Our Internal Affairs

     Throughout my involvement in the Scottish referendum campaign, there were several times when I was told to stay out of Scotland’s “internal affairs.” Some Nationalists and “Yes” supporters on Facebook and Twitter would say that the referendum vote had nothing to do with me and that – among others things – I should “f**k off” and pay more attention to what’s going on in the United States. Other people were more polite about it – saying that they appreciated my interest, but nonetheless still say that I ought to stay out of their referendum over their future.

     Then when President Obama made his intervention in support of our closest ally to keep itself together, there were many Nats who angrily frothed at the notion of the President of the United States making his views known publicly – at one point, alongside the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron. He too was told to stay out and shut up, and even then-First Minister and SNP leader Alex Salmond reportedly was upset about the presidential intervention.

     Following the referendum and up to the present, I have still found myself coming into contact with Cybernats telling me that what goes on in Scotland has nothing to do with me and that I should stop commenting and writing articles such this.

     So when I came across yesterday’s article in The Herald that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon had endorsed Hillary Clinton to be our next president, my first thought was: well, look who’s commenting on the internal affairs of another country. However, this was not mere commenting on what’s going in America, but openly saying who she would like to see in the White House this time next year, and breaking the diplomatic convention that politicians in one country should not directly comment on foreign elections or endorse candidates in those elections.

     Yet while Sturgeon should have observed this convention (regardless of whether she was prompted by a member of the audience to which she was speaking), I tend to find nothing wrong in general with politicians, other public officials and figures, and private individuals in one country commenting on other major issues and concerns in a other country, especially one that is a close friend and ally.

     Such is the case with the Special Relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom that we cannot help but to watch what goes on each other’s country and perhaps have something to say about events which may prove to be quite consequential to the nature of our relationship. It is therefore not surprising that President Obama made an intervention two years ago to keep the UK together, and that he is choosing to speak out in favor of the UK’s membership in the European Union.

     On the other end, it has been David Cameron and other leading British politicians who have voiced their criticism of unspoken and controversial Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, and Members of Parliament even debated whether Trump ought to have been banned from entering the United Kingdom. Indeed, when Sturgeon was asked whether she would welcome Trump to Scotland if he became president, she did not directly answer the question, but did refer to his views as “abhorrent.” In doing this, she stayed in line with what most politicians were doing – condemning Trump and speaking about the campaign in general terms – but differing by actually making an endorsement of Hillary Clinton.

     Even so, she has a right to do this, and if she were a private citizen like most of us, there would be no criticism from me. For my part, it has been an interesting time to observe politics and current events unfold on both sides of the Pond, and being on Twitter and Facebook has helped me to see how many Brits and Americans see each other. From the casual social networkers to the media pundits to the political leaders, just about everyone has something to say about one another’s country and perhaps offer suggestions or thoughts on what it ought to do.

     At times, this gets taken for “lecturing” – as though a person from one country or the other is looking down/talking down to people in the other country from on high. But the reality is this: you can either listen or not; take it or leave it. We have to be grown up about hearing from people who either reside in or are from other countries, and again, especially when that country is a close friend and ally which shares broadly similar customs, values, language, and heritage, and with whom there are strong military, economic, and political ties.

     No one had to listen to me on Twitter and Facebook during the lead-up to the referendum; the people who have supported me and in some cases, have become my friends during and since that time, could have ignored me. The fact that they and so many others have not is an indication that they are at some level interested in what I have to say, just as I am interested in what they have to say.

     In the bigger scheme of things, I seriously doubt anybody changed their minds because of me, but I was at least contented with engaging with people who took me seriously and treated me with respect along the way.

     I got into the referendum and events since because of my respect, appreciation, and love for the United Kingdom and my desire to not see it dissolve and cast into the dispersing winds. I have been sincere in this desire as a private citizen because of my personal affection for the country, its people, its history and heritage, its culture, my concern for its future and where it’s going, and its relationship with my country. In the last four years, I have taken an active interest in what goes on in the UK, with a particular focus on Scotland due to the referendum and since, and now with both countries going through many of the same issues, I do what I can to keep up with the comings-and-going on both sides of the Pond.

