavourably with the breadth of Sweden).

Personally I don't believe he was talking about doctrinal narrowness (as you clumsily try to say), I think he was saying that Scots were parochial and that this was (in some whooly way undefined by his ignorant and non-specific language) perhaps because of their presbyterian nature.

His comments are also stupid and ill-judged.

23

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/01/2008 10:55:53
#19 Freedom of speech is not a license to speak unchallenged! Good grief woman, don't throw phrases around if you cannot understand what they mean. Of course the girl was indulging in freedom of speech. And yes, she was indeed annoyed that I butted in and challenged her. But the fact is that she was exercising her freedom by expressing overtly racist views. I responded by exercising my own freedom to criticise her.

I'm sure you are a good and decent person, but your desire not to see racism is only going to help to cement it in our society. If we are to tackle it, we have to acknowledge that it is real, and a problem.

If the majority abhor racism, as is often claimed, then it is our bounden duty to respond vocally when the minority expresses their racist views. If it is socially unacceptable to be racist, we need to make it socially unaccepted. I make no apology for reacting to this girl, and I'll do it again.
24

yolanda,

21/01/2008 10:59:53
I don't see how the statement "To be truly Scottish, you have to have been born in Scotland" can be taken as being racist. It's a fact, surely? If I was filling in a form and ticked the box saying I was African or Irish or Chinese, it would be false, because I wasn't born in any of those counties. People from all nationalities can live in a country and integrate and contribute, adopt the culture and become part of the community, of course. I wholeheartedly welcome that. They are not, however, truly Scottish unless they are born there. It doesn't lessen their contribution to Scotland in any way (in fact, I believe that multi-culturalism enhances the country)but it doesn't make them "truly Scottish". The word "racism" has been stretched beyond all reason nowadays.
25

malcolmcean,

21/01/2008 11:01:08
AM2 writes: "1) I made plain that my use of the word "narrow" to indicate a relative lack of doctrinal breadth was not intended to imply any value judgement."

Punching someone in the face while saying 'I am not punching you in the face' does not negate the action.

Likewise, saying that Presbyterianism is 'narrow' doctrinally compared with Episcopalianism, although saying you don't mean to make a value judgment, is making a value judgement (you are, and from near total ignorance - you admit only a passing knowledge of one of the fundamental Augustinian doctrines of Presbyterianism: divine grace).

If I were being extremely ungenerous, I would say that only an idiot would articulate the argument you just have. If I were being generous, I would say that you were, with cack-handed and dull comprehension, primarily trying to excuse a political ally (rather than make a serious theological point - something, given the evidence of your comments, I do not think you are capable of).
26

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 21/01/2008 11:32:36
AM2,

To be truly British you have to have been born in Britain? I'd be interested to know your view on that.
27

SC,

Sutton 21/01/2008 11:41:24
AM2,

And all that racism under a unionist, socialist government. Perhaps we should try a different form of government! Labour or unionism does not seem to be working. As socialist governments exist in other countries without your stated problems, then I suspect it must be unionism. Or is it Scotland is uniquely incapable of non-racism...and we are back to the core unionist belief.

The most significant difference between Scotland and the countries you are implicitly comparing ourselves too, is sovereignty. To me, it is no surprise that a culture that gives up the right rule itself, passing that responsibility to a neighbouring country, develops weird attitudes about the provenance of nationality not seen in self-governing independent states.

Besides, the belief that 'Scots' are a separate, white race is also held in England and commonly aired in the media, reinforcing attitudes north and south of the border. I remember when I first heard KT Tunstell introduced on Virgin radio. The DJ said, 'Chinese singer living in Scotland'. Not how I have ever heard her introduce herself. Imagine if he had described Lewis Hamilton as 'Grenadian racing driver living in England' based on a photograph and a wee bit of prejudice that English people must be white!
28

Prycey,

NL 21/01/2008 11:45:29
After spending about 10 years in total in Scotland, and as much as it pains me to say this but, think the initial comments were on the money.

As an Englishman living with a Catholic girl, I had to suffer the usual 'leg pullers' on anything from footy to food, politics to property and just about anything in between on a daily basis.
And while there are a tremendous amount of good, kind people in Scotland, I found these 'taunts' to be regularly accepted, frequent, and frankly down right insulting, despite my own efforts to 'be the better person and rise above it all.

