Interview with Jonny Lipsham, Professional Musician

Pearl of Tyburn:  Now I’ll be interviewing Johnny Lipsham. Good day, Mr. Lipsham.

Jonny Lipsham: Hi there.

P.T.:  Could you tell me a bit about your background and cultural/political/religious etc. identities you may have?

J.L.:  I am a Christian, ethnically and racially a Jew, born in Scotland but lived 31 years in England - so have a messed up accent - and have been a member of the Labour Party since 1990. I am a professional musician, vocalist, songwriter, recording and mixing engineer, and a music educator and vocal coach.

P.T.:  What is your opinion on the Scottish Independence Referendum?

J.L.:  I am a passionate and committed Unionist. I will be voting NO. My opinion of the whole thing? - Biggest waste of time and tax payer's money in British History. Scotland is at the forefront of British innovation, ingenuity, bravery, pioneering spirit, and making the impossible possible. We are the cutting edge of the sword of the Union. We have been since 1707, and I see NO reason that breaking the sword will make any of its constituent parts stronger or better.

P.T.:  What do you think of the current campaigns for and against? What is your opinion on the way they are being run?

J.L.:  “Yes Scotland” is fighting a campaign based on LIES, and increasingly in these latter days, fear, bitterness and anger. Better Together have been slow to debunk mythologies and the invented fables of the Yes campaign, leaving that to us on Facebook and Twitter; which is a poor idea and leaves us ordinary folks fighting a war with no support from our commanders.

P.T.:  How would you recommend the Better Together improve their game and better support their people in the street and online in these coming weeks?

J.L.:  I have seen much better coordination in recent weeks, but I think they, and we need to communicate more clearly and I believe that the senior leaders of BT need to make some kind of show of encouragement, endorsement and support for us on the streets and online.

P.T.:  What do you think of the decision to let 16 years old vote?

J.L.:  A major blunder by Salmond. It was a clear attempt to out-flank. It has back-fired on him.

P.T.:  What do you think of Alistair Darling and the way he has been handling things?

J.L.:  I’ve actually met him a few times. I used to live and work in London in the jazz scene, but I know Lib Dem Simon Hughes very well. He helped get me in to Parliament for PMQs when John Smith was Labour Leader. I first met him around about that time. And a few times since. Great guy. He is exceedingly intelligent, but also possibly the calmest, coolest guy under pressure I have ever known.

P.T.: Well, we can only hope that he and his campaign will make it through to the finish successfully. Thank you for letting me record your thoughts, Mr. Lipsham.

J.L.:  You’re welcome.

Interview with Jamie Scott, Royal Marine in Training

P.T.:  Now we’ll be speaking with Jamie Scott, Royal Marine in training. How are you doing today, Mr. Scott?

J.S.:  Quite well, thanks.

P.T.:  Could you tell us about your background?

J.S.:  I was born and raised in England with a strong military background. Every Scott in my family is a serviceman. The Scott's have always fought for the country, and my mother was also in the TA. I have just grown up around the forces and being in the Sea Cadets, and I wanted to challenge myself and see the world.

P.T.:  Do you identify yourself more as English, British, or both?

J.S.:  In the UK, I tend to identify myself as English but, when I am not in the UK, I am British and will display that I am proud of it.

P.T.:  What is your view of the Scottish Independence Referendum?

J.S.:  I did a summary of my point of view from an English perspective for ScotlandSayNaw. The fact is we work so much better together than we have done apart. We should stick together we have done for so many years and we have defeated powerful enemies. I think what the First Minister has done has ruined Scotland by dividing her in two, just because of a war 700 years ago.

P.T.:  So do you think that the nationalist effort to correlate the referendum with the 700^th anniversary of Bannockburn has helped their cause at all, or just made them look silly?

J.S.:  The fact they are trying to connect to something so long ago is daft. I love to remember history, but many people are not taking in the account of the 307 years of union, which has hit the no camp hard at first, but the mood of the people is slowly becoming the opposite of what the Nats wanted.

P.T.:  What historical achievements do you think Scots and English alike can look on with pride in the course of their union together?

J.S.:  One thing to be proud of is the technology we have came up with over the last few hundred years. Our tech is amazing. We started the industrial revolution, and as a result, Britain is the founder of the modern world. Also, the military we built up together is a damn good one.

P.T.:  What would you say are the main benefits Scotland continues to derive from being part of the UK today?

J.S.:  Well I'm not too well informed on what goes on in the government, but I think the defence is a big thing, then our combined economy, the positions the UK has in the UN, NATO and the EU, and the support we have for each other.

P.T.:  Do you think your military background affects your view of the union at all? How do you think most servicemen/women feel about this?

J.S.:  My military background does affect my view a bit, but I still try look at other facts. Most servicemen and women want to stay in the Union because their lives will be so much better.

P.T.:  What do you think about security and the armed forces, and the future of Scotland without the British army?

J.S.:  Well, I think an independent Scotland won't have fully trained armed forces more like a militia with really old weapons. Scotland would be easier to attack and their alliances would break down and maybe even rely on other countries for protection. The security of Scotland will be at great risk without the British Army may even be open to attack from larger countries or terrorists.

P.T.:  What do you think English people (and Welsh and NI people for that matter) should do to encourage Scotland to stay in the union without causing the opposite reaction?

J.S.:  I think they should try getting support for Better Together, and showing their support for what Scotland means to the rest of us. Scotland is a part of the British way, and in the social network we must try to defend pages against the Cybernat attacks and just show Scotland why the UK is better as one.

P.T.:  What do you think of David Cameron saying that English people should contact their Scottish family and friends and ask them to stay in the Union? I know he got some flack for that.

J.S.:  I agree with him. My uncle is Scottish, and so is my girlfriend’s family. They all have relatives in Scotland, and if there was to be a yes vote it would separate families and friends from each other. They have a right to speak out against it.

P.T.:  What do you think of the Commonwealth Games being held in Glasgow this year of all years? Do you think it would alter the referendum race in any way?

J.S.:  I'm not entirely sure. I'm hoping it would urge people to the union side like the Olympics did. The country became so patriotic on account of the Olympics, and hopefully the commonwealth games can achieve the same result.

P.T.:  What do you think of the monarchy?

J.S.:  I think it brings a lot to the UK, not just British Pride, but also our economy the government may pay for there living but they make millions on the Queens land and the tourism.

P.T.:  How do you think royal pageantry effects unity in the country?

J.S.:  It depends really on how they view things. During the golden jubilee, the country was united under one banner, but sadly that is no longer the case for some reason. I never heard much about Scotland at the Jubilee, so I don't really know how it effected the mood there.

P.T.:  In brief, what is reaction to the claim made by some nationalists that the Scottish monarchy has been “illegitimate” since the time of The Jacobite Rebellions and the overthrow of the Stuart Dynasty?

