Interview with Alastair Redman, Resident of the Island of Islay

Pearl of Tyburn:  We have Alastair Redman, from the Island of Islay, with us now. Hello, Mr. Redman.

Alastair Redman:  Hello!

P.T.:  Could you tell me a bit about yourself and your background?

A.R.:  I am a crofter’s son on the Island of Islay, my mother in a nurse, one of my three brothers is a fisherman, one works for the forestry and the other is a crofter like my father. My girl friend is from the north of England, but was originally born on Shetland. I run a small shop and post office in Portnahaven on Islay.  

P.T.:  How did you get involved with Unionism, and why?

A.R.:  I am proud to be both Scottish and British, and I don't want to have to choose between the two.   

P.T.:  What does your British identity mean to you, and what do you think it means to the world?

A.R.:  It means that I am part of country that is a force for good in the world, loved by our allies, feared by our enemies, and respected by all.     

P.T.:  What would you say to an undecided Scottish voter to keep in mind tomorrow?

A.R.:  Being a unionist makes you no less or more patriotic than a yes voter. Too often the Yes side will claim that we are doing Scotland down by saying no to separation, that to vote no is unpatriotic well they are wrong no one person or political movement has a monopoly on what it is to be patriotic.  

P.T.:  What are some of your personal interests/hobbies/goals in life?

A.R.:  I love books, TV, video games, some sports and politics. As for my goals we will see how this referendum goes first. 

P.T.:  Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me, Mr. Redman.

A.R.:  No trouble.

Interview with James Shiels, Councillor for Carntogher

Pearl of Tyburn:  I’m now going to speak with Councillor James Shiels from Londonderry, Northern Ireland. Mr. Shiels, how are you?

James Shiels:  Fine, thanks.

P.T.:  Could you tell me a bit about your family background?

J.S.:   My forefathers were Presbyterians with Scottish roots, and as tenant farmers on a tiny bit of land near Carmtogher Mountain they tilled the ground in order to survive. It was a hard life, and when the industrial revolution came they, like many others in the area, took a chance for a better life and at the end of the 19th century moved here to Upperlands to find work in the Linen Mill.

Working six days a week for little pay, in a heavily class based society, they endured some of the most difficult and tumultuous periods in Ulster's history - the Home Rule period and the Great War - yet managed to remain hopeful that life could get better for everyone in our community regardless of their creed or class.

It's thanks to the risks they took, in pursuit for a better way of life that has meant that I, a working class lad from a little linen village, could become the unionist councillor for the entire area of Carntogher.

P.T.:  What political party are you affiliated with, and what identities do you see yourself as having?

J.S.:  I was recently elected as the sole Unionist Councillor for Carntogher DEA in the new Mid Ulster Council. As a member of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) I'm part of the largest unionist party in Mid Ulster, and at 24 I am one of the youngest elected politicians in Northern Ireland.

I am also heavily involved with Loyal Orders and am a committed Christian. On a nationality front I am unashamedly an Ulsterman, and proud of my British identity.

P.T.:  What are your thoughts on the Scottish independence movement and referendum?

J.S.:  I am totally opposed to Scottish independence as I believe that we really are better together in a United Kingdom because without our Scottish neighbours we (the UK) would be a smaller nation, with a smaller economy and a diminished standing on the world stage. That means less power, less influence and less voice in the key discussions concerning our people in the European Parliament.

P.T.:  How do you think the Scots themselves might be affected by this?

J.S.:  For the Scots themselves, questions must be asked in regards to how their country will function if they choose independence. Will they get to keep Sterling, or choose the Euro? What effect will that have on their ratepayers and businesses? What will happen to UK military and naval bases on Scottish soil? Etc, etc.

These are the sorts of questions that need answering, and when they are, I am sure the good people of Scotland will realise that they, and indeed all of us, are better remaining together as part of a strong United Kingdom.

P.T.:  How would you compare and contrast Scottish Nationalists with Irish Nationalists?

J.S.:  Scottish nationalism is primarily civic, and has focused quite rightly on their goal of an Independent Scotland. Irish nationalism on the other hand is ethnic and has time and again been hijacked by both religious and republican groups. This had lead to a situation where in Scotland independence is an open issue, but here in Northern Ireland it is a polarizing issue totally opposed by the majority of people.