These comments were unfortunately more visible when our son reached school age where the deepening sectarian divisions between his born faith and those around him.
Having a 5 year old come home from school and ask "Dad, what is a Feinian B@stard?" sickened me to my core, since this had in ALL my life never been mentioned until I was in Scotland.
And to my regret the one aspect I could not simply let slide as I did with so many of the comments aimed at my own English character.

This is something that should be viewed as a wake up call, since it is certainly not something that is as simple as black and white.
Simply spouting national pride as a reason for bigotry and hatred is not acceptable, never has been south of the border so why is it accepted in the north?

Most of the comments are hurtful, arrogant and of course misguided.

I tried to see things through a simple yet very effective manner, where these comments were aimed at me as an 'Englishman' I always substituted the analogy of English to Black, to see whether it was acceptable, and with about a 95 percent failure rate I feel justified in at least partially supporting the sentiment of John McTernan' comments.
29

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/01/2008 11:50:04
#46 It is laughable to suggest that unionism is a cause of racism. Unionism is about combining nations equally to make a whole greater than the sum of its parts; nationalism is about dividing people along national lines. Your suggestion is utterly laughable.
30

Talorthane,

21/01/2008 11:53:50
AM2 21 & 22

Scottish Social Attitudes Survey 2003.

1) “To be truly Scottish you have to have been born in Scotland.”

How does that compare with the statement:
"To be truly Swedish you have to have been born in Sweden."

If there is greater agreement with your statement among SNP voters, it as hardly surprising as they view Scotland as a country, like Sweden.

2) "12% of SNP voters, 4% of Labour voters, 2% of LibDem voters and 1% of Conservative voters would be unhappy if a relative married an English person."

How do these figures compare with other countries? I would suspect that they are not that different. In otherwords, these figures do not identify a problem with Scotland, unless it can be shown that these believes are stronger here than in other countries.

3) "53% of SNP voters and significant minorities (thirtysomething percent) of voters for the other three parties think that Scotland would lose its identity if more English people lived here."

This seems self evident to me. If you were to reduce the number of nationals in any country then you will have an impact on the national identity of that country. It is not to say that this is a good or bad thing, only that the sense of Scottishness will reduce.

If the number of Norwegians living in Sweden was to dramatically increase, then it may well be expected to increase the sense of Norwegian identity and reduce the sense of Swedish identity.

4) "23% of Conservative voters and 22% of SNP voters (mid-teens for the other two) think that “true Scots” must be white."

Again, is this a particular problem with Scotland, or do other countries (like Sweden) have similar figures?

However, I would say that the problem here is not the responses, but the question. If you ask a loaded question, you prompt a response that may not necessarily be held by the individual.
31

Talorthane,

21/01/2008 12:33:51
#48 Duncan in Edinburgh

"It is laughable to suggest that unionism is a cause of racism. Unionism is about combining nations equally to make a whole greater than the sum of its parts; nationalism is about dividing people along national lines. Your suggestion is utterly laughable."

Unionism is about defending the status of the United Kingdom as it exists, it is nothing to do with the principle of "combining nations equally to make a whole greater than the sum of its parts".

Unionism is about British nationalism, and as such it is no more immune to racism or bigotry than any other form of nationalism. By the same token, nationalism of constituent parts of the United Kingdom are no more likely to incite racism or bigotry than unionism.

Is Britishness or Scottishness more liekly to invoke mistrust of the French?...or the Germans?...or Australians?...etc
32

Talorthane,

21/01/2008 12:58:53
#53 AM2

If you are a Unionist, in this part of the world, then it means that you see your nation as the United Kingdom.

You may claim to have a second nation to your identity, such as Scotland, but your identification with the United Kingdom is first and foremost.

"My unionism is about four nations sharing sovereignty for mutual benefit and the inspirational “anti-nationalism” which that concept embodies."

This suggests that either; this idea of "anti-nationalism" was a determining factor in the establishment of what is now the United Kingdom, or that your view of "unionism" is a personal or subjective interpretation of that reality.

