This is me on a Radio5 live discussion show some years ago: youtube.com/watch?v=QVVtF1… + youtube.com/watch?v=CKLSk0… #scotland #indyref
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) May 15, 2013
"I hereby declare the union between Scotland and England DISSOLVED" Charles III (aka Charles Edward Stuart/ Bonnie Prince Charlie) in 1745.
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) May 12, 2013
"I have devoted myself to the cause of the people, it is a good cause, it shall ultimately prevail, it shall finally triumph."- Thomas Muir
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) April 14, 2013
"We English, who are a marvellous people, are really very generous to Scotland." Baroness Thatcher #indyref #scotland
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) April 14, 2013
"What are advantages Scotland reaps from so called Union that counterbalance annihilation of her independence and her name?" Robert Burns
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) March 12, 2013
"it is much easier to corrupt 45 Scots at London, than it is to corrupt 300 at Edinburgh!" Fletcher of Saltoun 1707#scotsnotbrits #indyref
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) March 8, 2013
@uk_together 2008 When asked about #Scots and #Wales opposing TeamGB Seb Coe said "F*ck 'em" #indyref Mutual Respect? twitter.com/freescotlandno…
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) March 4, 2013
Tony Blair on devolution "Sovereignty rests with me as an English MP and that's the way it will stay." Scotsman 1997 #scotsnotbrits #indyref
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) March 7, 2013
"I'm an English nationalist and never you forget it," said Mrs Thatcher to James Naughtie in 1986. #scotsnotbrits #indyref
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) March 7, 2013
England called the shots..because..union was seen as a way..of amplifying England's power worldwide Jack Straw 2006 news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme…
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) March 10, 2013
"I have devoted myself to the cause of the people, it is a good cause, it shall ultimately prevail, it shall finally triumph." Thomas Muir
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) February 25, 2013
WINSTON CHURCHILL 'of all small nations of this earth perhaps only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind.'
— Independence Celebs (@Celebs4indy) November 22, 2012
I like this: Pat Kane "I want to live in a progressive country. Where the peopleliving here have ideas way beyond their station." #indyref
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) February 23, 2013
"It's a racist argument that Scots uniquely cannot run a country when there are smaller nations than ours that do it just fine." Osama Saeed
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) February 23, 2013
"It is not for glory nor honors nor riches that we are fighting but for freedom for that alone which no honest man gives up" Arbroath 1320
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) February 23, 2013
"Is it better that we deliver on our agenda inan independent Scotland or continue to fail to deliver in a United Kingdom?" John Duffy FBU
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) February 23, 2013
Iain (M) Banks: "Scotland could have viable future as independent country. We could become a low-inequality society on Scandinavian model."
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) February 23, 2013
Ken Loach: "If I had the change to be independent from the Tory-Liberal-New Labour bunch, I'd jump at it." #indyref
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) February 23, 2013
The 'Scotsman' newspaper (perhaps it should be re-named as 'The Britman' or the 'North Briton') the other day found remote ancestors of people who signed the American Declaration of Independence who are saying that Scotland should not also be independent (see link at end).
Taking effective political action in Scotland against British rule is more productive than singing songs complaining about that state's rule in Ireland!
Catholic Anger at School claim by Sheriff - Herald Scotland
With regard to the above article it should be clearly understood that singing a song about the republican struggle in Ireland is a political act not a sectarian one because it is not against a particular religion. On the other hand demanding that Catholic schools be shut down is sectarian and discriminatory.
Rather than singing about Ireland at their fellow Scots football fans in Dundee Celtic FC fans would be better off actively campaigning for Scottish independence in Scotland. This political action would effectively abolish the British state which would improve the lives of the people who live here because it would mean important international and domestic powers from the British Government would be transferred to Scotland and we would also have our own seat at the United Nations.
It would also as a by-product strengthen Ireland's hand in future negotiations with the rUK Government because the state that currently claims ownership of a part of Ireland would no longer officially exist and unionists would be faced with the embarassing notion of saying they prefer to actually be a part of England rather than Britain or Ireland.
Some Celtic fans (not all or anywhere near it but a minority) are using the excuse of this legislation to justify voting for the retention of the UK. This shows an alarming political inconsistency and a lemming like willingness to be divided 'n' ruled in Scotland by the same state which has so effectively divided Ireland.
If the legislation concerned is flawed then it could be reversed in the future but football fans should realise that the intentions behind it were honest by the Scottish Government.
CALEDONIAN THISTLE?
