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!

Two Flags, One Special Christmas Ornament

     As Christmas approached last year, I searched the web to find a suitable ornament featuring the Union Flag and Stars and Stripes (or some kind of US-UK symbol) for our Christmas tree, and though there were some good selections from which to choose, they were either too expensive or not what I was really look for…or both.

     While at my job (and with time running short till Christmas), I began thinking about making my own ornament and took some time thinking about its size, materials, and feasibility as something that I could do on my own.

     From an arts and crafts store, I purchased a set of thin balsa wood slabs, glossy model paint for three colors (red, white, and blue), paint brushes, and enamel thinner/brush cleaner. Also purchased was a tool kit with a wood cutter and a small hand drill bit for drilling a hole for the ornament hook.

     Even then, and later when I got home, I had no real plan for making the ornament. There was only the most general of ideas of how to do it, and I more-or-less figured things out as I went along.

     First, I researched to find the correct dimensions of the Union Flag, including the measurements for each of the three crosses contained within the flag for St. Andrew, St. George, and St. Patrick – the patron saints of Scotland, England, and Ireland respectively. These were scaled down proportionally to the size of the balsa wood slabs, with their short side used a reference point. The long side being too long for the project, it was cut to size on one of the slabs.

     With the dimensions accounted for and the slab properly sized, I drew the outlines for the respective colors of the flag so that the painting could be done properly and an as cleanly as possible. For extra security, it was decided to use painter’s tape – a form of masking tape – to cover over the areas not being painted at a particular time and thereby ensure a smoother and less messy job.

     The project got properly underway with the painting of St. George’s Cross using glossy red model paint.

     After I had allowed this to dry for a few minutes, it was followed by the painting of the blue field derived from Scotland’s flag. This was done in stages in accordance to the placement of the painter’s tape, and to speed up the progress, I painted in two areas at once – usually in the opposite quadrant from each other after the paint had dried in the other quadrants.

     The final bit of progress made on that first day of the project was the painting of the white border (or fimbriation) around St. George’s Cross, which is derived from the English flag and divides it from the blue field. For this, several pieces of tape were used to prevent the white paint from bleeding over into the other colors, and with white being a light color, these areas required several coats of it to fully cover the vanilla of the balsa wood. After completion, this was left overnight to dry.

     On the next day, I further touched up on the white paint from the previous night, and after I was satisfied, I removed the tape to reveal the Union Flag taking shape quite nicely on the balsa wood.

     Now it was time to work on the diagonal crosses – or saltire’s – of St. Andrew and St. Patrick, which are “counterchanged” so that the position given to the white St. Andrew’s Saltire in one quadrant is the same as that given to the red St. Patrick’s Saltire in the diagonally opposite quadrant. This counterchanging, or pinwheeling effect means that the UK flag is not symmetrical, and is therefore the reason why the flag cannot be flown or drawn in just any way which does not respect the correct positioning of the two crosses.

     Since Scotland – along with England (and Wales) – became part of the Union at its inception on May 1, 1707 and Ireland did not join until nearly a century later, St. Andrew’s Saltire is placed uppermost in the northwest quadrant near the flagstaff, which is also known as the hoist end of the flag and considered the most honorable position in heraldry. St. Patrick’s Saltire received the second most honorable position – being uppermost in the northeast quadrant, the fly end of the flag. St. Andrew's Saltire leads this pinwheeling in the clockwise direction

     For this project, six spaces were created between the lines in each diagonal of the flag in accordance to the actual dimensions of a standard flag. In each diagonal, four of the spaces are painted white and two are painted red, with the result that the two crosses sit side-by-side along the center lines of the diagonals and a fimbriation is formed to prevent St. Patrick’s Saltire from touching the blue field.

     So first, I painted the three white spaces which form St. Andrew’s Saltire in each quadrant, and after several coats, it was left to dry for much of the day until I returned to remove the tape.

     Then I proceeded to paint the fourth white space, and following several applications of the color, it too was left to dry for several hours.

