Search This Blog

Sunday, June 24, 2012

False Fronts.....

are applied far too often in today's world. Not to say they are anything new, but there is a sense that the revolution of extreme liberalism and destructive skepticism has gathered speed and will stop at nothing to get what it wants. Telling half-truths or trying to blind people with flashy displays is typical. Sadly, too many people are taken in by Styrofoam pillars and on-location motion pictures to take any real inventory on the actual situation.

     Hazel Whyte, the famous Scottish balladeer and song-writer, is a strong advocate of the Scottish Nationalist Party. She has an excellent taste in art, and her website serves as a gallery of famous Scots and Celtic designs. However, her slant on history is lop-sided at best, and she never lets an opportunity go by to take a jab at the Union. She claims that Scotland is the same as Ireland, except that the Scots gave up their fight against the "invading" English. She insinuates that the Scottish soldiers serving in the British army were used only as "cannon fodder" by the government. She also insists that the Scottish monarchy has been "dead" since the failure of the Jacobite rebellions and the deposition of the House of Stewart.

     Sir Sean Connery, famous for his role as Agent 007, is another famous proponent of the SNP. I would think that if he were as loyal to his cause as he claims, he would never have accepted a knighthood while the British government was "suppressing" his native land. But apparently he's made up for that by supporting his camp with financial aid, while other Hollywood hits have restricted themselves to producing motion pictures that stress Anglo-Scottish conflict and rouse anti-English sentiment. Now, Connery has been forbidden from financially supporting a British political party since he no longer lives in the UK. In response, he has made a flourishing declaration that he will not return to his native Scotland until it is independent from the UK. Instead, he will continue to live as a tax exile in....drum roll, please.....The Bahamas! Wow! Talk about a martyr for the cause! "Where's my umbrella drink???"

    Dougie MacLean, famed songwriter of modern Scotland, made his appearance at a SNP conference to "give everyone a lift" after hard weeks of campaigning. Therefore, he sang his own very famous "Caledonia" and the venerable "Scots Wha Hae". Of course, the lyrics of "Caledonia" really talk more about Dougie's melancholy mood swings while on tour away from home than about Scotland, and "Scots Wha Hae" has been hijacked from Robert Burns who was a part-time rebel, part-time government man, and all around survivor. But everyone wants to feed off of hype, and the ideas of "hope and change" are handed out and accepted far too easily in this modern world. The Nationalists want to make a point: They are Scottish, not British. They never have been British. They hate the thought of being British. Their culture is something "other" than British.
   
      I find it sad and disturbing when people slander the British identity or even go so far as to deny its existence among the Scottish people. The Nationalists can complain about environmental abuse, program cuts, and unpopular wars all they want, but these arguments are quite general and unsubstantial in comparison with the very real shared identity and national strength that they are spurning. Both England and Scotland have to deal with the effects of having nuclear waste dumped in their water and on their land. Both England and Scotland have to deal with program cuts because of government debt. Both England and Scotland have sent their young men to fight overseas in foreign wars. So why does Scotland have the right to have an exclusive self-pity-party?

     Anyone who studies history knows that England did not "take over" Scotland; they came together through mutual consent. Granted, bribery was present in the process to win the Scots politicians over, but it has been greatly blown of proportion and does nothing to disqualify the good results the union provided for both nations involved. Nationalists will try to deny it, or maybe they'll admit it and then discard the fact as being "irrelevant", but the proof is laid out in history. Complainers cannot take that away or scratch it from the books. Sure, the union was and is beset with various problems, but the same is true for all human institutions. Quitting on it at this late date is nothing less then selfish and cowardly.

    England shouldn't be placed in the inextricable place of "villain" in British history. Both English and Scots committed atrocities against each other during their years of medieval land-grabbing, and both English and Scots have viewed each other with mild distain since the union was brought together. But the SNP is a propaganda machine that benefits greatly from anti-English insinuations. They'll deny this is so, and yet there's no way to hide their agenda that appears in countless books, films, websites, and speeches. One of their favorite ways of doing so is by lamenting that the English used Scottish soldiers like animals during wartime.

