Interview with Jonathan Robert Waddell, Student at the University of Aberdeen

P.T.:  Today I’ll be speaking with Jonathan Robert Waddell, a Student of History and Economics at the University of Aberdeen. Hello, Mr. Waddell.

J.W.:  Hello!

P.T.:  First could you tell me a bit about your background?

J.W.:  I'm from the north east of Scotland, studied at Aberdeen College, now North East Scotland College and moved on to study History and Economics at the University of Aberdeen. I'm president of the Aberdeen University Liberal Democrats and I'm campaigning for a Federal Britain through quite radical constitutional change post-no vote in September.

P.T.:  Could you please explain what type of constitutional changes you would be interested in seeing? And would the federalization be similar to that in the USA?

J.W.:  Starting with a full transfer of domestic policy to be handled by the devolved parliaments of the UK, the creation of an English parliament or maybe regional assemblies within England. From there I believe we can start to consider what we want our union to look like, how it will function on a constitutional basis and where we want to take it. I believe the model the Scottish parliament currently has is a great direction to take the other parliaments in.

P.T.:  How does this contrast with the situation as it is now?

J.W.:  As it stands, the current powers the Scottish and UK parliaments have in relation to each other, are defined by what are 'reserved' powers at Westminster, the Scottish parliament handles everything else. And then all of this to be embodied in a fully written, codified and entrenched constitution. I feel a system like this would give the Devolved parliaments the autonomy they deserve and need to run a success Federal UK. It's very ambitious and will require a lot of hard work, but I believe it's achievable if we work hard enough for it.

P.T.:  What do you think about the participants in the movement to bring about Scottish independence?

J.W.:  It's hard to say. In all debates I take part in and campaigns I respect my opponent and in many cases get on very well with them. Some of my best friends are Labour and Tories when I’m a Liberal Democrat.

In this debate I feel it's been so polarized that I’ve not had the opportunity to really make friends with them, and although I don't wish to make out that there has been no potential guilt on the Unionist side, I do feel that from my personal experience, the Independence movement has been much less accepting and much more hostile which has led me to find it hard to respect them while disagreeing with their campaign.

P.T.:  What are your reasons for being a unionist?

R.W.:  To me it's how we can use our resources to the best possible ends. I feel the various countries within the UK all have their various different strengths and all have very similar problems and very similar aims. If we work together, pool what resources we have, put all of our best minds together and work against our common enemies of poverty or homelessness, then we can do better to reach our common goals and eradicate these things.

I don't see what I have largely more in common with my neighbour in Scotland than my family in England or Wales. Ultimately, I feel the system we have is a good one, it's far from perfect and the policy isn't always right but the system itself has so much potential to work to the benefit of 63m people rather than just 5m. I want to make the best of that system for the benefit of everyone in the UK, including Scotland.

P.T.:  What would your consider your personal identities, national/cultural/religious/or otherwise? What do you think of the "crisis of identity" in Britain?

R.W.:  Well, this is probably the toughest part in the debate. Nationalists to me seem to be concerned with the Scottish identity and little else. But I don't really understand what that means. Cultural identity means so much more than the political boundaries you're parents were born in. My parents are from the central belt and I have a bit of that in me, but I was raised in the north east, in a town called Banchory, and then in Aberdeen. Hence, I’m a 'Taucher' and a 'Toonser' then I guess 'Scottish' and as part of that 'British' and of course, 'European'.

But all these things have so much to them they can mean whatever you want them to mean. I think the idea that you can be 'Scottish' is inherently not Scottish. As Scotland is made up of so many various, extremely rich cultural identities that to be Scottish could mean any number of things. As for the identity in Britain, we're in an increasingly internationalist and globalizing world and I feel clutching onto old ideas of Nationalism of any description is living in the past and we should start to expand our ideas into the modern world.

P.T.:  Do you believe that there is any place for a robust British identity, something along the lines of what is shown in America throughout the individual states?

R.W.:  I really hope not. I find both nationalism and patriotism quite futile ideals, the belief that your nationality is inherently good and others inferior and the idea that you can be proud of achievements you had no place in. I love where I live, and as an extension of that of course I love Scotland.

I want what's best for all the people who live here, but I want what's best for anyone living anywhere. Why wouldn't I want to extend a higher standard of living to anyone I can whenever I can? I consider myself an internationalist in that regard. I want what's best for the greater amount of people.

P.T.:  What is your view on the way history effects and informs the present? What do you think about the different "narratives" presented by nationalist and unionist camps in this debate?

