WHAT WERE MISTAKES IN YES 2014 CAMPAIGN?

I was reading Alex Salmond’s book The Dream Will Never Die today. It’s an excellent enjoyable read (you can buy it on Kindle) and I would highly recommend it. Alex has always been a clever and witty communicator and this book is a moving and detailed account of the last 100 days of the referendum campaign.

Salmond blames the infamous ‘vow’ (which totally went against the spirit of ‘Purdah’ rules) and the last minute intervention of Gordon Brown ultimately for the loss of the campaign as well as the gap closing in opinion polls slightly too early.

There is no doubt that Yes fought a superb campaign from intensive grassroots traditional campaigning through extensive use of social media. I thought we had done enough to win and I thought we would and no doubt like many others I was shocked and dismayed to see the negative results flow in from across the country.

Post referendum the Yes campaign’s zeal has pushed the SNP into extraordinary political dominance at this year’s General Election with the unionists all but wiped out and the stage set for a similar thumping for them by the SNP in the next Scottish parliament elections.

Now that some time has passed and the dust has settled I think it is appropriate to look back at the 2014 referendum and consider whether there were any tactical mistakes which we can avoid in the future.

I would say there are a number of areas of concern which need to be addressed.

The main reason for achieving independence would be that it would give Scotland the chance to set out our own stall internationally. We would also be able to control all tax and spending decisions and be able to set our own welfare and defence policy.

The point that we could cancel Trident and spend the money better elsewhere was made during the campaign. The point that we could not prevent future Tory Governments was also made and we pointed out that a squeeze on spending on the NHS in England could adversely affect our block grant in Scotland.

I’m not sure however that any distinctive international policy was articulated. What we did say was that we would remain in NATO and contribute to it’s efforts around the world.

This raises problems not least the fact that recent NATO actions have been unpopular in Scotland and in fact one of the reasons for becoming independent would be presumably to avoid the quagmire of Iraq and Afganistan and the ‘war for oil’.

Simultaneously the idea we could join an international organisation under a nuclear umbrella while at the same time taking a unilateral position on nuclear defence was a mixed one at best. It may be that this is technically possible but the political reality is that it is extremely unlikely. 

It also meant that our policy internationally in terms of military intervention would probably be roughly similar to the current one pursued by the British Government! In which case why become independent?

I have noticed a disturbing tendency amongst senior pro-independence politicians that when international questions come up they seem to slip into ‘British MP mode’ they say things like ‘this country’ when they mean the UK and talk as if the imperialist position is the only game in town.

The UK is not a country and we need to point it out at every opportunity. The policy of world imperialism is not in Scotland’s interests and it never has been yet it seems that people think it might be impolite to raise such an objection on Question Time and that it might not go down too well in England.

The problem is that it doesn’t help us in Scotland. When Alan Cumming and Alex Neil at different times said that they were comfortable with Britishness and the British flag they inadvertently handed the moral high ground to the likes of Michael Forsyth who had to point out that independence would actually end the British state.

Cumming is a fine actor but this intervention made us look quite absurd as did the time Alex Neil claimed to be proud to be British. (He was a lot more honest when he was calling George Robertson Lord Haw Haw!) I suspect that both of these efforts were intended to try and position the Yes campaign to gather No supporters to our ranks but I don’t think it helped our credibility one iota.

As Britain’s third party the SNP will be constantly appearing on Question Time. While it might be nice to be highly regarded in England it is not the purpose of the party. No-one joined the SNP because they liked Britishness and it’s not what I have campaigned for since 1987!

At every debate in the Scottish parliament and at the UK parliament independence supporting representatives need to point out that Scotland is a separate country with separate political objectives. If we don’t do that then people will simply not see a requirement for independence even if the economic arguments are all in our favour.

We should always mention the United Nations but more importantly we need to craft a defence policy and international policy which suits our status as a small country in the north of Europe and then argue for that.

While I understand that Alex Salmond is a supporter of the monarchy I also feel that the rigidity of the Yes campaign on this and the EU potentially lost us more votes than it gained.

I’m sure the Queen is a decent woman and I must admit that I wouldn’t particularly like to live in a museum or attend interminable official functions or live in a goldfish bowl existence so I don’t envy her either her existence or her huge financial fortune (I’d prefer to just win Euro Millions!).

My problem isn’t with the personages of the royal family (Charles also seems like a decent man) it is with the fact that republican views are constitutionally barred from representation. Most republicans would I’m sure mumble the words of the oath and think of it as a compromise worth taking if it means they can represent their constituents. I can understand the pressures and if I was ever elected as an MSP no doubt I would feel forced into doing the same thing.

The problem is that it’s simply morally wrong to start of any MSP’s career on a lie and a humiliating ragman’s roll type experience. They should declare an oath to serve the people of Scotland and if they choose to add a declaration of support for the monarchy that should be entirely optional. If not we aren’t a functional democracy just like Westminster which uses the House of Lords to subvert the electoral process as well as provide a cushy retirement package to every MP that reaches cabinet level rank.    

While I have never been overly concerned about the European Union the facts are that it quite obviously represents some level of threat to the sovereignty of all states. Is it worth sacrificing some power to gain influence in the EU? It may be but there is a legitimate argument to be had about it. Simply imagining that all of Scotland is happy to join the EU doesn’t recognise the diversity of our country’s opinions.

We need to make a grown up choice on both the EU and the monarchy and we could only make those choices if we have a referendum on them post-independence. It doesn’t have to be immediate but the principle should be there just as the oath should be removed as a democratic principle whether the present Queen remains our head of state or not.

I think we need to seriously consider all these points if we want to win a future referendum on independence and the first thing is that we should never, ever think like a British MP. We might be in the place, but it’s on a temporary basis until we’re somewhere better. Similarly being British is a choice not a geographical quirk. The word British itself comes from the ancient Roman term for England and if the English are offended on occasion by the fact that we want to leave their fond embrace that is a price worth paying for our freedom from a political state which has never represented our views properly as Scots and never will.

Graph of the numbers of MP's at UK Westminster Parliament

Britain not Scotland has a fascism problem



In light of the disgraceful image in todays Scotland on Sunday (below) which attempts to link the Scots self determination movement with both the Nazis and the Klu Klux Klan and the scaremongering associated article it is worth considering whether the British themselves have something significant to hide in terms of links to fascism both before and after the second World War.

 

I should start off by saying that the Scots, English and Welsh all played an honourable part in defending the World from the fascist threat of the Nazis. During that time however Churchill regularly referred to Britain as 'England' and during the war Scots were buried under an avalanch of propaganda that rarely if ever mentioned Scotland.

 

Perhaps it is because of this (possibly unintended) insult that the post war years saw a gradual but ultimately impressive increase in support for the Scottish independence movement.