J.S.:  I'm not too sure about the Jacobite rebellions, but the Queen was crowned and the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and she gets her power from God.

P.T.:  As a young person yourself, what do you think of Salmond giving 16 and 17 year olds the right to take part in the referendum even though they cannot vote in regular elections?

J.S.:  It's good to have a say when it will effect Scottish teens more afterwards, and I think Salmond tried to do this so he could make sure he wins the YES vote which turned on him badly. That's why he said servicemen overseas can't vote.

P.T.:  What do you think about Scottish servicemen overseas being refused the right to vote in the referendum?

J.S.:  The fact servicemen overseas can't vote is a disgrace. The very fact that they could all come home to a different country that they were unable to weigh in on is appalling.

P.T.:  What do you think about the situation in which people from other parts of the UK living in Scotland can vote, but not Scots living in other parts of the UK?

J.S.:  If the people are living in Scotland long term, then I think they should vote, but if it's short term, not really.

P.T.:  What do you think might be the result if an independent Scotland is unable to use the pound?

J.S.:  If an independent Scotland is unable to use the pound, then it's all down hill for the Scots. They will not be accepted in the EU because they would need to bring something to the EU join, and they would need to reach certain requirements to join the Euro.

P.T.:  What’s your reaction to the Nationalist antipathy towards nuclear power and complaints about the “rape” of Scottish land?

J.S.:  Their views of nuclear power is a bit old technology moves on and we won't be left behind and the rape of Scottish lands when I visited Scotland I saw no rape of the lands

P.T.:  What’s your opinion on “Better Together” and how they running the “No” campaign, in contrast to the way Alex Salmond and the SNP are running their “Yes” campaign?

J.S.:  Better together are doing well but they do need more activities the Nats are getting in to people's face about it but they are doing something

P.T.:  Who do you think will win?

J.S.:  I think the NO vote will win as long as people vote.

P.T.:  To wrap things up, could you tell us a little about your personal interests, hobbies, and goals in life? Do you plan on attending University at some point? What type of career might you be aiming for? Would like to be a “career soldier”, or something else?

J.S.:  My personal interests are History anything Military and my main goal in life is to become a marine. I don’t plan on going to university, but I would like to start my own business.

P.T.:  Thank you very much for the interview, Mr. Scott. I wish you all the best in your training for the marines and future business ventures.

J.S.:  Sure thing; thanks. 

Interview with Dominic Hardwick, Liberal Democrat Candidate for Manchester City Council

Pearl of Tyburn: Coming to us from Manchester, England, we have Mr. Dominic Hardwick, one of this year’s Liberal Democrat Candidates for Manchester City Council. Good evening, Mr. Hardwick.

Dominic Hardwicke: And to you.

P.T.:  What national identities do you see yourself as having? And do you have any ethnic/religious identities to speak of?

D.H.:  Nationally, I see myself as British first. My ancestry is predominantly Anglo-Saxon, but I can trace Celtic, Viking, Irish, French and Jewish roots in my family tree. I would not say that I wasn't English, and I would describe myself as English; but I consider myself a Briton first and foremost.

Ethnically I am an English Catholic. My father was baptized as a Catholic and comes from a Catholic family. My mother was baptized into the Church of England. I was left to make my own decisions about faith and reach my own conclusions, and I came to the conclusion that there must be a god, and I found wisdom in the teachings of Christianity.

I can't believe that a mortal man (i.e. the Pope) is infallible, so I'm not Catholic; I dislike the sexism inherent in the Eastern Orthodox churches; I think that certain oriental sects are weird; American evangelical movements scare me; Jehovah's witnesses seem illogical; I find Mormonism illogical; and I dislike the rejection of ritual and mysticism by more puritanical churches. Therefore I identify as an Anglican Christian.

P.T.:  How did you first become active in politics, within the Liberal Democrat Party in particular?

D.H.:  Well, my parents always voted and were socialists, relishing in the 1997 victory of the Labour government. However, we had a great local Lib Dem councilor called John Leech, who they also voted for. Labour did its level best to earn the contempt of my parents over the years - first they abolished the feeder school system meaning that rather than going to a decent local state school, I was offered schools that were further away and more difficult to get to.

Fortunately, as I was intelligent enough, I was able to pass the entrance exams for my local private school, which is one of the best in the country. But we still resented what Labour had done, especially as our local Labour MP was unaffected by the change because he could afford to put his son through the same private school that I went to.

Then there was the Iraq war, NHS changes and tuition fees, so we got sick of Labour and started supporting John Leech, who was elected in the 2005 general election with the largest swing in the country. My mother was deeply involved in the local residents' association, and so was John, being an interested and involved local councilor and then MP, and so invited us to be his first guests around Parliament.

I started to like the Lib Dems and him, and helped him campaign in the next general election; by which time I had joined university. I joined the Lib Dems at University, and met Henry, who persuaded me of the merits of unionism. I began helping my local Lib Dem councilors by delivering a round of leaflets for them, and got involved in student politics too, campaigning successfully to be elected to the student council in two elections

I enjoyed canvassing, and so I asked my local councilors if I could help them with that. So due to my commitment, I became one of their core activists. I then did two internships with Lib Dem MPs (one of them a government minister) and started helping out in a winnable ward without which had not done much campaigning. I was then selected as a candidate last summer, and ran for the position of Lib Dem councilor this May.

P.T.:  What reasons do you have for being an active Unionist?

D.H.:  Many, but here are my top five:

1) Together England and Scotland are greater than the sum of their parts, we are more prosperous and powerful for our union, and division would make us poorer and weaker.

2) Unity is an essential underpinning of acceptance and understanding of other people. Separatism would make us naturally hostile, and would develop a narrative in Scotland that defined the Scots as being against the English, just as happened in Ireland.

3) We have years of shared history and culture, and we are both richer socially for it. People have fought and died to protect these United Kingdoms, and it would be a slight on their legacy and sacrifice to destroy what they preserved.

4) Nationalism is an evil, corrosive force that lies behind many of the wrongs of the world, we must do everything we can to fight it by integrating our nations and states.

5) A unified set of laws, customs and government systems is cheaper to administer and provides a level playing field for competition between companies. Removing this by separating would make both Britain and Scotland less attractive to businesses and investors.

P.T.:  How do you think most English people, especially in Manchester and the north, view the upcoming Scottish Independence Referendum?

D.H.:  I'd say that very few people understand what drives it, and without understanding, most people wouldn't really have a firm opinion on it. Lots of people understand it only with reference to British and English politics, so seeing it as an issue of right vs. left, or monarchism vs. republicanism.

P.T.:  Do you think UK general opinion will affect Scottish opinion, in lieu of how Canadian opinion effected Quebec during their last independence referendum?