To further illustrate the point think about this: if our positions were reversed and Scots immigrants to Ireland had set up a team called Caledonian Thistle in Ireland and I was born in Ireland but had a strong connection to my home country in Scotland then perhaps I would wish to sing songs about Scotland in Ireland (particularly if Scotland had voted for indy in the early 20th century but Britain had somehow managed to retain a part of it such as Strathclyde!).
If I also at the same time suggested that I actually supported British control over Ireland while supporting independence for what I saw as my home country then if the Irish felt my political position to be risible then I would only have myself to blame!
If on the other hand I had a chance to play an active role in a democratic independence struggle for Ireland which would also weaken British rule in Scotland then it would seem very politically inconsistent not to do so.
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.
"I have devoted myself to the cause of the people, it is a good cause, it shall ultimately prevail, it shall finally triumph."- Thomas Muir
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) April 14, 2013
"We English, who are a marvellous people, are really very generous to Scotland." Baroness Thatcher #indyref #scotland
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) April 14, 2013
"What are advantages Scotland reaps from so called Union that counterbalance annihilation of her independence and her name?" Robert Burns
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) March 12, 2013
"it is much easier to corrupt 45 Scots at London, than it is to corrupt 300 at Edinburgh!" Fletcher of Saltoun 1707#scotsnotbrits #indyref
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) March 8, 2013
@uk_together 2008 When asked about #Scots and #Wales opposing TeamGB Seb Coe said "F*ck 'em" #indyref Mutual Respect? twitter.com/freescotlandno…
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) March 4, 2013
Tony Blair on devolution "Sovereignty rests with me as an English MP and that's the way it will stay." Scotsman 1997 #scotsnotbrits #indyref
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) March 7, 2013
"I'm an English nationalist and never you forget it," said Mrs Thatcher to James Naughtie in 1986. #scotsnotbrits #indyref
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) March 7, 2013
England called the shots..because..union was seen as a way..of amplifying England's power worldwide Jack Straw 2006 news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme…
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) March 10, 2013
"I have devoted myself to the cause of the people, it is a good cause, it shall ultimately prevail, it shall finally triumph." Thomas Muir
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) February 25, 2013
WINSTON CHURCHILL 'of all small nations of this earth perhaps only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind.'
— Independence Celebs (@Celebs4indy) November 22, 2012
I like this: Pat Kane "I want to live in a progressive country. Where the peopleliving here have ideas way beyond their station." #indyref
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) February 23, 2013
"It's a racist argument that Scots uniquely cannot run a country when there are smaller nations than ours that do it just fine." Osama Saeed
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) February 23, 2013
"It is not for glory nor honors nor riches that we are fighting but for freedom for that alone which no honest man gives up" Arbroath 1320
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) February 23, 2013
"Is it better that we deliver on our agenda inan independent Scotland or continue to fail to deliver in a United Kingdom?" John Duffy FBU
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) February 23, 2013
Iain (M) Banks: "Scotland could have viable future as independent country. We could become a low-inequality society on Scandinavian model."
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) February 23, 2013
Ken Loach: "If I had the change to be independent from the Tory-Liberal-New Labour bunch, I'd jump at it." #indyref
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) February 23, 2013
Independence gives us the opportunity to choose our political destiny.
The British Union forces us to accept another country's choice as ours.
That current choice (the Conservatives) has a backward hatred of the poor in
society that it is simply not acceptable to our countrymen. Also the fact is
that we got 20 years of direct rule from London after a vote in favour of
home rule in 1978 and that had followed an estimated 2M support for
devolution in the 1950's!
If you look much further back into history there is significant evidence of
political oppression, paid spies and deportations to the colonies of
advocates of human rights. Prior to that armed revolt and the effectively
ethnic cleansing of the Gaelic population and Roman Catholics all because
they preferred the true heirs to the throne rather than a set of English
owned puppets.
There was even large attempts to remove the name of Scotland altogether and
rename us as North Britain and Ireland as West Britain. England didn't need
to be renamed as South Britain because they already understood that it was
the same thing. Britain = Britannia ie the early name for England and Wales
(the seperate country which they have controlled for so long that they treat
it legally as a part of theirs).
The union has been a grotesque and massive fraud which has hidden the
constant exploitation and sacking of our small country by a much larger one.
It needs to end and this generation has a chance to end it.
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.
Letter to
the Editor
The
Scotsman
I was watching the BBC programme Dinner with Portillo some time ago (it was discussing Scots independence) and some of the reactions of the English guests were instructive. Rod Liddle initially tried to doubt the existence of Scotland at all, but later admitted that he was really worried an independent Scotland would take away all the Scots Labour MP’s from Westminster. As a leftist of sorts he thought this might not be in his interests as England would become a permanent Tory zone.
