The Gold, Silver and Bronze pro-Olympics Thread

[scottycelt]

Paragraph 1 - Yes. A key issue then is how we establish a friendly and harmonious condition on any future independence. We can't have independence if cooperation is in any way in doubt.

Paragraph 2 - I most certainly do not equate a separate Scottish identity with being anti-British. For the entire duration of the troubles in Northern Ireland, I did not equate an Irish identity with being anti-British per se. However, having a significant and deadly element of the British and Irish in conflict with each other needed to be stopped. In terms of Scotland and Wales, a similar situation can't be risked. That is why what people do now is very important. It will establish whether independence is safe enough to be entertained. People like Kim Little suggest that it might not be. We can't legislate to help people like her to agitate.

Paragraph 3 - I don't accept that British culture is an a la carte menu. If you are happy enough to ditch Burns, I will reconsider.

Okay, then, as the old message from outer space used to go ... 'we have a problem ... '

[mangerton]

mangerton

It might be beyond the wit of many English people. It might not be. At the 1966 World Cup Final, nearly every flag paraded was the Union Jack. By Euro 1996, a tournament also held in England, the vast majority of flags were the flag of St George.

In this year of the Jubilee and Team GB, almost every flag here in Greater London is the Union Jack. That is unsurprising. Both events have been British events.

Personally, I don't think that I have ever seen "English" and "British" as synonyms.

I do admit that the flying of the British flag for England is much less common than it was. I am glad to read too that you have never seen "English" and "British" as synonyms, though I am not sure whether you mean literally "seen" or whether you mean "considered". Let me assure you that examples are rife in British literature and the arts, even from people whom one would have hoped would know better, like Conan Doyle and Buchan.

Here is one example, from the 1956 film "The Man who never Was". It illustrates the point well, and when I first heard it, I was very pleasantly surprised as I would not have expected to find this piece of dialogue in a film of that nature made at that time:

[The military needs a dead body for counterintelligence.]
Lieutenant Commander Ewen Montagu: I can assure you that this is an opportunity for your son to do a great thing for England.
The Father: My son, sir, was a Scotsman. Very proud of it.
Lieutenant Commander Ewen Montagu: I beg your pardon?
The Father: Never mind. We're used to that. You English always talk about England when you mean Britain.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049471/quotes

[mangerton]

A wonderful day for Team GB rowing at least, with Alan Campbell absolutely powering away - surely there's a medal there waiting to gained when we get to the rowing finals?* Rowing is, btw, my favourite Olympic sport along with the cycling (time trials tomorrow) .

It just occurred to me, Anna, plenty of rowing going on here - both pronunciations.

[mangerton]

Okay, then, as the old message from outer space used to go ... 'we have a problem ... '

Or indeed, as heard in many parts of Scotland.... "Have you got a problem, Jimmy?"

[Lateralthinking1]

I do admit that the flying of the British flag for England is much less common than it was. I am glad to read too that you have never seen "English" and "British" as synonyms, though I am not sure whether you mean literally "seen" or whether you mean "considered". Let me assure you that examples are rife in British literature and the arts, even from people whom one would have hoped would know better, like Conan Doyle and Buchan.

Here is one example, from the 1956 film "The Man who never Was". It illustrates the point well, and when I first heard it, I was very pleasantly surprised as I would not have expected to find this piece of dialogue in a film of that nature made at that time:

[The military needs a dead body for counterintelligence.]
Lieutenant Commander Ewen Montagu: I can assure you that this is an opportunity for your son to do a great thing for England.
The Father: My son, sir, was a Scotsman. Very proud of it.
Lieutenant Commander Ewen Montagu: I beg your pardon?
The Father: Never mind. We're used to that. You English always talk about England when you mean Britain.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049471/quotes

I meant considered.

Thank you for your example which I note. I respect your position. However, we are now in 2012. The EU, globalisation, immigration and the widespread promotion of interest in national cultures across borders are just four reasons why perceptions have changed.

It seems to me that a Britain without Scotland will still have significant historical reference points. Scotland will need to accept them and not see them as a problem it has to change. It will have the prospect of looking to the future as a modern country with its own extraordinary culture. A 22 year old footballer with an acute pain about monarchy should be seen by nationalists as a dinosaur rather than someone to celebrate. I believe that the SFA had the wisdom to foresee this in asking her not to attend.

[scottycelt]

It seems to me that a Britain without Scotland will still have significant historical reference points

On the contrary, it would simply cease to exist ...

[mangerton]

On the contrary, it would simply cease to exist ...

Quite. You know that, I know that, but..... need I say more.

[scottycelt]

Quite. You know that, I know that, but..... need I say more.

No, but I have this sneaking feeling that there might be a lot more you'd like to say, mangerton ...

[Lateralthinking1]

On the contrary, it would simply cease to exist ...

Not so. The monarchy will continue. The English, the Welsh and for the time being the Northern Irish will still be able to use the name "Great Britain" and describe themselves as British. Additionally, all the history will be precisely the same.

There are two issues here.

One, the Conservative victory in 1979, with hardly any Conservative MPs in Scotland, was the beginning of a valid argument about the right to economic self-determination. That remains valid in any discussion of independence. If I were living in Scotland, I would see the sense in it.

Two, the convenient peg which that provided for long term nationalists to build on historical obsessions. Fair enough but all that independence will change are the components of Britain in the current day. I suspect that there might be disappointment in some when they realise it doesn't equate to eradication.