     Upon the removal of the painter’s tape from here, St. Andrew’s Saltire and the fimbriations around it were complete.

     Now came the time to paint St. Patrick’s Saltire of Northern Ireland into the remaining space within the diagonals. This was left overnight to dry.

     Upon the beginning of day three, a final coat of red was applied to St. Patrick’s Saltire and the tape was peeled away to reveal a finished Union Flag!

     With this half of the project completed, I moved on to the Stars and Stripes.

     As with the Union Jack, I started work on my country’s flag by researching to find the correct dimensions – including the measurements for the thirteen stripes, the blue canton in the upper left corner, and the fifty stars within the canton. With the measurements being accounted for, they were scaled down proportionally to fit the size of the balsa wood slab, and with this completed, the real work could begin.

     First came the drawing of the stripes, followed by the upper left canton.

     Paintwork was then commenced on the stripes representing the thirteen British colonies which became the first states in the Union in 1776. The red stripes were painted first – with the first, third, fifth, and seventh stripes being painted before the second, fourth, and sixth due to the constraints via the painter’s tape. Upon completion and drying out, the tape was removed to reveal seven near-perfect red stripes.

     Now it was time for painting the white stripes, which were done a bit more quickly because I had found a way to sufficiently cover the whole of all of the red stripes as I painted the white ones between them. After several coats, this was left overnight to dry.

     On the next morning, day 4 began with the unpeeling of the painter’s tape to show the completed thirteen stripes. Following this was probably the hardest part of the whole project: the fifty stars representing the fifty states of the Union today against the upper left blue canton.

     The stars themselves would be quite tiny and required precise locations in order to make the overall flag look right. To this end, I drew lines down and across the canton in reflection of the measurements on an actual flag, and once this was right, I drew in dots at the relevant intersections as placeholders for the stars. As one can see, there was a significant amount of erasing going on as I worked to get the placement as accurate as possible.

     Next, I proceeded to paint the fifty white stars. With no realistic way of trying to paint through a cut-out of the stars or anything of that sort, I resorted to painting them one by one with varying degrees of success to say the least.

     Following this was painting the blue canton around those stars. This proved quite tricky since I was trying to negotiate around the stars that were already painted, and as it was, I did mess up on some of the stars, but pressed on with the painting.

     After allowing this to dry overnight, day 5 opened with the retouching of the stars that had been damaged by the blue paint. What ended up happening was a back and forth battle between getting white stars and the blue field as accurate as possible. This alone took a whole day to do because in some cases, I had to allow one paint to dry before using the other paint, lest the colors mixed and created a bigger mess!

     Finally on the sixth day, the project was complete. The hand drill bit was used to drill a hole at the top in order to place an ornament hook through it, and a spot on our family Christmas tree was found for the newest addition among its decorations!

     One year later, and I must say that I am still very much proud of producing this special ornament which celebrates the Special Relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. It beautifully graces our tree in a position where both sides are prominently featured and can be appreciated for being a work of art and craftsmanship. Indeed, it shows what can be done when a person puts their mind (and patience) to it.

     During the Christmas season, I hope that all of us will certainly have a mind for being with our families, giving to others, and counting our blessings. It’s unique time for joy and celebration under any flag, and we’ll do well to remember the importance of striving towards “peace on earth and goodwill toward men.”

     Merry Christmas!

American Indepedence and Britain Today

The Declaration of Independence

     Today marks the 239th anniversary marking the founding of the United States of America – the date when we formally adopted a Declaration of Independence which stated our national creed in the self-evident truth that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

     It was indeed, a momentous day when a group of men representing of thirteen colonies on the edge of a far-flung empire came together in Philadelphia to take a stand and act with boldness and courage to give birth to a new country, which has gone on to rise as one of the greatest, most powerful, and influential countries in the world – a symbol of freedom, hope, modernity, democracy, and opportunity.

     Today, I am proud to call myself an American and to call the United States my country, and on this day, I remember why we became independent and the values for which we fought in the process.