P.T.:  Thanks so much for your time, Councillor Shiels.

J.S.:  A pleasure.

Interview with Jonny Lipsham, Professional Musician

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

Jonny Lipsham: Hi there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J.L.:  You’re welcome.

Interview with Alan Day, Founder of Ulster-Scots Online and The Orange Chronicle

Pearl of Tyburn: Today I’m interviewing Alan Day, the founder of the Ulster-Scots Online Website and The Orange Chronicle Website and a resident of Northern Ireland. Hello, Mr. Day.

Alan Day:  Greetings.

P.T.:  Could you please give us a quick biographical sketch about your family background?

A.D.:  My mother is from County Tyrone, Northern Ireland. My father is from Leicestershire in England and was in the Army. I was born in what was then West Germany in the British Military Hospital in Rinteln. I have two brothers - one born in Scotland and the other in Northern Ireland.

We moved about a lot but lived in Scotland for a couple of years in Kirkcudbright around primary school age. The Army was based nearby. When my youngest brother was born, we returned to Scotland just after I had entered the first year of High School and I attended Kirkcudbright Academy and then the University of Paisley before moving to Northern Ireland to look after my grandmother at the age of 23.

P.T.: How did you get involved in The Orange Order?

A.D.:  A couple of years after moving to Northern Ireland I was asked by a friend if I would be interested in joining the lodge. To be honest I didn’t know much about it and wasn’t religious or a church attender. I have to say that becoming an Orangeman along with my mother taking a brain tumour were all instrumental in myself becoming a born again Christian.

P.T.:  How did you become active in your work to preserve Ulster-Scots culture?

A.D.:  I got involved with Ulster-Scots through articles, particularly history articles appearing in news papers and online. Having a mother from Northern Ireland and having lived in Scotland I could see the linguistic and cultural links clearly.

I responded to an advert in the local paper (Mid-Ulster Mail) with regards the formation of the South Londonderry Ulster-Scots Association where we held numerous concerts in the local high schools, performed living history re-enactments & floats at various events including the Twelfth. We were given a platform in local schools and brought the Ulster-Scots Agency community radio station fUSe FM to Maghera.

P.T.:  What inspired to create Ulster-Scots Online and The Orange Chronicle?

A.D.:  I created the Ulster-Scots and Irish Unionist Resource website which later became the Ulster-Scots Online website which has been going for many years and gone through some major changes. There are Twitter and Facebook pages connected with the site.I also created The Orange Chronicle website around the same time and has connected Twitter page and a Facebook page with 12,000 followers.

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

A.D.:  With regards the Scottish independence referendum - I am very much in favour of retaining the Union. I have lived all around the UK and feel British and have a particularly affinity for Scotland & Northern Ireland. To rend Scotland from the rest of the UK would be heart breaking.

P.T.:  What have you been doing with regards to the referendum?

A.D.:  Unfortunately I do not have a vote in the referendum but I will be raising my voice in support of the Union and urging friends in Scotland to vote No.

P.T.:  What would you say the similarities are between Irish and Scottish nationalism?

A.D.:  With regards Northern Ireland, it will obviously go tribal with obvious splits, albeit Sinn Fein seem to be going ever so softly about associating themselves with Scottish nationalism, perhaps so as not to taint the Yes campaign with IRA baggage. However, social media shows that Irish Republicans and Sinn Fein types are indeed Yes supporters (Bernadette Devlin McAliskey has been campaigning and speaking at with Radical Scottish Independence events).

P.T.:  What about the comparison between Irish unionism and Scottish unionism?

A.D.:  Unionists have also been mute as Scottish Unionism is not identical to Ulster Unionism and many are aware that Orangeism and Loyalism do not necessarily sit well with some sections of Scotland and may be counter productive in the independence debate. But I am glad in recent days we have had some voices raised from the DUP & UUP.

P.T.:  What are your thoughts on the way that different political parties have interacted during the course of the referendum debate?

A.D.:  The SNP has been very successful at framing the debate as Scotland vs. the Tories and I am glad to see that the First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones and the First Minister of Northern Ireland, Peter Robinson have both spoken out this week. It is good to see such a wide political spectrum of campaigning for a No vote from Unions, Labour, DUP, UUP, Lib Dems, Tories & Orange Order through UKIP.