The latter leaves two options. Either you accept that history can never be changed or you don't fully accommodate that fact and think that revenge is some sort of solution. This is where many of us are looking for clarity from those in the public arena.

[LeMartinPecheur]

Not so. The monarchy will continue. The English, the Welsh and for the time being the Northern Irish will still be able to use the name "Great Britain" and describe themselves as British.

Umm!?

From Wiki:
"The term Great Britain refers to the largest island within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is also used to refer to England, Scotland and Wales as a unit (including many smaller islands which "have administrative ties with the mainland"). It does not include Northern Ireland.

"The term Britain, as opposed to Great Britain, has been used to mean the United Kingdom, for example in official government yearbooks between 1975 and 2001.[33] Since 2002, however, the yearbooks have only used the term "United Kingdom".

"The initials GB or GBR are used in some international codes instead of the initials UK to refer to the United Kingdom. Examples include: Universal Postal Union, international sports teams, NATO, the International Organization for Standardization country codes ISO 3166-2 and ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, and international licence plate codes."

[Lateralthinking1]

Umm!?

From Wiki:
The term Great Britain refers to the largest island within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is also used to refer to England, Scotland and Wales as a unit (including many smaller islands which "have administrative ties with the mainland"). It does not include Northern Ireland.

The term Britain, as opposed to Great Britain, has been used to mean the United Kingdom, for example in official government yearbooks between 1975 and 2001.[33] Since 2002, however, the yearbooks have only used the term "United Kingdom".

The initials GB or GBR are used in some international codes instead of the initials UK to refer to the United Kingdom. Examples include: Universal Postal Union, international sports teams, NATO, the International Organization for Standardization country codes ISO 3166-2 and ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, and international licence plate codes.

Yes, you are quite right about Northern Ireland. My mistake and a slip of the keys. I should have said that Britain is far more than the three obvious nations. The reason why it's Team GB and not Team UK is that it also includes overseas British dependencies. That would continue without Scotland and enable us even to retain the name "The British Isles".

And actually when it comes to Northern Ireland, the position is not particularly clear cut as your extract shows. Northern Ireland is a part of Team GB so for the purposes of the Olympics it is happy to be in Britain. There is quite a lot of flexibility there.

Effectively, under Mr Salmond's direction, Scotland can be Scotland and we can be British, Great Britain, the British Isles and where it suits us the United Kingdom. We can also be English, Welsh, Northern Irish.

[scottycelt]

Not so. The monarchy will continue. The English, the Welsh and for the time being the Northern Irish will still be able to use the name "Great Britain" and describe themselves as British. Additionally, all the history will be precisely the same.

There are two issues here.

One, the Conservative victory in 1979, with hardly any Conservative MPs in Scotland, was the beginning of a valid argument about the right to economic self-determination. That remains valid in any discussion of independence. If I were living in Scotland, I would see the sense in it.

Two, the convenient peg which that provided for long term nationalists to build on historical obsessions. Fair enough but all that independence will change are the components of Britain in the current day. I suspect that there might be disappointment in some when they realise it doesn't equate to eradication.

The latter leaves two options. Either you accept that history can never be changed or you don't fully accommodate that fact and think that revenge is some sort of solution. This is where many of us are looking for clarity from those in the public arena.

What further 'clarity' do you seek?

Of course England and Wales (and Northern Ireland if it so wishes, however unlikely) can negotiate any future arrangements and together forge a new state with a different name ... but the political entity of Great Britain (meaning the unity of the whole mainland) disappears if Scotland goes it own way. Whether one is a Scottish/Welsh/English nationalist or a unionist that is the simple reality.

When, say, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union disintegrated the names disappeared with them,and exactly the same would happen with Great Britain ... why would you think it would be any different?

British experience includes the rich history of Scotland and the Union of Crowns and Parliaments with England and Wales, and without that it can no longer be considered British.

I'm certain England could easily exist in an impoverished state without Scotland (and Wales) but it certainly wouldn't be 'British'.

[mangerton]

No, but I have this sneaking feeling that there might be a lot more you'd like to say, mangerton ...

Quite! My tongue's all sore from being bitten.

I'm trying to be good, and to remember this is a nice thread.

[Lateralthinking1]

What further 'clarity' do you seek?

Of course England and Wales (and Northern Ireland if it so wishes, however unlikely) can negotiate any future arrangements and together forge a new state with a different name ... but the political entity of Great Britain (meaning the unity of the whole mainland) disappears if Scotland goes it own way. Whether one is a Scottish/Welsh/English nationalist or a unionist that is the simple reality.

When, say, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union disintegrated the names disappeared with them,and exactly the same would happen with Great Britain ... why would you think it would be any different?

British experience includes the rich history of Scotland and the Union of Crowns and Parliaments with England and Wales, and without that it can no longer be considered British.

I'm certain England could easily exist in an impoverished state without Scotland (and Wales) but it certainly wouldn't be 'British'.

No. Czechoslovakia split into two. Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union fragmented. None of that occurred wholly peacefully. Here, if change happens, it will be because it was requested and granted. It isn't a tug of war.

A separate Scotland is just the loss of one part of a country that has many components. When Germany lost Alsace-Lorraine, it was still Germany, albeit West Germany for different reasons. If Spain were to lose the Basque country, it would still be Spain. I don't see the need for major renegotiation other than in the formalities of Scotland's severance.

The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland is still the United Kingdom. Great Britain, comprising England, Wales and other territories, is still Great Britain. Changing names would be bad for business.

[Flosshilde]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ITYM

Thanks.

(I've forgotten what the post it was part of said)