To ‘Proud’ Brit-Scots


‘Britishness’ – a cold handful of nothingness

When you catch a British nationalist’s argument to inspect its worth all you get is a cold handful of nothing.

You boast of being an inhabitant of two lands, a Scot and a Brit, but it is self-delusion.

You are not treated with double the respect, only with twice the indifference.

Loyal affection is a gift that inspires others. To withhold it is to constrain love. Why choose a kind of bondage? There is no enduring happiness in that.

What man wants to be rootless, without a place to call his true home? You may be born in one place, and disliking  it, move to another, but you cannot say you were born in both. There are two nations in the Act of Union, Scotland and England.

In saying you are servant of two masters, Scotland and England, you betray an insecurity, an obsequiousness. You are worried of falling foul of either nation. You seek temporary preferment but lose integrity. You have not mastered your fears.

Do you see identification to both as a transaction? You do this for me, and I’ll do that for you? Do you choose neutrality? No man of decision pronounced indecision a safe haven.

If you choose neutrality you cannot be proud of being a Scot and a Brit. They are not two sides of the same coin. They stand for opposing ideals.

Do you think silence is the best form of diplomacy? To be British and Scottish is no great matter, until one nation calls upon you to make a choice. If married to a non-Scot and the Brits tell you it’s time she was repatriated ‘home’ do you still say I’m a Brit and so is she?

That choice might be a war in a far flung land that is not your own. And the call to war might not be one you share. What will you do then? Will you accept the possibility of death as a futile gesture? Or will you send your son or daughter to die because he’s British?

Caution in love is fatal to happiness.

How do you imagine people will know the truth about you, about what you stand for, if you stand for nothingness? When the politics of one land is at odds with the other how do you serve your loyal – a small portion to one side, the larger to the other?

If the nations are in dispute, to avoid praising both or condemning both? Do you avoid unpleasant consequences of taking a stand? There are thirteen pieces of silver in that profound failure of commitment.

You see, a choice has to be made sooner or later.

One can be a Brit or a Scot and still shake hands in humanity’s brotherhood. You can be  honoured as a Scot and a ‘Brit’ by both nations, effigies erected to you in all lands if you have achieved great things. You can claim to be loyal to the human race. There is happiness of a sort in that.

But when the time comes for your bones to be laid to rest you can be buried only in one country. Which one will it be?

This entry was posted in Scottish Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to To ‘Proud’ Brit-Scots

  1. diabloandco says:

    Scotland! Scotland!
    Sorry , got carried away there!

  2. Grouse Beater says:


  3. Only one of those two choices makes me feel alive and positive with a vision for the future. The one that gave birth to me; the one I am currently exiled from.
    The one I would drop everything for to help rebuild, the day its people voted to once again make their own, peaceful way in the world. That day, light and hope would enter my heart again; I hope it does; and soon while I still have the health to play that active part.

  4. Andy in Germany says:

    Isn’t Wales a nation?

  5. In my personal world view yes, very much; but I think constitutionally there’s a debate there that the Welsh people very much need to have.

  6. Grouse Beater says:

    It was once a principality, not a kingdom, unlike Scotland, but recently asserted its status as a nation. However, it isn’t part of the Act of Union, even if it is part of the United Kingdom. I for one, have never thought of it as a country in its own right being close to London in so many ways that it’s unlikely ever to cut the umbilical cord. I’ve never known it to be rebellious of Westminster rule in any substantial way. If it were we’d have a Welsh version of – Better Together, boyo.

  7. jeordee says:

    To claim that you cannot be in two groups at the same time is going against what humans have done since the dawn of time. People have and will continue to think of themselves in many groups at the same time.

    Is it impossible to be European and Scottish? Does Europe not stand for the rape and pillage of the world to furnish its citizenry with empires throughout the ages? Has no other European nation done exactly the same, or worse than Britain has?

    Personally I’ve always considered myself at the same time, Scottish, British and European and I have no problems switching in and out of them, like I suspect most normal Scots do.

    Creating division is what nationalist movements do, claiming their nation is better than others, claiming their citizens are worth more than others and forever belittling the achievements of others or claiming that their nation is being held back by others.

    When I’m gone I’d like to think I’d be remembered as someone who enhanced this planet during my time here and not because of any particular nationality ascribed to me.

  8. jeordee says:

    I’m sure there are millions of Welsh that would disagree with you there. The Welsh nation exists just as much as the Scottish nation does and if you go there you would realise this too.

  9. But we are not claiming that Scotland is superior to the other nations of the earth as you appear to have implied. To believe that we are is to fundamentally misunderstand the concept of Civic Nationalism as promoted in Scotland.

    It is true that France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium and the Netherlands pursued imperial ambitions with Belgium in particular behaving dreadfully (with the full blessing and assistance of the British), all of those states apart from the British have addressed their colonial past and moved on in a way that the British have not. It’s fair to say that no one (other than the Americans who they passed the baton to in 1956) has pursued the cause of empire to the extent of the British. Of course, the continue to do so in the present day as the most loyal vassals of the United States in that latters’ drive to enforce its self-proclaimed Divine Right to global hegemony.