P.T.:  Thank you very much for giving me your perspective on the recent political proceedings, Mr. Day.

A.D.:  Of course; my pleasure.

  

Interview with “Wyndysascha”, Legal Student from London

Pearl of Tyburn:  I’ll now be speaking with “Wyndysascha”, a resident of the great city of London, England, capital of the United Kingdom. It’s nice to have you on board!

Wyndysascha:  Thank you!

P.T.:  Can you give a little summary about yourself and your background?

W.S.:  I'm British, of English and Scottish ancestry. I was born in England, baptized into the Church of Scotland, and moved to Scotland at a young age. I now live in London, UK, where I attended university for a bachelor’s degree in history, and am now studying for a second degree in law. Although I haven't always lived in London, I do consider myself a Londoner (and I find it difficult now to imagine living anywhere else - a typical Londoner's conceit!). I am also a recent convert to the Catholic Faith.

P.T.:  Could you please tell me what your British heritage means to you?   

W.S.:  I've always seen my heritage as one of a thoughtful, measured, civilized, yet firm approach to tolerance, fairness, liberty, and the rule of law. We don't submit to tyrants; but we also don't have blood-in-the-streets revolutions either (although we do occasionally riot and decapitate our king!). Nowadays, though, we seem not only to fail to live up to our own image of ourselves, but we don't even know what that image is.

P.T.:  Why do you think “Britain” is such a good thing?

W.S.:  The reason why "Britain" is such a good thing is because, no matter what the cause of its inception, the history of conflict between the nations of The British Isles produced an authentically "British" idea of liberty. No matter how hypocritical we are in applying it, that is what the Union stands for, and why it should continue - above and beyond all other considerations, the Union represents how different nations can co-exist in one state and remain at liberty.

P.T.:  What do you think of the assertation that nations should, as a matter of necessity, have their own states?

W.S.:  The nations of Britain don't necessarily need their own states; they just have to love our liberty enough that they force the politicians of the Union to work towards it. Things like the European Union are bureaucratic exercises, and simply can't evoke that feeling of loyalty. The United Kingdom, as with the United States, represents an idea, and an ideal, of how people should live and what we should be willing to fight to preserve. That we've got to where we are now is a failure to hold faith to liberty.

P.T.:  Could you clarify what you mean when you say “liberty”, as opposed to “freedom”?

W.S.:  I say Liberty, and not Freedom, for a reason: "Liberty", understood as a British concept, is the God-given right to quiet enjoyment of one's private and family life and the state protecting us as we need it to; "Freedom" always seemed to me to be the running-around shouting, do-whatever-you-want thing.  It implies a positive effort of will, not simply a tendency to mobbishness and licence.

P.T.:  What do you think the active moral responsibility of the Union is?

W.S.:  The Union has an active moral responsibility to remind the nations of why the Union is a Good Thing and what it stands for. It shouldn't be forgotten that the Union was created in a shady politician's deal that the people, at the time, were overwhelmingly opposed to. But that didn't stop us coming to realize what the true character of the Union should be: a coming-together of equals established so that subjects could live their lives peaceably, free from undue interference.

That ethos came from centuries of intra-British wars, turmoil, and upheaval, and our common battles against monstrous tyrants that would make us slaves in our own country. The Union could be the fruit of all that, and prove that the world should draw closer together, find common ground, and agree on virtues to uphold instead of flying apart, with everyone trying to look out for themselves. We could just give-up and call it a few-centuries-old convenience and be done with it, but I think we'd all be the poorer for it.

P.T.:  What’s your opinion on the monarchy?

W.S.:  The same historical connectivity applies to the British Constitutional Monarchy. It's very difficult to defend monarchy as an institution in the modern world (although not the need for a single strong leader of government, such as the US President). But the monarchy, traditionally, has been the source of authority for the law.  In The King's Speech, King George VI says that he's only the King if the people believe he speaks for them.

An overarching theme of British history is the reining-in of the Crown, so it didn't evolve into a Continental-style despotism but one rooted in the "ancient laws" of the people. People had to see the monarchy as a product of our ancient liberties: not as in-your-face as, say, the explicit American declaration that the government is the servant of the people, but rather an organic relationship where We were loyal to the Crown, and the Crown upheld the things that made Us, Us.

P.T.:  How do you think the view of the monarchy has altered in present times?

