The unionists were worried that the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn might remind Scots of their national history. So they brilliantly have co-opted the MOD to counter any possible effect on popular perception, by holding British Armed Forces Day in the same location on the same date as the celebrations of Bannockburn (28-9 June 2014).
Armed Forces Day is held every year at Edinburgh. It has never been held on the site outside Stirling before. Suddenly to move it there, on the same day as a long-planned event already attracting tens of thousands of people, can hardly be a coincidence. I just watched a live broadcast of a session of a committee of the Scottish Parliament where officials of Stirling Council refused to answer questions as to who took the decision to hold the same events on the same day. They did so on the grounds there will be an independent audit of this ludicrous decision. Evidence given to the committee said that the late addition of the MOD event had caused ticket numbers for the Bannockburn event to be cut by over half.
STIRLING COUNCIL IS RUN BY A NEW LABOUR AND CONSERVATIVE COALITION of unionists aimed to keep the largest party – the SNP – out of power. A more interesting question is the decision making process in the MOD that led to this gross abuse of the army for political propaganda purposes.
This demeaning of the commemoration of Bannockburn is yet another Bitter Together initiative that will backfire spectacularly. Nobody in Scotland was going to base their vote on a battle that happened seven hundred years ago. But the banding together of Labour and Tories to attempt to downplay the sacrifice and cause, to offer a gross and deliberate insult to the memory of those who fought and died for their country, is going to upset an awful lot of people.
In the below the line the line comments here about the awfulness of celebrating the key victory that helped forge our nation, and in the “Braveheart, Braveheart, BRAVEHEART!” taunts endured daily, we witness the concerted efforts of those who would strip us of our sense of self. Their goal is to delegitimise the history and the mythology that challenges the dominance of their British nationalism.
There is method to their madness, and I think those of Nationalist persuasion – most of us – have fallen for it. We are sheepishly apologetic and readily agree to demean and dismiss Bravehearts and Braveheatism. We deny “Ourselves” in doing so.
The Unionist gambit seeks to denigrate Scotland’s historical fight for freedom against a belligerent neighbour whilst vigorously promoting Britain’s colonial wars and continental wars.
They would have us forget Bannockburn and how the bravery and guile of brave men helped forge this nation and temper our national character.
Mythologies are an essential ingredient of the glue than binds a people and creates a national identity. That is why icons of Union and Empire were paraded endlessly by the broadcast media in London’s Olympic pageant of 2012.
None speaks to the heart of our people like the deeds and the persona of Wallace and events like Bannockburn, and no Scot should feel embarrassed to embrace that narrative, so shamefully demeaned and ridiculed by Westminster’s pet jocks and their counterparts in Holyrood.
Whatever you self-identify as, carries with it an encyclopaedia’s-worth of historical and cultural defining referential events. They are the very essence of a polity’s sense of itself. They have been used and abused since the dawn of civilization by the unscrupulous to further their nefarious ends, and by visionaries to build nations.
Scotland has a rich and glorious narrative from which to hew an identity and it is on the cusp of creating a richer one yet. The battles of independence continue to this day and the prize not yet won.
We can acknowledge and embrace our inner braveheart and celebrate it, or spurn it and cringe. But I would ask you to consider who it is that would have us deny and dissolve the glue that binds us, and why they would have you cringe.
It is they who dismiss and delegitimise national aspiration and scorn the enabling and inspiring notion that tomorrow can be better than today.
Their message is that this is as good as it gets. Their only plan is to tell us what we CAN’T do.
The past determines the present, and the present, the future, and ours awaits.
Of course, this does not mean that anyone will make a decision on September 18 solely on the basis of ancient history and mythology, but that we should look to the past for an understanding of how we came to be who we are today, in order that we may more fully contextualize the alternatives that confront us in this referendum, and choose the direction of our tomorrows.
Bannockburn was about “if you control Stirling you control Scotland”. Most countries celebrate victories over their neighbours Scots may just decide to celebrate Red Clydeside day in the future without some chap in England deciding it’s not something we want to encourage in “the jocks”
Army day in Stirling? Pmsl Only an indication only of how close Westminster worries the vote will be
Christian Wright, who are you man?
What a speech. Hats off to you, inspirational, well done.
Abe Rene. “Which historical fact do you think I’ve missed?” The main historical fact you try to make, you numpty – William I of HANOVER? Hahahahahahaha.
Christian Wright
Yes, how dare the Scots take pride in their own history rather than taking on the mantle of drunk subsidy junkies assigned to them by their colonial overlords? The arrogance is unbelievable not to mention counter-productive.
History demonstrates that little good ever came out of whipping up nationalism. Those who wish to celebrate Bannockburn should complain too loudly when the English nationalists start to celebrate Culloden and other idiocies.
“Absolute Rubbish. Declaration of Arbroath, 1320”
Which had nothing whatever to do with the Scots people, just medieval politics by the clergy.
Then in 1385 the Scots and their French allies invaded England. Conveniently forgotten by the Nationalists pretending to be the oppressed victims of English aggression is how many times Scotland invaded England.
“Some of us never celebrate people killing each other.”