    Scotland wants none of this. That Britain continues to behave in this manner is an affront and embarrassment to my sense of decency and has removed any desire to be associated with the term ‘British’ from me.

    The term has too many negative connotations for me to feel anything positive with regard to it. To this extent, I have allowed my passport to expire and will not be renewing it.

    If I can obtain the necessary birth certificates, I believe that I qualify for an Irish passport which will hopefully retain my rights and citizenship of Europe after the British remove that status from me.

  10. Grouse Beater says:

    It’s not two groups that is the argument, Jeordee, it’s holding two opposing doctrines simultaneously that is the problem, and a lot of men are able to do that without thinking their beliefs are contradictory.

    ‘Britain’ is a political construct, it has no specific, topographical culture, other than most speak a version of English.

    I am a Scot by birth, and European in outlook. Somebody from a European country will call me a Scot before they ever describe me as Spanish, or Italian, despite me being half-Sicilian.

    In any event, I’ve yet to meet Japanese who say they are not Japanese, they are first and foremost Asian. People with a pride in place won’t generalise, they will narrow it down. Someone Chinese is usually quick to tell you they are Canton Chinese, or Hong Kong Chinese. I’ve heard Austrians correcting people when described as German. They’re not pleased to be called German. And a person from New Zealand will show impatience if you mistake him for an Aussie.

    It’s a matter of respect. Anybody who says they are a proud Brit-Scot is really saying they have less respect for Scotland, or none at all.

  11. Robert Peffers says:

    Depends on how you define nation, Andy but there is a slight anomaly in the article. The definition of Britain is that Britain is an archipelago of islands.

    It actually contains eight separate, but somewhat interconnected, states or countries.
    These are the four United Kingdom countries interconnected by being two kingdoms in a political union. However there are also four non-United Kingdom countries and thre of those are Crown, (not UK government), dependencies.

    These three are The two Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and The Isle of Man . The other state, or country, is the Republic of Ireland and, being a republic, it cannot be part of a Kingdom. However, there is actually an act of the UK parliament that states the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country.

    There is, of course, the deliberate confusion created by the Westminster Establishment that the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland is a single country. As its title describes it as a Kingdom I think we can safely agree it is NOT a single country and perhaps not even a single Kingdom.

    The Westminster Establishment further confuses the issue by unequally splitting the four countries of the United Kingdom up by unequally devolving powers to only three of the UK’s four countries. As The English kingdom already contains three of the UK of GB & NI’s countries they cam manipulate things to suit the Establishment and, of course, the country of England.

  12. jeordee says:

    I simply don’t agree that you cannot be both or many, Im a Scot first and foremost but that doesn’t take away the fact that Im also proud to be a citizen of the UK. There are no conflictions present in that belief. For me the UK doesn’t stand for Empire and the past and Scotland for the future. Being a proud Scot-Brit has absolutely nothing to do with having less respect for either of the two parties and stating that it does attempts to make over half of our population somehow less Scottish because they might feel this way. I believe that this is simply divisive, un-progressive and helps no one in the end.

  13. jeordee says:

    Id disagree that all of those countries have addressed their colonial past. France is one that immediately springs to mind and they have suffered several atrocities in the last couple of years due directly to their colonial past. Indeed if you look at where they are today and the involvement they have in several African states your comments above regarding the UK would apply more directly to them.

    Unlike the UK they continue to meddle directly in several states.

    I really do understand the term civic nationalism but I also believe that it is used because it promotes a feeling that our nationalism is better than others and that in itself is promoting us above others.

  14. OK, I’ll give you France. They certainly had no better record than the British and it’s fair to say they are still involved with goings-on in erstwhile colonies.
    It’s inaccurate though to say that the British do not interfere in the affairs of other countries today though as they are deeply involved in Libya and Yemen for example and are clearly engaged in a full-on propaganda offensive against Scotland.
    The remit of the Pro-British parties at Holyrood is to degrade, discredit and undermine Scotland’s democracy in order to bring it down and bring it back under London control.
    If that doesn’t constitute interfering in other country’s affairs I’m at a loss as to what does.

  15. Grouse Beater says:

    You began by stating the Welsh are a nation. No one had denied that.

    You then go on to say a person can hold many different positions simultaneously but you don’t say if they are political positions or merely an affectionate identification with people.

    You then say you are a European but somehow France is the current bad guy, the UK is free of colonial ambition. You finish by eschewing nationalities, forgetting how you began your comments by remonstrating the Welsh are a nation.

    And in the saying you misconstrue what others have said on this topic, either because you’re on automatic pilot, or are wilfully trolling.

    Rereading you comments leaves me mystified to what you believe in, or who you are, other than you’re keen to be seen as a nice guy.

  16. jeordee says:

    I think Im quite clear in what Im stating and believing. The comments regarding France were an example of another Country being involved in other nations affairs and I made them to show that not just the UK has been guilty of this, as some people want us to believe.

    The modern day UK is, I believe free of any colonial ambition, most people realise this too.
    The comment regarding Wales stands for itself, they are indeed a Nation, as is Scotland and I believe a Welsh person could just as easily interchange one for the other and be both at the same time if they wished.