     Those values and ideals – representative government arguably the most important of them – were in part born from the Enlightenment and political traditions of the country from which we became independent: Great Britain.

     British democracy had by this time developed into a balanced relationship between monarchy, aristocracy, and the commons in which the monarch was still sovereign but Parliament (the aristocracy and commons) represented the supreme representative authority of the British people and had since the Glorious Revolution circumscribed the powers of the monarch so that on several issues such as taxation, the monarch could not act without the consent of Parliament.

     This principle, that the representatives of the people should work with the monarch, and not be overruled by him or her, had its roots in Britain’s constitutional heritage going back over hundreds of years – including Magna Carta, the Declaration of Arbroath, the Petition of Right, and the English Bill of Rights. More recently, it was rooted in the Whig Party which believed that the monarch – at least at some level – was answerable to the people, and could not claim absolute authority from God.

     The Whig ideal of representative government traveled across the Atlantic, where the Thirteen Colonies had established their own assemblies based on the British Parliament at Westminster in London. There, the colonists could elect their own representatives to debate matters of concern to them and make decisions for the general benefit of the population. This was especially true during the period of Salutary Neglect, when Parliament made little to no effort to enforce laws made in London on the colonists, and the colonies were largely able to do their own thing within the imperial system.

     It was only after 1763 when laws started be enforced with renewed vigor. This was in response to the fact that the British military had fought to defend American interests in the North American theater of the Seven Years’ War, known as the French and Indian War. Britain emerged victorious and with the defeat of the French, had gained new territory to become the foremost economic and military power on Earth.

British North America following the Seven Years' (French and Indian) War.

     Yet this prize did not come cheaply. The new imperial dominions needed maintaining and administering, and the American establishment alone – now including about half of the North American continent – became quite expensive to maintain, indeed. In the process of the war itself, Britain had gone into debt to pay for it, and now the new costs of the expanded empire were also being almost entirely shouldered by the British population in Britain itself.

     From here, Parliament enacted a series of laws designed to increase tax revenue from the colonies and to enforce parliamentary authority – most notably the Stamp Act of 1765, the Townshend Acts of 1767, and the Tea Act of 1773 – and it did so in the belief that it was only fair that colonists start sharing a greater deal of the costs of maintaining the Empire and the benefits it conferred. It also did so in the belief that Parliament was not just the supreme authority in Great Britain itself, but also throughout the whole British Empire, and that as such, it had the constitutional right to levy taxes and make laws anywhere throughout the Empire without impediments.

     This unlimited view of parliamentary authority without representation was not shared by the colonists, who saw the acts as being imposed from on high by a distant legislature across the Pond, where the colonies lacked representation and the ability to speak and act on the behalf of their own interests – hence the sentiment of having “taxation without representation.”

     Without parliamentary representation at Westminster, the colonists nevertheless believed that the British Constitution recognized fundamental rights – such as representative self-government – which Parliament could not ignore, even if it was the supreme authority throughout the Empire. The fact remained that it did not have representatives from the colonies on which it was imposing laws and was now in some cases riding roughshod over the assemblies and laws established by the colonists – going so far as to abolish them without the consent of people living there.

     In light of this, writers such as Thomas Jefferson, James Wilson, and Samuel Adams argued that without American representatives, Parliament was merely the legislature of Great Britain and that with legislatures of their own, the only thing connecting the colonies to the rest of the Empire was common allegiance to the Crown. Jefferson himself wrote in 1775 that: 

“there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America” 

     Those terms were the insistence on accepting parliamentary authority without representation in it, and the unwillingness to view colonial assemblies as having a legitimacy worthy of the constitutional and political traditions that led to their creation. 

     This was in short, Whig language being used against the British Parliament, which had first invented it.

     Many Americans wished to retain the links with the mother country, and certainly did not want a disruptive conflict, but the attempt at coercion by military force and occupation was in many ways, the last straw, and the rest is history.