Portillo himself seemed to imagine there would be no consequences whatsoever for England, with London remaining the centre of the universe, he was therefore quite happy for the Scots (and Wales) to become independent because essentially we don’t really count.
An Oxford academic worried about how England might change without the influence of Scotland and Wales and might become a less tolerant country as a result. None of them were particularly interested in the effect independence might actually have on Scotland, an omission which perhaps perfectly illustrates the nature of the union!
On the ‘other side’ Hardeep Singh Kohli, who appears to have wangled a berth for himself as a TV expert on Scotland, proved his own ignorance by declaring that a separate military presence for Scotland was impossible and also bizarrely claimed that he didn’t even know the SNP’s policy on nuclear weapons.
He seemed to imagine Scotland as a jealous lover, spurned by those nasty English types who don’t care for our affections! In fact a battered wife might have been a better analogy but when people claim ‘the English’ as a whole believe a certain thing they are generally on a hiding to nothing and this was clearly the case with Mr Kohli.
Former Labour party First Minister Henry McLeish could have enlightened him on SNP policy no doubt but perhaps couldn’t be bothered, he was more interested in whether the RBS should be considered a British bank rather than a Scots one.
Meanwhile historian Michael Fry made some decent points but his political analysis seemed to be that we would be so skint with independence that we would have to slash public spending (as a Tory he liked the sound of that) even though the actual evidence is that Scotland puts more money into the union than we receive!
I mention this programme because it indicates the kind of mish mash which passes for serious commentary on Scots independence through the British prism of TV news.
Anyone watching this programme would have been no wiser about Scots independence at the end than they would have been at the start, yet the case is very clear and easily described.
As long as Scotland and Wales are outvoted by a factor of 10-1 and 20-1, in the important arenas of defence, foreign affairs and other important areas like pensions and social security, within the British parliament, then we do not live in a genuine democracy and our views are easily and effectively ignored.
So what moves are being made towards holding a referendum on independence and what is the current situation of the SNP Government?
Recently the SNP were being attacked by the ‘Scottish’ press for various imaginary sins. Possibly to deflect attention from actual fraud at British parliamentary level by Jim Devine MP, the press decided that an auction for a lunch with Alex Salmond was the height of corruption. The fact that the individual who bought the lunch, could have made the same donation directly to the SNP, and that there were no policy implications escapes our journos.
No, the most important issue for them is that the SNP might have used the parliamentary canteen (parliamentary facilities!) for the lunch in question… If it sounds pathetic, it is.
Nicola Sturgeon was also dunked into luke warm water for the heinous crime of representing a constituent. Yes, because Nicola wrote a letter asking a court to consider that a custodial sentence might not be advisable for a benefit fraudster with ten kids this was seen as a shocking lapse of judgement.
The Edinburgh Evening News claimed “the honeymoon is finally over for SNP”. This claim that the SNP’s popularity was a ‘honeymoon period’ was always designed to be a stick to beat them with, however given that the SNP won the elections in May 2007 it’s been a hell of a long honeymoon! The unionists have yet to hit the SNP with a charge that will stick. In reality they have governed extremely well, a fact which sticks in the throat of many a biased journalist.
The unionists attempted to kill the SNP’s referendum bill by trying to arrange one of there own flunkies as committee chairman. Margo MacDonald’s assisted suicide bill which should have went to the health committee was instead given to a newly created ad hoc committee with a view to ensuring a unionist chair on the proposed referendum bill which was expected to follow it.
In fact however the SNP neatly sidestepped this abuse of parliamentary procedure by publishing the Bill in draft form meaning that they can delay its actual implementation to a more opportune time.
The SNP plans to hold the referendum in late 2010, after the result of the UK elections and at a point where any new Government will have revealed its hand in respect of Scotland. Labour and Liberals might find it more difficult to deny a choice on independence in the face of a hostile Conservative UK Government!
At the moment however all the unionists are pledged to deny Scots a choice and to publish a bill would simply hasten its demise. Timing in this case is everything, and the SNP have organised through their national conversation a proper consultation with the public. SNP ministers have travelled up and down all of Scotland and held numerous public meetings to properly consider independence.
The ill fated Calman commission, designed to scupper independence without actually going as far as considering it, has given its findings which have subsequently been entirely ignored by both Labour and Conservatives. So called devolution max, is actually devolution minimal as no unionist party is willing to countenance any actual financial level of independence.
Without the purse strings of course a devolved assembly remains effectively controlled by central Government, a fact they are all well aware of. Calman was designed to outflank the national conversation, however because it ignored independence all it has done is reveal the poverty of ambition for Scotland of all unionists. Job well done!
