Cultural Vs Civic Nationalism: It's not that simple

Emmigrant Brits and their numbers:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/so-many-brits-now-live-abroad-that-theyre-causing-immigration-debates-oh-the-irony-a6723006.html

The Rise of English Nationalism, and the schadenfreude in watching them sleepwalk into independence
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/18/england-eu-referendum-brexit

Rise of Racism:
http://robertsomynne.blogspot.ca/2016/06/the-whistle-and-dogs-when-being-racist.html?m=1s

Comparison to the IndyRef in the Herald:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14569205.Iain_Macwhirter__Nicola_Sturgeon__Nigel_Farage_and_two_very_different_kinds_of_nationalism/

Differences between the Scottish and English in terms of the EU Referendum, An Ex-Pat's Perspective

I'm not one for using this space as a link-dump, but I think this is the best place for me to post this link, as I'm steering away from talking bout the EU referendum on other social media sites, for various reasons, some previously mentioned.

One point that keeps coming up is how Scotland (and Northern Ireland, maybe not so much Wales, but certainly Gibraltar) may vote differently than England in this upcoming referendum. I read this article on the differences between Scotland and England in terms of how they are approaching the EU referendum, and I think the article hits many points squarely on the head.

I think the first point is particularly on point:

For most Scots, being Scottish and British is, to use an old analogy, a bit like Russian dolls. One can sit comfortably inside the other, without any conflict. That means it’s easy enough to add another one – European – on top...

English people essentially see the two as synonymous, as two sides of the same coin, with Englishness facing in and Britishness facing out. Adding the ‘European’ identity to that feels like an imposition. 

I see this attitude even here. The Ex-Pat community may not be the best reflection of British society, but English and British being synonyms is a very common attitude amongst certain (but not all) of the English Ex-Pats I know. As much as I don't necessarily identify as British a lot of the time, that does rankle. Those who have a stronger regional identity, either Scots, (Norn) Irish or otherwise tend to be able to slot these identities together more smoothly. They are more capable to live with multifaceted national identities. How this affects adding Canadian identity to those who take the route of citizenship is something I haven't really looked at, but would be interesting to think about.

In a related point, the interview for ICI Radio-Canada I mentioned in my last post contained only the viewpoints of Scots in Montreal. Some of these Scots certainly consider themselves more British than maybe I do, but the journalist was having a hard time tracking down other viewpoints. She was pointed towards the facebook group for Brits in the city, but she was refused access, as she wasn't British. As a curator of other facebook groups, I certainly see the logic in this decision, but I do also see the irony in the outcome. She also had difficulty finding people to talk from a leave perspective, but I think that is not such a great shock in the Ex-Pat community, a we all may have a more global perspective than those who have not lived abroad (I generalise, of course).

The Scotsman Abroad and the Quantum Vote

I had never got round to figuring out a postal vote here. The first UK General Election to be held since our move was 4 years in, and I tried to get a postal vote, but had left it too late. I didn't bother sending the forms away, as I thought the time limit to have a postal vote in the UK was 5 years after leaving, so that would have been my last chance.

I've never been allowed to vote in Scottish elections since leaving, as they count as local elections, and even though my last residence is in Edinburgh, overseas voters don't get to vorte in local elections. This was the same rule that was extended to the Referendum. In a way I can see the logic, and I have covered that in detail previously, so there's no gripe there.

However, I recently found out that the legal limit on voting from abroad is not 5 years after leaving the UK, but 15 years. I discovered this as the time limit to register for a postal vote approached repidly, so I faxed off my form on the last day of the deadline and squeaked in under the wire. I am now a registered postal voter in UK general elections, and I get a vote in the upcoming election on May the 7th, and will do so in the next one in 5 years time, then I'll be done! Unless of course there's another election in between, which is not to be ruled out with the currently predicted outcomes of the election.

So, I am on the list. However, when on the phone to a helpful person in Edinburgh about the best way to do things, she did warn me that the ballot would not be sent out till the 29th of April, and that it had to be back by the 8th by the close of the business day. Thankfully, the ballot did arrive quite quickly, on the 1st of May. I posted it off on Sunday, with the promise that it would go Monday morning, but that it would take 4-6 days to get there. Which brings us to the quantum part of the title. I have made a decision, and posted off my vote, but I will never know if it arrives in time to be counted. If my candidate of choice loses by 1 vote, then I can blame the postal system (or myself for not organising the postal ballot quicker), if they win, then I shall happily claim my part in that victory.