     On the other side are many new British friends who take an active interest in what goes on in the United States, not least because of the roller coaster ride that is the presidential election. Many of them have a reciprocal admiration, respect, and love for America, and as they watch developments over here, they have expressed their own concerns about the direction of the country as we go through the primary process and go about choosing a successor to President Obama.

     And I welcome this because after all, we are close allies and friends; we do have a Special Relationship, so it is only natural that we pay attention to each other, for certain events occurring in one country tend to have an effect in the other. For that reason alone, it is right for us – short of public officials making transatlantic endorsements – to comment on what is going on in each other’s country. Speaking for myself as an American, it also makes sense because sometimes, it helps to hear different perspectives from our cousins across the Pond, and there are many who feel the same way in the UK with regard to the US.

     To be clear, our internal affairs are ones which only we can – quite rightly – decide for ourselves at our respective ballot boxes, but with the right tone and in good faith from the perspective of friendship and a genuine interest on the issues at hand, an outside perspective can be warmly received and appreciated. We do not have to agree with each other or come around to the other person’s point of view, but listening and perhaps having a conversation or debate can make us stronger in our beliefs, better informed about the world around us, and feel a sense of mutual respect among each other.

     This I believe is a good thing for everyone. 

     To quote Robert Burns: 

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us

To see oursels as ithers see us!

Still Together and the Path Forward

The "Aerial No" in Edinburgh just days before the referendum.

     Today would have been the day that Scotland became an independent country and when the United Kingdom would have been broken up.

     Thankfully, it is not. The people of Scotland saw through the dubious, dodgy, and threadbare claims of the separatist case pushed by the Yes campaign, led by Alex Salmond and the SNP. The people debated and argued throughout a two year long campaign in which all of the issues were discussed at length. During this campaign, there was almost constant media coverage of the campaign and the issues at stake; there were claims and counter-claims – in print, on television and radio, on various online platforms. Indeed, with all the back-and-forth going on between the positions and people on both sides, it’s a wonder that many of us didn’t lose our heads!

     It was an emotionally training and exhaustive campaign – the likes of which many of us had not ever witnessed – and the world watched to wonder if the United Kingdom was on the verge of dissolution. Indeed, as the campaign went into its final month, the Yes campaign caught up and it looked as though they might have had a shot at their prize.

     In the end, after all the speeches, rallies, leaflets, ads, marches, bean counting, pronouncements, and flag-waving, on September 18, 2014, the people voted decisively to maintain the United Kingdom and to preserve over 300 years of history, heritage, and relationships – economic, social, cultural, and political. The people said quite politely and in a fair and legal democratic referendum: “No, Thanks”.

     We should all be thankful for the result, for it spared Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom from unnecessary and untold upheaval on many fronts. A bullet was dodged and one of the greatest countries in the world was saved.

     However, there’s no denying that the SNP – far from being mortally wounded – has gone on to dizzying heights as a political party. Successfully capturing the 45% of Scots who voted Yes and trading on the popularity of their new leader Nicola Sturgeon, they won all but three of the 59 UK parliamentary seats in Scotland at the General Election in May 2015 – becoming the third biggest group in the House of Commons and in terms of its membership, the third biggest political party in the United Kingdom.

     Now, there appears to be little sign of them slackening in the opinion polls, and they are projected to win an unprecedented third term in government with another majority – thereby likely keeping the separation and constitutional issues at the forefront of politics in Scotland. Scores of voters who tended to vote for the three pro-Union parties have bolted to the SNP, and there are no indications that they are coming back soon.

     In the face of this, the SNP’s opposition is divided between those parties – Labour, the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats – with Labour and the LibDems at historic lows and the Tories seeing something of a small revival since their 1997 wipeout, but nothing in the way of providing the numbers and political muscle to provide a strong opposition by any single party.

