kevin Mckenna
BY Kevin McKenna
What will history call the movement for Scottish independence if there is a Yes vote next September? The Czechs have already claimed “velvet revolution” and we can’t just refer to our big moment as “The Campaign for an Independent Scotland”. More than a few of us, of course, would like the nationalists to adopt a more aggressive attitude in rebuffing the campaign of disinformation being sewn by the unionists. The fact remains though that the Scottish revolution (and that’s exactly what it is) will go down in history as the most peaceful and reasonable of modern times.
Even the velvet revolution started with the violent suppression of a student demonstration. So what will we call ours: the Enlightened revolution, perhaps, or the modern revolution, because, in future, this will become the model for all popular regime changes? You’ll have had your revolution, Edinburgh matrons may in future be heard to say to signal that the subject is closed for discussion.
In recent weeks, though, several prominent commentators have expressed fears that the nature of the debate is exposing the darker side of the nation’s character and that the consequences may have profoundly negative social consequences for Scotland.
During the Edinburgh book festival, the broadcaster Andrew Marr, now happily on the road to recovery following his recent illness, had this to say. “There is a very strong anti-English feeling (in Scotland), everybody knows it, there always has been,” he said. “If you go back to the origins of the SNP, the origins of home rule, Anglophobia was as well entrenched then as it is now. I don’t think it is particularly serious most of the time, but it can become serious, it can become toxic.”
Only a person who has not been resident in Scotland for the best part of 20 years would claim that this was true. You couldn’t call Marr’s observations even a distortion of the truth simply because they have no basis in fact whatsoever.
More than 400,000 English people live in Scotland, making them our largest ethnic minority. Presumably most of them enjoy the experience of living and working here as you couldn’t accuse them of doing so for the weather and the wages. Their voice will be welcome and crucial in the independence referendum.
In the last few weeks before 18 September 2014, the Yes campaigners, who have been waiting a lifetime for this, will swamp the unionists in numbers and fervour. It will be an unequal contest where thousands of votes will change hands. Better then to calm everything down, my dears, and not scare the horses. The more heat is taken out of the debate the better for the unionists. Better still if we can equate heat and emotion with anti-Englishness and toxic civil strife when brother will turn against brother.
Britain has used similar tactics for 1,000 years in maintaining its anciens regimes and ensuring that no revolution has ever taken root. Faced with this revolution, how did you expect her to react?
THE GUARDIAN
BY Kevin McKenna
What will history call the movement for Scottish independence if there is a Yes vote next September? The Czechs have already claimed “velvet revolution” and we can’t just refer to our big moment as “The Campaign for an Independent Scotland”. More than a few of us, of course, would like the nationalists to adopt a more aggressive attitude in rebuffing the campaign of disinformation being sewn by the unionists. The fact remains though that the Scottish revolution (and that’s exactly what it is) will go down in history as the most peaceful and reasonable of modern times.
Even the velvet revolution started with the violent suppression of a student demonstration. So what will we call ours: the Enlightened revolution, perhaps, or the modern revolution, because, in future, this will become the model for all popular regime changes? You’ll have had your revolution, Edinburgh matrons may in future be heard to say to signal that the subject is closed for discussion.
In recent weeks, though, several prominent commentators have expressed fears that the nature of the debate is exposing the darker side of the nation’s character and that the consequences may have profoundly negative social consequences for Scotland.
During the Edinburgh book festival, the broadcaster Andrew Marr, now happily on the road to recovery following his recent illness, had this to say. “There is a very strong anti-English feeling (in Scotland), everybody knows it, there always has been,” he said. “If you go back to the origins of the SNP, the origins of home rule, Anglophobia was as well entrenched then as it is now. I don’t think it is particularly serious most of the time, but it can become serious, it can become toxic.”
Only a person who has not been resident in Scotland for the best part of 20 years would claim that this was true. You couldn’t call Marr’s observations even a distortion of the truth simply because they have no basis in fact whatsoever.
More than 400,000 English people live in Scotland, making them our largest ethnic minority. Presumably most of them enjoy the experience of living and working here as you couldn’t accuse them of doing so for the weather and the wages. Their voice will be welcome and crucial in the independence referendum.
In the last few weeks before 18 September 2014, the Yes campaigners, who have been waiting a lifetime for this, will swamp the unionists in numbers and fervour. It will be an unequal contest where thousands of votes will change hands. Better then to calm everything down, my dears, and not scare the horses. The more heat is taken out of the debate the better for the unionists. Better still if we can equate heat and emotion with anti-Englishness and toxic civil strife when brother will turn against brother.
Britain has used similar tactics for 1,000 years in maintaining its anciens regimes and ensuring that no revolution has ever taken root. Faced with this revolution, how did you expect her to react?
THE GUARDIAN
