Interview with Alistair McConnachie, Founder of “A Force for Good”

Pearl of Tyburn:  Coming to us from Glasgow, Scotland, we have Mr. Alistair McConnachie, founder of the pro-UK project "A Force for Good", involving a Unionist website that publishes regular articles and speeches, an online store, video outreach work, pro-UK graphic creation, and street activism. Hello, Mr. McConnachie.

Alistair McConnachie:  Hello. Thanks for the interview.

P.T.:  You're most welcome. Could you please tell me a little something about your background and outline what national/cultural/religious identities you may have?

A.M.:  I'm British. Family background is Church of Scotland. I love the United Kingdom, and have loved it since my childhood. I'm upset at the extent to which separatism has caught on in Scotland, and I'm doing what I can to keep Britain united for the good of all.

P.T.:  When did you start taking an active role in Unionism, and what was the inspiration behind it? Also, have you had any other involvement in politics?

A.M.:  I began taking an active role in the No to Separation campaign when I launched the website, “A Force for Good”, on 21 March, 2012. I was inspired to do something because the No campaign up to that point did not appear to be happening!

I've been involved in UK politics actively since the General Election in 1997. I've stood for election at European, British, Scottish and Council levels. I also published the only monthly, non-party anti-EU newsletter in the UK - and the only one in Scotland of any kind - for 10 years, 120 consecutive monthly issues. It was called "Sovereignty".

P.T.:  What do you think of the comparison between the Yes and No campaigns? What's your opinion on the way things are progressing in both camps thus far?

A.M.:  The official No Campaign, “Better Together”, does a decent job of getting people onto the street to do stalls, leafleting and canvassing. But I am very concerned at the moment that BT and the Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians associated with it are in danger of winning the short-term battle for a No vote on 18 September, but are likely to provide the means for the separatists to bounce back the very next day. This is because Labour, Lib Dems, and their colleagues in the official BT campaign are obsessing far too much with delivering "more powers" for the Scottish Parliament.

That is exactly what the separatists want. So even if they are defeated, the long term path will have been paved for them by the Labour and Lib Dem parties. This would be catastrophic and will almost certainly see the separatists back for another referendum the very next time they win governing control of the Parliament, which could be in 2016. I wrote about this extensively here: http://www.aforceforgood.org.uk/devo/dm5

P.T.:  Don't you think the Scottish people as a whole will be pretty sick of "neverendums" by 2016 and not eager to start the process again?

A.M.:  That’s not how it works. Politicians in power do what they want, whether the public wants it or not. The nationalists will not sit about "for a generation". They will always grasp any opportunity, without regard for the public's concerns.

P.T.:  What would be your suggestion as a way to prevent this resurgence of separatism and keep nationalist politicians from trying to launch another referendum?

A.M.:  We must concentrate on winning overwhelming. 70-30 at the bare minimum. However, it could be a lot higher than this. The UK is a wonderful product. There is a hard core of separatists, possibly 1 in 5. Their vote should be driven right down to that level. That can be done easily by concentrating on the greatness of Britain and Britishness and by capturing the public's imagination with great policies for the UK.

However, muddling the debate with more constitutional changes will only confuse the public and lose us votes. So the first thing is to win overwhelmingly and we will not be able to do that if we are confusing the debate with "more powers". Once we have won, we want to have created the circumstances where the nationalists should split, fall out, and consume themselves, politically speaking. However, if we offer them more powers, they will regenerate themselves very quickly.

P.T.:  What's your opinion of Alex Salmond and his campaign?

A.M.:  My own feeling is that Salmond never really expected to be in the position he finds himself in now. He runs a very tight ship. All the SNP MSPs obey him. His followers are almost cult-like in adoration. If they lose in September, they could implode badly, which is what we want to see - although as I say, many in the Labour and Lib Dem parties are doing their best to lay out a nice bouncy bed for the SNP to fall onto.

P.T.:  What do you think SNP politicians stand to gain from all this should they win? And what do you think of the Scottish Parliament in general?

