Caledonian culture war

 

© Channel Four Films / PolyGram Pictures

 

Many people may be puzzled by the title of this blog-entry.  After all, if you’re to believe the pronouncements of certain Scottish Labour Party heavyweights of yesteryear, there isn’t any culture in Scotland to have a war over.

 

George Galloway, one-time Labour MP for Glasgow Hillhead and Glasgow Kelvin and now widely-known as a preening, egotistical jackanapes, once declared that no such thing as Scottish culture existed.  Supporting him in this assertion was George Robertson, former Labour MP for Hamilton South, former Secretary of State for Defence and now known by the socialistic, man-of-the-people title of Lord Robertson of Port Ellon, KT, GCMG, PC, FRSA, FRSE.  Comparing the campaign for Scottish independence unfavourably with similar campaigns in Flanders and Catalonia, he said that unlike the Flemish and Catalans the Scots have “no language or culture or any of that.”

 

Despite George and George applying their mighty intellects to the matter of Scottish culture and ascertaining once and for all that the very notion of it is as ridiculous and chimerical as the Loch Ness Monster, a few people have not yet seen reason.  For example, the Scottish National Party, which forms the current Scottish Government.  And Jackie Kay, the current Makar – i.e. Scottish poet laureate – for another.

 

Recently the SNP / Scottish government launched a scheme whereby the parents of every baby born in Scotland receive a ‘baby box’, a collection of items handy for those taking care of a bairn during its first few months of life: a blanket, bedding, play and changing mats, a towel, fleece, reusable nappy, sponge, thermometer and so on.  The boxes these come in can also double as cribs.  The idea originated in Finland, where the boxes / cribs are believed to have contributed to a fall in the number of cot deaths.

 

What has raised the ire of many a commentator – mostly, it must be said, of the same unionist / pro-British / anti-Scottish independence mindset as Messrs Galloway and Robertson – is the decision to include within these baby boxes a poem written by Kay called Welcome Wee One.

 

The poem begins, “O ma darlin wee one / At last you are here in the wurld / And wi’ aa your wisdom / Your een bricht as the stars…

 

That’s right.  The poem isn’t written in proper standard English, but in Scots – the Scottish dialect of English that some misguided souls believe to be a separate language, to constitute a separate Scottish linguistic culture.  No wonder people who agree with the two Georges are having seizures of rage just now.  The Scottish government is propagating Scottish culture, something that doesn’t, shouldn’t, can’t exist!

 

Okay, enough of the sarcasm.  From now on, I’m writing seriously.

 

Among the many tweeters and posters expressing their scorn at Kay’s poem was Ian Smart, self-styled ‘lefty lawyer’ and ‘Scottish Labour Party hack’, who dismissed her as “a woman from Bishopbriggs, writing doggerel.”  A reader posting below a report on the baby boxes in the Daily Telegraph, meanwhile, brought up the fact that Kay is of what used to be called ‘mixed parentage’ to question her right to pen the poem in the first place: “…Jackie Kay has produced Welcome Wee One in what is supposed to be local dialect…  according to her Wiki entry her father was Nigerian.  I wonder what she’s like at Igbo?”

 

© The Guardian

 

As far as this baby box / Welcome Wee One stushie is concerned, I find myself agreeing with the Scottish journalist Kenny Farquharson.  Writing in the Times a few days ago, he claimed the antipathy towards the poem and the Scottish government’s distribution of it in the baby boxes was down to the ‘Scottish cringe’.  This cringe is the commonly-held belief that any manifestation of Scottishness in Scottish people is something to be embarrassed by, something you need to shed and disown in order to get on in life.

 

In an article headlined SPEAK UP FOR SCOTTISHNESS AND BAN THE CRINGE, he observed how the cringe’s “symptoms were easy to spot: an involuntary shudder at the sound of a glottal stop; an onset of the vapours when confronted by a fluttering saltire; a pursing of the lips at any manifestation of Scottish working class culture.”