At what point in the history of the United Kingdom did it's purpose become, or begin to include, "anti-nationalism"?



33

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 21/01/2008 12:59:32
#52, AM2

Thankyou for that. I would probably argue the same regarding being Scottish. If Scotland becomes independent then there is no reason why people immigrating shouldn't consider themselves Scottish, whilst still identifying with their own country of origin. Of course, identity is a complicated thing and is changeable, so clashes are - perhaps - inevitable, socially and individually.
34

Talorthane,

21/01/2008 13:19:36
#57 Wardog

"It's an interesting point that AM2 reflects on his unionist belief being based partly on 'anti-nationalism' and specifically scottish , welsh or english nationalism."

I think that it is also interesting that "unionism" is increasingly being defined retrospectively.
35

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/01/2008 13:28:14
#58 I am literally open-mouthed at this:

'I think that it is also interesting that "unionism" is increasingly being defined retrospectively.'

from the person who said this:

'Unionism is about British nationalism'

Do you seriously suggest that your definition is not revisionist? Really, honestly, who are you trying to kid?
36

Colin McDonald,

Walton-on-Thames 21/01/2008 13:36:11
AM2

Where do you stand on further powers for the EU?
37

Talorthane,

21/01/2008 13:38:40
#59 Duncan in Edinburgh

"Unionism is about British nationalism"

As a Unionist, do you believe that your sovereign state should be the UK or Scotland?

"I think that it is also interesting that "unionism" is increasingly being defined retrospectively. "

You siad:

"Unionism is about combining nations equally to make a whole greater than the sum of its parts; nationalism is about dividing people along national lines."

Did "Unionism" exist as a movement before the nations of the United Kingdom were combined, or did it emerge later as a response to nationalist movements within the UK?
38

busbyfh,

21/01/2008 13:40:52
..............JOHN McTERNAN..............

All through primary school AND secondary school you reckoned you were Labour first and English second - nothing else counted .
Remember how you boasted about NOT being Scottish as you were born down South like myself ?
I take it you have not changed your views - NOR noticed the huge changes to the Labour party. The John McTernan I new would never have stood for the pseudo Tory policies the present Labour party have put in place.

John - Times change - People change - But your thoughts on Scotland have not.Your reckoning on "Labour" has shall we say "adapted".
Are you as different now as the Labour Party is ?
At 15 years old you were no "New Labour" person - That -you can take to the bank.
39

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/01/2008 14:04:38
#61 Surely both unionism and nationalism exist outside of the confines of the UK experience? The United States, and the EU, are both examples of unionism in action. Unionist movements in Italy and Germany created those modern states. Yugoslavia has seen imposed union in the past, and more recently has seen nationalism in its component parts.

I would argue that both unionism and nationalism existed before, and still exist outwith, the UK. Union has historically been about compromise and peace; nationalism has historically been about division and war.
40

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 21/01/2008 14:21:55
FrancesP wrote:
>>#2. AM2, if an SNP aide had called the English 'narrow, Anglican and racist' (and you could just as easily find a barrage of statistics to justify that claim), are you seriously telling us you wouldn't be having a field day with it? It would by now be enjoying pride of place in your doomsday database of 'evidence' revealing the 'true nature of the SNP'.<<

Good and accurate post.
41

the_figures_are _fudged,

Galashiels 21/01/2008 14:46:13
Another topic diverted form its course by the AM2 troll, people do not feed the troll it thrives on attention.
42

Colin McDonald,

Walton-on-Thames 21/01/2008 15:04:59
To all those dyed in the wool unionists who espouse the virtues of the union and deride us nationilsts as seperatist, war mongers and view us accordingly with contempt:

How many of you are pro the EU and believe the UK should fully engage within it? (euro, constitution etc.)

I would be willing to bet the vast majority of British unionists would suddenly find themselves in a "nationailst" camp on the subject of Europe.

Is it not that you simply define the boundaries of your nationalism differently to those of us for Scottish nationaism? That you see yourself as British rather than European whilst I would view myself as Scottish rather than British. How then do you reconcile this with your jibes about small minded, narrow, parochialism?