A.M.:  Good questions. Nobody will benefit if Scotland breaks away from the rest of the UK. A lot of the people who vote SNP do not really understand the consequences of so doing. They don't understand that a vote for the SNP is not just a vote to try to make the buses run on time, but it is a vote for a party which has a hard core of strongly anti-British people who make the policies and set the social and cultural agenda. They don't have any points which cannot be addressed by good government at a UK level.

Remember, prior to 1999 we did not have a Parliament in Edinburgh. Somehow everybody managed to get on just fine. Houses and new towns were built, trains ran, hospitals worked and education was very good. The whole idea that we even needed "devolution" was actually nonsense - a Labour Party ploy to try to counteract the SNP - yeah, that worked out!

P.T.: How do you think so many people became so "anti-British"? A lot of them claim it's somehow historically based, but Scottish involvement in British history puts paid to that theory. What do you think is the genesis of some of these vitriolic emotions?

A.M.:  I wouldn't say "so many" in the UK are anti-British (can't speak for the USA). Certainly there are quite a few in the SNP who fit that description, though. Historical hang-ups seem to factor heavily if examples on social media are anything to go by. Some of these Scots have also got slightly weird hang-ups about the English too - tied into historical grievance, and classist prejudice.

Some of them cannot make the distinction between "Britain" and "England" either, and they mistakenly conflate England with Britain. I'm on a mission to encourage us all to understand and appreciate our shared British identity - which is a Great identity. I gave a speech about it recently and it already has 1,300 Facebook Likes, which is not insubstantial http://www.aforceforgood.org.uk/shared/british1

P.T.:  That's great, congratulations on your work and the response.

A.M.:  Thanks.

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?

A.M.:  Separatists are more prone, than people like me, to get excited about a war 700 years ago. Hopefully, though, very few people will base their decision on the rights and wrongs of that period. Similarly, the Act of Union in 1707. The charge of "selling out" has been overplayed.

However, even if the political behaviour of some of the people involved included elements of self-interest, then I can certainly overlook that because it set in motion a train of events which would lead to the creation of the wonderful United Kingdom! Separatists have a tendency to live in the past. They get upset at what happened in 1707 without thinking about the 307 years since then. It is as if those 307 years never happened.

P.T.:  So what would your comments be on the Act of Union in general? Also, in brief, what is your reaction to the claim that the current Scottish monarchy is “illegitimate” because of the Jacobite Rebellions? I’m thinking of Hazel Whyte, folk-singer, in particular!

A.M.:  My comments in general on the Act of Union? As the kids would say, "It was the Shiznit". My reaction to the claim of "illegitimacy" would be, *Rolls Eyes*. Hazel Whyte, never heard of her and by the sound of it I don't want to.

P.T.:  What is "Shiznit"?

A.M.:  You're an American. You've never heard of the expression. I don't think it is anything except a funny phrase.

P.T.:  So.....it was funny?

A.M.:  No, it was Most Excellent, Dude!

P.T.:  Okay, like, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!

A.M.:  Fandabidozi. By Jove, I think she's got it!

P.T.:  Who do you think are a few important historical characters for Unionists to remember and bring up when the Nationalists claim "Scottishness" and "Britishness" are somehow opposed and always have been?

A.M.:  Admiral Duncan, Nelson's mentor. David Livingstone and Mary Slessor, whose morality found an outlet through the British Empire. David Stirling, the Founder of the SAS. That's four who occur off the top of my head.

P.T.:  With your well-rounded knowledge of British history, do you feel that some motions pictures (such as Braveheart, The Patriot, Rob Roy, The Last of the Mohicans, etc.) have helped bolster the nationalist agenda by vilifying Britain as a whole and creating a false sense of historical identity that some people like to associate themselves with?

A.M.:  I haven't seen any of the films you mention, although I have Braveheart and Rob Roy in my DVD collection and must watch them one day. My impression is that Braveheart has been influential. Certainly, generally speaking, all films are culturally and socially influential in society, and often not in a good way. I am a keen student of film for those reasons. Also, a lot of films are "good" technically but "bad" morally. I'd like to write a lot more on this one day.