Some people may be a little miffed that I can vote in the UK, and yet have chosen not to live there, and indeed become a citizen of another country. They can then take solace in the fact that my vote will be unlikely to be counted. But otherwise they can quit their whinging. The law states I am able to participate in the democratic process in two countries. In fact, one of the main reasons for becoming a citizen is to be able to vote in the running of my chosen country of residence. I do also have a vested interest in the outcome of the UK general election, as a full citizen of that country too. Lucky me. This affords me a privilage, and it is one I intend to use to the fullest potential.

With the upcoming Canadian general election this October, this means I get to vote in two general elections this year. But Canadian politics, compared to the open book that exists in the UK right now, are really dull. Who could possibly blame me for wanting to take part in what I believe will be a rather historic election? I really believe, that whatever the outcome, there will be a big shake-up in how things are run over in the UK following this election, whether it's over the Scottish question, or electoral reform, and I have a vested interest in both those subjects. But I digress, that's leading off into a whole 'nother series of blog posts.

Ok, no, after this, I'll be done

One last post on the subject, then I promise it'll be back to pictures of the kids and other holiday snaps. Promise. I just need a good rant to clear my system.

I couldn't vote in the referendum. I'm good with that, it was part of what I loved about the campaign to build a better Scotland, not an ethnically pure Scotland. All good.

However, just because I moved to Canada, don't tell me shut up about it. Either because I say before hand what I would like to happen, or because I complain about the result because I don't like it. I care what happens there. I am invested in the outcome, and I can be disappointed if it doesn't turn out the way I had hoped. The process involved me, and motivated me, as it did many others in a way that other political processes have not, even without the additional factor of journalists asking what I thought. I don't deny I enjoyed that aspect, and it was an excellent experience for me, it did further sharpen my thoughts on the matter, and made me educate myself on what my opinion really was.

Do not belittle outsiders points of view. Sometimes you have to step away to get another perspective, or as the Bard put it:

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us, To see oursels as ithers see us

Every family in Scotland, for every generation, going back about, oh, I don't know, 300 years or so, has had someone, or even multiple family members that have left, to find a better life. Be that to North America, Australasia, or even if it's just down to England. Why did they leave again? To find a better life. My own father said to me, when I first told him of plans to come to Canada, that "there's nothing for you here". He himself had contemplated emigration to Australia when a young man. It's such a recurring trend, we have a whole genre of songs based upon it. Right now, there are over 1 million Scots, who were born in Scotland, that live elsewhere. 20% of the population has left. And that doesn't even cover those with Scottish parents, or ancestry. That is a larger percentage of the population than even New Zealand (14%), who are famous for leaving their islands.

Historically, these Scots emigrants went on to build things. Within the British Empire, yes I get that, but under that construct those that left flourished, an those that stayed, well, they just kept leaving. The emigrant Scots helped to build places like Canada, and New Zealand and the USA. Scottish thinkers, Scottish workers and Scottish philosophy perfused these places to make them what they are today. Of course, they did not do this alone, no man is an island, and no culture remains uninfluenced by those that surround it, but the roots are there.

So, all these Scots had to leave, to find something better, then when they got there, they built something better for themselves. My question is, why did they have to leave at all? If they had the will and the know how to make things the way they wanted, why did they have to leave to do it?

Yesterday, Scotland had a chance to change this trend. To put a cap on those that had to leave to find better, by building that better place underneath them, instead of having to run away to foreign climes to be able to do things their way. Not only to put a cap on emigration, but to maybe even reverse the trend. To have those Scots who left to come back, and of course, to welcome those from other countries who liked what they saw and want to stay. They had a chance to take control of their own destiny, and build a better Scotland based on social justice, and representative democracy. That didn't happen. Scots are just going to keep on leaving, and before you ask them to come back, ask the question, is there anything there for them?

Scotland bottles it. Shocker.

The title of this post is  a post I made on facebook last night, after coming home from the pub. I may have put a few hackles up with what is possibly an inflamatory and condescending comment, especially since I have chosen not to live in that country. I stand by my statement.

I have tried to put the sentiment into clearer, more verbose English, and even tried to translate it into French, so I can convey that sentiment to those here in Quebec who ask how I feel this morning, but I just can't. There is a subtlety and depth the the phrase "bottling it" that is beyond my skills to translate. It is a uniquely Scottish phrase, for what is an apparently in-built and unavoidable part of the Scottish psyche.

Anyway, enough wallowing. The people of Scotland have decided, by a whopping 10% margin. Onwards.

Last night, a few of the members of our meetup group, and other Scots got together in a local bar, and were joined by journalists from the Gazette, le Devoir and CBC. And with that, the spotlight leaves Scotland to muddle through as best it can, and the Scots in Montreal fade back into the background.

CBC Montreal News

So, yeah, turns out the TV did want to talk to me. I got a call this morning from nice chap at CBC Montreal asking if I would like to do a spot for the evening news. Once I realised I didn't have to go into the studio, and that he would come to me, I said yes.

Of course, I wasn't dressed for TV, just in scrappy jeans and a T-shirt, but when I phoned K to tell her I had been asked, she ever so kindly offered to drop off a shirt and jacket at work for me!
The interview was conducted just outside Ste Justine, and was about 5-10 minutes in length, which is becoming quite easy for me to do on this subject, after the latest practice. Of course they only used 2 sound bites from those 5 minutes, but at least I wasn't quoted out of context. It would be nice to get my hands on the full interview, but I doubt that'll happen.


Here's the link. I'm between 5.00 and 5.24 minutes into the clip.

CBC Web Player here.

So, it turns out all I had to do to get on TV was write a request in my blog! Who knew? So, anyone out there want to give me a million bucks? Anyone?

Of course, nothing I say here will have an effect on the result, but I do feel engaged in the debate, if even in a small way, and to me, that is one of the greatest things about this debate, that it has engaged the population, of Scotland, and elsewhere, in a way that politics does not normally do. If even a fraction of the energy and interest that has been generated in this campaign continues to be put to use, then no matter the outcome, Scotland will win.

Is that the end of it? Not at all.  There's talk of cameras crashing our Scottish event tomorrow evening, and there's another CBC radio show that wants me for a debrief on Friday, but I doubt I can go due to the time of recording. I already had to turn them down today, but they did talk to me, and I get a mention in this segment they did with my friend Angus Bell.

CBC Radio, Daybreak Interview

The second, and last radio interview I have been invited to do here in Montreal was this morning, this time in English, on the CBC Daybreak show. This was an 8 minute segment, with just two of us in the studio, so there was a lot more back and forth to be had than the previous show with more people having their say. Also, as the discussion was in English, I had less fears over expressing myself, which helped too. The interview was well done, and the presenter skillfully managed to get the points they must have found interesting from the pre-interviews across in the time.


I'm not sure if it's geographically locked for listeners outside Canada. Apparently I sound more Scottish than normal in the interview. I can't say it was intentional, but it is extremely likely.

So that's that then. All awaiting the Thursday vote now, and back to obscurity for me. Unless there are any last minute interviews, maybe for TV? No-one has contacted me for a TV interview yet! Anyone?

Scottish Referendum on Independence

Scottish Referendum

On the 18th of September, in less than two weeks, the people of Scotland will vote on what will be the largest decision affecting the future of the country since the Act of Union in 1707. Fortunately for the people of Scotland, this will not be a decision made by a few lords hiding from the crowds in an Edinburgh pub, but will follow on from over two years of informed debate amongst the populous of Scotland and indeed the UK, as it should be. For me, this is an issue I feel strongly about. So much so that I felt compelled to write this essay (is it a yessay?) before that referendum, to help to express my feeling on the subject, as they have no other out for one simple reason.

I cannot vote.

This is not a surprise to me, as I have known from the start I could not, and would be unlikely to allowed to, as to call upon the whole of the Scottish diaspora to vote would be both impossible to manage, and indeed unfair to the actual residents of the country. However,

If I could vote, I would vote Yes.

Why would I vote Yes? Well, at the start of the debate I was torn. My heart said yes, but my head said no. However, the more I have listened to the debate, and read on the subject, the more I have come to realise that my head was just scared of change. There is nothing to be gained by the status quo, and I find myself increasingly at odds with the way current western democracies in general are run. It could be said that as a child of Thatcher, I am just provoked to a knee-jerk reaction to a Tory Government in Westminster and indeed there may be a case to be made for that, but I like to feel that I have grown past, and can see beyond that particular chip on my shoulder.

I have come to embrace the fact, that all democracies should drop the un-representative first past the post system, and adopt some kind of proportional representation (PR). Since I have resumed voting, now that I an a citizen of this fair country (Canada), I have been made further aware of the inequalities and inadequacies of this system, and see voting reform as the only just way forward.