We may argue the merits of various unions, that isn't my point, it is that the majority of unionist posters appear to view the very concept of nationalism as backward and racist yet would not hesitate to defend the UK from the erosion of its powers by Brussels. It seems hypocritical to me.
43

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/01/2008 15:27:12
#68 I can't speak for others, but as well as believing in the union of the UK, I am a firm supporter of closer union in Europe. I would welcome steady moves towards a federal Europe.
44

Glaswegian,

Glasgow 21/01/2008 15:27:58

#48 Duncan in Edinburgh

"Unionism is about combining nations equally to make a whole greater than the sum of its parts".

Really? Always? So the Norwegians were wrong to seek and gain their independence? And the Irish, and the Lithuanians, and the Estonians etc...
45

Colin McDonald,

Walton-on-Thames 21/01/2008 15:30:33
Fair enough Duncan, you are consistent in your rational and that is to be respected.

Do you support the idea of a federal UK?
46

FrancesP,

21/01/2008 16:23:32
#20. AM2, you've now gone even further than you did before, and suggested that 38% of the public holding certain 'Anglophobic' views is sufficient to define Scotland as a whole as an Anglophobic country. Personally, I am highly dubious about that reasoning (don't the other 62% count for anything?), but assuming for the moment you're right, this just reinforces my point from earlier on. How can you credibly argue - as you have tried to do many times recently - that this fundamentally 'Anglophobic country' has a strong attachment to a British national identity in which it takes considerable pride?

One nice thing about having these occasional exchanges is that I think I'm starting to pick up a few tricks of the trade from you. For instance, this isn't the first time you've responded to a potentially tricky line of argument by splitting hairs in the most ludicrous fashion imaginable (ie. 'England' v 'the English'), and yet you do it with such assurance and apparent attention to detail that for a moment you almost have me questioning my own sanity and thinking you must have a point. I'm definitely going to try that trick the next time I'm on the back foot in an argument.

Leaving your laudable spin techniques aside for a moment, though, I think we can safely assume that when McTernan said Scotland was racist, he was referring to the Scottish people, not the Scottish landscape or Scottish livestock, or anything else to do with Scotland. After all, when you produced your 38% figure in support of his claim, I didn't stop to question whether this was 38% of 'Scots' or 38% of 'Scotland' - strictly speaking, if it was the latter, you could just as easily have been talking about trees or shrubbery.
47

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/01/2008 16:25:40
#70 There is no logic to your argument. I neither said nor implied any of that.

#71 Well there are a lot of different possible definitions of federalism, but I think as a baseline position I would have to say yes I do.

#73 There have certainly been terrible consequences from some enforced unions in the past, and you're right to point to Iraq as another example, although it is far from clear that splitting that country into its three racial groupings would help in any way at this point.

But the consequences for the UK's union have been overwhelmingly positive for centuries, and that is why the thrust of the Scottish nationalist argument lacks conviction, and is instead inflated with rhetoric. The union of the UK ended centuries of wars; it created an economic powerhouse; it enabled an empire; it allowed constituent nations to live in positive symbiosis; it created the predominant culture in the world today. Without the union, we might well be speaking French by now. Pensez-vous.
48

Glaswegian,

Glasgow 21/01/2008 16:33:48

#75 Duncan in Edinburgh

You said: "Unionism is about combining nations equally to make a whole greater than the sum of its parts".

I then gave examples where, in my opinion, unionism did not make a whole greater than the sum of its parts.

Where does my argument fall down?
49

FrancesP,

21/01/2008 16:39:07
#75. It's quite possible that if things had gone differently in 1707, we'd now be saying "if it wasn't for Scottish independence, we'd all be speaking English by now". Except we wouldn't be saying that in English, we'd be saying it in Scots or Gaelic.

I've got nothing against the fact that I'm a native English speaker, but I don't see why that's qualitatively any better than being a native speaker of any other language.
50

SC,

Sutton 21/01/2008 16:48:53
"#46 It is laughable to suggest that unionism is a cause of racism. Unionism is about combining nations equally to make a whole greater than the sum of its parts; nationalism is about dividing people along national lines. Your suggestion is utterly laughable."