J.W.:  Well, I'm a History student, and I would like to introduce the age old, over used yet under appreciated quote from George Santayana 'Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it'. I think we need to understand our past and the context to understand where we are today, learn from our mistakes and move forward from them.

I must admit whenever I bring history into the debate, nationalists like to tell me that 'this debate isn't about the past, the independence movement is about the future' before dropping into some narrative about some supposedly horrible thing 'Westminster' did way back when, completely contradicting themselves.

P.T.:  Being a student of history, what do you think of the referendum being held on the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn and the whole connection with the wars of Scottish independence in general?

J.W.:  I think in a historical context, it's completely irrelevant. The wars of independence are not only so far in the past it can't be compared to modern day events and we can't allow ourselves to judge events of the past by today’s standards, but even if we could compare them, it was a very different situation that we were in.

However, I think it's very of the SNP’s outlook and tactics to make it this year. They are desperate to inspire an idea of Scottishness over Britishness. But we've already discussed the idea of identity. In short, I feel the SNP think they can inspire people to vote with their hearts and distract people from their flimsy arguments on economics and practicalities.

P.T.:  What do you feel about the monarchy?

J.W.:  Generally passive on the idea. I feel they don't have any divine right to rule, but they have no real power and exercise purely ceremonial powers. They contribute more to the treasury than they receive out of it and are generally favourable in public opinion as well as being hugely respected diplomats across the world. I see no reason to get rid of them, but they exist as a formality, if they exercised real power I’d be far more skeptical.

P.T.:  What do you think of them as they apply to the subject of unity? And what is your opinion on the Jacobite rebellions as they are being used in Nat propaganda? And with regards to them making the current Scottish monarchy "illegitimate"?

J.W.:  I think this moves us into a much broader debate that moves us away from the contentious issues that the referendum will be won and lost on. In general, I don't feel these historical events contribute to the context that we're debating in the run up to the referendum.

P.T.:  Thanks so much for the interview, Jonathan.

J.W.:  Sure! It's nice to get different questions for a change by the way. I've answered the same questions over and over, but these are bit different and I like that :) I've done so many debates and interviews. Same issues, same questions, over and over again. This is a nice change. I’m glad you're getting involved! :)

P.T.: Could you tell us a little bit about yourself personally?

J.W.:  I'm 22! :) I'm afraid I’m a complete nerd. At university I do a lot of debating and in my free time I like to go hill walking, rock climbing and cross country mountain biking. I also play guitar and drums, punk/rock etc.

P.T.:  Thank you for taking the time to be interviewed. I do hope everything works out well in the end for you and all of us.

J.W.:  Thanks; me too.

Interview with Donna Edmunds, Councillor for Lewes, Sussex

Pearl of Tyburn:  Tonight we have Ms. Donna Edmunds from Sussex, England. Thank you for taking the time out for this.

Donna Edmunds: You're welcome.

P.T.:  Could you elaborate a little about your background and work?

D.E.:  Yes. I have a degree in Zoology, and after graduating spent a number of years trying out different careers. Eventually, in 2009 I got a job at the European Parliament with an MEP, doing research and other bits and pieces - writing blogs for him and helping to organise a conference, that sort of thing

I spent 18 months in Brussels, then a year in London working for an MP, then I stopped work to have my daughter, but have run a few projects on the side voluntarily since then. I'm also a councilor on my local District Council

P.T.:  Identity wise, do you see yourself having any particular national/cultural/religious identities? And do you consider yourself predominately English or British?

D.E.:  I consider myself to be equally British and English. My mother is an immigrant (she was born in Ukraine), so I also identify a little with people from an immigrant background - we have Russian dolls in the house, my mother and grandmother speak Russian to each other etc. But I've always felt very English/British, and not at all Russian or Ukrainian.

To me, being both English and British isn't a contradiction. I live in Sussex, which is on the South coast of England, as it's the same thing to me as saying "I'm English and Southern". England feels like a region of Britain that I identify with. So I don't see Scotland as a foreign country, but nor do I feel in any way Scottish (because I'm not!)

P.T.:  So what is your reaction to The Scottish Independence Referendum?

D.E.:  Well, I feel a little sad that there are people in Scotland who feel so strongly about independence that they would campaign so vigorously for a referendum. When I think about our history as a joined nation, I feel just as proud of achievements of Scottish people as I do of people from Yorkshire or Devon or Wales. We're all British, no matter where on the island we live. But if they want independence, that's up to them.

