Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts

Friday, 14 October 2011

You take the high road! - Scottish independence

Wales will be making final preparations for their Rugby World Cup semi-final tomorrow against France in New Zealand. Yet, as the only home nation remaining in the competition, many countries, including England, will be lending their support towards the French and beyond that New Zealand, to win the tournament outright. Sporting rivalries transcend traditional barriers and we are used to reading about hostilities descending across households when city rivals compete against each other in the local derby; but much of the national sporting rivalries have been antagonised from political factions and recently, the greater debate for Scottish independence and an English Parliament. Sport aside, would this really be a desirable outcome and would it really change the way the Union is governed?

For the past 10 years, a lone voice has become louder and louder in his desire to see a Scotland, independent of Westminster and England, his name is Alex Salmond. Salmond began his career as an economist at the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) before joining the ranks of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) to where he has become the most prominent actor. Salmond, who spent time as a SNP MP at Westminster before standing to become the First Minister at the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood, is best known for his quick and cerebral wit and expanding waistline. This aside, Salmond has continuously argued for greater determination for Scotland and one that can look after its own financial and strategic affairs.

Why would Scotland or Wales want to leave the Union? What has distinctly changed? In all fairness, calls for Welsh independence have been much quieter and the devolution acts at the turn of the last century were important in identifying the Welsh language and culture. Whereas in Scotland the calls have steadily grown, 50 years ago less than one per cent of the population voted for the SNP, yet now in 2011 we have a SNP majority in the Scottish Parliament. Why after over 300 years since the Act of Union in 1707 does Scotland see itself as more separate? For 300 years, Britain and the notion of ‘Britishness’ was distinct through Empire and the wars in which the Army and Royal Navy, drawn from all areas of the British Isles (including Ireland), fought. The wars in the Americas are notorious for the role of the Welsh Fusiliers and the Battle of Waterloo was lead by the cavalrymen of the Royal Scots Greys. It was also said that all across the Empire that for every Englishman there were ten Scotsman – building the railways or manning the garrisons in every isolated outpost. Yet, despite the link of the army and the Royal Family, links between ordinary families have declined with the dissipation of British industry. No longer, do Glasgow shipbuilders have the same links to the ports of Liverpool or Hull, nor the identity of Scottish miners with the collieries in Nottinghamshire or South Wales. Industrial decay has beset a British decline.

To the English, they have been irked by the so-called ‘West Lothian Question’ that has allowed Scottish MPs to vote on English matters, yet Westminster MPs could not hold sway over affairs north of the border. Party politically it is changing as well, the dominance of the SNP has saw the decline of traditional Labour safe seats and recently the Scottish Conservatives put forward an idea to move the party away from the its southern cousin. The English see the Scottish or ‘Jocks’ as lazy and subsidised by the revenues of the City of London. In fact, Aberdeen is the UK’s second richest city and Scotland’s budget deficit, if you include North Sea oil revenues, is well within the 3% limit of the European Union’s regulations, meaning it can compete without the handouts from England. Much of the scorn exists through the perceived inequalities that English taxpayers must pay for prescriptions, tuition fees and elderly care, something the Welsh and Scottish Governments provide free.

Alex Salmond has a vision of Scotland becoming a prosperous state, a mixture between Norway and Switzerland, an economy based on financial services and energy wealth. Scotland, as Europe’s windiest country, hopes to use the power of wind energy to become carbon neutral by 2020 and no longer rely on carbon fuel. However, the ‘arc of prosperity’ of countries like Iceland and Ireland that Salmond saw Scotland amongst, were engulfed in their own financial crises. Scotland’s two financial leviathans, the Bank of Scotland and RBS being saved by the UK Government and massively recapitalised by taxpayers’ money. Prominent Scots in England like the former Chancellor Alastair Darling said that an independent Scotland would have collapsed something Salmond remained muted about.

A Scotland with greater financial powers, control of its own waters (fisheries and oil) is the ideal that Salmond puts forward. Yet, the indecision within the Eurozone highlights the vulnerability of Scotland’s vision within the EU. After decolonisation we saw scores of new countries come into existence under the premise that life under your own flag is much better, yet despite globalisation, life for smaller countries relies on heavily on remittances from Diaspora and factors outside of their borders. The dream that Scotland will become a country similar to Scandinavian nations also seems uncertain, who is not to say that if Scotland obtains independence then the Shetland and Orkney Islands won’t follow the same path, taking the hydrocarbon revenues away with them.