    My whole point is that the main aim of your Blog Entry is flawed and that I believe that you can indeed belong to differing groups depending on how you feel at the time; to simply put someone in a box and say they aren’t Scottish enough if they want to be considered British at times is an idea I don’t personally subscribe too.

    I understand that you want to change society but I would rather it came from inclusion rather than exclusion and just because at times I might want to associate with being British that doesn’t make me any less Scottish.

  17. Grouse Beater says:

    Just because at times I might want to associate with being British that doesn’t make me any less Scottish.

    Not once have you defined what you mean by ‘British’.

    You don’t state what you mean by ‘belonging to different groups’.

    And to claim the UK is free of colonialism is, quite frankly, saying black is white. Every Middle-East war has been fought by Westminster in tandem with the USA, usually at the behest of the USA.

    “English votes for English laws.” That’s nationalism.

    It isn’t Scottish nationalism, for we protested a united assembly of nations cannot be weighted to favour one nation over another. That doctrine excludes us, especially when cloaked with the prefix ‘British’. We were induced to remain in the United Kingdom as an equal member.

    Finally, you’re doing it again, misrepresenting what has been stated. The ‘not Scottish enough’ is your statement not mine. Perhaps you’re one of the people my essay is aimed at, and you’re irked. When Westminster decides mandatory conscription is the best way to fight its wars, and has the dividend of removing unemployed youth off the streets, I presume you will be the first to sign up. After all, you enjoy being associated with multiple groups.

  18. Smallaxe says:

    I was born in Scotland,son of one mother and one father both of whom I loved greatly. I grew up and worked in Scotland, loving it greatly.I have also worked in other countries, at least two of which I grew to love but just by loving them I could not call them my Motherland or Fatherland . Scotland is and will always be my Heartland and my Homeland.Immutable!

    Greetings my poetic friend,I hope that my written words are understood by you as I understand them in my Soul. Peace Always!

  19. Grouse Beater says:

    Hello Smallaxe.

    In essence I have no argument with people who say they like to be known as Scottish and British. When there is a clash of political ideologies, however, that sentiment is rendered null and void, hence my asking about an absence of commitment, one way or the other.

    This heard today, spoken by Labour peer, Lord Mitchell, resigning from the Labour party now Corbyn is re-elected. He used ‘British’ in the political sense while purporting to use it in the patriotic sense.

    On Brexit he said, “The British people have spoken.” (That’s a lie.)

    And in the same breath as a way of dismissing Corbyn’s politics, “Labour must appeal to Middle-England.”

    Among other issues, he objected to Corbyn’s reluctance to support Israeli incursion into UN agreed Palestinian land. This he calls anti-Semitic.

    So there it is for all to hear and see. Britain consists of one nation, England, and whatever Middle England thinks is good and British, is good and ‘British’ for us all.

    Be advised, the Assembly of British Nations demands that all nation members see life as Middle England sees it.

    Tolkien’s fantasy ‘Rings’ has more cohesion than that outrage.

  20. Smallaxe says:


    Middle England or Middle Earth, same thing to these Orks. Meanwhile Shelob spins her web of deceitful EVEL. Peace and Love to You and your Artistic Lady

  21. Grouse Beater says:

    Regions likely to benefit most from the scheme would be Wales…” Guardian reporting Labour policy ideas, Monday 25 September 2016.

  22. Schrödinger's Dug says:

    I am Scottish first and last, this is the land I call home and the people who live here I call my brothers. The artificial construct dated 1707 is an anathema to me.

    The sooner we divest our-self of this imposed dichotomy the better for us all. Actually it will be better for my English neighbour also. And my Irish cousins would take heart’ If the Welsh feel they would like to run their own affairs, who would object?

    The state called the United Kingdom has as much validity as the proposition that the Labour party in Scotland is in anyway independent.

  23. Grouse Beater says:

    If only we had a confederation of nations, rather than England uber alles.

  24. Yes. That phrase does neatly encapsulate what North Britons lovingly refer to as The Union but was effectively an Anschluss.

  25. Jack SloanArt says:

    Thanks, Grouse Beater.

    That dichotomy, somehow being Scottish and British, has sustained the unionist parties here far too long. The lie must be exposed. Scratch just below the surface of the idea of being British – and England and the English are exposed. That is the quintessential essence of “Britain” and the “UK” – it is simply Greater England.

    There were times during the Independence campaign when I was careful to refer to the control over Scotland by the “Westminster Government” for fear of being called racist if I said it was rule by England and the English I wanted ended. For me it is time to start saying it as it is.

  26. Grouse Beater says:

    ‘Quisling’ is an acceptable description on this discussion site. I can’t find their equivalent in England, that is, thousands of Scots in influential posts working to undermine that nation’s self-esteem and have Scotland rule England in order to steal its wealth.

  27. Jack SloanArt says:

    Aye, or to put it another way – to have thousands of the English in influential posts working to undermine their nation’s self-esteem and have England ruled by Scotland in order to steel its wealth – is so utterly inconceivable, it enters fantasy – but here we are…

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s