 

London's actual attitude towards Scotland at the time however is rather more disturbing. According to official documents Britain would actually have allowed an invasion of Scotland to happen and that England was seen as "the total priority for defence".

 

These damning allegations are contained in a book called When Hitler Comes which is available from Amazon here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/If-Hitler-Comes-Preparing-Invasion/dp/1843410621

The book also exposes fascist Scots in Scottish society however as the above article notes these were linked within the British Unionists (which was the old name of the Scottish Conservatives) and landed aristocrats.*

Hitler's ultimate agenda was not entirely understood before the war. Though there were obvious indications of his hatred of the Jews the full extent of the Nazi Holocaust was only exposed fully afterwards.

In England in particular there was substantial support for fascism and in fact Oswald Mosely who was a politician who had been a Westminster MP for both Labour and Tory formed his own army of Brownshirts under the label of the British Union of Fascists.

The BUF (flag above) used to martial support in the thousands and held various parades. After the war started their support died away however an English minority attraction to fascism has continued until today with some modern support for Nick Griffin's British National Party who have even managed to gain enough support in England to get MEP's elected to the European Parliament!

The BNP and the non-fascistic but still xenophobic and offensive and anti-Scottish UKIP (UK Independence party) an oxymoron as the UK are already independent have made zero headway in Scotland. In England however UKIP are rising fast and the British Conservatives (who with one MP are also as popular as the plague in Scotland) have taken them so seriously that an in-out referendum on the EU is officially planned in the next few years.   

In short then England had a real pre-war problem with home grown outright fascism and has an on ongoing problem with a modern equivalent of the French National Front in the BNP.

Given the above facts the attempts by the Scotland on Sunday today via a book named 'Fascist Scotland' which is illustrated on the web by a picture of Oswald Mosely but had a disgusting mock up of a Saltire shaped into a Nazi flag in the paper (see top of article) to suggest there was real support in pre WW2 Scotland for fascism based on much innuendo and speculation are desperate and rather absurd and I suspect this has been a desperate attempt to bury the bad news of the original damning book and its conclusion that Scotland was seen as expendable by British military planners during World War II.

Clearly the writer desperately wants Scotland and early Scots nationalists to be tarred with the Nazi brush but he admits himself that BUF demos which were organised up here were disrupted and fought against in Scotland just like the English Defence League (which they renamed as Scottish Defence League in Scotland but no-one believes it) demos in Scotland involving a few hundred English skinheads have been in recent times.  

The Orange Lodge can muster 10K anti-independence Union Jack waving marchers down the Royal Mile (much of them imported from NI) but no-one could argue that they credibly dominate the political debate in Scotland. In fact their sectarian views are rightly seen as repugnant by the vast majority of Scottish society.

The summation of the article shows the writers intentions and marks a new low even for the Scotsman:

Today, the ruling party of Scotland has nationalism as its creed and is suspiciously coy about its own history. Elsewhere in the nationalist family, the BNP, before it plunged into fratricidal warfare, trounced the Far Left in recent Scottish elections and, in 2010, received a respectable 1,000 votes in Alex Salmond’s stamping ground of Banff and Buchan. To this should be added growing sympathy for the agenda of Ukip. The Scottish electorate now appears more receptive to radical nationalism than Mosley’s blackshirts could ever dream of. With fears of globalisation and mass immigration on the rise, and the political “old gang” unpopular, there might still be living space in Scotland for the “Brown Beast”. In this way, we would be very much in line with our European cousins. Wha’s like us? Quite a few.

The facts are that the SNP are a civic nationalist grouping which warmly welcomes support from all sections and ethnic groupings in Scottish society. Even in it's earliest incarnations it supported self determination and opposed right wing extremism. Read the Flag in the Wind by John MacCormick to read the early (and proud) history of the SNP.

Even early outspoken radical Scots like Wendy Wood (who was often involved in civil disobedience such as moving the border post to it's more accurate position just after the River Tweed) were firmly rooted in legitimate campaigning and democratic politics.

Despite the British State's best efforts the Scottish independence movement has never ever been linked credibly to any political violence of any kind. This is despite the fact that the UK authorities (as exposed by Gaelic doc Diomhair still available on Youtube) attempted to supply young Scots students with fake explosives. MI5 have also regularly spied on Scottish demonstrations and the British Government itself deliberately and persistently lied about the extent of North Sea Oil during the original 1978 devolution referendum.

British mainstream parties like Labour and the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are also nationalists but of the British type. It could be credibly argued that British nationalism which constantly harks back to the glory days of the British Empire and seems to embody a distrust of foreigners and immigration is of a much more negative nature than the 'national freedom' type nationalism of the SNP which has much more in common with those countries who eventually escaped the imperial yoke.  

To insult the SNP and the wider Yes campaign in such a desperate and sickening fashion shows the desperation of the No lobby which has came up with zero positive arguments for union. A fact effectively illustrated in this video which was temporarily banned from youtube for daring to use embarassing pseudo-patriotic footage of Better Together's own activists.  



* Incidentally the former English King (Edward VIII) was in fact known to be a Nazi Supporter who had meetings with Hitler and who would almost certainly have been installed as a puppet ruler of Britain if Germany had succeeded in their invasion plans.

The real (English) motives of Tony Blair

This is a commentary on the following two articles in the Scotsman: Euan McColm: SNP ignore the lessons of Blair’s Third Way at their peril http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/opinion/comment/euan-mccolm-snp-ignore-the-lessons-of-blair-s-third-way-at-their-peril-1-2828746 Tony Blair: ‘SNP just like Ukip in blaming others’ http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/tony-blair-snp-just-like-ukip-in-blaming-others-1-2822778

It should be remembered that Tony Blair was reluctant to provide any devolution for Scotland but felt it was inevitable. The scheme he did offer had Broadcasting powers removed and he also moved to block a Scottish 6 O'Clock News!

The fact is that Labour only provided devolution 20 years after a clear vote in favour (not implemented due to their own wrecking 40% clause) and they only did that after repeating the referendum process.

Labour would have had no credibility whatsoever if they had completely ignored demands for devolution so Blair was forced into it.

At the time he also bluntly reminded us of where he perceived the power would continue to be: "Sovereignty rests with me as an English MP and that's the way it will stay." Scotsman 1997

Given all the above his attempts to stop Scots taking the next logical step to self-rule is entirely predictable and his claim that SNP are like UKIP is risible.

I think the SNP's change in policy on NATO was questionable, however it is now pretty clear there will not be any nuclear weapons in an independent Scotland. I also think that claiming the UK or British identity will continue post independence is self defeating. Yes, England probably will pretend to be Britain after we leave but that does not mean it reflects reality.

Blair's influence on politics in general was a negative one. Yes he was in power, but what did he do with it? In most areas he continued or worsened Conservative policy. He wishes to maintain the Status Quo because he believes it benefits England and he misrepresents the SNP's motivations so as to more easily attack them.