The relationship that will continue to evolve for Scotland will probably be a semi-independent or ‘devolution max’, whatever you want to call it. One that retains the Royal Family, the currency, diplomatic corps and armed forces (minus Trident). Until then the English will continue to talk about Irn-Bru and deep-fried Mars Bars and the Scots will continue to back the opposition every time the England take to the sporting field.

Monday, 25 April 2011

Old Firm: The Queen's eleven, maybe.

Despite the prospects of an independent Scotland and the hope its politicians desire, the decline of Scottish football is all too evident. Ten to fifteen years ago there was talk of allowing Glasgow Celtic and Rangers to play in the English Premier League. Both sides had terrific squads, stadium and support. Many believed they would be equals when it came to competing against England's best. Yet, the lack of prosperity and heavy debt burdens left many of Scotland's historically big clubs unable to compete financially against other European clubs and has seen a real decline in the quality of football.

Last week, the story that dominated the sporting headlines was the attempted nail bomb posted to Celtic manager Neil Lennon. Lennon, a Catholic from Northern Ireland is no stranger to controversy. He retired from international football after receiving death threats from Loyalist groups when he was captain of Northern Ireland. Recently he had graffiti laced upon the wall opposite his home calling for his death. (Unfortunately the artist wrote R.P.I instead of R.I.P – whether it was a reference to the Retail Price Index or dyslexia we’ll never know). Lennon is a character who courts animosity. He revealed in a recent interview that he got into a fight near his home in Glasgow with two medical students, whilst his girlfriend looked on. Something you may expect of youth players but not high profile managers.

Lennon took his seat yesterday in the final Old Firm fixture of the season in a match that takes precedence for the Scottish game. Yet since the Good Friday Agreement and general integration between Catholics and Protestants, do the whole religious undertones really mean anything anymore or does it breathe life into a league that appears banal compared to yesteryear?

Sectarian hate is nothing new, the game used to be a ceremony for fans to violently belittle each other. It was said that religion in Northern Ireland was something never mentioned on the street, yet the Celtic Rangers match was the occasion for exalting your religious bigotry. Songs about the IRA, the Queen and Bobby Sands were all too common. Mo Johnston, the first Catholic player to play for Rangers (or openly Catholic) had previously played for Celtic and made the sign of cross towards Rangers fans during a match (His dad was a Rangers fan and a Protestant). Graeme Souness had tried to sign Ian Rush, a Welsh Catholic, when he was manager in the late 1980s and Mark Hateley was viewed with suspicion from fans because he was married to a Catholic. It all seems quite pathetic now, but this was at a time of daily violence in the Ulster and perceived discrimination of Catholics in everyday society. The Rangers chairman David Murray saw introducing Catholics as a way of making money from sponsorship and investment.

Watching the match yesterday, particularly because of the Lennon incident, the atmosphere was boisterous as expected but it still lacked visible quality on the pitch. The tricolored Irish flag and the Union Jacks decorating the terraces (probably not in anticipation of the Royal Wedding), plus chants of ‘God Save the Queen’ did nothing to alleviate potential rest. No doubt Rangers fans thought the referee was a ‘Feinian’ after his dubious penalty decision. Yet there were few talking points otherwise in this humourless game.

Like most football derbies, there is history, as well as hate. The Easter Sunday clash marked 95 years since the ‘Easter Rising’ at the Dublin Post Office and the subsequent executions of those involved. For Real Madrid and Barcelona, there is the political battle of federalism and Catalonia. Ajax Amsterdam and Rotterdam’s Feyenoord clash over the difference between their cultural and industrial hearts. Real Sociedad and Athletic Bilbao in the Basque region of Spain both used to have transfer policies that did not permit the signing of non-Basque players, these have now been relaxed in recent years like the violence in that region. Football does move with the times, even England have a more continental outlook to the game than previously. It is the fan culture that loves to look back; it is the history that makes them and the club. Changing stadiums or signing players are important issues and nothing to be taken lightly. Arsenal fans voiced their disgust when the club issued a white away kit, colour of their rival's Tottenham. History is indicative of the future.

Perhaps the bellicose of yesterday’s match hides the decline of the Scottish game in general. Matches are worth winning, but they are definitely never worth dying for. Traditions are for keeping.
Share

Widgets