Having said that, if we English got a vote on Scottish independence in September, I'd be tempted to vote for Independence. But maybe I wouldn't actually vote that way when it came down to it. I don't know.

P.T.:  What issues make you lean that way?

D.E.:  At the moment the way devolution has taken place means that the Scottish get much more Government money spent on them than the English do. For example, if you're a Scottish student studying at a Scottish university you don't have to pay fees, whereas an English student studying at the same university does have to pay. That doesn't seem very fair to me.

Also, the politicians in Scotland are very socialist. A (slightly mean) part of me thinks "let them have a go at socialism and see how it works out. They'll come back soon enough when the money runs out" But it's not a very noble way of viewing the whole thing, which is why I say that my emotional attachment to Scotland would probably prevail in the end.

P.T.:  Do you think there is a way of making government assistance programs fairer in all parts of the UK?

D.E.:  Not without reversing devolution. The problem is that all tax money is collected centrally, but then Scottish and Welsh parliamentarians get to set the rules on how they spend their money. It's no wonder that they keep giving their people freebies - all they have to do is demand more from Whitehall.

P.T.:  What do you think of the "historical" connections some Scottish nationalists have tried to make with Bannockburn, the Jacobites, etc.?

D.E.:  I think it's inevitable that they'll use history in that way to make their case. If their goal is to paint Scotland as having been conquered, so that they can claim to be setting Scotland free again, any historical imagery that brings that case to life will be used. I think it's up to those who don’t' want to see Scotland split from GB to do likewise, by highlighting our rich shared military and social history. And of course it must be pointed out that Scotland was never conquered, but the two countries were brought together under James.

P.T.:  Speaking of military, what sort of challenges do you think an independent Scotland would face without the armed forces and general international clout of the UK?

D.E.:  Militarily I don't think they'd face huge problems as a country. I can't see any other country wanting to invade Scotland any time soon. But there's no doubt that they would have a vastly reduced standing on the world stage, and would be unable to play a leading role in major strategic maneuvers - which of course they might be quite happy with, to be honest. The wars that Britain has joined over the last couple of decades haven't been very popular. They are talking about joining the EU though, so they'll have representation in Europe at least.

As for the military specifically, again, some of the Scottish regiments are highly regarded and have illustrious histories within the British army. Would they be dissolved? Would English people serving within them be asked to leave? Disentangling the affairs of the two nations would take quite some doing.

P.T.:  What do you think of Alex Salmond vs. Alistair Darling?

D.E.: Alex Salmond is a very accomplished politician. To even get as far as securing a referendum takes quite some doing. He's clearly charismatic and good at persuading people to back his cause.

Darling, by contrast, is a very workmanlike figure. Even as Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is the highest ranking minister in the Cabinet, he was completely forgettable. I guess they chose him to front the campaign because he's Scottish and has held high office, but he's hardly the most inspirational of people. The whole 'No' campaign has been a bit lackluster, to be honest. So much so that it has occurred to me that they might be trying to lose!

P.T.:  What suggestions would you give to Better Together to improve things?

D.E.:  I think they need to paint a more positive picture of the Union in general, and appeal more to emotions. A lot of the debate is over whether people would be £200 richer or poorer if Scotland went independent. Well, you're talking about overturning 300 years of history and splitting countless families across two countries.

The nature of the debate should be more inspiring than how much money you'll have in your pocket in the short term. A little bit more discussion about how, by working together as fellow countrymen, Scots and Englishmen have accomplished all sorts of major achievements

P.T.:  Many of the people I have interviewed have said the exact same thing. How do you think that can be driven home to Better Together?

D.E.:  I'm not sure, really. It's not as if those sorts of things aren't being said out loud in our media, after all. A lot of people have commented on the uninspiring nature of the campaign. I think one of the problems is that it's not very fashionable to be patriotic at the moment. If you start talking about how Great Britain is people assume you're a bit of a bigot or racist. So perhaps they just feel embarrassed to be making that kind of appeal to emotion.

P.T.:  How do you think it might become more fashionable to be patriotic?

D.E.:  Oh, well, that's a big question! I think if UKIP, which is unashamedly patriotic, do well in the elections next year people might feel more comfortable expressing patriotic viewpoints. On the other hand, those who oppose UKIP have done so loudly and viciously, that people might feel more than ever that they couldn't say anything publically, even if they do vote UKIP at the ballot box.

It's mostly the fashionable London elite and the middle classes who find patriotism distasteful. How do you turn their opinions around? Can you? Who knows?!

