A Yankee on "British" History

Because I'm trying to avoid politics in the United States right now (mainly because I spend too much time thinking about it everywhere but here) I've been reading the BBC news webpage a lot, especially in regards to Scotland.  This article especially caught my eye: 'Britishness' no threat to Scots.

This was a topic we talked about quite a bit on my trip this summer; some of the only history the course covered. I had the good fortune of sitting next to one of the professors we had guest lecture, Nicholas Phillipson of the University of Edinburgh, when our class took him out for drinks after the lecture. He gave us a nice summary of the current political situation in Scotland, which we'd only touched on briefly when discussing the union of Scotland and England in the 18th century. There's been a lot of tension in the past and it's beginning to resurface, now that Scotland has their own parliament again; a tension between people who want to remain part of Great Britain and those who want Scotland to become its own country. Those who want Scotland to separate have formed their own party, the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) and things are beginning to heat up, it seems. Especially from what I could glean from Professor Phillipson, this is a BIG issue.

It's interesting when I talk about Scotland here in the States how many people don't realize it ISN'T its own country. There's been success in putting a block between "Britshisness" and Scottish culture so that people - like many Americans - don't quite realize that Scotland isn't its own distinct nation. My professor in my Cultural Studies class went on a tangent the other day while talking about Raymond Williams and how, because Williams was Welsh, he was alienated from British society. My professor then went on to say that people from Wales and Scotland don't think of themselves as English and not even as British; in fact they will take offense if you call them British; they are Scottish or Welsh. His tangent articulated a point I've heard emphasized before, a point that makes politics in the UK incredibly complex and hard to articulate to foreigners. I mean, I'm only going off of what I've read, heard and seen - I am my no means very well versed in this political situation. Mainly because I'm not Scottish...

This Professor Mitchell in the BBC article makes an interesting point, saying that the Scottish identity is strong enough to not be under any threat from "Britishness" now. I mean, he could be right... but I feel like there still some pretty strong feelings towards Britain and that there will be no simple acceptance of being British for some. And this isn't even taking into account the issues of Northern Ireland or Wales (that's right, Wales is in this boat too. They might seem like the quite, peaceful ones who never really rebelled in the past. But even on the BBC they articles published in Welsh - their personal culture is WAY important to them, so it definitely matters). It's a weird situation - a post-colonial, post-imperialistic aftermath where it isn't clear what should happen. Professor Mitchell is right in saying that their is a link between Scotland and the UK but saying they have a "common past" may not sit so well with some. They do share a past but the way the two sides see it is incredibly different. I hope they can find some common ground, but I also don't think that necessarily means Scotland remaining part of the big GB. But then again, I'm a Yank - revolting against the British is in my history.

Which brings me to another interesting BBC article... Is the US Declaration of Independence Illegal?

This article discusses how American and British lawyers are discussing the legality of the Declaration. Meaning was or was it not illegal?

Um... really? We're arguing this? I didn't realize there was any doubt.

Yeah, pretty sure this is NOT how the war went down...

OF COURSE IT WAS ILLEGAL. We were rebels. The only reason America is America and not part of Great Britain is because some how we won the war, not because the document that Jefferson wrote up, stemming off of John Locke, was viewed as totally legit. Does any American really think that the Declaration was viewed as anything other than crap by the king of England? I mean, yeah, it's important to Americans BECAUSE WE'RE AMERICANS and it was our way of putting, in writing, that we were done with England. (It's like changing your relationship status on Facebook, for all of you who feel like that this metaphor relates better than anything else I can come up with. And to totally make the Revolution sound like a break-up. Wow, reminded me NOT to become a history teacher.) (Also, what's with calling the American Revolution the "War of Independence?" Apparently that's what us Yanks are supposed to be calling it these days. But it was a revolution! We revolted! There was death and war and stuff! It wasn't pretty! We should remember that... and honestly, American Revolution sounds more badass.) Of course the Declaration wasn't the final straw for England. They didn't freak out and say, "Oh my God! They wrote a paper! They must really mean business!" No, it was the toll from the war that led to an American victory...and some assistance from the French. Who later had their own rebellion. But that's another story.

Point is, we were doing something totally batshit crazy by saying we no longer belonged to Britain. Somehow, it worked, and we take great pride in it. Which every once in a while makes things a bit awkward with our friends across the pond. Maybe that's why I'm so interested in Scotland wanting to separate from England/Britain/UK... whatever I should be referring to them as at this point. Because things are getting so complicated with these identities. I mean, how do the English even see themselves now? Do they see themselves as one with Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland? Or do they see themselves as distinct too? I don't know... something to look into, once again...