Earlier this week, Irish President Mary McAleese noted that “it is possible to be both Irish and British”, explaining the significance of that truism by observing that, in terms of identity politics, the “momentum of these times” is that “we face into a landscape of new possibilities and understandings” — which remark strikes me as both perceptive and progressive.
However, Republican Sinn Féin issued a statement calling McAleese’s remarks “nonsensical”. They counterclaimed that “it is not possible for someone to give their allegiance both to Ireland and to Britain”, and even said that “Britain represents the denial of Ireland’s rights”. The statement went on to insist that people “should be encouraged to recognise that they are exclusively Irish”.
This, more perhaps than anything else, is what about nationalism most repels me: the fact that it demands sole allegiance: in the case of RSF by contriving an argument which denies that Britishness is a legitimate identity and in the case of the SNP by sending repeated signals that to be British is to be less Scottish. That, in a nutshell, is the inherent intolerance of nationalism.
Podcast: The 7 Days Show Episode 16
34 minutes ago
No idea what passport(s) she holds but a glance at her career shows that Mary Mac is, indeed, both British and Irish.
AM2, there is always a dichotomy in your posts.
You are either a nationalist or not.
You are a British Nationalist.
Or are you an European "Nationalist"?
No, Conan. There's no dichotomy.
The stock response to criticism of nationalism as a political ideology, which is to accuse those who would prefer for Scotland to remain part of Britain of being “British nationalists”, is a tactic which is wearing very thin.
Nationalism isn’t about where you happen to think state lines should be drawn. There are plenty of people (those who ascribe to Green ideas, for example) who would prefer for Scotland to become independent but are in no sense nationalists. Theirs is just a decentralist instinct which happens to coincide with one possible constitutional arrangement.
Similarly, there are those (UKIP, BNP etc) who really are British nationalists, in the sense that they are preoccupied with British sovereignty.
But much as it mightn’t fit with the your semantic misconceptions, the fact is that I am not a nationalist of any kind. Rather, I am comfortable with nested and even overlapping entities (Cornwall, England, Scotland, Ireland, Britain, Catalonia, Spain, Brittany, France etc) all considering themselves to be nations, if they so desire. Existing nation states should of course accommodate their constituent nations, or parts thereof. But separatism, the idea that state lines should always coincide with the borders of the smallest possible nation, is an inherently divisive and destructive force.
Lord forgive me but this is the first time i have posted on this blog.
AM2 im Scottish but i can call myself French or Dutch. I can be anyone i choose and its just a matter of fact that most Scots choose to be Scottish rather than British.
Conan the Librarian™ you have AM2 in a nutshell -:)
Bird of Prey:
Not so. The vast majority of Scots consider themselves to be both Scottish and British. Successive Scottish Social Attitudes surveys and various commercial polls by ICM and others have shown that conclusively. Moreover, the proportion defining themselves as “Scottish not British” has fallen very substantially in recent years.
You’re talking about something entirely different: the result if you force people to choose only one. There is a very real, and entirely understandable, sense in which the Scottishness, as the more distinctive and immediate identity, takes a front seat under such artificial circumstances.
But why insist that people who have already self-defined as “Scottish and British” choose only one? Isn’t that just another manifestation of the intolerance to which I’m referring?
My semantic misconceptions?! LOL
My God AM2.
I salute your your courage, your strength, your indefatigability,
in the unionist cause.
Ah well. I wasn't really expecting much of an answer.
Goodnight Conan.
"give their allegiance"
This always confuses me are Sinn Féin saying if an Irish man/woman went to work in say china and the company they were employed in exported their products to Ireland. And the consequence was for an Irish competitor to go bust and put many Irish citizens on the dole.
Then of course their allegiance is to china and not Ireland.
you could argue that many Irish people benefited from the money they saved on the cheaper Chinese products.
Perhaps they showed their true allegiances by helping a foreign competitor who in turn benefited the Irish people.
Some Brave Irish went and fought in a war although their nation was neutral. They fought and died for a foreign state and in doing so kept their own nation free.
Who can doubt their allegiance?
Allegiance like patriotism can be the last refuge of a scoundrel.