D.H.:  I don't know. I see how it could be effective, but I also see how it could - if manifested in certain forms – be a hindrance. For example, in one of the US presidential elections where George Bush Jr. was the republican candidate, the Guardian (a left-wing UK newspaper) organized a letter-writing operation asking people to send letters to voters in a swing state asking them to vote Gore/Kerry. It had the opposite effect as the voters railed against external interference.

P.T.:  Granted. But that was about electing a candidate, not a referendum regarding the unity of the country.

D.H.:  Indeed, which is why I say I'm not sure.

P.T.:  What do you think about Better Together?

D.H.:  It's a much needed campaign expressing the views of the softly-spoken majority. As a campaign, it seems either weak or powerful but disjointed. Either the campaign group is weak and unitary and not getting its voice across while louder, independent voices stand up for the union, or the campaign is strong and multi-pronged, relying on outside voices to provide its strength.

P.T.:  Which one do you think is more likely? And what would you suggest they should do to present a stronger front?

D.H.: I'm too cynical to be able to tell. I think it might be the latter, but I dread that it may be the former. To present a stronger front, Alistair Darling may need to put himself about more. If he were an MSP that could be helpful....maybe.

P.T.:  What do you think of his personality as it comes across in comparison to Alex Salmond's?

D.H.:  I honestly haven't heard that much of him live. I'm kinda fixated on his eyebrows...

P.T.:  Okay. I guess darling doesn't have an eye-brush comb in his make-up kit?

D.H.:  Yeah, that and the fact that they are black while his hair is white.

P.T.:  The “No” Camp hasn’t really produced any singularly young and dynamic character as of late, have they?

D.H.:  No, but that might be a good thing. Younger politicians are often seen as factory-farmed soulless automata.

P.T.:  And what are guys like Alasdair Darling and Alex Salmond seen as?

D.H.:  More trustworthy because they are older and have held high office without courting scandal. Salmond less so because he's a fatuous nincompoop.

P.T.:  What do you think about Scottish Nats who say, "We are just like Ireland! We the oppressed Celtic peoples of the earth, who were conquered by the Sassenachs....yadda yadda yadda....."

D.H.:  It's pointless, destructive, self-pitying whining by people who seem to be suffering from inferiority complexes trying to cast themselves as victims to give justification to their nasty, petty, small-minded and ultimately xenophobic/racist world view. I really do have very little time for nationalists.

P.T.:  What are your thoughts on “Yes” supporters insisting that Scotland would be “better off weak”? Some of them actually say out loud: "We'd be better off weak; we wouldn't have to fight wars, etc."

D.H.:  Codswallop. Scotland would be irrelevant if weak. They would lack protection as they wouldn't be able to be a part of NATO without contributing to the defense of NATO.

Furthermore, I would argue that we have a duty to people beyond the borders of our country, and deliberately weakening ourselves to get out of our duty to remove genocidal tyrants and protecting the weak against the strong is repugnant cowardice and vile selfishness.

Also, only a fool would say that we had forever banished the scourge of major wars. Every time a major war has broken out, it has been after a period of peace in which people had convinced themselves that war would not return.

P.T.:  What do you think of Scotland and the pound?

D.H.:  If Scotland becomes independent, it can't remain in a currency union with the UK. The UK would have no reason to allow its monetary policy to be in part dictated by a country 1/10 its size.

It could continue to use the pound in the same way that Zimbabwe uses the dollar, but that wouldn't work for long term fiscal stability. It couldn't move to the Euro because the EU would not have an independent Scotland as a member. An independent Scotland would need its own currency.

P.T.:  As a Liberal Democrat, how would you answer the "anti-Tory-ism" that seems to be rampant in Scotland and used as an excuse to seek independence?

D.H.:  Be anti-Tory, that's fine - I don't particularly like them myself. However, trying to use the fact that somebody disagrees with the government of the day as a reason for them to vote for independence is just dishonest of the SNP. Salmond is trying so hard to cast the referendum as a Scotland vs. the Tories thing, and it is repulsive that he is trying to cheapen such an important question.

It's also an issue of trying to make people throw the take their ball and go home if something doesn't go their way. Finally, until 1997 the Tories were a major force in Scottish politics, and many senior Tory politicians are Scots themselves (historically this is true as well). David Cameron is of Scottish ancestry, Lord Strathclyde is pretty evidently a Scot. So too are Michael Gove and Sir Malcolm Rifkind; and so too were Harold MacMilland and Alec Douglas-Hulme.

The anti-Tory argument is also a logical fallacy. If Scotland goes independent, there will be governments with which the majority of Scots disagree, and which they think to be cruel, unjust or incompetent. Being part of the UK or independent will make no difference to that.

P.T.:  I think the same logic applies in the area of governmental budget cuts. If anything, they will have to deal with more of them, not less, if they go independent, since there will be less money on hand in general.

D.H.:  Exactly.

P.T.:  What do you think about this referendum trying to connect with the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn, and how would you answer the charge of “corruption” regarding the Act of Union in 1707?

D.H.:  Well it's a nice coincidence for the Nats that it's the anniversary of some mediaeval battle between England and Scotland where people fought over which line of distant aristocrats would rule them.

But I think that it's a more significant coincidence that it's the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of the bloodiest conflict in human history. The outbreak of the war to end all wars, where Britons from across the isles fought and died together not for England, or Scotland, or Ireland - but for Britain.

P.T.:  Also, 2015 marks the 200th anniversary of Waterloo, which is another landmark for British unity.

Speaking of Ireland’s involvement in British military history, as a Liberal Democrat, what do you think of the situation in Northern Ireland?

D.H.:  It's sad that the region is divided politically by religion. I'd like to see the major parties contesting elections there and competing the sectarian parties out of existence.

P.T.:  What do you think of the concept of Ireland being divided in general, especially as it applies to your disapproval of The British Isles being divided?

D.H.:  It's the sad consequence of horrendous mismanagement by a series of vain kings and protectionist governments. Ireland would be better off in the union and should still be better off in the union, but a combination of ignorant racism by other Britons, Protestant kings refusing to grant rights to Catholic Irishmen, and protectionist governments letting the Irish starve during the potato famine rather than repeal the corn laws led to the inevitable ill-feeling and revolt. Those wounds will take a long time to heal, but I hope that they heal and that we reconcile.

P.T.:  What is your opinion on the monarchy, and how do you think it affects unity and the Union?

D.H.:  I am a monarchist. I believe that constitutional monarchy is the best form of government available to a country. I think that monarchy makes many people more likely to vote to keep the union, hence why Salmond is saying that Scotland would keep the queen if independent. However, you still get the odd person who will owe fealty to the Jacobite claimant, "the king over the water".

P.T.:  While I may not agree entirely that constitutional monarchies are “the best form of government available”, I am also a constitutional monarchist in as much as it works well for Britain. Would you ever like to see the queen speak out in favor of the union?