Independence is about representing ourselves as Scots on the world stage. Do we need to do this? Does the union not actually represent ourselves as well? The answer to that is a resounding No. In fact our voice is smothered under the British label. Britain comes from Brittania and as Jack Straw admitted England created the union to expand their power internationally.

"Historically, England called the shots to achieve a union because the union was seen as a way, among others things, of amplifying England's power worldwide.

And the reverse would certainly be true. A broken-up United Kingdom would not be in the interests of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but especially not England.

Our voting power in the European Union would diminish. We'd slip down in the world league GDP tables. Our case for staying in the G8 would diminish and there could easily be an assault on our permanent seat in the UN Security Council."

Scottish and Welsh independence would reduce England's international muscle and the loss of Oil would mean a drastic cut in her finances. That is why all English/British nationalists want the union to continue. Mrs Thatcher was also an English nationalist by the way as she admitted herself: "I'm an English nationalist and never you forget it," said Mrs Thatcher to James Naughtie in 1986.

The true origins of Britain and Britishness

This relates to a discussion with someone on Twitter who declared that Britain as a geographical entity existed long before Scotland.

The modern state of Britain was deliberately named after the ancient Roman colony of Britannia (ie the Roman name for England) and this state which was created in 1707 has no actual connection with the ancient Britons (who were in fact Celtic Gaels who eventually ended up pushed into the ancient countries of Cornwall and Wales) and is in fact an attempt to impose a false identity on modern Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

Even in Roman times Scotland (Caledonia) and Ireland (Hibernia) were recognised as seperate geographical entities from England and the islands were occupied by our ancestors for a long time before the Romans tried to conquer and take notice of us. So why should we be currently dominated by their terms for what they would have considered barbarian tribes?

Britannia is in fact their slave name for an area they conquered.

Britain and the 'British Isles' is described in these terms today because of the historical dominance of the Union over the last 300 years and the name was chosen deliberately to hark back to the terminology used by the Romans.  

My debator believes that it is a geographical term with no political significance whatsoever, however I say that if Scotland and England's fortunes were reversed then we would now be sitting in a Scots dominated state called Greater Caledonia and only the most gullible Englishman would think that this state was representative of England or the English!

This may seem a small point but I think it cuts to the quick of British propaganda and the constant talk of ancient and stone age Britain is a slight of hand which defies the truth, that Britishness is and was a false identity imposed upon the true identities of the Scots and Welsh and Irish and it has only actually genuinely existed (in historic terms) in a comparitively recent period.

Here are some facts:

With the Roman conquest of England the Latin term Britannia was used for the island of Great Britain, and later Roman occupied Britain south of Caledonia.

In this post-Roman period, as the Anglo-Saxons advanced, territory controlled by the Britons became confined to what would later be Wales, Cornwall and North West England.

The Historia Brittonum claimed legendary origins as a prestigious genealogy for Brittonic kings, followed by the Historia Regum Britanniae which popularised this pseudo-history to support the claims of the Kings of England.

During the Middle Ages, and particularly in the Tudor period, the term British was applied to the Welsh people.

King James VI and I advocated full political union between England and Scotland and on 20 October 1604 proclaimed his assumption of the style "King of Great Britain" though this title was rejected by both the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland and so had no basis in either English law or Scots law.

Despite opposition from much of the Scottish and English populations a Treaty of Union was agreed in 1706 that was then ratified by each parliament passing Acts of Union 1707. With effect from 1 May 1707, this created a new sovereign state called Great Britain.

After 1707, a British national identity began to develop though initially resisted—particularly by the English —the peoples of Great Britain had by the 1750s begun to assume a "layered identity", to think of themselves as simultaneously British and also Scottish, English, or Welsh.

(Note that this wasn't long after 1745 so the population had just been brutally ethnically cleansed of Catholics, Gaelic Highlanders and other Jacobite Scots independence supporters. It is also notable that for the first fifty years of union our economy had actually declined, so much for an instant age of prosperity!)

It is also forgotten that for much of our history Scotland was effectively a police state and those who argued for political reform were sent to Botany Bay. Thomas Muir is an obvious example, while some of the rebels of 1820 who marched under the Banner 'Scotland Free or a Desert' were actually hung by the state. There was also a vast network of informers and bribery led by the Dundas brothers so for some considerable time it wasn't exactly easy to state any opinion against the status quo!

Particularly in the 19th century, "North Britain" or "N.B." was widely used for postal addresses in Scotland, a fact which annoyed Robert Louis Stevenson:

"Don’t put N.B. on your paper; put Scotland and be done with it. Alas, that I should be stabbed in the house of my friends! The name of my native land is not North Britain, whatever may be the name of yours."

from a letter written by Robert Louis Stevenson in April 1888

Britishness became "superimposed on much older identities", of English, Scots and Welsh cultures, whose distinctiveness still resist notions of a homogenised British identity.

- Colley, Linda (1992), Britons: Forging the Nation, 1701–1837, Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-05737-9

So what does it matter if the state we live in is effectively called Greater England? It matters because politically that is precisely what it is. A false state which amplifies English power internationally at the expense of the individual identities of Scotland and Wales. This fact has already been admitted by Jack Straw:

“historically England called the shots to achieve a union because the union was seen as a way, among other things, of amplifying England’s power worldwide.

A broken-up United Kingdom would not be in the interest of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but especially not England. Our [England’s] voting power in the European Union would diminish. We’d slip down the world’s GDP tables. Our case for staying in the G8 would diminish and there could easily be an assault on our permanent seat in the UN.”

Scotland is not British and Britishness has never represented our interests. It is a false identity which has been imposed by politicians who want to ignore us so yes names matter and we should not be afraid to shout the fact that we are not 'British' and never have been.

In actual fact the reverse of the simplistic British view of history are true and in fact England was once part of a larger Celtic Alba according to Dr Alex Woolf (who lectures in medieval history at St Andrews:

"When the Romans occupied the island they gave the name Britannia to their province, with its fluctuating boundaries, and it is probably their failure to gain any lasting foothold in Ireland that gradually led to that island becoming ‘less British’ than this one.

The two islands had their own names, Iwerijo for Ireland, and Albijo for the larger island. These names survive as Eire and Alba, the Gaelic names for Ireland and Scotland respectively."

British Union has always been about amplifying England

Letter to the Editor
The Scotsman

11/02/2013

Dear Sir/Madam,

If the UK state is legally the same without the Scots in it as the British Government is now claiming then this proves that Britain (Britannia?) has always been a 'greater England' and not an equal union at all.

Jack Straw MP said in an interview with the BBC that "Historically, England called the shots to achieve a union because the union was seen as a way, among others things, of amplifying England's power worldwide." *

Not only has Scotland been effectively internationally invisible within the union we are now told that every action by the UK Government and every treaty organised by it had nothing to do with us at all!