What this means is that the line between independence and devolution remains clearly drawn. When the referendum happens the Scots will get a choice which is clear between those who want the best for Scotland and those who don’t.
The unionists can delay that vote but ultimately they cannot deny it. If the SNP needs to spend more time talking to the public and dealing with actual political issues then I’m sure they are happy to do this. If they have to fend off ill aimed allegations without much actual weight then they seem entirely capable of that as well.
According to opinion polls many people in Scotland remain unconvinced by independence, probably because the actual issues are rarely properly addressed through the British media. Those issues will only be properly addressed by those who believe in independence making a case for it. This is what the SNP is attempting to do and gradually they are moving towards their ultimate objective.
Scotland must finally be given a choice and when that choice is properly debated through a referendum campaign their patient groundwork through the national conversation will hopefully pay off.
As I write this the UK General election has just happened. If you lived in England you might well believe that there are no other countries in the British union since it was dominated by coverage of the three unionist parties. These elections are always unfair to pro-independence parties because the UK parties get a double dose of election coverage. They are featured in UK-wide coverage but also in the so called ‘regional’ broadcasts where there branches pretend to be Welsh or Scottish parties in their own right.
As the TV broadcasts were extremely prominent in the campaign the SNP and Plaid Cymru were able to make the point that this is unfair and the BBC’s response to their complaints highlighted that unfairness. Effectively the BBC decreed that only those parties which could potentially elect a Prime Minister ie those parties who could get a majority in the UK parliament deserved a seat at the debates. What this means effectively is that only the parties that contest seats in England are considered relevant. This is an effective comment on the union because it relies on Scotland and Wales remaining invisible for it to work.
In the event a hung parliament emerged while in Scotland and Wales the situation was unchanged. Both gave back large numbers of Labour MP’s both had a reduced rump of Conservatives and a handful of nationalist MP’s. It appears that the Liberal Democrats will either be in coalition with the Conservatives or will prop up a Conservative Government. Luckily Scotland and Wales both have our devolved parliaments to protect us from that dismal prospect. Also, given the continued pariah status of the Conservatives in Scotland, this result should provide a boost to the pro-referendum cause.
Published in Carn the magazine of the Celtic League.
Thoughts on getting to the only sensible choice for Scotland - Independence
by Jim Sillars
The full pamphlet is here:
http://www.scottishindependence.com/jim-sillars.pdf
Saturday 28 November 2009
10.30 – 6.00 @ Out of the Blue
As the plans for a referendum on Scottish independence are announced a gathering looking at why we need a Yes vote and what are the positive visions for an independent Scotland?
Media, Communication and the Union 11.00 – 12.30
Pat Kane on The Democratic Interact: the challenges of social media to Scottish Self -Determination. Pat is a musician, blogger, author, columnist and has been involved in the politics of independence from Scotland United days. More at The Play Ethic.
Joe Middleton on Why Scottish Independence Matters. Joe is a member of the Scottish National Party, the creator of the Scottish Independence Guide website and Press Officer of Independence First, the referendum campaign.
Shona McAlpine on We Can’t Win It Without Them – Enthusing the Under 30s. Shona McAlpine is an SNP activist and manages the Scottish Independence Convention’s website. Professionally she is a Secondary Computing teacher and has also been a nightclub and bar manager.
Peace & Alternative Futures 1.00 – 3.00 pm
Janet Fenton on How Scottish Women Might Disarm the UK Government. Janet started co-ordinating the Edinburgh Peace & Justice Centre after lots of political, feminist theatre, community arts and direct action, and a few years with a community eco-shop/gallery/drop-in project in Portobello.
Justin Kenrick on Self-determination as an assertion of interdependence: restoring resilience to communities, societies and ecosystems. Justin teaches at the Sustainability Institute at St Andrews University and is the co-ordinator of the Holyrood 350 Campaign.
Economics and Outlook with Scottish Left Review & Our Kingdom 3.30 – 5.30 pm
Gerry Hassan on The End of Britain. Gerry is the author of The Modern SNP from Protest to Power (EUP) and is a columnist for Our Kingdom
Robin McAlpine on Imagined Futures. Robin is editor of Scottish Left Review and co-author of Is There a Scottish Road to Socialism?
This event is free – all welcome.
http://bellacaledonia.wordpress.com/
The decision of the voters in Glasgow North East will have long lasting implications for the cause of Scottish independence. Glasgow can do better than Labour's Baron Springburn and the SNP deserve their chance to represent the constituency at the UK parliament.
Scotland's party puts Scotland first and a vision of a free and independent country is a lot bettter than sticking with failed bankrupt Britain with it's divide 'n' rule policies and xenophobic attitudes fixed firmly in the past!