D.H.:  I would like her to speak out in favour of the union, but in her usual understated way.

P.T.:  She did so at her Silver Jubilee, yes?

D.H.:  She may have repeated this at her Diamond Jubilee. I remember that recently she said that she remembers the importance of the fact that she became queen of a united kingdom or something.

P.T.:  If so, more power to her!

What do you think about federalism and “greater powers” for the individual nations in the UK?

D.H.:  I think that federalism is good, but I'd break up nations in a federal system at all costs. So I'd like to see maybe a parliament for southern Scotland and a parliament for the Highlands and Islands with no overall Scottish Parliament. That gives people autonomy locally but may help control separatism. As for “greater powers”, I think they would be fine so long as those powers don't lead to inequality between regions or different laws between regions.

P.T.:  How do you think this referendum is affecting people emotionally, on all spectrums of the debate?

D.H.:  On emotions, it will buoy some people immeasurably for Scotland to be independent - their dreams will be true and their self-esteem and pride in their nation will make them giddy with euphoria. They will (before the referendum) be filled with excitement and anticipation, believing that their time has come.

On the other side, people will be filled with patriotic fervour and a desire to defend their queen and country against separation. They will be grim and determined or giddy with excitement at a chance to defend Britain. Then there will be those who think that the time is not right for a referendum - those who would want to see independence but who think that the timing will make it impossible.

And there will be those who will see the timing as too good, or the mood too hostile for the union, and they will be pessimistic about the future. Some might despair that they can't do enough (or anything) to aid their cause.

P.T.:  What about people with trans-border connections like families, jobs, etc.?

D.H.:  I think that they will all live in fear of the consequences of independence, because it would create a tangible barrier between nations.

P.T.:  Should Yes win, what do you think will happen to the British identity throughout British Isles? Should No win, do you think more people will begin to see themselves as having dual identities?

D.H.:  Should Yes win, the British identity will decline even further - English people will be inclined to stop seeing themselves as British as they won't have a common nationality with the Scots anymore. The Welsh national identity will likely become stronger, and the only people who will still feel British will be ideological unionists.

Should No win, then I'm not sure what changes will happen to identities. I think that, perhaps we will see a strengthening of British identity in Scotland as people will start to reflect how their nation voted.

P.T.:  In general, do you think a general lack of patriotism towards Britain has a lot to do with the way the referendum was able to be launched with any hope of success at all? What do you think the best way is to restore a healthy sense of patriotism to the land?

D.H.:  Yes, I'd say so. In Britain, patriotism is often viewed as vulgar by most people, especially the intellectual elite. As a result, it is unfashionable to be pro-Britain, and in our post-colonial state, it is easy to feel shame about our national identity. It is easier and more fashionable to have a sense of national pride when you can paint your nation as being a bullied victim. People root for underdogs. Also, self-deprecation is part of the British identity.

To restore a healthy sense of patriotism, the country needs to do things of which it can be unashamedly proud - such as hosting successful international events - e.g. the Olympics or Association Football World Cup. Or successful foreign interventions such as Libya or Kosovo.

P.T.:  And somehow, I can't help but add, to become secure within themselves and their past. At the end of the day, who do you predict will win this referendum?

D.H.:  The Unionists, because we have right on our side. I believe most people have voted SNP because it is a popular party that has governed moderately well, not because they want independence. All of the arguments fall on the side of the unionists, and I believe most people in Scotland want to remain in the union.

P.T.:  What do you think of the rise in the polls for the Nats? Does this at all concern you?

D.H.:  No. Individual polls change nothing and indicate little on their own - I know this from bitter experience as a Lib Dem. Significant trends are worth notifying, but not individual polls. People will often say all sorts of things to opinion polls about how they'll vote, and then go and vote completely differently. I only see polls as being broadly indicative if taken as a broad group over a broad period of time.

P.T.:  To wrap things up, what do you foresee for your future, personally and politically?

D.H.:  Future: I hope to one day find a long-term partner and raise a family with her.

I would like success in my business career so that I can have more money than I could ever use on myself and my family - I would like to be a philanthropist, so that I can give away my money to help other people.

I want to be a local councilor so that I can fix my town and my city. I want to achieve real political change for the country in terms of introducing voting reform and other reforms to transport. As the referendum heats up, I will most likely be watching on nervously, unable to help. I would like to perhaps campaign up north a bit, and I probably will in the week or two before the referendum. (The Lib Dem conference is in Glasgow on the week of the referendum).

P.T.:  How about your interests and hobbies?

D.H.:  I'm into computer gaming, history, role-playing games (e.g. Dungeons and Dragons), war-gaming. I'm also into competitive debating, watch Rugby, and have for many years been a martial artist. I spent years doing Judo and Karate.

P.T.:  Well, I wish you all the best, personally and politically. Thank you for doing this interview with me, Mr. Hardwick.

D.H.: You’re welcome. Goodnight!

Interview with Matthew Warwick, Student at The University of Aberystwyth

Pearl of Tyburn.:  Tonight we are speaking with Mr. Matthew Warwick, a native of Hampshire, England, who is currently studying at The University of Aberystwyth in Wales. Good evening, Mr. Warwick.

Matthew Warwick:  Good evening.

P.T.:  Could you tell me something about yourself and your upbringing? Also, do you have any particularly religious affiliation?

M.W.:  Well, I was born into a white middle-class family, and one that is rather nautical. My father is in the Royal Navy and my mother has done various jobs working with children. I have lived in Hampshire in southern England since I was 3 years old.

My Family is not strictly Christian, but we attended church at Christmas and Easter at least, and I consider myself to be both a Christian and have a Christian culture.

P.T.:  How long has your father been in the Royal Navy, and what is his rank? What sort of things does he do on a daily basis?

M.W.:  He's a Captain, and this is his 31st year of service. He joined in 1983, the year he graduated Britannia Royal Naval College. He has a new 'job' every couple of years or so. Depends entirely on his current job. He's done everything from navigating small patrol vessels to commanding a frigate to developing new tactics and running day to day operations.

P.T.:  Has he been involved in any ceremonial events, and have you been able to take part in them?

M.W.:  Sometimes, yep. I’ve been to the Christmas service aboard HMS Victory, most I can recall were when I was younger and father was in command of a frigate. There were several during that time surrounding her deployment and refit. It consists of singing, meeting senior officers, and drinking mulled wine.

P.T.:  Do you ascribe to any political party?

M.W.:  I do not belong to any political party in particular, but I do have a conservative/liberal type mindset, though. Too often these days governments try and tell us what's good for us. I'm more in favour of trusting people to run their own lives, providing you don't give everything to them on a plate. I'm quite traditional, prefer to spend within one's means, hold the idea of personal freedom and free speech very highly, etc.