     In the circumstances – especially with most polls still showing a majority or dead-heat on the independence question – some people such as columnist Alex Massie have come to the conclusion that Scotland has too many parties, and that if the vast majority of Yes voters are fueling the SNP’s rise to around 50% in the polls, then it stands that No voters need to have a party of their own – a single “Unionist Party.” They believe that the pro-Union/anti-Union split and a focus on constitutional arraignments are the new norm and that, in Massie’s words, “the great political realignment spawned by the referendum is not over yet”, and in this vein they believe that a Unionist Party must be formed out of a merger of the three main parties and the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in order to give a proper voice to those who voted No, mount an effective opposition to the SNP, and “offer a plausible alternative to the SNP’s constitutional vision.” Given that the SNP is effectively (in practice, if not in rhetoric) a centrist party, a Scottish Unionist Party would run largely parallel to them and differ only on the national question. As Massie put it, the SNP and SUP would be “rather like Caledonian versions of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael [in the Republic of Ireland], parties sharing the same part of the political bandwidth, but ferociously opposed to one another.”

     In many ways, I must say that this is an enticing prospect. There is sound logic behind, and in theory, would very much help at providing an effective answer to the SNP. The problem is that theory is just that – theory – and there are three main problems with the creation of a Scottish Unionist Party.

     Firstly, how would it work in terms of political ideology outside of advocating for the Union? It may be easy to say that it would be a centrist party to appeal to most people, but realistically, how would it accommodate those members, activists, and voters from Labour, the Tories, the LibDem's, and UKIP? If you can't get the vast majority of those who voted No to back a Unionist Party because of differences over non-constitutional policies, then where will they go when their parties have been merged into it?

     Secondly, how would it work in relation to the House of Commons? Would the party vote with a whip unto itself or would left-wing MP’s be able to vote with Labour and right-wing MP’s with the Tories?

     Thirdly is the concern that a party whose raison d'être is “Unionism” will only entrench the referendum dividing lines and make for – and I say this with no disrespect – a Northern Ireland-type situation in which politics and society are perpetually focused on and organized around the constitutional issues. This “are you pro or anti UK/indy” dynamic plays into the SNP’s hands as elections become less about real policies and what is happening in the world.

     Of course, there once was a Unionist Party operating in Scotland, but that party (which lasted from 1912 to 1965) was basically the Conservative Party in Scotland and took the Conservative whip at Westminster before formally merging with the Conservatives in England and Wales; a new (serious) Unionist Party would have to capture the vast majority of those who voted No from across the political spectrum in the Labour, Tory, and LibDem traditions. However, it is hard to see that happening; it was tough enough keeping the Better Together campaign rolling as a competent operation staffed and fronted by people who were (and still are) opposed to each other on virtually every other issue save for the constitution.

     Now make no mistake: I am a head, heart, and soul supporter of the Union – economically, socially, culturally, and politically, and I dearly wish for the United Kingdom to survive as a country forever. However, I am simply not convinced that the creation of a new Unionist Party is the best way forward.

     Most post-referendum studies have shown that among No voters, only around a third did so primarily out of affection for the United Kingdom and being British; much of the rest did so out primarily out of concern for their personal economic interest and because the case for separation was not convincing, which perhaps explains why some them do not label themselves a “Unionists.” Their support for the Union is not – at least primarily – driven by sentiment and the sense of historical connection to the rest of the UK. As such, they are not the type of people who support the Union come what may and appeals to Britishness and waving the Union Flag may not be helpful among them; they are the people who said that they would have supported separation if they were £500 better off individually, and so their support must not be taken for granted.

     Many of them are primarily concerned about the economy and prospects for themselves and their families, and they were convinced in 2014 that they were better off within the United Kingdom. Who’s to say that at least some of them may not be convinced should another referendum be held – God forbid – within the next few years?