Of course I was referring to British Unionism specifically. Your view seems similar to many socialists. They tend to latch onto British Unionism by proxy - they see internationalist ideals in the Union, far removed from the original purpose, or current practice.

Democrats, on the other hand, welcome the nation state as a facilitator of accountable governance. One-world government – the objective of internationalists and the logical conclusion of ‘sum-greater-than-parts’ unionism – is a sure-fired way of killing of democracy. Why would an elite restrain themselves democratically if their citizens had no other options on where to live? Dictatorship would result – not that socialists would mind, providing it was leftist!

The debate on unionist motivations has been very interesting. My unionism is for inter-governmental co-operation between sovereign states. This is a million miles from centralised attempts to enforce a new identity on four unwilling participants. The EU is partly both and I campaign for the former along with a sovereign Scotland as a member.
51

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 21/01/2008 17:14:32
It is hard to believe that Mr. McTernan's personal views of the Scots expressed in a 5 year old e-mail could cause such offence?

However, in most Irish Genealogy websites, the surname McTernan is clearly identified as having its roots in Co. Cork, and other Roman Catholic heartlands in Southern Ireland.

Therefore, as an Anglo-Scottish Catholic with Irish ancestry, Mr. McTernan is probably better placed than most to make an honest observation about the Scots!
52

SC,

Sutton 21/01/2008 17:16:01
Duncan,

"The union of the UK ended centuries of wars; it created an economic powerhouse; it enabled an empire; it allowed constituent nations to live in positive symbiosis; it created the predominant culture in the world today. Without the union, we might well be speaking French by now."

Methinks you live in a Brit-fantasy world! Yes, it did end wars - the English subdued their troublesome neighbours. Scotland didn't do badly from that, but the Irish! Please!

It enabled an Empire? Whilst not an anti-imperialist, it is not often that Empires are held up as forces of virtue!

Created an economic powerhouse? I think that was more to do with the English putting aside their religious differences and getting on with some work, unhindered by church and state.

Predominant culture in the world? Look! A Brit chauvinist! What is wrong with speaking French (providing it was not enforced upon you by a centralising state)?
53

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 21/01/2008 17:33:25
The fact that McTernan's boss is the son of a Presybyterian meenister might just hasten his demise.
54

Miss H,

21/01/2008 17:48:11
Another day another rant from AM2 about anti English racism. Whereas it is quite acceptable to describe the Scots as narrow, Presbyterian racists....

Yes AM2 you can give us the number of nominal prods in the 2001 census but you forget to say that the census also found Scottish people are the least likely to identify themselves by religion of all the UK 'nations'. People in England and Wales are more likely to identify themselves as belonging to a particular religion than people in Scotland. As for people in Northern Ireland .. well, let's not go there.

As regards narrow ‘ Anglophobia’ I think it would be interesting to see what percentage of English people have negative views of the Scots. Why has that never been measured? Why is it only deemed worthy to measure Scots’ attitudes to the English and not the other way round?

However let’s leave that to one side. Very interesting book Wardog refers to - Multicultural Nationalism: Islamaphobia, Anglophobia and Devolution. (O.U.P.) The English are more Islamaphobic than the Scots according to this book - but it is the case that 38% of Scots have negative views of the English (though I have pointed out that we can’t contrast the level of Scotophobia in England as it has never been measured).

What’s interesting is that there might also be a completely logical explanation of why English people can be seen as perennial incomers. The book looked at ethnic Pakistanis in Scotland as well as English people in Scotland. They found people of Pakistani origin are much more likely to consider themselves Scottish than English people living in Scotland. The reason for this seems to be that people of Pakistani origin see their ethnic origin and their Muslim faith as a cultural identity, not a national identity, whereas English people see their Englishness as their national identity wherever they may be. This means that Asian Scots can adopt the territorial identity of being Scottish because it makes no differenc
55

Miss H,

21/01/2008 17:48:35
This means that Asian Scots can adopt the territorial identity of being Scottish because it makes no difference to the fact that they are of Muslim, whereas many English people feel that they cannot become ‘Scottish’ even though they may adopt the Scottish way of life in its entirety.

Ah, questions of identity can get very complicated
56

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/01/2008 17:51:22
#77 and #80, the French thing was a wee joke. Don't get too upset about it, I wasn't qualitatively judging French as being inferior to English...
57

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/01/2008 17:56:18
#76 Nope, you gave examples of nations gaining independence. I do agree that some unions, commonly those imposed by force, can also be a force for ill. But you have given me no examples of such unions. Yugoslavia I think is a good one. But it is also true that that imposed union prevented civil war for 50 years, in an area that had been seething with war for centuries.
58

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/01/2008 18:02:35
#80 Interesting that you choose to downplay the importance of Scots in British success when it suits you! And I'm also interested that you don't see the British Empire as having been a success. Do you consider it to have been a failure? How extraordinary.

I'm not talking about moral judgements here. British empirical brutality was shameful. But it has to be classed as a success for the country, surely?
59

Miss H,

21/01/2008 18:08:02
Surely the British Empire could only have been considered a success if it was a success for the Empire. Was it? Were the various countries of the Empire more successful when they were being run from Westminster? In that case surely it would still be in existence? Of all the countries that gained their independence from Britain, how many have asked to be let back in again?

Perhaps it wasn't that successful after all.
60

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/01/2008 18:12:21
#87 As ever you choose your metrics to suit your argument. Was the British Empire a failure because it ran its course?
61

SC,

Sutton 21/01/2008 18:21:35
Duncs, "Yugo civil war delayed for 50 years by union"? Not necessaryily so. Czechoslovakia, Hungary & Austria were all carved out of the defunct Austro-Hungarian Empire without ethnic conflict (and without conflict at all if it was not for Hitler).

Who says the same would not have been true for Slovenia and Croatia?

Yugoslavia was surely the product of a victorious Serbia trying to increase its influence through domination of its co-culturalists to the north. Where have I heard that before? (Tito was a Croat, sure, but he was also a socialist, so he liked unionism. Just like our great leader. Scot and socialist.)
62

Talorthane,

21/01/2008 18:26:10
63 Duncan in Edinburgh

You seem increasingly confused.


"Surely both unionism and nationalism exist outside of the confines of the UK experience?"

Of course it does. That is why I was questioning what it means to be unionist.

"The United States, and the EU, are both examples of unionism in action."

Different types of unions, but useful examples.

"Unionist movements in Italy and Germany created those modern states."

So, you admit that nationalism isn't necessarily wrong, or divisive, or a cause of racism.

Yugoslavia has seen imposed union in the past, and more recently has seen nationalism in its component parts.

And what is more stable; a unionised Yugoslavia, or each resprective state existing independently?

"I would argue that both unionism and nationalism existed before,..."

Are you saying that the Union of the Crowns was due to a unionist movement rather than due to James VI finding himself next in line to the English throne?

Or that the Act of Union was a result of popular feeling rather than economic and political convenience?

"...and still exist outwith, the UK."

Other than the federal USA and the European Union, where?

"Union has historically been about compromise and peace; nationalism has historically been about division and war."

What about the velvet divorce of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, or Norway's independence from Sweden?

Which is more stable, an independent Rebublic of Ireland or one controlled by the UK, or India, etc.

When talking about "division and war" you are confusing the process of a country becoming independent with the outcome of independence.

"Division and war" is usually a result of the larger state resisting or refusing the democratic calls for independence, which only comes about because there is a popular movement behind it.

You are also scaremongering.
63

Miss H,

21/01/2008 18:29:23
Duncan all empires fail in the end. Surely you know that.
64

Miss H,

21/01/2008 18:32:48
90

The EU is not a Union in the sense that the UK is.

It is actually nothing like it. The EU is a confederation of nation states which agree to share sovereignty in certain agreed areas. The member states retain their sovereignty.

In contrast in the UK Westminster is sovereign and that is that.
65

Richardinho,

21/01/2008 18:40:34
There is absolutely no excuse for this narrow minded and contemptuous attitude towards Scotland-particularly from someone who plays a part in determining what this country is like in the first place!

The unionists do themselves no favours when they try to defend this individual.
66

Talorthane,

21/01/2008 18:41:00
88 Duncan in Edinburgh,21/01/2008 18:12:21

"As ever you choose your metrics to suit your argument. Was the British Empire a failure because it ran its course?"