P.T.:  What do you view yourself as being: British or English first?

M.W.:  I've always seen myself as British first and English second, however university in Wales and meeting more fellow Brits has made me feel more English these days. Still it's nice to have the choice of going to Scottish and Welsh universities and being in the same country. There’s no real difference than if I went to university in North England while I come from the south, for example.

P.T.:  What do you personally see as the main benefits of keeping the Union in tact in lieu of the Scottish Independence Referendum?

M.W.:  I think that the main benefits are cultural more than anything. Arguments can be made all day about the economic benefits or costs of succession, Scotland undoubtedly has more international clout as part of the UK but that is irrelevant if the people of Scotland aren't seeking international influence etc. However, the notion of being British is important in my view because I was brought up as British. Not as an Englishman - as a Brit.

P.T.:  What do you think about diversity within the individual nations?

M.W.:  Yes, both English and Scottish cultures are unique and should be treasured, but together as Britons we have achieved remarkable feats and are continuing to achieve such feats. Being a citizen of this union allows us to keep this extraordinary relationship intact, and allows it to further flourish in the future. The union generally works for both Scotland and England, even if there is some imbalance at Westminster. Scotland gains in many ways the strength of England, and England gains some of the vibrant culture of Scotland.

P.T.:  What are your thoughts about the position of the UK on an international level?

M.W.:  As part of The United Kingdom both Scotland and England have a significant international influence and key role to play in all aspects of international life. It is a case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. I admit my case will be easily dismissed by many of those in favour of Scottish independence, but for those such as myself, the idea of the United Kingdom is hugely important.

P.T.:  How do you think the British military benefits from all parts of the union, particularly Scotland and Wales?

M.W.:  Scotland plays a significant role in our military. There are several Scottish battalions all of which have illustrious histories, there are key airbases and radar installations in Scotland, and our nuclear deterrent and larger ship building yards are all Scotland based. As for Wales, some army battalions, air bases and lots of RAF flight training is carried out there. But it is less significant than Scotland by a long way, at least currently.

P.T.:  What about defense?

M.W.:  Scotland faces no threat of invasion, so no worries there. There'd likely be significant cooperation between rUK and Scotland over security issues. In the slim chance that the Scottish government would get everything they stated in their White Paper. They’d probably have enough of a military to maintain their own interest providing they didn't want an overseas deployment option.

P.T.:  I guess the situation would be similar to the Republic of Ireland, which I never really think of as much of a military force to be reckoned with

M.W.:  Scotland would have a stronger military than the RoI, which isn't saying much at all. RoI's military is as close to non-existent as is feasible. Irishmen who wish to see active service join the British army.

P.T.:  With or without the threat of invasion, it sounds like Scotland will be considerably weakened if she “unplugs” herself form the Union. What do you think an independent Scotland will lose without "strength", which some proponents of separation seem perfectly willing to ditch in favor of an imagined Utopia?

M.W.:  International clout of all kinds and financial strength. If an economic crisis were to strike again Scotland would struggle - it would not be able to bail out Scottish banks. As for the international bit, it's their choice if they don't want the influence, but international influence is very useful.

P.T.:  What’s your reaction to the Nationalist antipathy towards nuclear power in Scotland?

M.W.:  I understand why there's reluctance to keep nuclear weapons, even though I think it brings several benefits as well as being strategically important.

P.T.:  What do you think of the currency issue that Scotland faces and the argument over Pound Sterling?

M.W.:  I think that independence while keeping Sterling would not be true independence. Fiscal union requires political to work properly. If Scotland want independence, they can't really expect to keep Sterling - if the other options aren't appealing, then that's just a cost of independence that must be considered.

P.T.:  What do you think about the monarchy, and the unifying role it purports to play?

M.W.:  You will not find a stronger supporter of the monarchy. I will take the embodiment of our history, tradition, values, morals, as well as the advantages of having a completely non-political head of state over an elected one any day.

P.T.:  How do you think Scots feel about the monarchy?

M.W.:  Depends who you ask as always. Less supportive in general than England, but the SNP says it'd like to retain the Queen as head of state.

P.T.:  Do you think they mean that, or just don't want to stir up controversy?

M.W.:  A few years back, I believe the SNP stated it'd prefer a republic. So it's hard to be really sure. Their current pro-Queen stance may just be a way of convincing the Scottish people independence wouldn't change everything about their lives

P.T.:  What do you think about this referendum trying to connect with the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn and charges of “corruption” they use to try and discredit The Act of Union?

M.W.:  Cheap trick to ignite some Scottish patriotism and therefore gain more votes. Don't think it'll have much effect. I don't know enough about the Act of Union to comment properly, but I'd guess its lords and politicians being lords and politicians.

P.T.:  In brief, what do you think of the claim some Scottish nationalists bring up about the current Scottish monarchy being “illegitimate” because the House of Stuart was overthrown back in 17^th century?

M.W.:  I know nothing of such claims, but if we're going to start calling this monarch and that monarch illegitimate, we may as well attempt to trace the House of Wessex and name its eldest living descendant King or Queen. Something that is clearly a bit silly.

P.T.:  What do you think about the way that the referendum question is phrased, putting “Yes” for independence and “No” for the Union?

M.W.:  Another cheap trick to encourage people to vote yes, but I think people are cleverer than politicians realize and again, I doubt it'll have much of an effect.

P.T.:  What do you think about Salmond and the way he is running the “Yes” Campaign?

M.W.:  Salmond can only be described as slimy. I can't trust him at all - he has no chance of being a big fish in a big pond, so he's trying to make the pond smaller. I also suspect he likes the idea of being President Salmond, the man who liberated Scotland from their tyrannical English oppressors. Some of them up there are just a bit deluded.

P.T.:  What’s your opinion on “Better Together” and how they running the “No” campaign? Do you have any suggestions for them in these final months before the vote?

M.W.:  BT hasn't impressed me. It’s been far too negative about things. Scaremongering. My suggestion to them would be to focus more on the positive aspects of union.

P.T.:  As an Englishman, what’s your opinion on David Cameron and his encouraging English people to call their Scottish friends and relatives to urge them to stay in the Union? I know it was sort of controversial.

M.W.:  Well, I've been encouraging my Scottish friends to stay in the union for certain.

P.T.:  I personally applaud you :-)

How do you think people might be affected by emotionally, especially those with families and jobs that transcend the border?

M.W.:  If it were 'full' independence the effect might be more, but so much of what the SNP propose involves things continuing as normal so as not to make it seem too massive. I think it'll definitely leave a scar, nevertheless, and cause a divide in the minds of some people.

P.T.:  What do you think will become of the British identity throughout the UK should the Scots break away? Should the union remain in tact, do you think this experience will engender a deeper sense of unity?