What this means logically is that Scotland has never been part of any true union just a convenient fiction which has justified England claiming a larger international profile than it deserves.

Ending the union will mean for the first time that our flag will fly at the United Nations and the Olympic Games. I suspect the European Union will be desperate to keep us within it but if they do not want us then we could easily join EFTA and still have a trading relationship with Europe.

Why should we stay a part of Britain when Westminster officially says we are an irrelevance to its continuing status?

 Unionists say that Scotland and England are equal within the union but the reality is that we are no more equal than the UK would be if it was attached to a larger nation like China or Russia or the USA.

Scotland can do better. Independence is normality for almost every other nation and there is no country that has been unable to negotiate independence. Britain seems to officially imagine that Scotland is uniquely incapable of either ruling our own affairs or of negotiating independence.

Any Scot who supports such a dismal view of their own country should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

* full interview with Jack Straw is here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/5388078.stm

BRITISH POLICY: CONTEMPT FOR SCOTLAND AND WALES

British Petroleum has been in the news a lot recently. A massive eleven billion loss will decimate pension funds for future generations. Strangely enough though a similar sum can be found for the London Olympics. Yes this mass extravaganza will be entirely wonderful for everyone (well everyone in London anyway) and please don’t question the enormous cost because we all know that it’s the London metropolis that keeps all us beggars on the outer fringes afloat. The fact that the facts don’t agree? You’ll never get that through the media.



The thing I think about most when I consider the London Olympics is Lord Sebastian Coe (see above) who when asked about what Britain should do if Scotland and Wales didn’t want to be part of Britain’s football team. His answer? F*** ‘Em! Strangely enough however despite this comment being picked up in the press Lord Coe is still fronting the London Olympics and to my mind that fact represents a two fingered salute to every other country in Britain outside England.
Of course all has changed recently. We have a wonderful new coalition Government. Yes the new Conservative Government has added a dash of Liberal Democrats and we are now supposed to accept their drastic monetarist cost cutting medicine as inevitable and indeed entirely just. After all that nice Mr Clegg would hardly get himself involved in any shenanigans would he? Oh, no! The coalition Government has a new found lovey dovey respect for Scotland and Wales which lasted oh, two whole weeks before things returned to business as usual.
The pleasant Mr Clegg decided that the best thing for us Scots and Welsh was to have our national elections at the same time as his AV referendum bill. Thus ensuring a big British campaign which can drown out all those irrelevant local issues like who is going to run our countries for the next four years. After all didn’t that work well at the last election? Scotland and Wales ignored and only the big English parties getting equal TV coverage. Just to be on the safe side the 2015 elections for Scotland and Wales will be on the same day as (you guessed it!) the next Westminster elections.
Yes the respect agenda is alive and well. We get told what to do and are given less money and are expected to get on with it. Strangely enough the new coalition bears a startling resemblance to a Conservative Government. Every big post, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, Defence Secretary and Prime Minister are all held by the Tories. Mr Clegg became the new John Prescott while Vince Cable is the new Lord Mandelson. If Mr Clegg says the Iraq war is illegal he can be ignored as speaking for himself yet if a Conservative minister makes an announcement then that is party policy. I think I can see how this works.
Of course Mr Clegg didn’t give up the Liberal Democrats votes for nothing. Oh no! He got that aforesaid Alternative Vote (AV) referendum which was what he had always wanted. Well no, he said during the election AV was a waste of time. Which it is, marginally better than First Past the Post but by no means proportional, unlike STV (Single Transferable Vote). Personally I would have supported AV as a small step in the right direction however given that Mr Clegg has stuck it right in the middle of Scotland and Wales election campaigns Plaid Cymru and SNP would be both amply justified in telling him exactly where to stick it.
Still the Liberals did get another wondrous prize, yes the post of Secretary of State for Scotland, the cabinet post that the LD’s said should have been abolished during the election is now the greatest thing since sliced bread. You can tell that by the fact that Danny Alexander wanted to hold on to it for oh, weeks before rushing off to bigger and better things. We now have a new puppet Michael Moore who will no doubt regularly tell us that the Tories are right and that we Scots can survive on less money.
The sepulchral figure of Jim Murphy was of course our last SoS for Scotland. Murphy had a very simple law, if you are comparing Scotland with other nations make sure you never mention anyone with oil. After all that’s utterly irrelevant. Norway? No! Finland? Yes! Still voting Labour will definitely keep the Tories out. We did, but strangely enough we got ‘em. It makes you think that perhaps there is another country ten times our size who has rather more influence on the UK than Scotland. Still I’m sure thin Jim will get his reward some day with a job in the House of Lords or as I like to call them, the House of Losers. Yes, it doesn’t matter how incompetent you were as a politician or how you made no useful contribution to public life. So long as you were in the British cabinet you get a guaranteed spot in a plush retirement home with a nice new ermine red coat.
That real working class hero John ‘two jags’ Prescott has been punted up to the Lords. John Reid the man who did so much for British rule in Ireland and was rewarded with the chairmanship of a supposedly Irish nationalist football club has had a further ‘promotion’. Joining him is Helen Liddell (another SoS) various other Labour non-entities and Jack McConnell. Yes McConnell the former First Minister was considered to have been such a decent suck up that he didn’t even have to wait to lose his seat in the Scottish parliament before receiving his ‘just desserts’. The thought of this detritus of politics joining the ranks of such illustrious political hate figures as Lord Ian Lang and Lord Michael Forsyth makes me feel that what goes around comes around. Nonetheless, where is Guy Fawkes when you really need him? He could cut public expenditure at a stroke and no-one would be the worse for it.
William Hague is the new British foreign secretary, well he was but now it appears David Cameron prefers to make the rounds of other countries on Britain’s behalf. Mr Cameron doesn’t let the facts get in the way of sucking up to America. Oh, no he’ll re-write history and insult past generations if his supple tongue requires it. What’s that sir? You want Turkey to forgive Israel? Count on me!
Foreign policy for Britain is about asking America just how high they want us to jump. Don’t think of irrelevant stuff like the human rights of the Kurds or that silly old Turkish annexation of half of Cyprus, no think only of Uncle Sam and the rights of Israel to commit acts of terrorism that will ensure world respect.
Personally I would like to see Turkey in the EU. But only after they have relinquished half of Cyprus and improved their record on human rights. Strangely enough that is what the EU wants as well but it would be mad wouldn’t it to think we have a common interest with those European types. No far better to maintain an irrational xenophobic dislike of all Johnny Foreigners. Those mad continental types don’t even speak the Queen’s English.
BP’s trouble in the USA has led to the Americans taking a sudden interest in Scottish affairs. Of course Mr Cameron did the decent thing when asked to explain BP’s dodgy dealings. Don’t look at me he said look at Scotland who let out the mad terrorist Al Megrahi! It is of course true that Kenny MacAskill showed compassion for a dying man. It is also probable that the man in question had no connection whatsoever with the Lockerbie bomb. The US demanded to hear from the lowly Scots in person and were amazed to find that our Government had learnt a word which no British diplomat had ever used in recent recorded history: ‘No’.
There was indeed a ‘deal in the desert’ BP did in fact lobby a foreign Government. However it was the last Labour British Government, not the Scottish one. Mr MacAskill decide to grant compassionate release to a dying man. This has put those lovely types from the tabloids and the unionist politicians together in a basket in which they each hold a stopwatch and guess how long he’s got to go.
The fact the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission reckoned his conviction was ‘unsafe’. Who cares? The indisputable fact he’s dying of cancer? What does that matter? What matters is he is not dying in three months like he should have done!
I joined a US website a while back because I wanted to leave a comment re an inaccurate report about Scotland. Since then I have received numerous mail shots. If they are anything to go by the art of politics has died in America in favour of pathetic idiotic semantics. America might have the power the money and the secret agents but in terms of moral authority or fresh political ideas it has nothing. An independent Scotland and Wales would be far better throwing their lot in with the rest of Europe. The fact UKIP, the BNP and most of the Tories all want us to disengage from Europe gives us an idea of the right and wrongs of the issue!