And what's wrong with saying that the Union has run its course?

You have previoously criticised nationalists for giving no credit to the benefits that Scotland gained from the Union.

That is fair.

But it's also fair to say that Scotland did gain certain benefits from the Union, but that the Union has run its course, and Scotland could now enjoy a better future as an independent sovereign state, in its own right.
67

Talorthane,

21/01/2008 18:44:49
92 MissH

"The EU is not a Union in the sense that the UK is.

It is actually nothing like it. The EU is a confederation of nation states which agree to share sovereignty in certain agreed areas. The member states retain their sovereignty.

In contrast in the UK Westminster is sovereign and that is that."

I agree with you.

That was someone else's point.

68

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/01/2008 20:18:20
#94 Well it could be a rational argument that the Union has run its course, but what is your evidence?
69

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/01/2008 20:19:53
#91 So all empires are failures, and all states which holds them are failures? Was Rome a failure? Was Byzantium?

Aren't we getting all esoteric...
70

Glaswegian,

21/01/2008 20:43:55
#85 Duncan in Edinburgh.

You started by saying: "Unionism is about combining nations equally to make a whole greater than the sum of its parts". You now accept that in some cases it might not be. The argument now is whether or not the United Kingdom is one of those cases.

Personally I believe Scotland should pool its sovereignty with other countries where that seems sensible (eg certain environmental matters, which could usefully be determined at a European or even global level) and make its own decisions where it doesn't (eg war).
71

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/01/2008 20:54:18
#98 I do wish you wouldn't misrepresent me with this sort of summation. My statements are fairly clear, I think, and do not need restating or summing up by you if in the process you intend to change their meaning.

Unionism remains, in my view, about combining nations equally to make a whole greater than the sum of its parts.

I simply said that the argument that our particular union has runs its course might have merit if it were supported by any evidence. I have seen none.
72

Glaswegian,

21/01/2008 21:51:38
#99 Duncan in Edinburgh

You said (#85): "I do agree that some unions, commonly those imposed by force, can also be a force for ill."

I interpreted that as meaning that in some cases unions are not about "combining nations equally to make a whole greater than the sum of its parts".

In what way did I misrepresent you?
73

Glaswegian,

Glasgow 21/01/2008 22:15:14
#101 AM2 You say your unionism fully acknowledges the nationhood of Scotland. And yet on matters which go to the very core of nationhood (including the possession of nuclear weapons and the decision to go - or not to go - to war) the people of Scotland cannot make their own decisions.

74

Celtic Lion,

Roar 21/01/2008 22:38:29
AM2 I can't believe you're still defending this little wretch's attack on every person in Scotland. You really do hate Scots, or crave attention I can't decide which. I suggested last week in "another place" (snigger, snigger) that you take a holiday before you go crazy, I'm sorry I think I warned you too late. You're the only person I've ever come across whom I would describe as having excuses for excuses. Bring out AM3, this version is evidently broken beyond repair.

How about you give us your description of all English, all Germans, all coloured people, all half-casts, all Catholics and finally all Jews. In your world it seems it's okay to generalise in that way.

And enough of your "this document says this and that document says that" bleeting because it doesn't wash with most sensible people.
75

SC,

Sutton 21/01/2008 22:46:48
AM2, please remind us of the benefits of the Union you believe. In all your posts, I've seen facts and argument, but never these so called benefits.

You are not allowed to use:
- sum greater than parts - otherwise UK would be richer than smaller nations like Iceland or Denmark
- No borders - we are in the EU
- Make foreigners of family members - doesn't seem to be a problem to all those darn Irishers
- Scots get a place on the world stage - not unless you are in the Labour Party.

Come on. Lets hear your overwhelming benefits of being de facto governed by another country.