How is it possible then that an independent Scotland will go forward under this kind of system when most western democracies fight it tooth and nail? Well, simply put, because it's already in place. The cynic in me suggests that this is the case to limit the powers and strength of a Scottish parliament, but it works. Far from giving what are deemed to be weak/hung parliaments run by coalitions, the last election gave the SNP a strong majority (hence the referendum, meanwhile Westminster currently ticks by on a Conservative/Lib-Dem coalition, go figure). But perceived weak governments aside, this kind of governmental reform is completely necessary in Scotland, and I would argue, in the UK and Canada too (anywhere really, but those are the ones I feel passionately about). Indeed coalition parliaments are better for the people, as they provoke debate and compromise. Two things which I feel would benefit any country's democratic process. There is a nice little summary of the possibilities present here on the National Collective site. Of course, the UK had the option to change the electoral system, but botched it, as neither of the big two parties actually want change.

This increased democratic representation, coupled with the left-leaning politics on the whole of the Scottish political parties, will, I believe, lead to an improvement in social justice across the board.

I have been warned that an independent Scotland will not be the Socialist utopia I may believe it will become. I think this is fair. Scotland in general may be left leaning, but there are other factors that need to be considered. All in all, I think it could only be better for Scotland, as improved representation is the only fair policy for people of all political leanings. It means too a greater voice for Scottish Tories, and not a Labour stampede riding rough-shod over the will of the people. Furthermore, it will open the doors to smaller parties and the concerns of people of all political leanings to have their voices heard.

But why stop at voting reform? The possibilities for a new Scotland are only limited by our imaginations. In the modern age, who would write the Scottish constitution, after all, the Declaration of Arbroath may be stirring stuff, but it's a little out dated. In the age of crowd sourcing and with a smaller population to deal with, there are other new ways to do these things, as Iceland has shown. A Scottish constitution, for the people, actually written by the people. Mind. Blown.

 

Comparisons to Quebec

As a Scot in Quebec, there is always the question as to how I feel about Quebec's independence from the rest of Canada. Indeed, even from my first visit here, I have been made aware of a feeling of kindred spirit between Quebecers and Scots. With the referendum approaching, it is a question I am asked almost daily.

Indeed, there are many historical similarities. And both nations are left-leaning societies, with many cultural values in common. There are also many parallels to be drawn between the two states in the rise of Nationalism in the 1970s.

With this in mind, it is no great surprise that journalists from both sides of the Atlantic are looking to get the perspectives of Scots in Quebec on the subject. I have been lucky enough to be contacted by two journalists to talk on the subject. One from the Glasgow Herald, who was in town to write for this feature, and one from La Presse, a local paper looking for the perspective of Scots in Montreal, before going over to cover the referendum from Scotland and report back. For the Herald piece, my take wasn't used for the final story. Initially I was a little disappointed with this, but then, I doubt I was adding much. For the article for La Presse, we all got our say, and although the report covers only parts of the whole conversation, I think it was pretty comprehensive of the feelings of the four members of the discussion. The full article is posted here. I was also contacted for by Radio Canada, but didn't get the message till after the event, stupid phone.

What was interesting was that of the Scots in Montreal interviewed for both articles, 9 in total, I was the only one who came out as yes. So maybe it's a good thing the ex-pats don't get to vote!

However, when asked if I would vote yes in a referendum for Quebec independence, I must say, as things currently stand, I would vote no.

The one main difference in my eyes between the PQ and the SNP, and here I switch to talking about parties rather than the case for each nation, as I believe the differences between the policies of these two parties to lie at the heart of my reasoning, and the policies of the main independence party in each nation would shape the future independent country that could or would be formed if independence was gained. The key difference in my mind between the two outlooks is the difference between Civic Nationalism, and Cultural Nationalism. The former to my mind is the right way to go about things. If you want to start a new country, you want to make it one that others would want to come to. You want it to be a place that is inclusive, and any decision to be made on the question of Independence is one that affects all the people living within it's borders, therefore any Nationalist movement that should be inclusive of all these people. Cultural nationalism is the kind of nationalism that is put forward by the PQ (I stress the PQ here, as there are other parties that promote civic nationalism here in Quebec, but they are small, and rather outside the main debate). Quebec for the Quebecois is the way they look at it, and the debate here revolves around one issue, that of the French language and cultural supremacy. To me, this is extremely narrow minded, and does not represent me, or indeed a large portion of the population of Montreal (if not Quebec). here we are more enraged over whether the word pasta is acceptable on the menu of an Italian restaurant, as it is not a French word, than we are over for example, the economic capabilities of the province, and what currency an independent Quebec could use. This is light-years behind, to my mind, what should be being debated. Quebec nationalism seems to be where Scottish nationalism was back in the 1970s, all heart and no substance. However, where the Scottish nationalism debate has evolved, Quebec nationalism has stagnated. To the point where the question here is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