TV debate farce is an undemocratic disgrace

There is a lot of anger about this on Twitter and other social networking sites. No wonder, it is an undemocratic disgrace that the political views of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall can be completely and utterly ignored.

15 Years on - What was the impact of Braveheart?

IN THE basement screening room of a New York hotel, a small group of international journalists – Scots, Russians, Japanese, Germans and Australians – is waiting for Mel Gibson to arrive. We've just watched Braveheart (a Blu-ray version will be released on 2 November, exactly 15 years after the original), witnessing Gibson's William Wallace slashing and burning his way through English subjugation and straight into the heart of Scotland's iconography.

http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment/Interview-Mel-Gibson.5762142.jp

Mel's interview is interesting. He doesn't add much to the story that we don't already know but Scottish nationalism undoubtedly owes his film a debt of gratitude of some sort.

Not because it was historically accurate (it wasn't, the battle of Stirling Bridge, is missing er... a bridge) but because it raised the profile of William Wallace Scotland's greatest historic hero who laid the way for Robert Bruce's ultimate victory at Bannockburn.

Is that still relevant? Yes, because if we had been beaten then, then the union would have been brought forward by 400 years and it wouldn't have been a union but a total annexation. We might now be sitting in a country called England.

The viewpoints at the end are disappointing, my remarks are in brackets:

Viewpoint Pat Kane: Musician and writer

Is Scottish independence worth it if its narrative is face-painted blue, bares its collective arse at all critics, dreams fondly of its own guerrilla movement and renders the English as collectively either doltish, sadist or effete?

(Yes, independence is worth it no matter what any film says and to imagine that the film in any way reflects modern Scottish nationalism is both absurd and ridiculous. It's a piece of entertainment and yes it reflects a crude sense of humour at times but so what? The political boost was raising awareness of our history and historical figures. Yes at times in our history Scots had to fight to gain independence. Without that win, there would have been no Declaration of Arbroath and possibly less civil rights around the world. For the first time Scotland said, we are in charge, not the King. Considering the times it was declared this is utterly remarkable.)

Every time the SNP does one of its dumb appropriations of Mel Gibson's neo-fascist tartan epic, even an independence supporter like me sinks lower in his chair.

Gibson has subsequently shown himself to be one of the weirder Hollywood movie-makers, seemingly in love with blood sacrifice, one way or another. Isn't it time we consigned the brutal dualisms of this movie to the dustbin of Scottish memory?

It's no surprise that European and American neo-Nazis take it as an inspiration. And as Scottish independence – if and when it comes – will be a matter of mastering the complexities of politics, law and economics, the last thing we need is the stench of Gibson's macho and xenophobic version of national liberation in our nostrils. Sorry, compatriots: Braveheart no more.

(To compare today with any historical movie is absurd, and it is just a film, after all. Let's remember that the real William Wallace was fighting for Scotland in very different times and he actually died for our nation. Mel's film might not entirely reflect the man but it does offer a moving tribute to his spirit. It deserves some respect for that.)

Viewpoint T M Devine: Sir William Fraser professor of Scottish history and palaeography, University of Edinburgh

One thing is certain, the movie has dramatically raised Scotland's international profile and place on the world map, for good or for ill. The Wallace Monument at Stirling, for decades neglected and virtually ignored, is now one of the nation's star tourist attractions. drawing visitors from across the globe. Americans may be still uncertain about where Scotland actually is, but they do know it is the land of Braveheart, which has now become as famous a part of the Scottish iconography

Then there is the extraordinary impact of Braveheartism in Europe. Scottish festivals abroad have become a veritable growth industry, booming from almost zero activity in 1990, from Moscow to Amsterdam. An event in the German city of Leipzig draws nearly 20,000 people annually. For the first time, in 2007 thousands of Russian 'Scots' paraded in full Highland dress in front of the Kremlin. The most recent count suggests that there are now at least 160 of these fantasy events scattered across Europe.

Not all this of this has come about only because of Braveheart, but who can deny that the movie has done much to renew the remarkable world-wide romantic appeal of a fictitious Scotland. Mel as the successor to Ossian and Scott?

Viewpoint Neil Davidson
Senior research fellow, University of Strathclyde

Freedom is a noble thing, but what kind freedom did Braveheart offer us? In a telling scene, Edward I throws his son's gay lover to his death. Edward is the pantomime villain – he hates Scots and gays: boo, hiss. But here's the point; the scene is played for laughs, and the audience does laugh.

As this suggests, the politics of the film are those of the right-wing, rifle-wielding backwoodsmen who think Barack Obama is a Kenyan commie and the NHS exists to kill your granny. Is this the kind of freedom we want for Scotland?

(So one scene means the whole film represents modern American politics right down to their current views on the NHS? Mr Davidson hates Scots independence, that is his political agenda.)

The film famously ends on the eve of Bannockburn, but long before then, before Wallace's death even, the Wars of Independence had become a struggle to see which gang of French-speaking, Latin-writing feudal banditti would exploit the Scottish peasantry. "Our" side won: fantastic. But freedom? As the Eagles used to sing: that's just people talking.

(It's a strange type of Scot that couldn't care less who won at Bannockburn. Yes 'our side' won, Scotland!)

Viewpoint Hannah McGill
Director, Edinburgh International Film Festival

Braveheart's position in Scottish film culture is as wobbly as Mel Gibson's on-screen accent. It has more sentimentally invested in the idea of Scottishness than any other film, but its own racial profile is notoriously all over the place: Australian star/director, American screenwriter, English leading lady and – most controversially of alI – some Irish locations.

(I think it's international flavour is actually its greatest strength. I don't think anyone else would have made it, it needed an Australian to look at Scotland's past and see the potential for a blockbuster.)

So, is it invalid as an icon of Scottish cinema? Not if you view it as what it is: one of the few big, fat, populist films to take Scotland as a subject, and as cross-bred, cobbled together, cynical and inconsistent as big fat populist films almost always are. Along with its more obviously 'authentic' contemporary, Rob Roy, Braveheart lent Scotland a presence in Hollywood as an inspiration and as a location. If Ireland got some temporary business out of Braveheart, Scotland – for better or worse – got its own permanent movie myth.

(I think this probably genuinely sums up the impact of Braveheart, certainly it helped put Scotland on the map internationally. It had obvious flaws but most big budget blockbuster films do. It also had confidence however and was unambiguous in supporting Scots independence. Something no film did before or since. I find the only people who really detest the film are British nationalists who would prefer no-one had ever heard of William Wallace and would prefer Scotland had no voice on the international stage at all. JOE)

Diomhair - Excellent Gaelic documentary about British attempts to undermine Scots independence

I have just watched the excellent BBC Alba documentary Diomhair (Secret). This programme goes into great detail about British efforts to undermine the Scottish independence and home rule movements.

Well worth watching and available here.

Why the British Union doesn't work

Since a British u is attacking my arithmetic here is my reply:

Total Number of British MP's at Westminster: 646

Scots MP's: 59

England on it's own has 529 MP's.

This means that English MP's heavily outweigh all the other countries in the British state and it means that the union is highly unequal as a result.

A majority of Scottish MP's voted against Trident but the British Government is pushing ahead anyway. If we were independent we would have our own direct voice in the EU and UN. We would have a seat in the Council of Ministers, we would have our own European commissioner and we would have more Euro MP's.

Most importantly our flag would fly at the United Nations and we would have our own seat there. We would control our own defence, foreign policy, benefits policy, broadcasting and pensions which are currently controlled by Westminster.

So if we voted against Trident it wouldn't happen and we wouldn't be wasting billions on an unusable deterrent which is intended to prop up the old fiction of Britain being a world power.

Scotland doesn't want to be a world power but we do need to have the same powers as every other country around the world and that can only happen with independence.

If the Scots in the cabinet worked in Scotland's interests that might be an advantage but it is obvious that they don't. Look at the HBOS takeover for a current obvious example.

Scotland would benefit if HBOS remained an independent bank based in Scotland. Brown wants it to be merged with Lloyds TSB which is likely to result in the HQ moving south and the loss of thousands of Scottish jobs.

To do this he is using Billions of borrowed pounds, much of which will be raised from future taxation on Scotland. So we're paying for the wrong decision to happen to our bank with the added rider that Mr Brown believes this indicates that Scotland is too poor to have independence and has the cheek to compare oil rich Scotland with tiny Iceland which was in part destabalised by the actions of the British Government! So much for the 'union dividend'.

----

I've printed the whole post below with my replies to each point:


Joe,

Good morning. It’s actually about 10:1 (587:59 MPs). But the exact ratio is largely irrelevant.
I don’t accept your notion that Scotland is “outvoted”. There’s no anti-Scottish bloc voting against our interests. Scots are no more “outvoted” than any other identifiable subgroup: elderly people, non-Caucasians or gay people, for example. Geography is only one distinguishing factor. But I’ll use inverted commas around the word “outvoted” and tackle you on your own terms.

Scotland is a country and represents the people who live in Scotland. Scottish MP's are recognised as a group within the British Parliament and they actually meet occasionally as a group (the Scottish Grand Committee).

Now obviously there are a variety of MP's from different parties, well two kinds actually, the Trident supporting right wing Brits ie Labour, Lib Dems and Tories and the SNP. The SNP are the only party which is based in Scotland and represents Scottish interests but nonetheless MP's elected in Scotland can fairly be described as Scottish MP's even when their first loyalty is not necessarily to Scotland.

Consider this: there being about 70,000 voters in the Glenrothes constituency, each individual is massively “outvoted” when it comes to electing the local MP.

Not really. everyone gets a vote and the winner wins. PR is fairer than FPTP as a system and we have that in the Scottish parliament and would likely have that in an independent Scottish Government but the voters of Fife have a democratic choice at the moment.

Even within the Kingdom of Fife, Glenrothes is only one of four Westminster constituencies, so could perhaps be said to be “outvoted” by a factor of 3:1.

Not really I think you will find that MP's in Fife are likely to work together, particularly when they are all Labour as they are currently.

And Fife itself is “outvoted” by a factor of 642:4 (about 160:1) in the UK parliament.

Fife is not a country. It is part of Scotland but the country of Scotland as a whole is indeed outvoted by a factor of 11-1 in the UK parliament.

Being “outvoted”, as you put it, is in the nature of representative democracy.

English MP's are not outvoted, the other countries are.

So why are you seemingly unconcerned about Fife being in such a position, but telling anyone who will listen that Scotland is “outvoted by a factor of 11-1” within Britain?

Because it's the truth.

I would suggest that your nationalism, rather than any argument about democratic representation, is at the root of your thinking. You see Scots (not Fifers) as separate, are outraged that we aren’t, and so that nationalistic tail wags your political dog.

After all, Scots – unlike Fifers – form a “nation without a state”, not unlike the Sioux, Bretons, Tamils, Sardinians and many others. Can you see yet where your argument breaks down? Should they all be independent? Should the USA, France, Sri Lanka, Italy and other nations cease to exist in their current forms as a result? But I digress.

You're not getting anywhere with your misleading arguments. Brittany has a right to independence and France and Spain as ex-imperial states could be further broken down. The Basque and Catalan countries are obvious examples and are moving towards independence. Sardinia also has an independence movement. The USA is large but it is obviously seen as a distinct country and at this point there is no serious movement to break it up.

The Sioux are a conquered people unfortunately, but their original ownership of America (with the rest of the native Americans) is a historical fact which should not be ignored.

In your terms, Britain is similarly “outvoted” in the European Parliament – by a factor of 9:1 (in fact 707:78). But do you see me fretting about that? Of course not, because I’m a Unionist!

That is a problem, which has led to the creation of UKIP. The UK is already independent actually, but UKIP are British unionists (nationalists) like yourself. Scotland would be outvoted in the EU but no one country is large enough to dominate the whole EU which makes a difference.

Not a British nationalist. I’ll leave that to those on the fringes: to the likes of UKIP.

It's the same thing. Britain as currently constituted is a nation so the supporters of British nationhood are nationalists and (some are imperialists as well such as the BNP). If you fly the Union Jack then you are a British nationalist by definition.