    I'm just going to just blurt out some names and let you go figure: General John Forbes, General Simon Frazer, Major John Pitcairn, Major Patrick Ferguson, Sir John Moore, etc. etc. etc. These Scotsmen were part of the gentry and proud defenders the British institution. They were officers and gentlemen, and received the highest honors of the establishment. If they were around today, I have a strong inkling that quite a few Nationalists would be given black eyes and bloody noses for their trouble! The point is that saying all the Scots in the British military, the British government, or any organization of the union were simply "being oppressed" is ridiculous.

    Of course, the lower classes of Scotland, especially in the Highlands, were initially viewed as inferior and thrown into battle at a great cost. But low-class English soldiers, who were usually recruited from farms or off the streets, received no better treatment than their Scottish counterparts. Many had no choice but to join the military or starve, and they were often treated as almost sub-human, suffering from lack of necessities and sustaining heavy casualties in battle. This was the class system at its zenith, and it could be cutting and cruel. But the Nationalists are trying to advertise an upper class vs. lower class conflict as an English vs. Scottish one. The fact stands that the Highland soldiers went on to gain the respect and admiration of both their officers and comrades, forming some of the most highly honored regiments in the British military. It is a proud, hard-won legacy.

    Finally, the issue involving the "death" of the Scottish monarchy must be addressed. Evidently, Hazel has a very limited view of modern democracy to discount the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights as if it had no meaning whatsoever. This is rather ironic since the Nationalists are always accusing the Unionists of being "fascists" and "anti-democratic" for opposing their "right to be independent". They blurt out clever and appealing maxims like "This is democracy in action", and "It's the Scottish people's choice", and "Why would you deprive us of our right to be a nation?!"

     First of all, the words "choice" and "independence" are not always positive and can have extremely bad results should a choice be ill-founded or if independence cuts one off from the past and the future. So when the Unionists try to educate people about the other side of the story, the Nationalists declaim them as weird creatures from the black lagoon of tyranny and anti-democracy. Sorry to say it, but the UK has been one of the main protectors of democracy, and trying to protect it from splitting up is trying to save the face of democracy. The idea that such a great democratic society might fall to squabbling and dissect at the hands of its own citizens is a rather embarrassing scenario, especially after those little incidences with Napoleon and Hitler, and we would like to avoid it, if at all possible.

    Secretly, many of us have sympathies with the Jacobites, wish they could have been victorious, and wonder what the results would have been. But to view the entire British monarchy as illicit since 1688 is being extreme. Even the Pope validated the House of Hanover by 1766, and the Papacy had been a staunch supporter of the Catholic Stewarts. Either Hazel Whyte is a Republican and against all monarchy (which would reveal the shelved intent of the Nationalists to do away with the Scottish monarchy along with the Union at a later date), or she has hopes of restoring one of the descendants of the Jacobites to the throne, which I highly doubt.

    As everyone knows, the British monarchy at this time has a totally different role from what it did in the age of the Stewarts, and knit-picking about royal legitimacy at this late date is just plain silly. But one thing is true about this institution so often maligned: The monarchy remains a symbol of tradition, continuity, and Britishness. Flawed as it is, it is an intricate part of the British experience and mind-set. It is a link of tangible symbolism that serves as a major connection between the four nations that make up the United Kingdom, and all the countries of the Commonwealth. Of course it makes sense that those who wish to pull Britain apart would attack a very visible source of national unity.
    
     When all is said and done, this entire vote and the future of the UK or the DK (Divided Kingdom) will depend upon the people who are currently not convicted in their opinions. The staunch Nationalists will vote "Yes", and the staunch Unionists will vote "No", but as always, it will be the waverers who will turn the tide one way or the other. Therefore I address you, the indifferent masses: Please consider all the factors before casting a vote against the preservation of the UK. Don't let the SNP insult your intelligence by leading you to the edge of a cliff using a cardboard carrot as bait. False fronts can be deceiving.


 
Don't Fall for This!!!

10 comments:

  1. Excellent post and a good analysis of the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hiya Pearl!

    How the devil are you? Phew, sorry not be around for a wee while, hectic as usual.

    I'm very impressed to see your blog followers continue to rise - more power to you!