OOH...
As an aside, there seems to be some missing bits in your blog.
I'll understand if you don't post this.
I apologise AM2, I tried to give you a more detailed response, but my pc did not let me.
Bird of Prey: Second to SU's reply, I would point out that seeing your identity as even wholly and exclusively Scottish (and there are very few people who this applies to - even a minority in the SNP) does not have to imply that you support Scottish independence or Scottish nationalism.
I don't particularly identify with 'Europeanness', but I am a supporter of the ideals of the European Union.
So no, it's not just a matter of some arbitrary identity choice. Even if it was, I'd say a divisive headcount based on that is a pretty terrible way of creating states.
You are a British Nationalist.
Or are you an European "Nationalist"?
Neither. Those are not single national identities. I'd check the meaning of nationalism, because it doesn't mean what you think it does.
James Joyce never did take Irish citizenship, but remained a British citizen.
However, Republican Sinn Féin issued a statement calling McAleese’s remarks “nonsensical”.
That's because they have not, for decades, represented the wishes of even a sizeable minority of the populous in the Republic of Ireland (one which, when asked, voted over 90% against retaining the claim to Norn Ireland).
Instead they've worked on the undeniable mistreatment of Catholics to fuel sectarianism - the real McCoy, not that short-bread tin, home-by-midnight namby pamby stuff over here - and get the approval of Plastic Paddies abroad. So when an Irish Catholic - and one born in Belfast - deviates from the script, out come the knives. And they call other people Imperialists?
If you think this is loopy, just deik what a paramour of mine, John Wight of the Edinburgh Stop the War - no, not that one! - Coalition has to say about Sinn Fein.
McAleese has said some daft things, notably the Nazi comparison, but I see little objectionable here. From her speech:
In Westport earlier this week, we had the extraordinary scenes at the funeral of Robert McKibben, a young local man, killed in service with the British Army as a member of the Royal Marines in Afghanistan.
Another factoid, William Melville, the founder of MI5, was a good little Catholic boy from Sneem in Kerry.
Alec
Tell Paw Broon that Britain isn't a Nation, no me.
(heh, the word verification is "forket")
There's that intolerance coming through again. The vast majority of British citizens consider themselves to have British nationality, and hence Britain is a nation. Your denial of that fact doesn't alter it.
Tell Paw Broon that Britain isn't a Nation, no me.
This, ladies and gentleman, is what is known as a "cop out". Brown posting here? No. Meet SU, he's not called Gordon.
Am2, Alec, make up your minds!
Am2, Alec, make up your minds!
I don't think we need anyone telling us what we do and do not think. Moreover, we have maintained the same line throughout, so this comment is meaningless.
I do disagree with SU in that I don't consider there to be a "British nation", but a collection of them. Even though I'm positively perplexed at his assertion that the inhabitants of England can be divided into "Cornish" (bah, they're South Devonians) and "not-Cornish", this is minor. The point is that national identity/pride, which he and I are endorsing, is somewhat different from nationalism.
*Even* *then* I do not necessarily object to nationalism. Bit 19th Century, but neutral all the same. Scottish nationalism, Welsh nationalism, Arab nationalism, Jewish nationalism (a.k.a. Zionism, ya-boo John Wight) does not threaten me or anyone else [1]. It requires one identifiable cultural group which members can adhere to. This does not exist in Britain or the E.U.
Back to McAleese's speech, and the soi-disant inheritors of the First Dail. Just how weird is it that she not only spoke at an Orange Hall, but also endorsed Ian Paisley! Plus, does anyone have a direct citation to the Sinn Fein statement? I understand they have a tendency to release these non-traceable statements, thus providing plausible deniability.
[1] It is what is done with it which matters, when I may prefix it with "aggressive".
P.S. If that's your pic, Conan, you look like you're eating a badger.
I'd love to comment on your pic Alec...but anyway.
1 badger
1 glass of pig's blood
1 small glass of armagnac
1 ginger root
1 bottle of dry, sparkling white wine
2 eggs
1 pot of crème fraîche
salt and pepper
500g forest mushrooms OR chestnuts to accompany
100g butter
oil
Eviscerate and skin your badger, and soak it in a fast-flowing river for at least 48 hours. This will help you to de-grease it more easily.