This is why I say I wonder whether they really have their hearts in this campaign to keep Britain united.

P.T.:  Can you give me a little summary of UKIP policies?

D.E.:  First and foremost, we want Britain to leave the EU and become a sovereign nation again. We'd like to see Britain start to trade more freely with the rest of the world, and in particular restrengthen ties with the Commonwealth.

At home, we're a classical liberal party, so low taxes, small government, quite socially liberal. Although we have come under a lot of fire recently for saying that we'd like immigration to be better managed and for the total overall number of immigrants entering the country each year to be brought down, which isn't strictly speaking libertarian.

P.T.:  The UKIP did very well in the EU election, didn't it?

D.E.:  Came first.

P.T.:  What kind of power does that give the party?

D.E.:  None really. It makes it a little harder for the other parties to ignore us. For example Nigel Farage (the leader) has said that he will insist on being included in leaders’ debates at the next election. But it doesn't give us any electoral power.

P.T.:  Do you think pulling out of the EU would strengthen unity in the UK?

D.E.:  That's a good question. I don't know really, since devolution has given Scotland and Wales a more separate identity than they had before. I guess a case could be made for Britain being a sovereign nation once again and everyone pulling together to make it succeed. But I don't know how well that would go down in Scotland.

P.T.:  To wrap things up, what do you see in the future for your political career and personally?

D.E.: Well, I recently stood in the European Parliamentary elections in the South East, and missed out on getting a seat - but I am 'first reserve' on the list if anyone drops out, so I'm hoping that at least one of our four South East MEPs will be elected to Westminster next May as I'll pick up their MEP seat.

Other than that, I've just applied for a job heading up the Get Britain Out campaign, which as the name implies is an anti-EU campaign. So I'm sure lots more campaigning and blogging and that sort of thing. And personally, hopefully staying living in Sussex as my daughter really likes our local nursery. Although I wouldn't turn down a job offer in the States!

P.T.:  Do you have any special interests/hobbies?

D.E.:  I do a bit of horseback riding. This is going to sound very sad, but politics is my hobby as well as my career, so I read a lot of political books and magazines - when I get the time. Mostly I'm kept busy being a mother and taking part in campaigns.

P.T.: Hey, it's nice you love what you do!

D.E.: Yeah! I'm very lucky.

P.T.: Thanks so much for taking the time out to do it!

D.E.: You're very welcome. I hope it's useful

Interview with “Bonnie Lass”, Resident of the Edinburgh Area

Pearl of Tyburn:  This evening we have with us “Bonnie Lass” from the Edinburgh area of Scotland. Thanks so much for taking the time out to do this.

Bonnie Lass:  My pleasure!

P.T.:  First, could you give me a brief overview of your background and what national/cultural/religious identities you might see yourself as having?

B.L.:  I was born in Scotland and have lived in Scotland all my life. I think of myself as Scottish and not British - if I'm filling up forms, for instance, and am asked for nationality, I always put Scottish. I'm a member of the Church of Scotland, but prefer to call myself a Christian.

P.T.:  Do you belong to any particular political party?

B.L.:  I am not a member of any political party, but I have voted Labour for many years now (including today at the European elections).

P.T.:  What was your first impression when the Scottish Independence Referendum was announced?

B.L.:  I wasn't entirely surprised, as I thought it had been on the cards for a while. But when it was announced, I realised this would be a big step, whichever way it went.

P.T.:  As a person who sees herself as primarily Scottish as opposed to British, how will you vote in the referendum come September, and what are your reasons? 

B.L.: Well, although I think of myself as Scottish in all things, I will NOT be voting for independence when the time comes.

It seems to me that the UK is a small enough country as it is without being fragmented further. And there are SO MANY imponderables when it comes to independence. Do we get to keep the pound sterling? What about EU membership, and maybe even the need for passports to cross the border into England?

P.T.: What do you think the result will be now that an independent Scotland may be unable to keep the pound? Also, what’s your opinion on Scotland’s overall financial well-being should she become independent?

B.L.:  Many big companies are talking about relocating in England if we became independent because we may no longer have the pound.

I don't know if we have enough financial resources to 'go it alone'. The big cry has always been (since drilling started in the North Sea) "It's Scotland's oil" - but how long before the oil runs out?

P.T.:  What do you think of the Scottish Parliament and other home rule bodies within the UK? And what’s your answer to the claim that complete independence would make Scotland more of a force to be reckoned with on the world stage?