 M.W.:  I think it'd remain intact, but slowly start to wear away over the course of decades providing the political independence remained. I don't think a deeper sense of unity will arise from an independence referendum, no matter the result.

P.T.:  What do you think would engender a deeper sense of unity long-term? Like the states have in the USA under a federal government? Or vaguely similar, you know what I mean!

M.W.:  If a federal system could be made to work, I think that would be a positive. More balance in political decision making and economics, as well as more nation wide events such as those of 2012 would be needed to engender a deeper sense of unity.

P.T.:  What do you think of the fluctuation in the polls, showing the “Yes” vote rising, and who do you think is more likely to win?

M.W.:  I'm slightly concerned about the rise, but not too worried. I still think “No” is more likely to win, especially with the currency issue.

P.T.:  To wrap things up, what are you pursuing in University and what type of career might you be aiming for? Also, what about your personal interests, hobbies, and goals in life?

M.W.:  Well, I'm a student of International Politics and Military History, and the type of career I'm aiming for would involve politics, the foreign office/civil service, or the military.

As for personal interests, I am a keen cricket fan supporting Hampshire and England, I enjoy sailing, reading fantasy, Sci- Fi, and historical fiction, and I take part in medieval reenactment of 12th century Britain. My general interests are reading, current affairs, history and cricket to put it another way. As for my life goals, I'd like to make a difference to my country's future, but if I die having enjoyed life and a nice home with a wife and possibly children I shall die content.

P.T.:  That’s lovely, Mr. Warwick. I hope you will be able to fulfill your goals. Thank you very much for taking the time out for this interview.

M.W.:  My pleasure

Interview with Henry Hill, Editor of "Open Unionism"

Pearl of Tyburn:  Tonight I will be talking with Henry Hill, the editor of the British political blog, “Open Unionism”, who comes to us now from London, England, UK. Hello, Mr. Hill.

Henry Hill:  Hello there.

P.T.:  Please tell me how you first got involved with British politics.

H.H.:  I was political from my mid-teens and started out by following my father and being a Liberal Democrat - and quite a left-wing one at that. I gradually shifted to the right during my last years of school and joined the Conservative and Unionist Party on my first week at the University of Manchester in the autumn of 2008.

P.T.:  What were some of the reasons that caused you to shift from being a Liberal Democrat to being a Tory?

H.H.:  The first moment I felt my soul rebel against the Liberals was when I was walking home from school and a friend told me that the Liberal Democrats supported an income tax rate of fifty pence to the pound. The idea of literally taking half of every pound someone freely earned appalled me, and I guess that realization opened the floodgates. I can't remember every step on the road to Damascus, but I know that I cheered the Liberal Democrats in the 2005 general election and the Republicans in the 2008 US Presidential election, so it lies somewhere between those two points.

P.T.:  You draw a parallel between the British and American political parties. For the benefit of American and British readers alike, can you highlight some of the similarities and differences between the British Liberal Democrats/American Democrats and the British Tories/American Republicans?

H.H.:  I'm afraid I'm not very well-versed on the comparisons between the British and US party systems. I'm pretty certain that I would be a socially-liberal Republican, and I was offered an internship with the Romney campaign in 2012, but I know many members of the British Conservatives support the American Democrats, and amongst the parties left of us - including the Liberal Democrats - support for the Democrats is close to one hundred per cent. Britain is a much more politically cohesive, and much more authoritarian country than America.

P.T.:  What first inspired your interest, and later active support, of Unionism?

H.H.:  My mother was born and raised in Co. Roscommon in the Republic of Ireland, and I myself am a British-Irish dual-national. Ever since I found out that my mother's country used to be a part of my country, I've always had a fascination with that notion. As I became more politically aware, that fascination blossomed into an interest in, and then belief in, political Unionism.

P.T.:  A lot of people might think that being British-Irish is something of an uncomfortable paradox considering the troubled past between the two and that, if anything, you would be driven away from unionism because of it. What would you say to them in response?

H.H.:  I don't see why being raised a dual national would make me anti-unionist. I am aware of the 'Plastic Paddie' stereotype, whereby people with tenuous direct links to Ireland adopt a deeply Irish, often wearisomely Nationalist persona. But my upbringing was British - I was raised in Britain as a Briton, and never had my Irish heritage rubbed in my face. I suppose that growing up familiar with the multi-faceted and nuanced nature of Britain made fitting an Irish identity into that a lot easier than growing up with a solidly Irish identity and trying to fit the United Kingdom into that.

P.T.:  Considering your nuanced background and embrace of Unionism, do you believe in the benefit of a hypothetical union encompassing all of the British Isles, Ireland included?

  

H.H.:  Yes, I am personally what is frighteningly termed a 'Neo-Unionist' - I believe that the re-accession of the Twenty-Six Irish Counties to the Union would be a good thing for everyone involved. I don't think it's remotely likely, mind you, but I think that a broader acknowledgement of this as a theoretically desirable outcome for unionists would help unionism break out of the defensive 'hold the line' mentality which has held it back for so long.

P.T.:  As a contributor on “Open Unionism” myself, I have a great deal of respect for your abilities as editor of that site. You obviously have excellent organizational skills and seem to put a lot of time and effort into making it a success. Tell me a little bit about the origins of OU, and how you and your deputy, Paul Watterson, first took command.

H.H.:  I think you pay me too much of a kindness with your first point. OU is not a Herculean effort, and if it were, my deputy Paul would certainly have rightful claim to the lion's share of the credit, organizing as he does the day-to-day activities of our Facebook and Twitter profiles.

“Open Unionism” was founded as an explicitly and exclusively Northern Irish website, which was intended, as now, to offer a platform to a wide range of writers on the issues facing Unionism in that province. Paul and I took over OU when its original editor, Geoff McGimpsey, decided to hang up his hat. He advertised on the site for people to take over, and since I had started blogging in a personal capacity some months previously, I decided that I would throw my own hat into the ring rather than see the only pluralist pro-Union site disappear from the internet.

Geoff told me that Paul had expressed an interest too, and due to the greater demands on his time (I was then a student) we quickly decided to team up, with me taking the editorial role and him the deputy. I'd been keen to get Paul back involved with the pro-Union blogscape since he stopped writing “A Pint of Unionist Lite”, so I was very pleased with the outcome. We both made the decision to broaden the remit of OU instead of keeping it focused exclusively on Northern Ireland when we took over.

P.T.:  I think the two of you make a very fine team, and your decision to broaden the scope of OU had quite a bit of foresight. With the Scottish Independence Referendum looming, the Union stands at a critical junction and is in need of a strong online presence. At this point, what is your prediction for the outcome of said Referendum? 

H. H.:  Although anything could happen, I think on present evidence the pro-union side will win the Referendum in 2014. The status quo tends to have an advantage going into any plebiscite, and with the Yes campaign polling so direly at the moment, I think they'd need a dramatic shake-up to really change the race.