76

Glaswegian,

Glasgow 21/01/2008 23:04:54
#107 AM2 Given that Scotland can't "autonimously" decide to refrain from war or divest itself of nuclear weapons, in what way does your unionism "fully acknowledge" our nationhood? We clearly aren't a nation like most other nations, who DO have the right to control - autonimously - such fundamental things. Nor are we in a union of equals, with equal say over our "pooled" sovereign powers. Which makes me think that your unionism acknowledges Scotland's nationhood in an abstract and trivial sense.
77

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 21/01/2008 23:34:59
Tonight on Newsnicht, Jackie the Hutt decreed that Paul Green's donation to the WENDY campaign, wasn't illegal...it was merely 'impermissible'.
78

Celtic Lion,

21/01/2008 23:50:15
Oh poo on a stick, I wish my telly wasn't on the blink. I could do with, say, £950 to get it fixed so I could watch Newsnight again.
79

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 22/01/2008 00:11:33
Och I'm away to bed before AM2 comes on and bores the insomniacs of the www.















.
Oops too late
80

Celtic Lion,

22/01/2008 00:13:52
#114 AM2

I didn't read most of your posts today, reading your posts from yesterday was enough for anyone to consider cutting their wrists. However, if what you say is true (fat chance) then I am glad you are no longer concentrating on even more statistics to put the Scots down rather than comment upon what this Labour wretch has said (ie the main focus of this article) --- I congratulate you on your new found ability to criticise anyone other than the SNP. I'm glad I didn't accuse you of trying to draw any conversation away from the fact that a Labour employee wrote a racial comment about the whole of Scotland and we are told to ignore it, for surely from what you say that has not been so.

Some exciting news for you now though, I just wrote down that 95% of people don't need an excuse to rant after reading your posts. A document and a statistic, it must be true.
81

Glaswegian,

22/01/2008 00:27:57
#116 AM2

I asked in what way your brand of unionism "fully acknowledged" Scotland's nationhood. Your reply makes it clear.

As for Austria, Germany, Spain and France, I'd say it's a matter for the people concerned; wouldn't you?
82

Celtic Lion,

Roar 22/01/2008 00:40:55
#120

Was that the one where you mentioned it on the side, before another torrid of "say anything so long as it's not about the point of this article"? I really don't have enough will to live to read it again.

If you're going to suggest what I think you are and what you're accusing most Scots of being, I strongly suggest you add another column to your pathetic spresadsheet detailing the heritage of posters. If there's any cringe it's got nothing to do with those born in England or any other general group of people, I prefer to remain specific.

I don't trust people without opinions or attachments (quite apt as I wouldn't trust you regardless) and I'd rather cut my right arm off before reading anymore of your cut and paste. That anyone thinks what this man wrote is defensible is what really makes me cringe, as it would if it were written about any other group of people.

(Okay, I've already posted this twice and waited ten (ish) minutes for them to appear. So if this appears thrice then it must mean I really really REALLY mean everything I say in it.)
83

FrancesP,

22/01/2008 01:47:46
#106. AM2 - "38% 'Anglophobic'. 65% proud of being British. Yes, there’s a massive 3% overlap. I see the problem. ;-)"

Dear, dear. The odd bit of sarcasm might suit a mere beta female like me, but I'm not sure it's so becoming in an 'alpha male' like you. Unfortunately, you're completely (and probably willfully) missing my point - the contradiction is not in the figures, it's in your ludicrous interpretation of them.

Firstly, I think if you'd been just a little more generous, you might have conceded that I was the one to point out that 38% of Scots being 'Anglophobes' suggests there are no fewer than 62% who aren't. Yet, in spite of this, you clearly suggested that the 38% figure is sufficient to label Scotland as a whole as 'Anglophobic' or 'narrow'. This is your first highly questionable interpretation of statistical evidence.

Then, by way of contrast, there is your constant reliance on the finding in the 2003 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey that suggested a combined total of 65% were either 'somewhat proud' or 'very proud' of being British. In spite of the fact that other more detailed questioning on the subject of national identity in the very same survey suggested that this attachment to Britishness was actually fairly weak, you nevertheless stick relentlessly to the figure you like better, and conclude that Scotland as a whole is a country 'proud to be British'. This is your questionable interpretation number two.

My point is that one of these two contradictory interpretations of what Scotland is like – Anglophobic or proudly British – might possibly be right, but one must also be wrong. You have to choose. Which convenient fiction is the hardest to let go of?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.