W.S.:  Now, because they have lost their sense of common nationhood and are ignorant of their history, people don't understand how the monarchy is a source of authority any more. That has a terrible impact on British ideas on Law, and so on the Union itself. Laws in this country derive their authority from the Crown, and because they are promulgated by the Crown-In-Parliament. If you don't think the Crown possesses authority, as the authentic voice of the ancient laws and liberties of the people, why obey the law?  We end up being a nation of laws obeyed purely through fear of compulsion, not one where laws are respected.

P.T.:  What are your thoughts on the importance and meaning of history?

W.S.:  I believe that "History" as a cultural enterprise (not merely an academic one) is the set of honest stories about the past that we tell each other to reinforce our sense of self and community. Despite what some in the Eighteenth Century thought, life cannot be a purely rational exercise. That's not how people function. We are under a positive moral duty to make sure that our stories are true and morally good: when we stop concentrating on honest history and stop telling these stories to our children, we eventually lose our cohesiveness.

P.T.:  What are your thoughts on the Braveheart craze?

W.S.:  It’s easy to stick people in front of a TV playing Braveheart and then tell them it's the end of the story. But it's not the end. A simple look at British history would show that the heart of the Union is about nations fired by their own sense of liberty and independence being able to come together and work in common cause. I'm not unaware of the irony that the virtues associated with unity and liberty arose out of intra-British conquest, oppression, and struggle but, having fought and hated and brutalized, by the Grace of God we now have a higher standard to hold ourselves to.

P.T.:  What do you think might have made more Scottish people see the Union in a positive light?

W.S.:  Scotland's current generation might be more well-disposed to the Union if they saw how the original unification of Britain, though unpopular, became popular over time because of the mutually-beneficial nature of the arrangement. The Union forestalled Scottish bankruptcy after the Darien Scheme's failure. It brought a greater measure of peace to the Isles by excluding continental interference in Scottish affairs.

The Union allowed Scottish access to English (then British) markets.  In short, the Union allowed Scotland to punch well above its weight on a world stage. Not only this, but Scots have always been more than capable of holding the highest offices of state in a British Union; Scots are not the oppressed minority that Scottish Nationalists would like to portray themselves as, but rather are and always have been active participants in the Union at all levels. 

P.T.:  What do you think of the nationalist presentation that other people view Scots as having been disgraced or suppressed by the Union?

W.S.:  The peddled idea that "other people see Scots as brought low and wallowing in self-pity, and the Scots see themselves in a similar way" is the worst kind of rubbish: Scottish Nationalists get to present Independence as a solution for a perception that barely exists outside nasty right-wing media and pub loud-mouths, or gloss over that it's one implausible approach to dealing with something best dealt with within the Union anyway.  If self-respect and a sense of nationhood are so dreadfully lacking in the Scottish people, why not try to tackle this supposed problem within the Union, the institution that offers greater stability, greater opportunities, greater access to a world stage?!

Furthermore, the Union has never subsumed "Scottish" institutions beneath "British" ones. This flexibility is part of what makes the Union work. Constitutional protection has always been afforded to a separate Kirk, education system, and so on. Legislation, boards of control and state departments have been established in response to Scottish concerns over Scotland's needs. Development of devolved institutions continues today. If one believes that Scotland should become an independent, sovereign nation again then of course it is laudable that the process is peaceful, and through the political process. But that the process exists, has an historical presence, and is a viable route for future change - even if that change is independence itself - is a factual rejection of the idea that "Britain" somehow suppresses Scottish liberty.

P.T.:  What do you think are the main issues at the heart of the independence debate?

W.S.:  The true issue at stake in the whole Independence debate is this: unless there's some sort of complete, fundamental change in the governance, public morals, and general education of the people of the United Kingdom, then the Union is doomed to fail eventually. The pro-union Better Together campaign is fighting on the technical downsides of Independence. But people want more than that. I'd bet that any number of people voting For independence are sensible, sceptical people who don't believe the Yes Campaign's promises to give them everything they ever wanted without having to pay anything to get it - they're voting for independence because they've been presented with a vision of the world that makes them feel like they're part of a community again.

P.T.:  What do you think is “the best form of government”, if any?