P.T.:  If the No campaign wins this round, do you think the threat posed by the Scottish separatists will truly be gone?

H.H.:  No, probably not, at least not straight away. The damage defeat will do to the long-term interests of separatism really boils down to a few crucial and related issues.

First, how emphatic is the margin of victory. A close defeat could actually energize, rather than demoralize, the separatist cause as their activists see a once-impossible dream actually brought within reach. A really solid win for the Union, on the other hand, would leave the nationalists facing profound questions about where they go from here.

Second, and related to that, is what happens to the separatist movement - and the SNP in particular - in the event of Scotland rejecting their raison d'etre. Presumably the SNP will still want to be a force in Scottish politics, but how does it negotiate a political landscape where the constitutional question is neutralized, at least for a time? There are several possible points of fracture, first between the separatist die-hards and those who want to adjust their priorities to non-constitutional politics, and then within the second camp between those in the SNP who viewed independence as the root to a left-wing, even socialist country and those who are essentially Tories. Without the supreme constitutional issue to bind them together, how long will they be able to function in one party?

The third big issue comes down to how the unionists comport themselves, during the election and afterwards. If they try to fight the Referendum by offering Scots endless inducements, be it economic prizes or promises of 'more powers', then they waste all the effort Better Together put into getting a two-question referendum and undermine the capacity of Scots to emphatically endorse the Union. We need to make it clear that a No vote is not a vote for 'more powers', or a vote for a particular constitutional arrangement - it is a vote for Britain. If we don't then Nationalists can claim, as they did after the successful unionist campaigns in 1979, that Scots voted for a false prospectus and bring the constitution straight back to the table after some or other alleged devolutionary shortcoming.

It also matters how unionists use a referendum victory. It was said of Hannibal that he knew 'how to win a battle, but not how to use one', and the same applies here - even the most thumping of wins is meaningless if it is not exploited properly. Since 1998 unionists have known only one way of 'fighting' against separatism, and that was appeasement. There are many today, the federalists and so on, who can't envision a circumstance where the solution is not the continued diminution of the United Kingdom and the throwing of more bones to the nationalists. If that's the sort of unionism that governs the pro-union response to a No win, 2014 might not do us much good at all.

P.T.:  I have spoken with some Unionists who believe that a No win would put the Yes advocates into the same position as the Quebecois nationalists in Canada, their bark seeming to be much worse than their bite at this point. This is a pleasant thought, of course, but I wonder if it is perhaps also a dose of wishful thinking. What would you say?

H.H.:  The PQ are an interesting comparison, because they combine the SNP's constitutional potency with the deep linguo-cultural nationalism you see in Wales. As for losing their capacity to do harm? That depends. I regularly read the pro-federation Canadian newspaper the “National Post”, and they chronicle fairly well the continued efforts of the PQ to 'de-Canadianise' Quebec. They are currently bringing in a truly frightening new cultural control bill, and continually restrict the freedoms of Anglophone and Allophone Quebecers in their attempt to regain New France.

So yes, look to the PQ for an example of what might become of the separatists if their totemic issue is put on the back-burner. Expect to see a shift in focus towards 'de-Britishing' Scotland, undermining common institutions and any sense of common citizenship whilst striving to make the rest of the UK feel like a foreign place. Expect also much more effort to bad-mouth the English and other Britons in an attempt to sour pro-union feeling south of the border, much as the PQ work to build up resentment in the rest of Canada with their constant insistence on special treatment for their province.

Once again, it is worth remembering that the arch-devolutionaries, with their continued assaults on the United Kingdom's common institutions and those areas of government where the British are governed as the British, are aiding and abetting this process. We should not become so focused on maintaining the symbols of the UK - the passport, the flag, the mere existence of it - that we allow it to be hollowed out, diminished from a country to a sort of contract or alliance.

P.T.:  Speaking of national symbols, if Scotland broke away from The UK in 2014, what would become of the Union Jack since The Cross of St. Andrew is integral to the design?

H.H.:  I might be in the minority here, but I don't believe the remainder of The United Kingdom should change its flag should Scotland gain its independence. This is because I believe that the elements of the Union Jack must be the common property of every British subject. If one cross belongs to the English, one to the Scots, and one to the Irish, then, to bring up an old argument, what part belongs to the Welsh?

Perhaps more pertinently in an era when ethnic minorities are much more likely to identify as 'British only' than their white neighbours, what is there in the flag for those who aren't English, Scottish or Irish, but from some different part of the world altogether? I believe that although the design of our flag came from the union of three early-modern kingdoms, today it represents a union between seventy million modern people, and each of those people has an equal stake in every part of the flag.

P.T.:  Good points. I also feel that preserving the Union Jack might serve as a symbol of a British unity which once was and which continues to be deeply hoped for by many, even if it is not a current reality. Your thoughts on this?

H.H.:  If the UK were to break up, I can see the Union Jack fulfilling that role, but that could not be an official reason for retaining it, lest it be seen as a statement of irredentist intent by the Union remnant toward any new, democratically-chosen Scottish state.

P.T.:  Back to your original topic, how would you suggest making the best use of a potential unionist victory in the referendum and assuring that the mere existence of the Union does not become an empty shell devoid of real clout?

H.H.:  I would say the best use to make of any win in 2014 is to shift the terms of the debate away from "more powers". As I’ve said before, the underlying problem in the unionist response to devolution has been an apparent lack of faith in the legitimacy of 'Britain' as a source of governance - hence a constant willingness to hollow out The United Kingdom in the name of defending it.

2014 should be cast in such terms as to make a No vote an endorsement of the legitimacy of the concept of 'Britain', allowing any subsequent constitutional solution to contain a substantial role for the United parliament in Scottish affairs - far more substantial than the "foreign affairs, defense and welfare" backstop envisioned by the federalists.

The fight to secure a two-question ballot for the referendum was clearly fought with this eventuality in mind. However, certain people within the pro-Union camp are undermining all that effort by trying to claim that a No vote is a vote for 'more powers' and the 'next stage of devolution' - in effect removing the 'No' option from the ballot paper. This is not only ridiculous - the referendum is no more about the specific policies of the unionists than it is about Salmond's white paper - but it is poisoning the well of our own victory and offering the separatists a vital lifeline.

P.T.:  In the area of the Yes/No vote, I know quite a few people who are against independence, but who still see themselves as more Scottish than British. Do you think this referendum experience might give people a cause to reaffirm their joint identities?

H.H.:  I think that the decay in British identification is probably at the very heart of the current constitutional problems. Without it, nobody feels able to propose solutions rooted in 'Britain', nor defend existing institutions established on that basis. That is one of the reasons there are constant calls for 'more powers' and an unwillingness on the part of Unionists to defend Westminster and the proper role of 'London' in the governance of all parts of this United Kingdom. A re-emphasis on Britishness and a buttressing of British institutions is a must.

