« The Zen of Cheney | Main | The Mall of Mecca »

Undoing 1707?

16 Aug 2007 10:38 pm

scotland.jpg

Is it my recent trip to Scotland (where the above, totally un-ridiculous photo was snapped; that's the tartan of Clan Burberry I'm wearing around my head, I believe), my affection for Braveheart and Rob Roy, or my undying loyalty to the House of Stuart that keeps me intrigued by the progress of the Scottish National Party?

Which ever it is, Alex Massie (your source for all things Scottish, and a confirmed Braveheart-hater, the philistine) has the relevant details and analysis.

Comments (10)

Deo volente!

Hopefully the question of identity and devolution of power will lead to a deeper reconsideration of both constitutional status (1707) and history (the old cause).

I don't know - I've seen Braveheart a few times, and it has a fairly strong anti-torture and anti-occupation message. You might get kicked out of the neocon club for this, Ross.

Ok, this is really silly, but there needs to be like 9 ninjas added to that photo.

Jacobites of the World Unite?

Top Tip: Chavs wear Burburry. Don't be a chav.

A toast: the King over water!

I have some Scottish ancestry, and I'm also following the SNP with some interest... though not in a good way. I fail to see what possible good can come from an ethnic separatist movement within a union where Scots are so thoroughly un-oppressed that one of them is running the country.

Opposing the SNP (and Plaid Cymru, and the Parti Quebecois for that matter) should be a no-brainer for anyone whose ties to an un-oppressed overseas ethnic minority run no deeper than shopping at Clan Burberry. Devolution has its merits, but Nationalism should stay on the soccer pitch, where it belongs.

(And TW Andrews is right. That's a chav-tastic get-up you've got going on.)

Don't be Britain's Québécois, especially not because you liked a couple films.

Braveheart and Rob Roy were awful films with no conscience over how they raped history. Gibson especially tried to graft the heroic narrative of the American Revolution onto Scottish history. Just like in The Patriot, where Southerners *weren't* portrayed as slave-holders, are we really supposed to care if English barons who bound serfs were being replaced with Scottish barons who bound serfs?

If you're standing outside the most famous castle in Wester Ross the pertinent film reference has to be Highlander which has an opening scene set outside the most famous castle in Wester Ross.

As to this comment: "I fail to see what possible good can come from an ethnic separatist movement within a union where Scots are so thoroughly un-oppressed that one of them is running the country." An obvious benefit would be that in becoming independent Scotland would remove one layer of government and the bureaucracy that derives from it. After all, implementing all these European Union directives, which seems to be a big part of being a modern European nation, can be done just as easily in Edinburgh as in London. However, subsidiarity is not as great a rallying cry as freedom - so ethnic separatism it is.

To be against the Act of Union, to be a Jacobite does not make one a separatist. The Jacobite ideal would be to see the Act of Union dissolved and the two Kingdoms ruled by the heir to the Stuarts. Repealing the Act of Union and placing both kingdoms under the Windsors would be a desirable step both in the hopes of a restoration of the Jacobite heirs, and also merely in reversing one of the more unfortunate of the consequences of the Revolution of 1688.

The SNP is an ally of convenience, principally in the hope for a repeal of the Act of Union; obviously the republican element of the party and its emphasis on independence do not align perfectly with Jacobite hopes.


Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.