Distressed or 'in mourning'?

As we are entering the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations, Union Flags are appearing all over the country.  This is not normal in England, where most people quietly get on with the inconvenience of being British without having to demonstrate it to each other.

The unaccustomed national pride belies a certain level of national ignorance that I find to be somewhat surprising.  It seems that a large proportion of British 'subjects' (for we are not honoured with the title 'citizens') are ignorant of the traditions surrounding our flag.  See whether you can spot the difference between this:

Upside down or not?

and this:

Upside down or not?  One of them is wrong.

Can you see it?  The first is the right way up and the second is upside down.  It is all to do with the diagonal white stripes.  At the flag pole, the wide white stripe is above the red diagonal, and the narrow white strip is below the red. The flag really is not symmetrical as a mirror image about either the vertical or horizontal centre-line.  It is rotationally symmetrical, but that is little help when flying it, as the lanyard is at one end.

Driving through a local market town, Abingdon, last night, I was delighted that I did not see a single flag that was the wrong way up.  Sadly, that is not the case everywhere - and YES - I do notice! 

If you are not British (and perhaps even if you are) you might not have known that there is a right and wrong way up, but the fact that not many people notice the error has been useful in history.  It meant that ships could fly a Union Flag (sometimes incorrectly known as the Union Jack) upside-down as a secret sign of distress.  Other British sailors would immediately spot the faux-pas and know that it could not possibly be a mistake.  They might take that as a warning that there was a possibility of an ambush, but the ship's captors would have no notion of the message that had been sent.

If you don't believe me, then in a sense it proves a point.  If you have parents like mine (thanks to my ex-Girl-Guide mother!) the orientation of our flag is so important that it is almost physically uncomfortable when it is not correct.  I am learning to live with this affliction, but it appears to me that a lot of other people have been more successful than me.  Driving around 'loyalist' areas of Northern Ireland where these flags are much more common, I find myself continually irritated by the ignorance of the thugs who have climbed lamp posts in order to fly a flag incorrectly.  How could they be both loyal and disrespectful?

A couple of years ago, one morning as I entered a government site, I spotted that the flag was upside down.  I mentioned it to the site manager whose office was close to mine.  Naturally he denied that it was even possible.  He said that the lanyard was longer on the bottom of the flag than the top, and asked whether the flag had been right at the top of the mast.  His reasoning was that if it had been at the top, then it could not be upside down.  As it happens, I had not noticed how high the flag had been.  However, by coincidence, when I next saw it at lunch time the error had been corrected. 

No more was said about the subject for a few months, but when it happened again I took a photo of the flag with my phone.  I e-mailed it to the site manager saying that, since the flag was both upside-down and at half-mast, I was struggling to tell whether we were in distress or in mourning.

History does not record his reply!

Small note:  With any luck, in two years time, Scotland will achieve full independence from UK (and bankruptcy), and the flag will have to be replaced by another design. 

Clarity about the Scots - and 1066

The classic historical parody, 1066 and All That  carries an

"Important Note"

The Scots (originally Irish, but by now Scotch) were at this time inhabiting Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland; while the Picts (originally Scots) were now Irish (living in brackets) and vice versa. It is essential to keep these distinctions clearly in mind (and verce visa).

I hope you have got that clear, because at the time of independence it might become important!

The book is a masterpiece of historical mis-information, written by  W C Sellar (Aegrot: Oxon.)** and R J Yeatman (Failed MA, etc., Oxon.).  They take the bits of history that you think you remember and they weave a delightful tale around these factoids, misleading the unwary and yet in a strange way teaching the curious.

Knowing the book quite well, from so many readings and re-readings that my treasured copy of the book is falling to pieces, I sometimes come across a bit of history and think "Aha!! That's what they meant in 1066!"  Knowing that usually makes the book even funnier.


** Small note:  Aegrot is short for 'aegrotat', the Latin term to describe a degree awarded even though the student was too sick to complete the course.  So one author never took his exams and the other failed.  Both have become famous in spite of their Oxford educations.  Of course both might be joking.

After Independence - civil war?

Let's assume that Scotland does get independence from UK within the next few years.  That would be great from the English perspective.  Would it be good for Scotland?

It all boils down to the question of whether Scotland is a single nation.  Having lived there for 4 years and enjoyed the friendship of many Scots, some of whom probably read my ramblings here, I notice divisions in Scotland that are at least as strong as those throughout UK as a whole.

All of my Scottish friends are moderate people with moderate views - possibly leaning towards supporting independence.  But we must face the fact that the majority of people in any country in the world do not think through the big political issues on an everyday basis.  They vote the way they vote because they always did.  In just the same way, they tend to follow the religious views of their parents and the people they grew up with.