Once the badger is de-greased, cut it into pieces and brown it in a frying pan with butter. When the pieces are golden and stiff, flambée with the armanac, season and add a grated soup-spoon of ginger, fresh if possible.
Pour over the wine, and simmer gently for at least two hours.
At the end of the cooking time, mix the chopped badger liver (cooked beforehand in a little oil), the glass of blood, two egg yolks, a coffee-spoon of ginger and the crème fraîche, and pour into the cooking dish. Serve immediately.
This dish goes well with wild mushrooms or chestnuts.
Sorry AM2, but Alec started it.
Gads! Now I'm going to have a craving for badgers all day!
Of course it's possible to be both Irish and British. You can have dual citizenship. No such option exists for Scots. So I am not really clear what your point is.
I suspect you would be the first to object to the idea of Scottish citizenship.
Yet it is only because Ireland is independent that people can choose to have both Irish and British citizenship.
Indy
Thank you for not talking about badgers, but are you deliberately misunderstanding the thread? We're not talking about citizenship.
And what makes you think I would object to some form of Scottish citizenship? There's no question that the Union has been too inflexible in the past, and perhaps the fact that nationalism persists indicates that it still is. I would have no problem whatsoever with a Scottish passport, for example.
Come on, there is clearly a link between citizenship and national identity.
It would be perverse to deny that.
It is possible to be a citizen of both the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
It is not however possible to be a citizen of both the UK and Scotland because there is no such thing as Scottish citizenship, in contrast to Ireland.
That's a pretty obvious point I don't think I need to say any more.
Yes, there's a link, but your argument (such as it is) is a mere contrivance. The thread is about nationalism, not citizenship.
No, it is about how people can be both Irish and British - equally. Because Ireland and Britain are equal in a way that Scotland and Britain are not.
You've missed the point quite spectacularly. Perhaps try reading the post again? Then read this and this.
It’s not that I have misunderstood the point made by Chekov. He’s just wrong.
Particularly when he says that ‘there is an alternative to ordering states in anything other than primarily nationalistic terms.’
A state cannot be ordered in anything other than nationalistic terms. The nation state is the basis on which the world operates.
Your argument and his would be that a nation, a country, a national region – however you define it - does not have to be an independent nation state in order to have its own identity and autonomy. You can be quite happy having a national identity as part of a larger unit.
Whatever. But the fact is that people can be both Irish and British in a rather less esoteric way because they can be citizens of the UK and of the Republic of Ireland. Because both are nation states with equal status who have come to an arrangement with each other about enabling people who share an identity to have dual citizenship.
That is something that could happen here if Scotland becomes independent but will certainly not happen without it. Without it we are all British.
You seem to have missed that point quite spectacularly. The idea for example that you could have a Scottish passport is simply absurd. How could you be a Scottish national when Scotland is not a nation state?
Also I wonder, when you were reading that speech –
'Bound, from the toil of hate we may not cease
Free, we are free to be your friend'.
What did you think that meant?
Badgers...we don't need no steenking badgers...
Come on, there is clearly a link between citizenship and national identity.
It would be perverse to deny that.
Fortunately, no-one is denying that, Mr. McCarthy.
No, it is about how people can be both Irish and British - equally. Because Ireland and Britain are equal in a way that Scotland and Britain are not.
What on Earth are you talking about now, you babbling, incoherent munchkin?
Indy
A state cannot be ordered in anything other than nationalistic terms.
No. What you mean is that you can't envision it any other way. Your loss.
Indy
"The idea for example that you could have a Scottish passport is simply absurd. How could you be a Scottish national when Scotland is not a nation state?"
I have an EU passport. That's not a nation state. What's the big deal?
Because Ireland and Britain are equal in a way that Scotland and Britain are not.
Again, what on Earth are you talking about? Scotland *is* part of (Great) Britain, you dolt. Ireland is not. Furthermore, it takes a irresponsible cretin of astronomic scale to suggest that, of the two, the history between these two islands has been one of equality and coexistence compared to Scottish history... oh, wait.