     At the very least, polling ought to be done to find out what kind of support a Scottish Unionist Party would have, and especially if the vast majority of people from all three main parties are willing to join and vote for it. Without that polling however, I am willing to bet that with all of the practical obstacles facing it, an SUP will not likely gain traction as an effective counter-weight to the SNP.

     Going forward, the best option in the long-term will be to support the existing Union parties, who need all the help they can get to recover themselves to respectable positions at all levels in Scotland, especially Holyrood. Indeed, as Holyrood obtains more powers over people’s lives, it will be incumbent upon each party oppose the SNP and offer viable alternatives to the people of Scotland, with a focus on making life better for people on issues such as education, policing, healthcare, welfare, transportation, housing, and – above all – the economy, and moving away from the constitutional issues as much as possible.

     We are already seeing some rumbles of dissatisfaction within the SNP ranks, with the recent announcement on tax policy - keeping the top rate of tax in line with the rest of the UK - being just one area causing some consternation in some sections of the party. To be true, there may not be enough dissatisfaction with the SNP in time for this upcoming election, but it’s there, and Labour, the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats need to be ready for those who may become disillusioned and are ready to give at least one of those parties an audience. This, I believe, is bound to happen as the SNP stays in power over a longer period of time with more powers over people’s everyday lives than any previous administration at Holyrood and perhaps find it difficult to please it's broad church of socialists, neo-liberals, progressives, environmentalists, fossil fuel promoters, free-marketers, free traders, social democrats, and hard-core nationalist's.

     However, this is not to say that the Union does not need defenders advocating on its behalf day in and day out, and that’s where campaign groups such as Scotland in Union (SIU) and United Against Separation (UAS) come into play.

     UAS first came about during the referendum and played a major role in it as the “Vote No” page, and like its current name suggests, it is against breaking up the UK and has played more of role in opposing the SNP and pointing out its many contradictions and duplicity on several issues, while SIU came about more out of the aftermath and division caused by the referendum, and is more about promoting a positive message about Scotland and its place as part of the UK, and is not necessarily as much of an “anti-SNP” organization. As such, they are genuinely complementary in various ways – UAS is bigger with more “Likes” on Facebook and has more of an activist edge; SIU has more of a mainstream media presence, and conducts research and polling on Scotland and the Union. Broadly they have the same goal, but with just a slightly different approach.

     Both of them are doing a good job with what they are doing, and last night, SIU held a special gathering to mark this day when Scotland and the UK as a whole dodged a bullet. Going forward, UAS and SIU need to continue on by promoting and supporting the UK, and the ideas that the UK is better for having Scotland and Scotland is better for being in the UK. Their success will be an end to the dominance of the SNP, as well as the reality that separation and nationalism are not good options for Scotland. The byproduct of this will be more Labour, Tory, and LibDem members in Holyrood and Westminster in a much hoped-for return to non-constitutionally aligned politics.

     At an individual level, more people among us need to get involved with UAS and SIU, and volunteer their time leafleting, manning stalls on the streets, knocking on doors, having conversations with people, hosting/holding events, being active online, and generally doing all they can to help spread the word about the Union and its benefits to Scotland, along with how the UK in general is made stronger with Scotland. Part of this should be to make a social and cultural case for the UK in tandem with the economic case, so that there can be an even stronger case against the SNP – one that talks about the UK as a whole and how Scotland makes it what it is because of its people and many other contributions.

     This is likely going to be a long-term effort which will require a lot of work and sacrifice. None of us wanted the referendum and all that has transpired since, but this is where we are, and we have to take this thing one day at a time. There will be progress and setbacks, but with time, I do believe that all of us can do something to make a difference in helping to keep the United Kingdom together in a positive, bold, and confident manner.

St. Patrick's Day

     Today is St. Patrick's Day, and it is a day of celebration throughout the island of Ireland (both in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland).