P.T.:  Personally, do you see yourself as being English first or British first?

H.H.:  Personally, I identify as British first - contrary to the present fashion for fragmentation. That I am English, at least part-English, is an empirical fact of geography, and I have no doubt that it informs who I am on countless subtle levels. But it's not the country I identify with. I do have some sympathy with England as proof that unions work - after all, as James I said to parliament in his first attempt at union, England was herself a union of the previous patchwork of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, and all the stronger for it.

P.T.:  I think the argument about the Anglo-Saxon unification rings as true today as when it was first proposed. A similar argument can be made regarding the tribes in Scotland, and the rest of the British Isles.

Unfortunately, the "Celtic" vs. "Saxon", red dragon vs. white dragon nationalist mythology seems to have pervaded the popular imagination to an unhealthy extent, pitting England against the other nations. To what degree do you believe the Celtic Revival has affected the way people view the Union?

H.H.:  The red and white dragon stuff is just nonsense. But the Celtic myth is one of the defining factors in the 'England vs. the rest' dichotomy nationalists try to bring up. The difference, insofar as I can see it, is that at the core of Celtic nationalism there is a 'pure', 'original' culture, trammeled by invaders and settlers, to which modern nationalists can ascribe any number of virtues.

Certainly many Irish Nationalists pinned many rather absurd hopes on the notion of 'the Gael' and 'an Irish Ireland', a pure and virtuous civilization beaten down by the English. An element of that underpins much Scottish and Welsh Nationalism too. Not only does pouring money into Celtic languages serve as an excellent means of separating 'us' from 'them', but you also frequently get notions that the crimes of this country's past - particularly the Empire - are somehow particularly England's fault. Scotland, in this analysis, would have been a humble, progressive little kingdom of no trouble to anybody.

The truth is that Scots and even many Irishmen were enthusiastic participants in the Empire, which was always viewed as a 'British' project. But these Scots and Irish can be portrayed by Nationalists as not being 'true' to their nation - having instead been corrupted by England. Thus Scots and Irishmen who contradict the narrative, by being British, are thus in some sense 'English'.

England, on the other hand, has no such core myth. There is no 'true' English race or culture with romantic imagery passed down from ancient times. Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Romans - the English are a cocktail of their conquerors, absorbing them and evolving their sense of identity to incorporate new things. Our 'colonization moment' probably occurred after the Battle of Hastings, yet English Nationalism does not hark back to a mythologized version of an almost Scandinavian England.

That is one reason why English Nationalism has been so admirably slow in awakening and is so hard to define. England has no lie to fall back on. When asked to describe Englishness, you can only reach for a set of virtues attached to some geography - which is the same as can be said for Britain. The lack of that perceived 'true England' is why the English had so little trouble becoming British, and have more difficulty blaming 'Britain' on their problems than the nationalists in the Celtic nations.

P.T.:  I am actually rather surprised English Nationalists haven't been quicker to fall back on their Anglo-Saxon past. J.R.R. Tolkien was close to embracing such a stance when he practically dedicated his life to recreating an Anglo-Saxon mythology. Why do you think there has been such nationalistic fervor for the Celts but hardly any towards a mythologized, Scandinavian England?

H.H.:  There's just no sentimental attachment to Anglo-Saxon motifs and imagery, or at least not enough and not the right sort to make it a fuel for English Nationalism. And frankly, that's to English Nationalism's - and England's - credit. The Anglo-Saxon era is a very remote time inhabited by very different people - they are not 'really us', any more than the Highlanders or Gaelic Irish are real versions of modern Scots or Irish people.

P.T.:  It’s an interesting analysis. I am personally a great lover of both Celtic and Anglo-Saxon cultures and languages, having studied their mythology and legends and learned elements of Gaelic, Welsh, and Old English for my music studies. While I think all these things have their place in world heritage and should be preserved as such, I do see your point about them being manipulated to create a divisive front.

In relation to this, how would you assess the damage done to the British national reputation by such lavishly produced but woefully misleading films emphasizing oppressed Celtic vs. oppressive Saxon or rebellious Americans vs. tyrannical Brits such as Braveheart, The Patriot, Rob Roy, and The Last of the Mohicans?

H.H.:  Braveheart certainly had a lamentable impact, but I've read that its influence may be generationally confined - support for independence is highest amongst the so-called 'Braveheart Generation' of the Nineties, with younger people markedly less enthusiastic. I'm not familiar with the American examples, and I think their influence on the UK situation is marginal. 

P.T.:  Moving along, where do you see yourself going from here with regards to your personal involvement with political Unionism?

H.H.:  Personally? Well, I'll obviously keep on top of OU. I hope that I will work for six months at British Future, a think tank which explores questions of national identity and immigration, which should deepen my understanding of the issues involved. After that, who knows? I would like to work in politics in journalism, and in either field I intend to remain a committed defender of the Union.

P.T.:  Aside from politics, do you have any other interests and hobbies of note?

H.H.:  Well, I'm an avid war-gamer - not so much tabletop stuff, but there are certain online strategy games which I enjoy. They provide an endless source of puzzles to solve in addition to letting me flex my creative muscles by doing writing work for them. I do enjoy writing fiction, and although I've not yet taken a stab at a single story, writing up other people's exploits is always enjoyable. I also play tactical card games.

Beyond that...well, I'm not sure if it counts as a hobby, but I do enjoy cooking. I'm not one to break out recipe books on an evening off or throw dinner parties, but I do enjoy experimenting when cooking for myself. I'm an enthusiastic carnivore, so its meat and pasta, mainly. It's never particularly sophisticated, but it is fun and normally fairly tasty.

Stepping away from my inner geek, I'm also a keen walker and swimmer and a dabbler in racket sports. I have recently started playing badminton, which I thoroughly enjoy for its emphasis on speed and precision, and have played tennis for years.

P.T.:  I also know from past conversations that you are quite well-traveled. Can you tell us a little bit about which places you’ve enjoyed visiting the most?

H.H.: I have traveled a fair bit. I wish I had the lifestyle to claim travelling was a hobby of mine, but I take every opportunity to travel when they present themselves. Perhaps it is some secret inner libertarian, but I tend to find I most enjoy travelling to places with fewer rules: The USA, Malawi, and Romania were all enjoyable trips, not least because they held out the forbidden prospect of smoking indoors. I'm not a habitual smoker, as it happens, but I'll cadge a cigarette with a roof over my head just for the satisfaction! I've also been to several places in Western Europe and on a school exchange to Beijing.

P.T.:  Hey, you have good taste; The USA rocks ;-)

Thanks so much for sharing your opinions, interests, and experiences, Mr. Hill. It’s been a pleasure interviewing you.

H.H.:  It was no trouble at all. Thank you.