P.T.: I completely agree with you about the "good" tech/ "bad" moral elements in films. I would always rather watch a laid-back, heart-felt, middle-to-low budget movie with an excellent plot and full-bodied characters than a glitz-and-glitter epic with cheap stories and characters.

Speaking of films, I've watched quite a few of your own YouTube videos and enjoyed them very much, especially the one about William Wallace and another about the Glasgow RAF pilots.

A.M.:  Thanks, the one on William Wallace has close to 1,400 views now. We wanted to do many more this year, but have not been able to raise the funding so far. Anyone who wants to watch them can go to YouTube/UKaForceForGood.

P.T.:  What inspired you to take up the camcorder and hit the streets? And who do you have helping you with production and filming?

A.M.:  It was a friend of mine who suggested it. I'm very glad he did because it is a great medium. Once I decided to do it, though, it was a big commitment. It required considerable expense to get the (near to) top of the range equipment, as well as to dedicate time to learning the skill, which includes editing the film. The next video is going to be me doing a straight to camera piece. We've acquired the indoor lights and reflectors and are ready to go. I've got so many ideas for short films, I'm glad to say. I won't run out of inspiration.

P.T.:  You mentioned to me previously that you actually shot a film today. What was it about?

A.M.:  A colleague and I took a fabulous Union Jack up a hill outside Glasgow which overlooks Loch Lomond and Ben Lomond. We have made a stand which we peg into the ground. I filmed it - I have a very good prosumer camera - fluttering in the breeze with such beautiful scenery behind it. It looked awesome. Look out for various cuts of the film making an appearance in my YouTube videos. Video work is something I want to get into a lot more, but have been limited to date through lack of funds.

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

A.M.:  The British Armed Forces are one of the ways in which a sense of Britishness is transmitted throughout the United Kingdom. This was especially the case about 35 years ago when there were still many local regiments throughout the United Kingdom, recruited locally. Unfortunately, both Conservative and Labour parties have run down the Armed Forces and much of the local regimental structure has been destroyed. All this has a negative impact upon Britishness.

I believe in spending more on the Armed Forces. I'm especially pleased to see the building of two new aircraft carriers - both of which are being built in Scotland. We need more of this if the UK is to continue to be militarily strong. Relatively speaking, the British Armed Forces, depleted though they are, are still among the world's finest and have the furthest "reach" of any military forces in the world, with the exception of the USA. We have very far-reaching diplomatic links, and bases throughout the world as a consequence of our former Empire. All the remaining "British Overseas Territories" are all very strategically located. A separated Scotland would lose all of this, and for no gain.

P.T.:  Do you have any personal or family connections to the military yourself? My grandfather was an army man, American of course!

A.M.:  I was born to an Army family in Hong Kong, and my father remained in the Army for the first 5 or so years of my life. My grandfather on my father's side was a Captain in the Royal Marines during WW2.

P.T.:  What's your opinion on the monarchy and its relationship with the union? Also, I watched a speech from her Silver Jubilee in which she spoke out in favor of preserving the union. Even though she is officially "apolitical", do you think she might speak out again leading up to September?

A.M.:  I'm a supporter of the British Monarchy. The speech at the Silver Jubilee was only a very subtle mention, and it is arguable if it was deliberate. No, I don't think she will speak out prior to September. I would like to see the next Royal Baby, God Willing, born in Scotland. That would be a wonderful apolitical statement for the United Kingdom. The last Royal to be born in Scotland was Princess Margaret. I have always advocated that Royal Babies should be born in a rota fashion in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales.

P.T.:  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?

A.M.:  I'm all for that. Anyone who is British has a stake in this and their voices should and need to be heard, although only people resident and registered to vote in Scotland will be able to vote on the day.

P.T.:  But do you think it might look a bit "forced" or have an opposite effect on people north of the border?