And some of us celebrate defending our right to self-determination and freedom from oppression, even when the price is bloodshed.
And yet there were several rebellions in Scotland which rose up entirely without leadership from any noble lord or knight. True, it wasn’t exactly the start of a republican revolution, but neither were the serfs simple bystanders in the fight.
And yet why does nearly all the literature of the time period make clear distinctions between the nations of Scotland and England where it didn’t for England and France? The nations were similar to each other, but they were still considered distinct, owing to the integration of Norman customs into the Gaelic court, as opposed to the outright conquest of England by the Normans.
Remember the Highland clearances, the Dress Act, the Alien Act? That would’ve happened if the Scots lost Bannockburn, and worse, since we know exactly what Edward did to his conquests. Ask the Welsh if they think things would’ve been any different if they defeated Edward’s invasion – or the Irish, for that matter. Wales had its sovereignty utterly crushed; Welsh boys drafted to fight wars in countries they had no quarrel with; its language and culture decimated and outlawed.
Robert’s mother was the Countess of Carrick, and descendent of a long line of Gallovidian nobility stretching back to before the foundation of the Kingdom of Alba; his father was of the Annandale family established in Scotland by King David 150 years before the Bruce was born. The Norman aristocracy merged with the existing Gaelic nobility following reforms by the Gaelic king David.
This phenomenon of highlighting Robert’s Norman past is usually brought up to de-legitimise the wars of independence, and has a rather ethnic edge to it – as if Normans didn’t count as “real Scots” even after having settled in Scotland for hundreds of years. Well in that case, who in Scottish history IS a “real Scot”? Irish, Picts, Celts, Britons, Angles, Normans, Danes – all have lived in Scotland a long, long time, and all can claim to be Scots. That’s why the ethnic argument falls flat.
I agree, but not all nationalisms are created equal. Or propaganda: One set of nationalist propaganda aims to showcase a small nation’s struggle to assert its independence against a larger invading foe. The other promotes the nostalgia of imperialism and conquest.
Baal Zevul
“I thought that would go without saying. But naturally, it didn’t.”
Well it does need saying, because you are trying to apply your historicism to a period when a serf could not have known or envisaged anything other than serfdom . Furthermore, you are making the mistake of believing a lord was aware that he was was not necessarily any better than a serf, which in this context is a modern idea. In the medieval period a serf lived and died by his lord. He did not question it – he had no reason to. He would have given his life at Bannockburn with pride.
“Fred, I’m trying to improve my understanding by consulting historians with an in-depth knowledge not from those who regurgitate Wikipedia entries. Yes, it was, and still is, wealthy people who perpetuate a livelihood from stealing the world’s resources, who lead others into battle from behind. Blair is one of the more recent examples, but please, if you want to improve my knowledge you have to amass some of your own first.”
Well here you are, a website that will give you insight into the minds of the people who lived here, a couple of books you won’t find elsewhere and some links to historic documents and maps.
http://www.graven-images.org.uk/
Interesting to see commenters obtruding nationalism into the discussion when our host never said the word. What’s being discussed here is not nationalism but self-determination. And self-determination of peoples is a peremptory norm of international law.
“Interesting to see commenters obtruding nationalism into the discussion when our host never said the word. What’s being discussed here is not nationalism but self-determination. And self-determination of peoples is a peremptory norm of international law.”
Scots get to vote for their local council, then they get to vote for a SMP at Holyrood, then they vote for a MP at Westminster, then they vote for an MEP in Europe.
How much more self determination do they want?
Scots need at least enough self-determination to prevent an illegitimate british state from involving them in serious crimes of concern to the international community such as aggression or systematic torture. Can’t vote against that, Can you? Then under the circumstances the internal self-determination you cite is not sufficient.
“Scots need at least enough self-determination to prevent an illegitimate british state from involving them in serious crimes of concern to the international community such as aggression or systematic torture. Can’t vote against that, Can you? Then under the circumstances the internal self-determination you cite is not sufficient.”
Do you know I once had a discussion with a load of Scots, on a Scottish forum, about the evils of torture. They kept on going on about some terrorist with a time bomb strapped to a sweet little girl and there only being 24 hours to rescue her, something like that, I forget the details. Anyway the gist of it is that the vast majority of these people seemed to think that torture wasn’t too bad a thing actually, so long as it was someone else being tortured of course.
So by self determination you mean you want to rule the world, thought so.
You were on the internet once and some disembodied voice said something, well Q.E.D! Well and truly proven. And ‘These people’ makes you sound like a prim Dixie spinster going on about negroes who don’t know their place.
That was not top-drawer argumentation, sad to say. That ‘rule the world’ non sequitur is just silly, dangling out there. Please at least try to demonstrate that you know what I’m talking about or I shall be bored.
“That was not top-drawer argumentation, sad to say. That ‘rule the world’ non sequitur is just silly, dangling out there. Please at least try to demonstrate that you know what I’m talking about or I shall be bored.”
It’s quite easy, your claims that Scots do not have self determination are demonstrable bullshit.
When asked to explain you say that you don’t have self determination because you can’t force your ethics and values onto everyone.
So what of those in Scotland who believe that torture of terrorists was justifiable? Their self determination doesn’t matter.
Ah, thank you, now I see what the problem is.
No, those nobodies you hobnobbed with need not be listened to on torture. Or aggression. Or gassing Jews or lynching niggers, or exterminating Palestinians or those sorts of things. They are, by universal acclamation and binding law, inexcusable acts.
Any government officials who said as much would be criminals acquiescent or complicit in the act. But when the canaille makes beer-breathed pronouncements to that effect, they’re victims, nothing more, pawns of unlawful government hate speech.
“History demonstrates that little good ever came out of whipping up nationalism. Those who wish to celebrate Bannockburn should complain too loudly when the English nationalists start to celebrate Culloden and other idiocies.”
So you think Polish independence and the fall of the Iron Curtain were bad things, to give but one of many examples? That had quite a lot to do with nationalism. So did the Risorgimento. A bad thing? Greek independence?
A clue. Where is Bannockburn? Where did Edward II and his forces live? Where did the Scottish side live?
I am an anti-militarist, but not a pacifist. I deplore aggressive war. Resisting invasion of your own country is an act that does deserve celebration.
The Scots need self-determination to have the sort of society they want which is certainly light-years away from the Westminster model.
“No, those nobodies you hobnobbed with need not be listened to on torture. Or aggression. Or gassing Jews or lynching niggers, or exterminating Palestinians or those sorts of things. They are, by universal acclamation and binding law, inexcusable acts.”
But Britain has a history of using torture, in WWII there was, among others, the London Cage. It was run by a man called Alexander Scotland.
So by every legal definition Scots do have self determination but you reserve the right to claim they don’t, yet you cite the law when saying you have the right to disregard a large section, perhaps the majority of the population.
You have offered no evidence that a future government of Scotland would share your convictions and disregard the wishes of it’s people.
“The Scots need self-determination to have the sort of society they want which is certainly light-years away from the Westminster model.”
Then why has the SNP put so much effort into preventing Scots from having the society they want?
The majority of young men in Glasgow seem to want to go along to football grounds and chant racist slogans but they have passed laws to criminalise it.
Scots do have self determination, they pass their own laws, govern their own society, that’s what Holyrood is for. So if you don’t have the society you want blame them not Westminster.
Bored now. If I wanted illogic and word salad I could go to a pub and talk to the first drunk E I meet.
Come back when you’ve caught up on your ABCs
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/UniversalHumanRightsInstruments.aspx
“Come back when you’ve caught up on your ABCs”
You show me one definition of self determination which says Scotland doesn’t have it.
It’s just Nationalist propaganda and you know it.
And it’s an insult to countries which actually don’t have it, try telling a Palestinian Scotland doesn’t have self determination and they will laugh in your face and rightly so.
Oh dear, you mean that fake democracy you vote for with such poignant pride? Your choice of shite sandwich or shite sandwich Deluxe? It fails to meet the democratic standards of ICCPR Article 25B (these are the fundamentals that aren’t taught in vocational schools.) That’s alright for ancestral serfs, perhaps. Africans wouldn’t put up with it. They have modern constitutions.
Typical of the British colonial mindset – when all else fails raise the sectarian nonsense. It is getting quite tedious now as it is so predictable.
Not sure it’s quite fair to indict old Fred for the colonial mindset. The cleverest strivers of obscure origin might have that. Perhaps some of those on the Honours List (but not the ones I know well, to be sure.) But ordinary limeys, it’s piteous what they will submit to. Ubiquitous surveillance by scolding cameras, security laws that set them bowing and scraping to a wide variety of poorly-educated martinets, libel laws protecting their social superiors. Their head of state’s Obama’s butler. A great mass of servile toadies desperate to kick anyone lower.
Who wouldn’t do a quick Slovenia to break from that?
This makes Aberdeen council seem modern. Bannockburn is a world famous battle that is in the heart of every scot. The celebration is not for the killing of the larger English occupational army, but the sense that, against the odds, anything is possible.
I dont remember anybody celebrating 300yrs of the union in 307, there was no events held by Stirling council then. Maybe even they knew it was nothing to celebrate over.
Of all the nations to gain independence from the UK, none have been in a better position than Scotland is today. Yet not a single one of these now independent nations has ever asked Westminster to run their affairs for them again. Wonder why.
This makes Aberdeen council seem modern. Bannockburn is a world famous battle that is in the heart of every scot. The celebration is not for the killing of the larger English occupational army, but the sense that, against the odds, anything is possible.
I dont remember anybody celebrating 300yrs of the union in 2007, there was no events held by Stirling council then. Maybe even they knew it was nothing to celebrate over.
Of all the nations to gain independence from the UK, none have been in a better position than Scotland is today. Yet not a single one of these now independent nations has ever asked Westminster to run their affairs for them again. Wonder why.
Not to dampen the flow of hopefulness I wish to express my disappointment with Hope and Change in my own Land of Freedom. Subsequent to the elation many felt in 2008 I am reminded of the sober words;
“Say hello to the new boss; same as the old boss”
“gross abuse of the army for political propaganda purposes.” – Craig, you’ve only just realised?