     Saint Patrick is the patron saint of Ireland - one of the four patron saints of the British – or Anglo-Celtic – Isles (with the other ones being St. Andrew for Scotland, St. David for Wales, and St. George for England).

St. Patrick as depicted on a stained-glass window in the Cathedral of Christ the Light, Oakland, California.  Image Credit: Sicarr via Wikimedia Commons cc

     He was born somewhere in Roman Britain (likely Wales) to a wealthy Romano-British family, whose members were strong and faithful Christians. Patrick himself however, was not an active believer in his early years. At the age of sixteen, he was kidnapped by Irish pirates who took him into slavery in Ireland, where he worked as a shepherd for the next six years. It was during Patrick's time in captivity that he experienced a spiritual awakening and developed a true relationship with God, which eventually led him to escape and return home to his family in Britain. There, he studied Christianity, became a priest, and returned to Ireland as a missionary.

     It was in Ireland that Saint Patrick become known for converting the Irish people from polytheistic paganism to monotheistic Christianity, and supposedly used the shamrock to teach the concept of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). It is said that St. Patrick spent several years evangelizing in what is now Northern Ireland and succeeded on converting "thousands" of people. He is also considered the first Bishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland.

The three-leaf clover representing the Holy Trinity. Image Credit: George McFinnigan via Wikimedia Commons cc

     It is not known what year St. Patrick died, but he is generally considered have died on March 17, which resulted in the day being named in his honor. He may not have been responsible for converting all of Ireland to Christianity, but he is credited for starting the process, and has been Ireland's patron-saint since around the 7th Century.

     St. Patrick's Day has been celebrated for centuries throughout Ireland and Great Britain. It is a celebration of Irish Christianity (in both the Catholic and Protestant traditions), as well as Irish culture and heritage in general. Public parades and festivals, the wearing of green attire and shamrocks, and church services are hallmarks of most St. Patrick's Day celebrations. There is also céilithe (a traditional Gaelic social gathering, which usually involves playing Gaelic folk music and dancing) and the lifting of Lenten restrictions on eating and drinking alcohol for the day, which has resulted in the infamous tradition of consuming alcohol.

Saint Patrick's Saltire

     However, it was not until the 1903 that St. Patrick's Day became a public holiday in Ireland, thanks to the Bank Holiday (Ireland) Act, which was passed by the UK Parliament when all of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. It remains a holiday in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and large festivities are held in Dublin, Cork, and Galway in the ROI and in Belfast, Downpatrick, and Derry/Londonderry in NI. Outside of Dublin, the largest celebrations on the island of Ireland take place in Downpatrick, the city where the revered patron saint is supposedly buried at Down Cathedral.

     In mainland Britain, Birmingham is home to the largest St. Patrick's Day parade in the country, whilst London has held its own parade since 2002. Manchester hosts a two-week Irish festival leading up to the day itself, and the Irish tricolor flies opposite of the Union Jack above the town hall. Other celebrations take place in Glasgow, Liverpool, and Coatbridge - which have large populations of people with Irish backgrounds.

HRH The Duke of Cambridge and Baron Carrickfergus, Colonel of the Irish Guards. Image Credit: Carfax2 via Wikimedia Commons cc

     The Royal family also does its bit to celebrate one of the patron-saints of the British Isles. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother used to present bowls of shamrock flown over from Ireland to members of the Irish Guards - a regiment of the British Army - whose members largely hail from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

     In recent years since their marriage, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (Baron and Lady Carrickfergus) have attended the annual St. Patrick's Day Parade at Mons Barracks in Aldershot, Hampshire with the Irish Guards, whose Colonel is Prince William. The Duchess of Cambridge continues the royal tradition of having a senior female member of the Royal family present shamrocks to members of the Guards (including their Irish Wolfhound mascot), which was begun by Queen Alexandra - wife of Edward VII - in 1901.