A.M.:  No, not if it is done as just part of their normal activity, whether on Facebook, or friends at work, or speaking to the family on the telephone and so on. What he is saying really, is "This is important. It affects us all. Make sure you get involved." People in the rest of the UK who want to help can also donate money. I would urge them to help my efforts at aForceForGood.org.uk (details on the site).

P.T.:  I think Cameron was also taking the example of Canadians in the last Quebec independence referendum, and their basic “plea” that Quebec would stick it out and stay in the country. What do you think about the continuing strain in Quebec over separation, and what parallels can be drawn with Scotland?

A.M.:  The parallel is not particularly close since British Canada is culturally (and ethnically) distinct from French Canada in a way that Scotland and England is not. I do note, though, that British Canada has not benefited in any way by appeasing them and their language laws. That is a lesson when dealing with these people in Scotland. For separatists "too much is never enough", and is always "too little too late".

P.T.:  What’s your opinion on “Scotland’s Oil”, as well as the Nationalist complaints about the “rape” of Scottish land?

A.M.:  The people who are "raping" Scottish land right now are the so-called SNP government, its supporters, and the people who voted for it, who promote and who have facilitated the mass desecration of the Scottish landscape with wind turbines. That is truly a crime against the environment. As for “Scotland’s Oil”, well, it is Britain's Oil. The idea of hoarding it for "Scotland" is ridiculous and selfish.

P.T.:  How do you think a “Yes” vote might be emotionally affecting for the Scottish people, especially those with familial and business ties that transcend the border? (Sounds a little bit like the plot of Passport to Pimlico!)

A.M.:  Emotionally, separation would be very upsetting for all the people in Scotland who have a British identity, and catastrophic for a few. Here is the thing. Right now, everyone who wants to be as "Scottish" as they want, can be as "Scottish" as they want within the Union. But will those of us who are British be able to be British outside of the Union. In time it would become very hard and eventually almost impossible. We have an historical precedent. It is virtually impossible to express a British identity in the Republic of Ireland today.

Transcending the border is a good point, but mentally and spiritually - not just physically - all British people "transcend the border". Indeed, why is there even a "border" separating Scotland from England? It all goes back to the Romans dividing the country in two with Hadrian's Wall. Without that, we might have been spared this "Scotland" v "England" carry on. There is a good programme on BBC about this right now, with Rory Stewart MP pointing out some of this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0404r3t/Border_Country_The_Story_of_Britains_Lost_Middleland_Episode_1/  

P.T.:  Although it must be very hard to make a prediction at this point, which side do you think is likely to win come September? Should the “No” campaign win, do you think more people might come to see themselves as having dual identities? And what do you think will happen to the SNP?

A.M.:  The No side must win, or Scotland will regress. Scotland's destiny is to be part of Britain. Yes, more people will eventually come to see themselves as British. It is inevitable. That is one good thing which is coming out of this campaign. The Britishness of Scots is getting a much-needed airing. The work that I am doing is contributing to that too.

As for the SNP - it depends the extent to which the other Unionist parties attempt to appease them. Appeasement will only make the SNP stronger. Unionist parties should strategise to marginalise the SNP. I've written about that here http://www.aforceforgood.org.uk/devo/dm5

P.T.:  To wrap things up, could you tell us what you plan for your future, personally and politically, especially as the referendum heats up? Also, could you tell us a little about your personal interests, hobbies, and goals in life?

A.M.:  Right now it is all about the Referendum. Politics is what I do, full time. At the same time, I want to develop my efforts at pro-UK film-making. I really enjoy that, I'm good at it, and I want people to come forward and join me in that effort. My contact details are on my website. I need people who will help fund the operation too. Right now, those are the things I'm concentrating upon. Pearl, it has been a pleasure and I've really enjoyed this interview. Thank you.

P.T.:  And thank you for taking out the time to do this. Your country should be proud of you for your efforts.

A.M.:  Thank you, Pearl. Good night and God Bless.

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.