But a conviction Unionist. So I’m Pro-Scotland, pro-Britain and pro-Europe.

But you are less pro Scotland than I am because you are happy to see our interests subverted to Britain's, I'm not.

That means I’m at ease with the idea of distributed sovereignty. I’ll consider what powers might best be exercised at Scottish, British or European levels not just on the basis of uncritical subsidiarity, or what’s thought to be best only for “us” (however defined).

Yes we Scots can do that as well and that is the problem, Britain stops us from making these decisions for ourselves. Post independence we might choose to work together with England on certain things but that would be our democratic choice.

Rather, the Unionist ideal is to pool resources, to come together whenever, on balance, it serves our common good. And if at times that cuts across narrow ideas of “our” versus “their” interests, then so be it – even for your hobbyhorse issues of defence and foreign affairs.

Yes, well unfortunately what actually happens is that Scotland's voice is entirely ignored altogether and Britain's voice is the only one that is heard. On Trident we don't want it, Britain does, so we get it.

Anyway, we already cede some such powers to the EU, NATO and UN (and even to the US) and while you and I could probably bicker all day about the appropriateness of the current distribution, the internationalist principle is an important one which nationalist doctrines inevitably undermine.

Yes the US controls the missiles which makes them rather pointless.

And that’s why, as David Cameron rightly said, unionists will win this battle of ideas. Your rhetoric may be pithier, but our vision is far more forward-looking, generous and inclusive.

But of course, in our relations with the rest of the world, Scotland’s and Britain’s interests are our primary focus, and there’s no contradiction between that statement and the foregoing. The distribution of sovereignty, rather like the decision-making dynamic within a healthy marriage, must work to all its parties’ net advantage, if not to each individual partner’s in every respect.

And on that score your argument falls apart completely. An independent Scotland would be “outvoted” in the European Parliament probably by 771:14 (roughly 55:1).

So again I’ll ask: why doesn’t that vex you? Where’s your consistency? Why is being “outvoted” 10:1 in Britain such a concern, but being “outvoted” 55:1 in Europe such a welcome prospect?

It's pretty obvious. Within Britain if there is a conflict of interest between what suits England and what suits Scotland and Wales then it's pretty obvious whose argument will win within the London parliament. The numbers are clear to see.

In terms of the EU yes there is also a problem there because we would be outvoted by a large factor. However no one country dominates the EU and therefore it is possible to work together on a common agenda. Also, if we are independent and we don't like the direction of the EU we would have the power to leave it, we don't have that at the moment.

British Citizenship did nothing for Gary McKinnon

A Scots computer hacker, Gary McKinnon is being deported to the US. McKinnon who suffers from Asbergers syndrome is likely to receive 70 years for 'terrorism' offences.

In actual fact all he did was expose some lapses in US security in his search for cover-ups on alien encounters. As a British citizen you would expect McKinnon would receive some support from his home Government.

No, Britain decided that it couldn't care less about the Scot. The US was much more important to them and they couldn't care less if his rights to a fair trial were breached.

Sadly that attitude was also shared by the European Court of Human Rights.

It's clear that in McKinnon's case British citizenship was worth nothing.

Perhaps it's time to give Scotland a shot at representing Scots abroad.

Why should Murray want to be English?!

Post on the Scotsman:

The Scotsman has claimed that Murray has given up on Scotland but it's not actually true. They've said he's a new 'British bulldog' - don't make me boak. Is the Scotsman that desperate to create a pro-British story? Just because he got pictured with a flag? (probably handed to him by some Unionist hack desperate to get that pic!)Why does he have to make loads of humiliating declarations about how much he loves the English when he should just be concentrating on his game? Why is it even an issue? The last time he was at Wimbledon everyone cheered for the English players and after they went out they cheered for him, that was with his saltire armbands.

This year some supposedly 'quality' papers would prefer it if he forgot about being Scottish altogether! Sad, sad very sad and it says a lot about the Scotsman that it won't allow any Scot to be a success without the frankly sickening garbage of claiming them as a British bulldog, fair enough mention he's British if you MUST (for the moment anyway) but this cr*p is well OTT.

Brown has hurt Scotland by becoming PM, we won't get another and his boot licking of England and the Union Jack now means that England expects everyone to do it. Murray should have told them all to f*ck off. When we are independent our sportsmen will be treated with respect and won't be put through this obstacle course of abasing themselves before the glory of greater England. It's pathetic and it's not based on any actual remarks by Murray who said he would NOT be wearing any 'union jack head bands' which suggests that he remains a Scot first and foremost even if the sad hacks want to pretend otherwise.

Come out for independence Andy and kick everyone's a*se next year - even if everyone in 'SW1' hates your guts. It worked for McEnroe. - JPM

---------------

The disgusting remarks about Murray have reached their zenith with this sh*te from Tony Parsons. I don't think for a moment that Murray desires to be English, why the hell should he? However you can see that the hacks are confused since they can't tell the difference between Britishness and Scottishness themselves, don't worry Tony it will be spelt out politically soon enough.

Opinion: Tony Parsons on why Andy Murray doesn't represent England

Mirror columnist Tony Parsons wrote he wouldn't be supporting Andy Murray at Wimbledon after the Scot's anti-English remarks during the last World Cup. But would witnessing Murray's astonishing performance at first hand change his mind?

As fate would have it I was at Centre Court on Monday when Andy Murray staged one of the greatest sporting comebacks of all time against highly strung Frenchman Buster le Gasket.
Some say that the French have surrender in their bones, but this is grotesquely unfair to Andy Murray. Like several million other Englishmen I have never warmed to the dour Scot who they call Gordon Brown's lovechild.

However nobody should take anything away from what Murray did in the twilight of a Wimbledon day. He was awesome, he was magnificent, but I can't pretend I've suddenly fallen in love with the fiery Scot. His anti-English remarks cannot be forgotten so easily. No doubt there are other Englishmen and women who will feel differently because everyone loves a winner but despite his incredible performance on Monday I still can't confuse him with Bobby Moore.

I started that five set marathon cheering for the Frenchman and I ended up cheering for Murray. It would have been churlish, petty and mean-spirited to do anything else.
What I can't do is pretend Andy Murray represents me and my country.

I don't think that his remarks about England in the World Cup, when he said he would support anyone but England, were a joke I think he still feels that way and I think there are millions of people that still feel that way.

There are some people who just don't like the English, and I believe in my marrow that Murray is one of them. That's fine. Wimbledon is not really about flagwaving. Ultimately a tennis player represents no one but himself. They are as lonely as boxers.

Murray has already had an incredibly successful Wimbledon.

Whatever happens against Nadal he can be proud of himself, Scotland can be proud of him and Britain can be proud of him. But that doesn't mean we have to like him. Murray is the best thing we've seen in years in what is the most English of sports.