B.L.:  Well, I was delighted when we got the Scottish Parliament as it meant we were able to concentrate on purely Scottish issues, some of which Westminster doesn't know or doesn't care about. But I don't think that independence would make us more a force to be reckoned with.

Having “home rule” doesn’t necessitate independence from the Union. One alternative which is spoken about is 'devo-max', which seems to mean we would keep the status quo but, that the Scottish Parliament would also be given more powers, perhaps in taxes etc. That could be a good alternative in my opinion.

P.T.:  What are you thoughts on Alex Salmond and his independence campaign?

B.L.:  A lot of us wonder if Alex Salmond has some self-interest at heart. Perhaps if someone different was in charge, I would feel differently about it all, but such is the case. The question is how much are people swayed by personalities?

P.T.:  Do you think that celebrities who outspoken on the issue of Scottish independence are affecting are affecting the opinions of the Scottish people at all?

B.L.:  Is it really supposed to sway us? It doesn't alter my views. It annoys me the way that this host of ‘famous’ people - from film stars to comedians to personalities – are stating their views, for or against. For example, Sean Connery is all for Scottish independence, which, of course, is countered by the fact that he doesn't even live here!

P.T.: Now I hear that his Agent 007 counterpart, Roger Moore, is vouching for the preservation of the UK. The War of the Bonds seems to have begun!

B.L.: Oh, dear!

P.T.: Do you think there is something of a different tone in the Scottish nationalist movement of today and nationalists in past generations?

B.L.:  There was a difference in the nationalist cause back when they 'liberated' the Stone of Scone, and now. Somehow they seemed quite different but can't identify quite exactly how. It was more historically based than politically back then, I think.

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

B.L.:  I think it's quite confusing. Even now, when people ask if I'm going to vote yes or no, I sometimes have to say, er....what's the question again?! It's quite loaded making the positive answer the one for independence, isn't it?

P.T.:  Indeed. In fact, I would think it would be more natural for "yes" to be in favor of the status quo.

B.L.:  You're right! Perhaps that's why I get confused. Also....it's such a long time since it was brought up. Is the question do you want Scotland to be a separate STATE or a separate COUNTRY?

P.T.:  Good point. Or, going further, what's the difference between a "country" and a "nation", as it seems that a lot of people identify Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland as "nations" within the "country" of the UK!

B.L.:  I think they did try out several wordings before they decided. There were also all sorts of 'joke' replacement questions circulating, such as "Do you want these mealy-mouthed, penny pinching Sassenachs to take over the education of our wee bairns?"

P.T.:  In the midst of all this red tape and wild gags, how would you have liked to have seen the referendum question worded?

B.L.:  I think something along the lines of "Do you agree that Scotland would flourish as an independent nation?" or "Do you agree that Scotland would flourish keeping in the union?" Although I suppose that would be two questions instead of one.

P.T.:  Well, it could have been linked thusly: "Do you believe that Scotland would flourish more staying in the union, or becoming an independent nation?"

B.L.:  Yes, that sounds good, although then people couldn't answer just yes or no. Of course, I’m not sure if that’s mandatory.  I’ve never been in a referendum like this before.

P.T.:  What do you think of Salmond giving 16 years olds to right to vote in the referendum?

B.L.:  Many of us are also annoyed (and incredulous) that Salmond has given 16 year olds the vote! I mean, they are not eligible to vote in general elections. I feel that many of them will be influenced by 'Braveheart' and Freeeedommm!

However, I did watch an interview on TV with a group of 16 year olds, and I must say they spoke very sensibly and seemed very clued up about it all. They also had a mix of opinions.

P.T.:  Have you watched any referendum debates, live or on TV? If so, what are you thoughts about them?

B.L.:  There was a televised referendum debate on this week in our area. They are holding them round Scotland. I really only put it on to see if I recognized anyone in the audience, and I didn't know a single soul! I think a lot of folk must have been out-of-towners. It went on for an hour, and it was so BORING, I don't think it would make anyone change their mind.

P.T.:  From you interaction with people in your area, how high is the percentage of undecided voters you encounter now?

B.L.:  I don't know the percentages, but a lot of people I speak to still haven't decided. The 'letters' columns in all the papers are full of people giving their perspectives, but again I don't think people would change their mind because of what other people say (famous or 'ordinary'). Actually a lot of us think we will be heartily fed up with the whole thing by September!

P.T.:  How do you think people might be affected emotionally, since Scotland and England are very much intertwined at this point? What about those with families and jobs that transcend the border?