 

However, many Times readers didn’t share his opinion.  The comments thread below his article was soon ablaze with Farquharson-bashing (“really just a closet nationalist…” “he seems to have a chip on both shoulders…”) and with further Kay-bashing (“fake, rubbish art…” “the great majority of the recipients of the baby box will take one look at the poem and assign it to the recycle bin…”), Scots-language-bashing (“no one, in 21st century Scotland, would ever express themselves in this way…”), and Scottish-government-bashing (“the box and the poem are intent on branding babies Scottish the moment they gulp their first breath…”  “As a government, they are totally incompetent…”)  No wonder that a few days later Farquharson tweeted, “Have to say, I’m fair ferfochan at some of the responses to my Scottish cringe column.”  (‘Ferfochan’ is a northeast Scottish word meaning ‘tired’ or ‘troubled’.)

 

Well, I think the baby boxes are a good idea in any society that claims to be civilised and anyone railing against them is showing himself or herself up as a Grade-A mean-spirited numpty.  The people complaining about them containing a poem written in Scots seem ignorant of the fact that since the medieval era of Dunbar and Henryson, through Robert Burns to the present day, an awful lot of Scottish poetry has been written in Scots.  So what’s the big deal about this poem being written in it?

 

© The Herald

 

Regarding the argument that the Scottish government is playing identity politics, trying to ‘brand’ youngsters as Scottish so that, somehow, they’ll be more likely to vote for Scottish independence from the UK when they’re adults – I suspect that if the baby boxes had contained some Union-Jack-waving verse by the likes of Rudyard Kipling, the right-wing readers of the Times and Telegraph would have expressed less indignation.  It seems we’re now in the midst of a culture war, Scottish culture being aligned with the SNP and the Scottish independence movement at one end of the battlefield, and British culture aligned with unionism and the status quo at the other end.

 

Oh, and in response to one of Farquharson’s detractors at the Times – I’ve just spent the past fortnight in the Scottish Borders and I’ve heard plenty of people speak ‘in this way’.  (Although the word ‘een’, for ‘eyes’, does seem obsolete now.)

 

What I find astonishing about this is that Farquharson himself is a Unionist and often writes scathingly about the Scottish government and its long-term policy of achieving Scottish independence.  But the moment he attempts to show some reasonableness and writes favourably about a policy by that government, he’s torn apart by people who are supposedly on his own side.  (I should declare an interest here – I knew Kenny Farquharson, slightly, for a year or two when we were students at Aberdeen University in the early 1980s.  I don’t much agree with his politics, but I found him to be a decent bloke back then, full of Dundonian congeniality, and I’m sure he continues to be that way now.)

 

From youtube.com

 

With all this yelling about the SNP / Scottish government using Scottish culture to play identity politics and further their agenda, you’d expect them to have established the post of Makar too.  After all, giving Scotland its own poet laureate is another way of separating it from the United Kingdom, which has long had its own national poet laureate.  But in fact the post was created by the previous regime at the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh, the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition – Unionist politicians to a man and woman.

 

And if you’re going to employ a Makar for Scotland and not have them write a short ode of welcome to its new-born citizens – why employ one at all?

 

Oh lordy

 

From www.acting-man.com

 

Everyone else who is based in Scotland and is capable of typing seems to have spent the last few days reacting to comments made by George Robertson, former Labour Party MP, former defence minister, former secretary general of NATO and now Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, regarding Scottish independence – should the referendum being held in September go that particular way.  A lot has been written in reaction to Lord Roberson, or to give him his full title, Lord Robertson KT, GCMG, FRSA, PC.  (He’s clearly a lord and a half, or even a lord onto himself.)  Little of it has been complimentary.  Even newspapers like the Scotsman and the Daily Record, which have deferentially toed the anti-independence line demanded by the Labour Party, Conservative Party and Liberal Democratic Party, have opined in their editorial columns that Robertson was talking mince.

 

So, really, there isn’t much point in me pitching in my tuppence-worth as well.  But as regular readers of this blog will know, there’s nothing I like better than pitching in my tuppence-worth.  So here I go.