W.S.:  I believe firmly that any state can only derive its authority from the informed consent of the governed.  This, obviously, doesn't necessarily imply either democracy or a republic, still less any inherent value to referenda.  However, I question what authority an independent Scottish state would have coming into existence via a brief moment of mawkish pseudo-patriotism.  There are nations around the world who are brutally oppressed by governments and regimes, who have a legitimate argument to make that they'd be better off with their own governors and states.  No-one oppresses the Scots, nor are the Scots lacking any opportunities within the Union.  Other independence movements elsewhere are similarly shallow. Who oppresses the Québécois, for instance?  What opportunities for localised government and international standing do they lack?  Like the Scots, they live in mature, rights-respecting states with civilized flexibility out of which they've done remarkably well and, when bumpy periods are passed, probably will do in future.

P.T.:  What do you think of the way individual politicians and parties affect the debate?

W.S.:  The manipulations of canny politicians lead people to forget their own interests and (not a popular opinion, perhaps) their just allegiances and duties. Governments you dislike aren't a reason to fracture one's country: they're a reason to stick it out, campaign for your point of view, and take an active role in the process.  I dislike many aspects of Conservative Party policy, their fairly cheap and nasty approach to the poor being foremost.  I'd probably have similar feelings towards any future Labour or Liberal Democrat government.  But pretending that the Scottish nation is so utterly, fundamentally divorced in its opinions from any policy these parties could implement is Fiction, pure and simple. 

 Scottish Nationalists draw the distinction between "Scottish politicians" and "Westminster politicians" to foster the "us-and-them" mentality necessary to break Scots from the Union but that's politics, not some fundamental character of the Scottish nation.  It's rare to find someone who identifies wholly with their elected leaders - we laugh at our MPs' supposed ineptitude regularly, Americans have their "clowns in Congress", and so on - and all the "Westminster politicians" argument does is piggy-back on this sentiment.

P.T.:  How do you think a lack of true patriotism towards Britain has contributed to the Scottish nationalist movement?

W.S.:  Our sense of Britishness has decayed to the point where the Union may be about to split. The past sixty years of British history have been the systematic dismantling of emotional attachment to one's own country. "Patriotism" is, apparently, something for right-wing thugs; the left/centre-left sneer at anyone who thinks that there's such a thing as "British liberty". Say what you want about the nationalists, they’re not stupid: they understand "History" far better than the Better Together campaign appears to (the fact is that they're cynically manipulating that history notwithstanding).  Again: although the Union provides tangible, real-life benefits to its citizens, its raison d'être cannot simply be measured in pounds, shillings, and pence.

I'm not naive. I know that "patriotism" is something that is used by the wicked on the gullible. But it's not a bad thing in and of itself, if it's attached to a good and noble cause. Love can warp easily into a greater, more general evil because it's an emotion, which is why love has to be married to reason and virtue to endure.  Love of one's country can warp easily into terrible things.  This is the line that Scottish Nationalists are skirting.  They're using Scots' love of the Scottish nation to foster division rather than unity, or a unity that is narrow and parochial, and encouraging self-pitying reactive chauvinism rather than genuine national character.  These things are being set against an authentic, British idea of liberty - something that emphasises common ground between different groups - in favour of a weak, ivory-towered concept of national freedom that isn't so much written solidly in history but slides greasily off its pages.

P.T.:  Could you wrap up this interview with a summary of the main problem as it stands now?

W.S.:  The sum of the problem is that we are forgetting our history, our unique sense of liberty, and our belief that our nations have a common centre that organically emanates authority but also derives its authority from us.  It can only end in division, and "suspect government" that has all the trappings of "rights" and "democracy" but enforces a deadening cultural uniformity on us.  Scottish Independence won't see some glorious rebirth of the Scottish Nation: it will say to the world that one of the foremost partners in the great, historical Projects of Union and Liberty has decided that it's just not worth the bother any more.  We don't have long to impart this on the Scottish people, and I'll be praying that it's a vision they can be persuaded to cleave to.

P.T.:  As an aside, can you tell me a little about your personal interests?

W.S.:  I maintain an interest in British and American History. My period of study is the Long Eighteenth Century, as affecting Britain and her empire (especially in North America). I've probably sucked up too much Eighteenth-Century pamphleteering, as I'm a big fan of the constitutional forms and theories of the time: whether the constitutional, parliamentary monarchy of Britain; or the federal, checks-and-balances American Republic ('The Federalist Papers' being one of my favourite works).

