I suppose there is one connection to Scotland that I can think of. My accent. No, not because the English I speak is as hard to understand as one spoken with the full-throated Scottish accent. Apparently my accent is not the stereotypical Indian accent that people expect to hear. Can't blame them when anything about me is far from stereotypical ;) Once, at the end of a conference session, as I was exiting the room, another guy who was about my age said that my accent intrigued him. "Obviously you are from India, but you seem to have picked up a Scottish accent too. Did you live in Scotland for a while?" He should know about Scottish accents--he said he was from Scotland.
So, there, that qualifies me to blog about Scotland!
I am all in support of an independent Scotland for a very simple reason. We are so much wrapped up with the idea of globalization that we forget we are humans and we like, we love, identities. Identities especially when there is a long and rich history of the peoples. Economics--being materially well off--does matter to us, yes. But, we seem to overlook that we do not live on bread alone. There is a lot more than mere material satisfaction that makes us human. Identity--religious, ethnic, linguistic, ... and often these are also intertwined.
Scotland is a prime example. There are more in the queue: Basque, Catalonia, Tibet, Xinjiang, Kashmir, Balochistan, ... it is a long list. You cannot convince them to stay put in whatever political union they are by merely offering economic arguments:
the economic arguments against independence seem not to be working — and may even be backfiring. I think I know why. Telling a Scot, “You can’t do this — if you do, terrible things will happen to you,” has been a losing negotiating strategy since time immemorial. If you went into a Glasgow pub tonight and said to the average Glaswegian, “If you down that beer, you’ll get your head kicked in,” he would react by draining his glass to the dregs and telling the barman, “Same again.”No, it is not some crank basing it on the stereotype of a Scot who walks around drunk with whiskey. Ok, it is a crank, but an accomplished intellectual, Niall Ferguson, who knows a thing or two about Scotland, and yet is baffled with the momentum that the "Yes" campaign has picked up:
With days remaining before the Scottish electorate votes on whether or not to remain in the United Kingdom, the result is too close to call.
Born in Glasgow, but having spent most of my life in England and America, I am rather baffled, too
Another Scotland-born author, who also now lives in the US, writes that "the idea of nationalism has also been redefined by this vote":
Foreign nationals who are resident, however, can vote. If you live in Scotland, you are taken to be part of the project that is Scotland—you are taken to be Scottish. (This is a fairly well-established idea, culturally. When I offered work to anthologies of Scottish writing as an up-and-coming author, submissions were usually sought using a form of words along the lines of “if you are Scottish by birth, residence, or choice…”) This definition of national identity—I would hope not an unfamiliar one to citizens of the great melting pot—has been echoed in Scottish parliamentary efforts to produce a country which is now perceived by immigrants as being one of the more welcoming areas of the UK—which is, admittedly, an increasingly racist entity. So a “Yes” vote isn’t a return to the SNP’s beliefs during the 1930s—the beliefs they’d like us to forget—which involved disturbing yearnings for an Aryan future. There is a tiny wild-eyed fringe of people who will vote “Yes” on a kind of racist autopilot, but they are a minority.The “No” vote largely reflects a secure type of Scottishness under a British umbrella, a fear that now is not the time to do something risky—financially or otherwise—and a lack of trust in Scotland’s available politicians. There is an ugly minority of “No” voters who are wedded to the brand of Unionism familiar to Northern Ireland—the one that’s about Empire supremacy and a feeling that rampant savages may overwhelm the white Protestant barricades at any moment. The “Yes” voters—and I would be one of them if I could vote—may detect also traces of post-Empire low self-esteem in the “No” camp.Add me to that list of people who would love to watch the old British Empire get another kick in its ass. Er, make that "arse." ;)
4 comments:
If ever there was a post I could disagree more, I am yet to find it. Completely and totally disagree - both with the Scottish example and the broader argument that every clan must become a separate country.
I can accept that economics is not the only criteria, but you have to conclusively prove that an independent Scotland will be better off on whatever those criteria are than remaining inside the UK. Nobody has made any cogent argument how an independent Scotland will be better off on any grounds. It all emotional claptrap and the political ambitions of the SNP. It is easy to prove , at least economically, that Scotland will be far worse off. If any, its the rest of the UK that should be voting to boot Scotland out, if economics was the argument.
I will argue the exact opposite. Countries should merge rather than try and go separately. At long last. because of transportation and communications revolution, we are able to be global citizens. We should revel in living harmoniously with separate cultures instead of saying I will turn the other side. The best example is your own country - a melting pot of various cultures.
In the first place, the US being an exemplar of a melting pot of various cultures is one of the biggest bullshit work that the PR folks have achieved. Even better than the Austrians having convinced the world that Hitler was a German, and that Beethoven was an Austrian!
Let us do a quick recap of the US history:
Various native tribes were decimated, and the ones who survived were sent off to reservations
Africans were held as slaves
Chinese were imported for near-slave labor
Japanese were interned
Mexicans were kicked out
BTW, Oregon was the last state in the union where it was criminal for a black to be around--if blacks lived here, they were subject to whipping every six months. It was a crime just to be a black man or a woman!
And don't even bother with a cliche that it is all history--we continue to bear the effects every day. Ferguson is merely the latest.
I love living here and I prefer this country over any other place on the planet that I have visited, yes. But, I am not going to even pretend that we have a paradise here. It is a paradise only for people of the "correct" kind, and it so happens that in the professional part of the US for my work life, and the part of the US where I live, I am the correct kind. People like me, even if they are not White, will be accepted with very little problems.
I did not argue in my post that the Scots will be better off. My point was that economics aside, people have plenty of other values that cannot (and should not) be monetized. If they value that, and if they want to express that by wanting to go "Scot free" then more power to them. I assume they know what they want and what they are getting into.
I would point to my old country as an example of a very high price being paid in order to maintain an artificial entity called India. There was no "India" in history and is a creation of the British. Up until the British Raj, those lands had different cultures, traditions, languages, religions, ... One of the worst decisions that the strong man Patel did was to force those who did not want to join the union by even employing the military.
You are being incredibly harsh on your country. Sure it has its problems, but there is simply no other country on earth where merit has a greater chance to succeed and no other country on earth which is more open to embracing other cultures.
You really believe our land would have been better off as 489 princely states ?? I am dumbfounded.
I agree with you on this: "no other country on earth where merit has a greater chance to succeed" ...
But, I am afraid that the world way too much romanticizes with this: "no other country on earth which is more open to embracing other cultures"
I do not mean all the old princely states of India. But, all the areas that were forcibly incorporated into a new political union. For instance, India should have held a referendum in Kashmir decades ago. Similarly, the various ethnic/tribal groups in the Northeast ought to have been given the choice to determine their futures. Instead, the political union of India became nothing but the British Raj in which the white man was replaced by Indian "rulers." I use that word "rulers" because I find it bizarre that in India that word is used in conversations and in media reports alike ... A few years ago, if I recall correctly, Vijay Nambisan wrote an essay on this "rulers" usage--I think it was in the Outlook?
Post a Comment