 

Robertson declared during a speech in Washington DC on April 8th that a majority vote for Scottish independence would be ‘cataclysmic’.  NATO would see its mightiest member – well, one of its mightiest members – cut in two, into a puny independent Scotland and a diminished English / Welsh / Northern Irish ‘rump’ UK, which would cause much rejoicing among ‘our adversaries’, ‘our enemies’ and the general ‘forces of darkness’.  (Vladimir Putin, could he be talking about you?)  Equally bad, this would encourage separatist movements in volatile European countries like Spain and, er, Belgium to push for independence for their regions, provinces, cantons, counties and parishes too, which would see Europe becoming a seething, hate-filled, ethnic disaster area, like the 1990s Balkans, only on a continental scale.  Crumbs!

 

(At this point I would have said, ‘Jings!’, which is a common Scottish exclamation of surprise.  However, when Lord Robertson made a previous contribution to the debate a while back, he memorably dismissed Scottish independence as a nonsense because Scotland lacks its own ‘language and culture, and all these sort of things.’  So those Scots words I use from time to time are presumably figments of my own imagination.)

 

There has been much criticism of the no-to-independence campaign lately, with accusations that it’s indulged in over-the-top fear-mongering – claiming that an independent Scotland would be incapable of running its own affairs, and business, employment, education, savings, pensions, etc., would all disappear down a giant Caledonian toilet – and been ridiculously negative.  But Robertson’s speech ramps that negativity up to stellar, nay, interstellar levels.  In fact, it seems bafflingly paradoxical that a country that, we’ve been told, is way too small, poor and incompetent to have any prospect of making a go of independence should also, somehow, have responsibility for the future stability and security of the entire Western world resting in its hands.

 

Maybe the Scottish public should hold the West to ransom, like Ernst Stavros Blofeld in Thunderball or Doctor Evil in Austin Powers – The Spy Who Shagged Me.  They should demand that the United Nations pays them a ransom of 100 billion dollars.  Otherwise, in September, they’ll vote yes to independence and trigger off the cataclysmic chain of events that, Lord Robertson would have us believe, will result in the world blowing up.  That sum of 100 billion dollars could obviously be very useful in rebuilding Scotland’s industrial and manufacturing sector (decimated by Maggie Thatcher in the 1980s).  Although according to the no campaign’s claims about Caledonian inadequacy, the Scots would probably just blow it all in a gigantic weekend bender along Sauchiehall Street instead.

 

The real cataclysm that I suspect Lord Robertson (KT, GCMG, FRSA, PC) is worried might happen as a result of a yes vote is one that might threaten his continued tenure in the House of Lords.  Would he be entitled, as a citizen of a newly-independent Scotland, to claim membership of a British institution that, technically, no longer covered Scotland?  And he’s probably not the only former Scottish Labour politician who’s feeling some referendum-tinged unease at the moment.  You’ll find more former Scottish Labour politicians in the House of Lords than you’ll find moths in a very old wardrobe.

 

There’s former Labour First Minister of Scotland, Jack McConnell, now Baron McConnell of Glenscorrodale, ennobled for services to post-modern kilt-wearing; former Labour MP and speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, now Lord Martin of Springburn, ennobled for his finesse in coordinating debate in Westminster’s lower chamber – he occasionally managed to string sentences of more than three words together; former Labour MSP George Foulkes, now Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, ennobled for doing a perfect impersonation of a bladder on the end of a stick; and former Labour Scottish Secretary, Helen Liddell, now Baroness Lidell of Coatdyke, ennobled for something.  Or other.

 

If the Scots reject independence in September, those distinguished peers and peeresses will no doubt be joined soon by Lord Gordon Brown of Shrek’s Swamp and Baron Alastair Darling of Tracy Island, ennobled for their superb stewardship of the British economy during the boom years of the late noughties.

 

Only a nation of heartless brutes would consider voting for self-determination and depriving these wonderful people, all former members of the allegedly socialistic People’s Party, of the right to wrap themselves in ermine.