Scotland is clearly made up of a collection of different secular communities on a geographical basis.  The Highlands and the Lowlands tend to despise each other, partly because of the cultural differences between the urban and rural lifestyles.  The Highlands and Islands tend to be lumped together - in opposition to the Lowlands, but the islanders are fiercely independent when you speak with them.  However, the Hebridean Islands seem to lean slightly more towards an association with the mainland than, say, Orkney.

All in all there are big differences to be found in the views of this one 'race' of 'the Scots'.

On top of that Scottish sectarianism is rife.  It is not by accident that people in Glasgow joke about what answer to give if you are stopped in the street by a gang of men, and asked whether you support Celtic (fiercely Catholic) or Rangers (fiercely Protestant).  One of the 'smart' answers is to say that you support Partick Thistle, and while they are rolling around the floor laughing at you, you make a run for your life!  You have to realise that this question is about MUCH more than two soccer teams.

One way or another, Scotland is a divided country.  I support the campaign for independence (as you might have noticed) but I fear that the fall-out from independence might not be quite what the Scots are expecting.

Scottish Independence for aye!

The topic of Scottish Independence from the rest of the UK is rumbling around the news and will continue to rumble for the next year of two.

At the bottom of the whole story is the question about who has the power to call a referendum.  There is a false assumption that the Scots want one thing and the English want the opposite.  The (barely elected) UK Prime Minister, David Cameron (pardon me for spitting after saying his name) seems to be taking the line that the Scottish Parliament under Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, does not have the power to secede from UK without the approval of London.  Meanwhile Salmond is 'sabre rattling' and claiming the opposite.

The more I hear about this story, the more I feel that the question is bigger than is being discussed at the moment.  After all it is not a one sided issue.  There's a very simple solution to Salmond's problem. 

Ask the English!

Being a fundamentalist Scot he is falling into the same trap of making the assumptions that his 'type' often makes in the opposite direction.  They accuse the English of not understanding how the Scots think, and in some ways he is right.  As I mentioned on January 1st, in 'An Independent Hogmanay', the English do not even know how the other English think, as there are a lot of us and we live in very separate communities across the country.  (While many of us may smile at the particular version of Englishness portrayed by Flanders and Swann here, I think most would flinch slightly.)

This time though, Salmond is making the false assumption that he does know how the English think.  When you contemplate this for a moment you will see where he has gone wrong.  He draws the conceited conclusion that the English don't understand him, but that somehow he has some sort of superior intellect to understand them.  Harking back to the long-gone colonial era, perhaps he assumes that the English actually want to retain power over his 'independent nation'.

Well - from my own (albeit limited) viewpoint I think he couldn't be further from the truth.  People of my generation and younger have almost nothing in common with the English of the colonial era.  Not only that - when it suited them to do so, the Scots played a full and active role in ransacking the colonies, and modern Scots have exactly as much in common with their culpable ancestors - almost nothing. 

In the present times of austerity I would say that the majority of the English would be only too happy to stop subsidising the remote corners of the UK. My opinion falls short of the imposition of independence that many would subscribe to, but if they truly want independence, why not let them have it?

However, living in the heart of England, the question of Scottish home rule is almost irrelevant to most people.  After all, UK squanders enough money on other lost causes (a new 'Royal Yacht' being this week's nonsense!) so what difference does a few billion wasted on Scotland matter.  However, in recent weeks I have only heard one single objection to the idea of splitting up the Union.  That came from a colleague who usually has a live-and-let-live approach to life.  Unusually his objection went like this.

The campaign for independence is being led by radical Scots.  Think about all the other moderate Scots who would be badly affected by independence.  Think how their quality of life would be reduced when the English subsidies stopped flowing.  As one nation we should all stand together. 

Well pardon me for disagreeing.  But when the ordinary people of England start to get the same subsidies - including free prescriptions and free further education for their children - then we will be 'one nation', and then I will start to feel sorry for the folks in 'North Britain'.

The message to Alex Salmond is clear.  Get the English involved in 'your' vote for two reasons.  One - it is their right to have a say in the matter.  Two - you would gain a massive surge in support for your aims. 

Without the English sympathy vote you might not achieve your target within your own lifetime but with our help you could have it much more quickly than you expect.

Small note:  I shouldn't have revealed this English secret should I?  If the Scots get wind of this they will want to stay - just to spite us! 

And another: This is far from a racist opinion.  Where is the line between racism and nationalism?