I also follow politics and consider myself to be a middle-of-the-road centre-right pragmatist with an attachment to ideas of individual liberty. I enjoy playing games, especially strategy ones, and I also love playing 'Minecraft'. I’m in the process of taking up blogging about his new Catholic life, politics, and gaming against the backdrop of ‘Minecraft’ (www.wyndysascha.com), as well as producing videos and vlogs on YouTube. I also try to deepen my newfound Catholic faith whenever I can.

P.T.:  Thank you very much for putting down so many excellent thoughts for this interview. I wish you all the best.

W.S.: Thanks; you too! 

Interview with Rory Stewart, Westminster MP for Penrith and the Borders

Pearl of Tyburn: I have the privilege of speaking with Rory Stewart, Westminster MP for Penrith and the Borders. Mr. Stewart, could you please tell us what your British identity means to you, and why you believe it should be preserved?

Rory Stewart:  We are a result of shared institutions, languages and articles. The United Kingdom is the definition of what our nation is about. We are a nation that stands together in the face of adversity and hardship, we should not shy away now. Scotland is a vital part of our nation and needs to remain just that.

We have been working to preserve the UK for over 300 years; if broken up, it would be a very hard place to imagine. Our complexity, that feeling of being Scottish or English but also British, is one we should embrace and cherish. We need to stay together to continue being a strong and successful nation in this ever changing world.

Interview with G. Wright, Resident of Glasgow

Pearl of Tyburn:  I’ll now be speaking Mr. G. Wright of Glasgow. How are you, Mr. Wright?

G. Wright:  Well, thanks.

P.T.:  Could you please explain what your British identity means to you?    

G. W.:  For me, a Scotsman, to be British is to enjoy a unique and special identity.  Most people only have one culture and one history; but we British are lucky to have a share in several other cultures, as well as our own.  I love all things Scottish, but I'd still prefer a Dry Gin to a Whisky, a Shakespeare over a Burns and a St Thomas More over a John Knox.  And despite these things being English in origin - they have become very much part of my culture - thanks to the UK.  This is part of the beauty of the UK - as to be British is to be enriched in this way.

   

P.T.:  What is an analogy that you might use to describe the Union?

   

G.W.:  Our very successful Union is like a family, in that the Nations are close and affectionate of one another, but also distinct in identity and at times rivals.  There is nothing quite like the UK, and - should the worst happen in September, God forbid - there never will be anything quite like it again. For it is more than just a bland Union of Nations - like the EU - it goes way beyond that, via having unity of language and a shared and lively history too.  The Peoples of the UK Nations are not simply mere 'partners', but kith and kin. To be British is to be part of a family.

P.T.:  Do you ever feel like your British identity takes away from or diminishes your Scottish identity in any way?

G.W.:  Unlike some, I do not feel like my British Identity is an unwelcome "bolt on" to my Scottish Identity.  For me, it is a complimentary aspect - not a rival one. Like two luxurious room in a large Mansion. The rooms are not competitors, but each is wonderful and interesting on its own merits. You can flit from one to another, or place them alongside one another. It is fascinating to see how they compliment one another.

   

P.T.:  What do you feel it is to be British, on an international level?

G.W.:  To be British is to belong to a Nation which has done more than any other, over centuries, to shape the modern World.  I think this is shown by the enduring successor of the Empire, the British Commonwealth.  That the vast majority of former Empire States choose to remain part of this family of friends today, is a testament to how the bonds of brotherhood and friendship have ultimately prevailed over conquest and domination.  These friendships are the real legacy of the Empire. 

P.T.:  What did you think of the Commonwealth Games recently held in Glasgow?

G.W.:  The recent Commonwealth Games in Glasgow were a lesson in how blessed we are to be British, to enjoy links and friendship with so many different People and Nations from across the globe.  And the enrichment of Britain, through contact with these friends, was clearly visible - not least by the welcome presence of Men from the Gurka Rifles, at the security points! It may not fashionable to boast of Empire in the modern era, but the size of the British Empire was impressive by any standards. I believe that, one day, historians will talk of the British, the way they talk about the Romans today. And so to be British is to be International. 

P.T.:  How would you answer some of the negative charges made against the British identity by separatists?