I am sorry that he made those stupid and insensitive remarks earlier in his career, and though he'd never admit it, I bet he is too. Viva Espana.

--- What is incredible is that this w*nker feels everyone must *automatically* support England at football! We Scots don't expect England fans to support us, or French Fans or United States fans. Then again we are not imperialist supremacists. That's the difference. To Parsons we are colonials - well it won't be for ever buddy.

Andy Murray: "He's a Brit if he wins, a Scot if he loses."

This article (see below) shows the ripe old hypocrisy of the English press. It's conclusions are probably true, Murray will never be truely loved by Britain's tennis fans for the simple fact that he's a Scot first and foremost.

That's entirely in his favour. I think it is astonishing that he has to defend himself against accusations of being ant-English (even though as he has felt forced to point out, sad in itself, his coach is English, his girlfriend is English and much of his family is English).

Murray is a potentially great tennis player, potentially a world champion. He is also a Scot who likes to wave the Saltire. That doesn't make him anti-English, it just makes him pro Scottish.

He has played in British teams in the Davis cup, sometimes risking his personal health to do so but for little reward.

It is obvious that the English would have preferred 'one of their own' like Henman to win Wimbledon, even if ultimately he just didn't have the talent. If Andy manages it they will no doubt try to drape him in a UJ and claim him as the 'best of British' but in reality they would just as easily drop him, if he loses.

Andy is Scottish, he is a source of pride for our country. If the discredited union leads some to be jealous of him and unwilling to cheer him for his talent, that makes them anti-Scottish but it does not make him anti-English.

Good luck Andy and if in the future you lose, don't worry about it because you have plenty of time and the ultimate talent to be world No. 1 not just British No. 1.

You have a long lustrous career ahead of you and on current probability most of it will be within a proudly independent Scottish state. So if some people won't clap you or support you ignore them because they are just plain jealous.

This article aptly sums them up:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/jun/29/andymurray.wimbledon1

Murray's a winner - but not yet a heroTim Adams watches as Andy Murray advances to the next round at Wimbledon but fails to inspire Henman-style hysteria
Tim Adams The Observer, Sunday June 29, 2008 Article historyThough Andy Murray overcame the occasionally stubborn challenge of German Thomas Haas at Wimbledon yesterday to advance to the fourth round of the tournament for the second time, 'Andymonium' has yet officially to break out in SW19. Partly, this looks like a question of flags. Outside Centre Court there was not a Union Jack to be seen except as a detail on the caps of a contingent of Aussies 'jeez mate-ing' loudly about paying forty-eight quid for a tray of Pimm's.

This evidence of the slow disintegration of the union seemed to be gathering pace by the big screens. Nobody was making their way to Murray Mound; Henman Hill, it seems, will be forever English. Perhaps there was something in the air: forget Scottish independence, this week has seem something of an assertion of devolution for the Home Counties. First there was the by-election at Henley in which the party of the Scottish Prime Minister was outflagged by the BNP; now there was this comparative apathy toward the progress of Murray - a living embodiment of the Midlothian question. (It seemed somehow symbolic that as he took to the court, Labour's Scottish leader, Wendy Alexander, 'bring it on' challenger to Alex Salmond, resigned her post.)

The Wimbledon crowd, anyhow, had not forgotten how to respond to one of their own: before Murray's match the very-nearly-14-times-champion Tim Henman was introduced to the crowd from the Royal Box, and the response on his eponymous hill were the discreet whoops that pass for mania in Dorking. The emergence of Murray provoked a more muted kind of murmur.

Wandering among the crowd I eventually come across some red, white and blue draped around the shoulders of Rebecca Lynch, up from Brighton. She had camped out overnight with her mate, Melanie Cole, who had confused the issue of identities by bringing out her full St George's Cross attire - a relic, she admits from her decade supporting Henman. Murray's Scottishness isn't a problem for them, 'though he is a bit miserable'. 'I'm half Scots anyway,' Melanie suggests, from beneath her bowler hat. 'Let's just say if he wins he's British; if he loses he's a Scot.'

Others are more robust in their opinion. 'He's a f**** moaning Scot who hates the English, but he's the best we have,' offers Charlie Robson, who has just done his A levels in Twickenham. That's pretty much a general feeling, though expressed more genteelly elsewhere. 'He's a bit scruffy,' says Christine from Oxshott, 'and he looks permanently in pain'. I glance up to the screen where Murray is warming up. It is hard to argue with this assessment. Practising his serve, he wears the look of a man regretting a pre-match pickled herring.

The resultant absence of jingoism is quite a pleasant surprise. Though Murray is playing a German, and we are enjoying a long afternoon in the sun, there are no Dambuster refrains; a stag-nighter in an afro wig who climbs on to a table to conduct a chorus of Rule Britannia ends up singing solo before falling off.

Some of this ambivalence, I'm repeatedly told, goes back to the throwaway remark Murray made the last time he played here in 2006. When asked who he was supporting in the World Cup, he replied 'anyone but England'. After he made that original remark he was shocked to hear a woman on her mobile phone exclaim: 'That Scottish wanker Murray has just walked past!' As a result he launched a cross-border charm offensive at the outset of this year's tournament. He was, he said, a quarter English through his gran; his physiotherapist was English, and, despite the name, so was his coach, Miles Maclagan.

'My girlfriend's English, too,' he went on, in some desperation, 'and I live in London. I'd have qualified to play football for England but probably wouldn't have got into the team!' Despite his efforts, the offensive doesn't seem to be working.

Far more patriotic excitement was garnered by Chris Eaton earlier in the week, with his tales of driving up from Surrey to the tournament in a sports car held together with duct tape. Eaton's appearance at the tournament excited not only a high-pitched entourage of fans, but also a lively correspondence in the Telegraph, the house journal of Surrey sports-car-with-duct-tape drivers; one observer seemed to voice the opinion of many when he noted: 'How nice to see a player that actually enjoys his tennis and showed true deference to the traditions of Wimbledon, rather than the truculence and downright rudeness of Andrew Murray and his appalling family! Well done, Eaton, see you next year. Here's hoping we see the last of the miserable Murrays in the next round!'

For a while in the second set against Haas, which he chucked away, it seemed possible that that particular wish would be granted; but, in the end, Murray won with some style. Maybe that's the other reason, beyond the state-of-the-union issues, that Andymonium has yet to ignite here. Murray has not yet put us through the wringer enough times to excite general national neurosis. Though he makes a gesture toward the style of tennis that British Wimbledon fans have come to expect of their heroes - the sublime touch followed by the embarrassing mis-hit - in general he is far too much in control to count yet as a national treasure. He's winning too easily; he just hasn't suffered enough and neither have we. No doubt in the coming week all of that will be put right.