That is not to say that Scotland is free from the down sides of cultural nationalism. I am not naive to the existence of racism, anti-English sentiment and ingrained bigotry that exist. I grew up on the West Coast, where the bigotry is so ingrained as to be omnipresent. However it is not the policy of any of the political parties of the country to be exclusionist (UKIP and Daily Mail readers aside). I love Montreal, and Quebec, but I will never be accepted as a Quebecois, no matter how long I stay here (Montrealer, maybe).

No, if anything, the case could be made that the model of Scottish independence is not Quebec, but that it is that of Canada itself.


One direct comparison that can be made between the two places is that the youth of both Scotland and Quebec have less interest in Independence. The Quebecers were polled after the latest and rather decisive defeat of the PQ in the provincial elections, revealing that the the 18-24 year olds here were not keen on sovereignty as a policy, and were unlikely to vote for the PQ. Leading to the moniker "the No generation". It seems that back in Scotland, the dropping of the voting age from 18 to 16, which may have been seen as a ploy to get more votes for the Yes campaign, seems to have had the opposite effect, with the youth vote considerably more No than other sections of voters (at least at the start, I don't know how this has changed nearer to the vote taking place). Does that mean the defeat of the PQ in the last election was the last chance for Quebec independence, indeed, is this the last time Scotland will get to vote on the issue, as the next generation will be of a mind that none of it matters, and boundaries are irrelevant in the Internet age? I would hope not, but it may be the case.

 

Summary

To me, the overriding reason I would vote yes is hope. Hope that Scotland can go forward from here with her head held high, promoting social justice, and following more closely the will of the people more than any Westminster government is actually able to do, never mind whether or not it has the will to. How hopeful will I be in two weeks time? That remains to be seen.

So that's where I stand. But I'll leave you with this one thought, if you are still on the fence, and are looking for one reason to tip you over into voting yes, consider this...

...Scotland's entry into Eurovision 2015, the Proclaimers.

N.B.
To inform yourself of the question and the decision to be made, there is this document released by the David Hume Institute.  
For an article discussing the similarities and differences between Scotland and Quebec, go here. I have yet to find the full article, but the intro is interesting. 
For the actual relationship between Scotland and Quebec during the referendum, this article dates from before the PQ collapse, but is quite telling.

The Scotsman abroad IV

Taking things one step further than joining the St Andrew's Society, then starting our own Scots in Montreal group, I applied for our group to be a part of an umbrella group called the Quebec Thistle Council. This is of course, another group of really old folks, not doing very much and calling themselves Scottish. The guys who run it are of course all members of the Black Watch. But that is almost besides the point.

The one thing they do do  every years however, is run an Awards Dinner. At this event, they award various Scottish Cultural events, such as Piping, Scottish Cuisine, Piping and being a member of their group. I am being flippant of curse, the full list of awards can be seen here (as a pdf).

Anyway, I went along, and wasn't suprised in the slightest at the average age of the participants (I would guess at 60-70). And of course I was asked, in a thick Quebec french accent, if I had any Scottish ancestry, a question which always makes me smile (full highland regalia, which I was wearing, means nothing at these events).

Other highlights of the evening were talking to a gentleman who was classmates with Prince Phillip at Gordonstone (the fact that this came up in a 5 minute conversation is, as K says, very telling). I was sat beside Andrew Carter, radio DJ and last years winner of Scotsman of the year, who was welcome relief from the usual guest, and was there as he thought he should after winning last year. I say I was sat there, as the guy in charge of seating made it clear at the start of the evening I was to ensure this gentleman was made aware of how vibrant the Scottish community in Montreal is. Our group being the only one of the member groups who can number more than one member between the ages of 30 and 40 (beginning to see a pattern yet? ;p).

Also, the President of the Société St Jean-Baptiste (the Quebec National Society) was proudly relating to me how she was descended from the Plantagenets, and how she had ancestors on both sides of the War of the Roses. Genealogy was a big topic for the evening.

It seems I have now attended enough of this type of event, that my face is known to a few of the regulars, many of whom I can chat away with, so in the end I had a pleasant and entertaining evening, although whether I go next year remains to be seen!