    I thought this was a great post, one which made several points which resonated with me.

    In particular, the type of Scot who can seemingly see nothing but ill-will and exploitation in the United Kingdom.

    I hate the "cannon fodder" argument you often hear, about Scots in the British Army, but its just not true.

    On the contrary, Scots Regiments have always been an important and illustrious part of the British Army. The Royal Scots were the oldest British Army Unit, till they became sadly defunct. Now it is the Coldstream Guards. And where is Coldstream? Thats right, Scotland!

    I also strongly dislike the bogus notion that Scotland is an English colony, rather than a partner of the English. Its just absurd.

    These sentiments are dangerous as its fair to see that most Scots are pretty ignorant of their History* and they could be easily duped. So, I am glad you expose this nonsense for what it is.

    (*before the film "Braveheart" - which had its own historical problems, eg kilts and blue woad at Bannockburn - most Scots of my generaiton had never even herd of Wallace, or Bruce).

    I tend to think such views are indicative of an inferiority complex among some Scots. It is also an education as regards a certain type of political operator, who only has lies and defamation to support their stances, not genuine arguments. I would be surprised if the people who said these things even believed it themselves.

    You mention the Stuarts of Scotland. In a few months, as part our honeymoon, we will visit the Tombs of the last Stuarts which are situated in the Vatican crypt.

    Recently a poll suggested support for Scottish independence had fallen further to about 30%. I am surprised it is even as high as that, given the many gaps of vague points in the SNP arguments - this clearly shows that some folk will always follow their own convictions not facts.

    I honestly think Scotland gets a good deal out of the UK, and that many people (separatists) would get a real shock as to the realities of life, if Scotland did break away.

    Here's hoping it doesn't come to that!

    Ultimately, for me, it comes down to one major question: do Scots want to be part of a nation which helps to shape the world (the UK), or do they want to be part of a nation which is shaped by the world.

    No Scotsman worth his salt would choose the latter!

    Keep up the good work with the blog!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ooh, I meant to say - good point about Sean Connery.

    The pro-independence launch features movie stars who do not even live in Scotland.

    Its OK for them to say "go for it" - they don't have to live with the consequences themselves.

    Who would therefore put faith in them?!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great post! Agree with you whole-heartedly! You make some very note-worthy points.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well said. Professional victims -- Elizabeth Warren, e.g. -- are tiresome but, sadly, quite fashionable just now.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hello again Pearl. As others have already commented here; an extremely well-argued post. The reality is that, in purely financial terms, those who live in England, currently subsidise those who live in Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. The people of Scotland will not be better off by being an independent nation though Sean Connery paying his taxes might help them a little :-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you so much for the support, loyal readers! It does my heart good to know there are still level-headed, reasonable, and courteous people inhabiting this planet. I just hope there's enough of us to turn the tide on this and other similar issues. We can always pray...pray hard....

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is a very well thought out piece by someone who obviously has a good knowledge of contemporary Scotland and Scottish history. As a Scottish unionist I feel very grateful for support from someone who lives far away. Too many people from the United States look on Scottish nationalism as something that is romantic, while they fail to understand that it is really about people trying to break up our country. Whenever I meet an American online who supports the break up of the UK, I ask them how they would feel about the break up of the United States, and which state they would like to see independent first.

    Thanks Pearl for your blog. Will be in touch again soon.

    Effie

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you for your kind comments, Effie. I am happy to assist in any way I can as an overseas sympathiser. My heart is in the UK, and I am at her service. I apologize for my fellow Americans who do not understnad what is at stake for your country and eagerly advocate the destruction of it. If our country was in the same boat as yours, I guarentee they'd change their tune very quickly. Let's pray we both are spared the scourge of national division.

    God Bless,
    Pearl

    ReplyDelete
  10. Change for changes sake. It's the same old story everywhere. In Australia the Girl Guides dropped their oath ''to God and Queen''. Ironic that the monarchy is soaring in Australia at 59-62%. Polls suggest the SNP referendum will be hugely in favour of the unionist side. The fact that the issue of independence even came up is more a credit to Mel Gibson than the SNP and their ''Duce''. Anyway great post always, keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete