We're delighted to present, with the permission of the author, one of the most thought-provoking Twitter/X 'threads' we've seen.
Taken together with James Kelman's 2013 essay, this is a persuasive case for a serious rethink on how we use the language we've been accustomed to hearing in independence-related discussions. In challenging the use of such a term as 'Britain' and questioning what 'Britishness' is, we can help clarify precisely what it is we're talking about and why accurate distinctions are so important.
Please share, comment, and consider using 'Anglo-state' wherever possible.
An appeal, fellow YESsers.
Language is important. Critically important. So use it, accurately.
One of the most important things we can do, as YESsers, is articulate what it is we're all up against.
That isn't 'Britain'. Or the 'British'. And certainly not 'the United Kingdom'. To explain...
'Britain' is a lie. A glamour. A pretence. It's not real. It's an invention. It's a mask.
Historically, 'Britain' or 'British' refers to the P-Celtic speaking peoples who dominated the mainland of these 'British isles' for centuries.
Have a wee think the next time you drive by Dumbarton rock (Dùn Breatann or Dùn Breatainn - the 'fort of the Britons'). And, amidst your pondering, be sure and check out the superb Bruce Fummey on YouTube.
The concept of a single Britain was once a demented dream of various psychotic Plantagenet English Kings - early English colonial projects. Those efforts failed miserably in Scotland.
In fact, it's not until the Union of the Crowns and - especially - the political union itself a hundred years later (in 1707) that we see - once again - the appropriation of 'Britain' for other means.
Enter, stage right, the Jacobite wars and their bloody repercussions, the Industrial Revolution, and the expansion and dominance of the British Empire through exploration and war.
In 2024, 'Britain', unionists will tell you, describes the unifying bond of the countries of these islands.
It says 'we're all in it together'.
But it's simply not true. It doesn't reflect, at all, the way the body politic across these islands actually works.
The Westminster Parliament exists on a rather obvious arithmetic. And we see this across every political term.
'British' democracy is akin to aligning on the following:
Four people begin a company. Let's call it 'UK inc.'
Jamie has 5 shares. Gwyndaf has 3 shares. Rory has 2 shares.
Tom has 50 shares.
Whoever has the most shares, issue by issue, decision by decision, wins.
Okay? Sound fair? Then let's go...
If we accept the premise that Scotland and Wales are nations, then those nations do not stand a chance, when wrapped into the pervasive logic of UK inc.
Either in producing stable, consistent government in line with the values of their citizenry (every time) or by reaching out, to help progress a much wider world for the better. Scotland is forever neutered.
As a nation, Scotland has impacted the choice of government in Westminster, arguably, 4 times in the history of the union.
The Welsh have never voted for Tories. Bringing us bang up to date, had Scotland and Wales rejected Starmer wholesale, we would have got him anyway. Despite the usual array of lies belted out by the BBC and other Anglo-state media in the run up to the election (the usual, unforgivable, unchallenged lies).
Now, that doesn't describe anything like a union - does it? In fact, I'm always struck by the irony that 'unionists' are the very people not even slightly interested in the idea of a real, meaningful union.
'Power of veto for Scotland and Wales on war? On energy? On foreign relations? On nukes? On energy? Are you quite mad? What do you think this is, a political union?'
Rather, it reveals the clear purpose to which the very gears of this 'union' grind and groan.
The necessity of the political and (increasingly) cultural dominance of the desired 'Anglo-state'.
Be they Tory, be they Starmerite Tory. This is their project. This is their lie, exposed. Any number of Keir Starmer's recent quotes should alarm you, but this is a corker:
"[I will] establish a way of working across the United Kingdom that will be different and better to the way of working that we've had in recent years and to recognise the contributions of all four nations".
Be afraid, be very afraid. Therein lies the danger, as we're all witnessing - again - of voting for the colonist. Hold on to your seats, fellow YESsers...
I'm mindful of an old Briton - an actual Briton - the old Plaid Cymru president Gwynfor Evans, who said:
'Britishness… is a political synonym for Englishness which extends English culture over the Scots, the Welsh, and the Irish.'
Once again, the importance of language...
Amidst our struggle, please get it right.
If you refer to 'Britain' or 'British' you're using the language of the British project. You're speaking in the tongue of Sunak, Johnson, Baillie, Sarwar, Patel and Starmer. You're nourishing their lie. Even referring to 'Westminster' doesn't cut it.
You're not describing reality. You're not exposing the truth of their end game.
Use, instead, Anglo-state.
YESsers occasionally ask me why I use this term. Well, because - quite simply - I'm calling it what it is.
Be assured, this is how Starmer and all unionist MPs see 'Britain'. That is their desired destination. 'Britain' is their cover, the shroud they keep over the state they've sworn body and soul too. Their Anglo-state.
Indeed, many Westminster MPs and advisors occasionally slip up. Remember Gove's six-figure 'special advisor' Henry Newman? 'Scotland isn't a country?' Be prepared for more of that. Scots, increasingly, have to see the idea of distinct political nationhood eroded.
Enter, stage left, future 'documentaries' on 'Is Scotland a country?' or 'Aren't we all just the same, realllyyyy...?
'Think I'm kidding? It'll be subtle. Do you remember Rory Stewart's sanctioned BBC 'documentary' in the run-up to 2014? 'The Story of Britain's Lost Middleland'?
Guess what - it finishes by him emphasising the Scotland/England border is just a figment of our collective imagination and that 'we're all just one country...'
This isn't an anti-English thing. A tiresome and lazy go-to concept, itself.
There are many English people fighting for an independent Scotland. Who recognise that the Westminster merry-go-round increasingly tilts to the right. Who are unhappy with austerity. War. Nukes. The climate challenge. Sanctioned genocide.
Likewise, there are thousands of Scots who very much desire the extinction of Scotland as a country capable of action - any action - that best reflects the steer and needs of Scottish citizenry. Effectively, these people want to give Tom their shares - which is what we've just done.
They desire the single Anglo-state. They want - actively want - the dissolution of their country as a politically sentient entity.
'Scotland', to them, isn't a country - merely a cultural curio - best relegated to 90-mins of football.
It's a brand opportunity for 'Britain' - be it selling whisky, Salmon or selling haggis gonks to tourists. Hoots mon!
When Sarwar slinks on about Scotland, understand that *this* is his Scotland. And hold him with the contempt he deserves.
Anglo-state, fellow YESsers. Say it with me. #AngloState.
Use it. Continue to use it. In conversation. Online. Everywhere.
The more we use it, I can assure you, the more it will discomfort them. Because you cannot argue with empirical truth.
As our journey to political independence continues, let's describe things as they are and not how our enemies would have them described.
Ditch the 'B' word. Use #Anglostate.
They'll hate that.
More, very soon...
As originally published here: James Kelman: The 'Britain Is A Country' Fallacy | National Collective
'The people of England and Wales who are indifferent to Scottish independence accept the core fact, that Scotland is a country distinct from their own. In their opinion it is up to Scottish people if they want to break from the Union. Good luck, or good riddance, if they do. Of those who are not indifferent some seek to deny Scotland ‘the right’ to independence, by denying that Scotland is a country.
This denial, that Scotland is a country, is an odd experience for those of us who happen to be Scottish. Our very existence is being called into question. We know we exist. If other people say we do not, what recourse do we have? What happens if the doubters say it to our face where we happen to be standing; in the middle of Oban, Stranraer, Stornoway, Thurso, Macduff, Lerwick, Dumfries, Lamlash, Stromness or Campbeltown?
We are being asked to show the doubters that we exist. How do we accomplish that? But we must. Those denials help us know ourselves. Each time we confront them our existence is revealed. In the process we gain an insight into prejudice and the nature of fascism. Certainly we come to grasp a little of the reality faced by people in Palestine, Kurdistan and far too many other peoples of the world, engaged not simply in a liberation process but in the struggle for survival; to avoid extinction.
Some who deny that Scotland is a country will accept no argument in favour of the proposition. It is hard to contend with this because it reveals immediately a depth of prejudice that cannot be countered in discourse. This applies to powerful individuals within the British establishment. They will not accept the arguments of the other side. There are different ways in which they manage that. The primary method is to not to listen. If they do not hear the arguments then they need not respond.
We see this with professional politicians. No matter the issue raised by the questioner they will reply with prepared statements of their own. Why do they not answer the question? Because they do not hear it. They are focused on their own contribution. They know what they are to say and will say it no matter what. They become so used to avoiding ‘the issue’ that they lose the ability to take part in ordinary dialogue. They cannot focus on another speaker. Their body language betrays them; flickering eye movements, footering with papers, shifting on their seats.
On television programmes dealing with politics the presenters reveal similar behaviour but in a less obvious way. They learn to study their subject as though hanging on every word, but are they? What if the subject ‘lets something drop’ but the presenter fails to pick up on it? The next question the interviewer asks bears no relation to the subject’ previous comment. The audience are left frustrated, knowing that the logical question was never asked, that a chance ‘was lost’, that the ‘real’ debate did not take place.
But the ‘real debate’ never will take place. The ‘real debate’ is suppressed. The mainstream media keep the lid on that, fulfilling its role on behalf of the State and establishment. In the past the ‘real debate’ occurred in pubs, clubs, meeting houses, reading rooms, community centres, art centres, common rooms and libraries. In recent times many of those places have closed down, or been closed down. Nowadays the ‘real debate’ is thought to happen online. Perhaps it does, but I doubt it. Ruling elites and other authorities might disagree. They prefer controlled meetings in private rooms, where doors may be closed, appliances switched off, and outsiders barred. There the ‘real debate’ takes place, and meaningful decisions taken.
Once the doubters are forced to listen to us, and hear our assertion that Scotland is indeed a country, we are met with a range of negativity that is striking. The higher the authority the greater the condescension; the deliberately ill-concealed amusement and blatant contempt from professional politicians, media journalists and broadcasters. These may be tactics employed and designed to reduce us to silence, to suppress authentic discourse. But they may be an authentic statement of their position. They genuinely do not accept that Scotland is a country.
Once we get beyond that, and we have to try, we return to the question of how we assert our existence.
The most thorough-going Scottish Unionist would hardly argue that Scotland is not a country, and I include the ruling elite and upper classes in that. Only someone who is not Scottish could make such a denial seriously.
Some British Unionists in the north of Ireland might deny that Scotland is a country. It does not help their own cause if Scotland is ‘proven’ to be a country. It is difficult to sustain an argument that the north of Ireland excluding Donegal is a separate country from the rest of Ireland. As long as Britain is a country they can claim ‘Britishness’. They believe this essential in their perennial struggle to establish their own identity which appears structured on the right not to be Irish.
According to edition of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Britain is “the proper name of the whole island containing England, Wales, and Scotland, with their dependencies; more fully called Great Britain; now also used for the British Empire as a whole…” This was the revised and corrected entry for the 1956 edition. Although this edition has an entry on England there is none at all for ‘Wales’, ‘Scotland’ and ‘Ireland’. Let me repeat that: the Shorter OED has an entry on England but none whatsoever for ‘Wales’, ‘Scotland’ and ‘Ireland’. I have to bind us in inverted commas to indicate the problematic nature of our existence.
It is possible to be both British and Scottish? The difficulties arise when the grounds for this lurch into any field other than the geographical. We in Scotland became North Britons from 1707 onwards, following a deal between the British ruling elite. The only class of people in Britain who can justify validly their claims to Britishness are the ruling elite and their minions. Britishness is their possession. Some are content to accept that Scotland is a country. In this it is no different from any other country in the world. The ruling elite demand only their usual right, to plunder and steal whatever they can. But it helps their case that Britain is regarded as an entity stronger than a union. A ‘union’ implies the legitimacy and equality of other voices and the inalienable right of these other voices to be heard and taken seriously, as in a democratic process, God forbid.
It is much preferable for the ruling elite that Britain is seen as a kind of country, a sort of ‘greater country’. The State authorities do not deny that Scotland is a country. In this respect it stands alongside England and Wales. But they have come to believe, and put forward the notion, that one country may be ’embedded’ in another if the other is ‘greater’. As far as the State is concerned Scotland, England and Wales are countries but so too is Britain. And Britain is the sum of their parts. The ‘sum’ is always greater than its part. This applies here. Britain is a greater country than Scotland, England and Wales. Each of the three is ’embedded’ in Britain.
This acts to validate the continued possession of lands and properties plundered and stolen from various peoples in earlier times. It is no accident that in the same 1959 revised version of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary we find this entry on ‘Britain’: “More fully called Great Britain; now also used for the British Empire as a whole.”
Each of Britain’s three countries has its own cultural heritage. Within them are affinities and relationships, shared histories and future goals, common struggles, battles and wars. The north of Ireland, or Northern Ireland, is a separate issue. The legacy of an expansionist or imperial strategy modified over centuries is complicated for British ruling authority by the people’s claim for civil and human rights which also allows validity to the unionist claims of the descendants of the English and Scottish settlers who were despatched there as an aid to the preservation of the Stuart throne, the destruction of Gaeldom and the plundering of Ireland.
This is not to suggest that Scotland and Ireland might have formed a Celtic nation but for the machinations of 17th century British unionists. Nor do I wish to imply that the true identity of Scotland is Celtic. The Post-Reformation, Seventeenth Century political and theological politics of Scotland are too complex for myself to attempt to enter into here. Enough to say that Gaelic culture was strongly present in Scotland, but so too were others.
Many British Unionists (including Scotland people), accept that Scotland is a country but do not accept that cultural difference and distinctiveness are significant. They believe in a Scottish heritage but not that it amounts to more than a colourful history, and a host of curious emblematic and decorative artefacts, a few of which are marketable to an international client-base. British State authority propagates this perception. It has become the conventional perception, accepted by a goodly proportion of the Scottish diaspora. A large number of the descendants of Scottish emigrants, forced and otherwise, over a three hundred year period have an attachment to the country founded on sentimental foolishness. One that has been fostered, and foisted, by the British State and other business interests.
There is one right that the the ruling elite refuse to accept until their back is against the wall: that ‘the right’ to call their country a country ‘warrants’ a people to behave as though they live a country.
It is argued that some countries are ‘stronger’ than others. Those others are ‘weaker’ or ‘lesser’. This can pertain to the economic and political, but only if necessary. Culture is the primary factor. Culture includes heritage, tradition, language, art: anything at all that derives from the production and creativity of the people. It is accepted that cultural distinction exists between countries. The important factor is the value placed upon them.
The cultures of ‘lesser’ countries are presumed emblematic and decorative, singular to the point of peculiarity, even perversity. The cultures are themselves ‘lesser’. ‘Stronger’ countries have ‘stronger’ cultures. ‘Lesser’ cultures are provincial, parochial; lacking breadth and internationalism, utterly incapable of dealing with the modern world. For that a more mature and dynamic culture is demanded, one whose intellectual basis is utterly sound, capable of entering into the contemporary world. ‘Lesser’ cultures typically indicate former glories. Examples of ‘lesser’ cultural phenomena include Morris-dancing, caber-tossing, vernaculars, dialects and many obscure practices. ‘Lesser’ cultures may be embedded within ‘greater’ cultures.
The cultures of England, Wales, Scotland and the north of Ireland (excluding Donegal) are ’embedded’ within the wider British culture. The culture of Britain is the sum of these cultures and is ‘greater’.
Problems arise for State authority when the further stage in the process arrives. This is the attempt to determine the nature of British culture. In this context ‘British’ soon becomes ‘English’, and ‘Britishness’ ‘Englishness’. Once we examine ‘Englishness’ we discover only parts; regions and difference; old languages and old cultures; elements of old empires: class and hierarchy, power and subjection. Britain is not a country, it is the name used by the ruling elite and its structures of authority to describe itself.'
No spam or ads, just the latest posts and updates from Scotland's newest pro-independence blog.
.png)