     In the United States, St. Patrick’s Day is not a federal holiday, but there nevertheless is a strong tradition of celebrating it, especially in towns and cities with significant Irish or Irish-descent populations. The first public observance was organized by the Charitable Irish Society of Boston in 1737, and it involved a worship service and a special dinner.

     Since then, such observances have included large festive seasons with parades, feasts, and religious services. New York City is usually home to the largest St. Patrick’s Day parade, not only in America, but in the world, and typically features 150,000 marchers lead by the 69th Infantry Regiment of New York and including police and firefighting departments, bands, social and cultural societies, civic and government associations, and several other groups and individuals (including the Mayor of New York) marching up 5th Avenue for five hours along a mile-and-a-half route with around 2 million spectators.

The United States Coast Guard Band and Pipe Band Proceeding up Fifth Avenue in New York City during a St. Patrick's Day parade. Image Credit: Public Domain (Wikimedia Commons and Pixabay)

     Elsewhere, there are large celebrations and observances in Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, Seattle, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. In Suffolk County, Massachusetts (which includes Boston), the day is officially known by law as Evacuation Day because it commemorates the evacuation of British soldiers from Dorchester Heights following the Siege of Boston during the Revolutionary War, which just happened to fall on St. Patrick’s Day 1776, and the observance of the patron saint’s holiday played a role in the official establishment of the current public holiday.

     In fact, Suffolk County is only one of two places in the United States where St. Patrick’s Day is a legal holiday. The other place is my hometown of Savannah, Georgia.

     The first parade in Savannah is generally recognized as having been organized by the Hibernian Society in 1824. In recent times, the annual parade and celebrations are usually the second largest in the United States after New York and have become globally-recognized – attracting numerous visitors from throughout the country and around the world. In a city with a population of 145,000, anywhere from 500,000 to one million people may participate in the festivities in any given year.

Sailors of the US Navy marching through the streets of Savannah during a St. Patrick's Day parade. Image Credit: Public Domain (Left, Upper Right, Lower Right)

     While the day still has a clear ethnic and religious significance, for most of us who live here (including yours truly), it is a cultural holiday for all to enjoy – white and black, Protestant and Catholic, religious and atheist, etc. – and I must say that as both a participant and spectator, I have yet to encounter hatred or disrespect for any group of people from whatever background. The best part is indeed, the parade, which includes various bands from the city and the surrounding region (especially from local schools), military regiments, social and cultural groups, government and civic organizations, the famous Budweiser Clydesdales, and many other unitsand individuals – some from other parts of the country and overseas.

     The crowds can get to be a bit much for our mid-sized city, but we generally welcome them as our neighbors and friends for the festivities which can spread out over several days, especially if the big day itself falls on or near a weekend. Our historic downtown area buzzes with streams of people getting around and enjoying themselves, particularly on the waterfront facing the Savannah River. Pubs of all kinds – Irish, Scottish, English, Welsh, and all-around British – boom with activity as people tend to gather around for a good time. It is – to say the least – a unique experience to remember.

Throngs of people on River Street in Savannah for St. Patrick's Day.

     Understandably, St. Patrick’s Day is not for everyone for a variety of reasons – sometimes relating to the divide between Catholics and Protestants. However, on the BBC’s website, there is a page containing its archives from previous St. Patrick’s Day observances, with a video (the third one) featuring a reporter asking people on the streets of Belfast in 1978 whether they should get the day off on March 17th.

     Opinions were divided, but at the end of the report, there is a elderly woman who did not explicitly state her view on having the day off. Instead, she acknowledged that St. Patrick was the patron saint, and when pressed on whether he was Protestant or Catholic, she said that “he was neither Protestant, or Catholic, or popery, or anything else”, and that he was simply a man sent by God who loved Ireland – all of it.

     If he were alive in this modern day and age, I’d like to believe that he would extend a hand of friendship to the other patron saints of the British Isles, as well as all people living there - Catholic, Protestant, or whatever else they may be.

     So, Happy St. Patrick’s Day!