G.W.:  Some separatist extremists try to extrapolate neo-fascism from a simple pride in, or admiration of, British identity and the United Kingdom. But in spite of this, many people continue to be proud of their British identities. We are not especially vocal about it - that would be quite un-British indeed - but that doesn't mean its not there. We have just as much to be proud of as Britons, as we do as Scots. One cannot blame keen fans of British culture for admiring the more romantic aspects of an exceptionally rich tapestry of history, as others do with the Romans, etc. As a Scottish Briton myself, I cannot help but share their sympathies!

P.T.:  What do you think has contributed to the antipathy towards the British identity on the part of many Scots?    

G.W.:  Sadly, many Scots today define themselves by what they decide to dislike - be it the English, or the Catholics – instead of appreciating the fullness of their heritage and important historical events. Many Scots think resenting these groups is what it means to be Scottish - it’s very sad. This kind of negative, or inverse identity is a phenomenon I have not encountered elsewhere.

I think in part this "negative identity" explains the verses in The Flower of Scotland which attempt to create a sensation of loss or grievance - rather than pride in our own nation, our anthem is all about whom we dislike and how hard-done-by we feel. The end result of all this is an ignorant and divided society. Most people have no real sense of themselves and are simply unthinking clients of cheap, imported pop culture. And that which is thought of as being genuinely Scottish (kilts etc) is in the main a modern and contrived caricature of an identity. 

P.T.:  What do you think of the claim that the British army used Scottish soldiers as cannon fodder?

G.W.:  The type of Scot who can seemingly see nothing but ill-will and exploitation in the United Kingdom strikes a chord of frustration with me. I hate the "cannon fodder" argument you often hear, about Scots in the British Army. It’s just not true. On the contrary, Scots Regiments have always been an important and illustrious part of the British Army. The Royal Scots were the oldest British Army Unit, till they became sadly defunct. Now it is the Coldstream Guards. And where is Coldstream? That’s right, Scotland! I also strongly dislike the bogus notion that Scotland is an English colony, rather than a partner of the English. It’s just absurd. 

P.T.:  If Scotland were to become independent, what do you think the Scottish people could expect?

G.W.:  I think people would get a shock in an independent Scotland. We would have no G8 seat, no permanent UN Security Council seat, no permanent UN veto, no major EU influence, no major global influence, no nuclear deterrent, no conventional military power, no fiscal control over our own currency, etc. As part of the UK, we currently have all of that. I don't think our coffers would be able to support the large number of public sector jobs the country depends on.

Before recent cuts started 1 in 4 employed by the State in Scotland, compared to 1 in 5 UK wide. And this is before all the extra ones needed if independent. Let’s not forget the many Scots communities, often isolated, who depend heavily on local British bases and military installations to drive their economies. All that would be gone if we split from the UK.

P.T.: What’s your opinion on the currency debate?

G.W.:  Control of our currency is another major issue that ceding throws up. We have to either take the euro (assuming we even got into the EU - not guaranteed) and let the EU control our currency, (that's going really well for Greece right now), or we keep the pound and let the Bank of England control our currency. The Bank of England currently controls our currency, but does so while taking us and our economic circumstances into account (along with the rest of the UK).

Post independence, they would still be in full control, but the Scottish economy would not feature in their considerations whatsoever, as they no longer have any duty to us. This then has grave implications for anything our Government would try to do: fiscal plans, the economy etc. Why would sane person, who was not intoxicated or under duress, freely vote to give up fiscal control of their own currency? If people think seriously, they can only credibly vote no, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens almost "by accident"! 

P.T.:  Can you please give me your closing thoughts, and what you see as the heart of the referendum?

G.W.:  Ultimately, the name of the "no" campaign - Better Together - sums it all up.  Were it not for the UK and its centuries of history, none of the constituent parts could ever have expected to have such an eventful history, or range of experiences and opportunities.    We know from the work place that working together achieves more, and so it is with the UK too. To be British is to have broad horizons.

This whole referendum comes down one major question: do Scots want to be part of a nation which helps to shape the world (The UK), or do they want to be part of a nation which is shaped by the world? No Scotsman worth his salt would choose the latter! Here's to a prosperous + proud Scotland within a happy + strong UK!

P.T.:  Thank you very much for your taking part in this project.

G.W.:  Sure, no problem.

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