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)
British Conservative leader David Cameron's remarks again show his party's irrelevance to Scotland. If Alex Salmond and by extension the SNP are "irrelevant" to a British general election then this shows up the fact that Scotland does not count within the current setup.
The SNP are currently Scotland's most popular party. They won the last Scottish election and the last Euro elections with the largest share of the popular vote. The Tories on the other hand have one MP in Scotland and might soon have zero. The SNP however could realistically under FPTP increase their numbers to 20-30 seats.
That makes the SNP a huge player in Scotland. If David Cameron continues to push this line then what he is actually saying is that no party in Scotland counts and that whatever way we vote does not matter in a UK election.
If that is so then the only logical option for Scots is independence, because otherwise he is right and we don't count at all within the UK setup where we are outvoted 10-1.
If the BBC go ahead with a debate and show it in Scotland without the SNP's participation then they will be wide open to legal action. It may be David Cameron's opinion that the SNP don't count but in reality it is his party that is the irrelevance to all Scots.
In Scotland this election is between Labour and the SNP. Who wins will have relevance to whether we move forward to independence or have a future of right wing rule. Cameron knows he is not popular up here and he also knows he has no hope of winning any election but he has no right to decide the scottish people's vote in advance of te actual election, nor has he any right to declare that the SNP are irrelevant when they have an excellent chance of winning the elections in Scotland!
--------
David Cameron has branded the Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond "an irrelevance" in the upcoming general election. His comments came after Mr Salmond predicted England would be "dancing to a Scottish tune" if the election delivers a hung Parliament with SNP MPs holding the balance of power.
But Mr Cameron insisted the only options for voters casting their ballot in any part of the UK was between continued Labour rule and a switch to Conservative government.
You have to laugh at the contradictory messages currently coming from the British media. On the one hand David Cameron is trying to dictate whether Alex Salmond gets an invite to the proposed TV debates:
David Cameron calls for Alex Salmond to be barred from TV debates
David Cameron has said Alex Salmond should be barred from a series of televised general election debates between the main party leaders despite Scottish National Party threats of legal action.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/6251864/David-Cameron-calls-for-Alex-Salmond-to-be-barred-from-TV-debates.html
On the other hand the Times pretends that he is desperate to woo Scotland, aye right! (Even Angus Mcleod can't quite believe it!).
David Cameron desperate to ‘seal the deal’ and win over the Scots
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6867080.ece
So it's a kick from a boot and a simpering smile and words of encouragement as well.
David Cameron's local puppet the pantomine dame Annabel Goldie tried to bring in her brand of comic relief:
"I have been delighted at the response to the message in my speech on Monday that the approaching General Election is a British election, for the British Parliament, for a British Prime Minister
"People are saying to me at Conference that that message is resonating beyond Scotland."
Only if your head is wedged firmly in the sand at Berwick! Poor old Goldie appears to be delusional.
She goes on:
"The SNP are irrelevant at a British General Election. Their influence on the British economy is virtually nil."
So is Scotland relevant? Not to Goldie it isn't.
"As a sideshow Alex Salmond, and he is a sideshow in the British General Election..."
"... I shall do all I can to persuade people in Scotland that at this British General Election they should be voting for a British Prime Minister."
So what relevance does your Scottish position hold then? Why on earth should we listen to Ms Goldie when both her and her leader treat our country with utter contempt.
http://www.scottishconservatives.com/news_press/speeches/annabel_goldie_speech_to_the_scottish_fringe-conservative_party_conference_manchester_2009.aspx
Speech to the 'Scottish fringe' that just about sums up the importance the Tories think Scotland has.
But let us not forget those organs of the British press determined to spread light and truth around the planet, well everywhere apart from Scotland obviously, for us it's spin, lies and distaste.
Gillian Bowditch: Allow Gaelic to thrive without taxpayers’ cash
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6869384.ece
Scottish Gaelic our once proud national language is just a figure of fun to Anglo-centric commentators, what a disgrace.
David Cameron has no right to dictate the relevance of the SNP. That is up to the people of Scotland to decide. He has no right to demand a rigged TV debate either which excludes our most important political party.
Scotland will not stand for politicians who ignore our opinions and our interests.
The fact the Tories have one solitary MP should give them cause to consider before trying to dictate our future to us.
Britain is busted and independence is normality. David Cameron has nothing to offer as a political Tweedle Dum to Labour's Tweedle Dee. Scotland does not want or need a pompous Tory boy who looks like he needs someone to skelp his lug. Tony Blair was bad enough and no other smirking opinion poll driven power mad spinner is required.