B.L.:  I don't know. As I said before, there are so many imponderables. Of course, there must be people very close to folk from across the border. You know David Cameron appealed to people in England to phone up their Scottish friends and say "We want you to stay with us!"

P.T.:  What do you think of that method he suggested? Have you or anyone you know received said "calls"?

B.L.:  Well, no one in England has phoned me! I thought it was a bit silly really and counterproductive, trying to force an outpouring of “love” that no one has brought up before now!

P.T.:  I think Mr. C. was trying to imitate something that went on during the Quebec Independence Referendum, when the people of Canada basically pleaded with the people within Quebec to remain a part of the country.

B.L.:  Oh, yes, I think someone else told me that.

P.T.:  I'm not sure if it helped directly, but the result did turn out favorable for them, and Quebec is still part of Canada to everyone's benefit, as time has revealed. But it was quite a close vote!

B.L:  I do wonder what the general English reaction is. I wouldn't be surprised if they think we should just get on and make up our own minds. Or maybe a lot of them would be happy to 'get rid' of us. Have there been any polls in England to ask that?

P.T.: Yes, there have been. Generally, 60% in favor of the union, 20% against it, and the rest not caring either way. Personally, everyone I know in England would be heartily depressed to lose you! So you are "loved" by some “southies”!

B.L:  Well, that's nice!

P.T.:  What do you think about the system allowing only those currently living in Scotland to vote?

B.L.:  It seems a bit odd. After all, I have several friends who were born in Scotland and now live in England, so they can't vote; but people born in England who live and work in Scotland can!

P.T.:  It does sound strange, especially since the "trans-border" commuters have the most to gain from the union in concept and reality. Lots of them have relatives north or south of the “dividing line”, as well job commitments.

They feel very much connected with the place as a part of their "country" and see their Scottish friends and relatives as "compatriots" But this is just one of the many complications in trying to "segregate" people who have been so intermixed by being considered one people for so long!

B.L.:  Yes, I agree. I think there are a whole lot of complications raising their heads now, which originally weren't thought of. The really worrying thing is that, whatever the outcome of the vote, it will (presumably) be irreversible.

P.T.:  Actually, some are predicting that if the pro-independence party loses by a slight margin, they may try to launch another independence referendum in as soon as two years!

On the other hand, should the pro-union party lose by a slight margin, the "Yes" people are insisting that we better shut up and sit down or else be branded as enemies of democracy!

B.L.:  I’ve often thought the worst result would be almost a dead-heat, but I hadn't heard that about another go in two years time...aargh!

P.T.:  The suggested “Round 2” for independence is speculative, mind, but some of the "Yes" people are definitely pushing for it, and the “No” people worrying about it, and most average people just dreading having to go through another neverendum in their lifetimes!

B.L.:  Yes, I don't think I could bear to go through it all again! I think it's important to emphasize that 'we' (I mean my friends and acquaintances) are NOT talking about it all the time! Perhaps come September we will, but at the moment we are just getting on with our lives.

I don't know how strongly people think about it just now. For instance, I know my sister is going to vote yes for independence and has a badge saying so, but she didn't ask me how I’m going to vote, so I didn't say!

P.T.:  What's your random prediction of the outcome in September? My guess, at this point, is that the union will win, but only by a slight margin.

B.L.:  I think marginally that the status quo is the one most people seem to think will win, but that’s just my (uninformed) opinion!

P.T.:  To wrap things up, could you tell us a little about your personal interests, hobbies, and goals in life?

B.L.:  I am passionately interested in local history and in collecting oral history from older people, and have written several books on this and hope to do some more. I would like other people to look back at their own local history roots. One of my immediate goals is to get the book I'm working on (people's memories of their working lives and daily living) finished and out in the public domain. It is SO important all these memories don't get lost when the folk go.

P.T.: I agree. History and heritage is so important to development of culture and all the good things in life.

B.L.:  Yes, that's it. It's very encouraging to me that you (at your age) think like that because more often it's when folk get older that they get interested in their heritage.

P.T.: Thank you for that! In addition to being a preserver of local heritage, do you have any other interests or goals in addition?

B.L.:  Well, I also have a passionate love of cats! In the area of goals, as a great granny, I am grateful to find I am still alive the next morning! My goals SHOULD be to exercise more and leave the car at home but never seem to manage this very well (blame the Scottish weather)!

P.T.:  You have a good enough excuse! Scottish weather blamed, lol! Thank you again for agreeing to let me interview you, “Bonnie Lass”, and I look forward to catching up again in the near future.

B.L.:  Speak again soon!

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.