     Since the outcome of the conflict which followed the battles of Lexington and Concord, America and Britain gradually become close friends and allies as America rose to global prominence alongside Britain, and both countries forged a Special Relationship rooted in the common bonds of language, history, culture, heritage, the rule of law, and democratic principles. Together, we have made mistakes, but when I think of us liberating the world from the forces of evil in Japan, Germany, and Italy – was well as the efforts to bring down the Soviets, and generally trying to help others, I believe we have done more good. 

Uncle Sam with his eagle and Britannia with her lion.

     On a personal level, Britain – now officially known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – is my favorite country in the world outside of my own. 

     It started with an interest in the great ocean liners of the 19th and 20th centuries, and a great many of them happened to be British, such as the Queen Elizabeth 2, which was built at John Brown’s on the Clyde and remains a prime example of Britain at its best.

     From there, I immersed myself into learning about the monarchy, British history, the people of Britain, what the country is like today, British politics, and etc. All the while, I never thought of the United Kingdom as being divided according to the English, Welsh, Scots, and Northern Irish. For me, it has been one country made of different peoples with much in common, with the borders between then virtually meaningless.

     Indeed, what we think of today as Britishness has been brought about by the full and joint political, economic, and social union of these four nations into a single country, known as the United Kingdom. With the melding of these places, the idea of Britishness and Britain took hold, and each part has greatly contributed to that. Take any part out, and an essential part of the UK goes missing.

     When I hear songs like I Vow to Thee My Country, I think of the nation by which we have stood beside through decades of peace and war. When I listen to Heart of Oak, I think of great British ships that exported Britain around the world and helped to connect it. With Rule Britannia! and Land of Hope of Glory, I also think about the country that did so well at the 2012 Olympic Games by being united and which also celebrated the Diamond Jubilee of its storied Queen.

     I look at the vast expanse of Britain – from the Welsh valleys, to the green and pleasant land of England, to the Scottish Highlands, and Northern Ireland’s Giant’s Causeway and take wonder in the beauty of one land – indivisible. I look at the radiance of the UK’s great cities – from Glasgow to Manchester, Belfast to Inverness, from Aberdeen to Cardiff, Liverpool to Southampton, and from Birmingham to Edinburgh to London, and remain in awe of these places that are the engines of Britain’s prosperity.

     Yet for all of these great things, I am not at all blinded by visions of the United Kingdom as perfect country.

     There is poverty and economic suffering currently going on throughout the entire United Kingdom, for the downturn of recent years has caused pain for many people. I know that it is not entirely a land of hope and glory, but that does not mean that it cannot be.

     Britain has been – and is – a great country, and much of that greatness stems from the fact that it once governed the largest empire in human history. The British Empire is long gone, but positive influences from Britain around the world live on to the present day, and the UK is still a leader in world affairs. This is something in which the people ought to take some pride.

     It should also take pride in its cultural exports, such as James Bond, the Beatles, and Harry Potter – all of which hail from the land of Shakespeare and Burns. There are other contributions, like developing democracy and social welfare and leading the world in the industrial revolution, and still more, its venerable institutions such as the NHS, the monarchy, the BBC, Parliament, and the Armed Forces, all of which – in spite of their shortcomings – provide the glue that underpin British society and bind the British people together.

     I see all of these things, and I think to myself: what a wonderful country, this sceptered isle, or rather isles – these Isles of Wonder, which were so beautifully portrayed by Danny Boyle at the Olympics nearly three years ago.

The present-day United Kingdom (in green).

     I cannot help but to have admiration for what Britain has done in the past, and – as the 2012 Olympic Games themselves displayed – have hope for what Britain can do in the future, both at home and abroad.

     There are issues with Britain – many of them, and I sometimes wonder if the country is capable of solving them and surviving them. Among the issues are that of the drive by nationalists in Scotland attempting to break up Britain and end its very existence.

     Some of them will use the American example of independence as reason for their efforts. They talk of self-determination and need to be from under the yoke of Westminster, as though Scotland was an oppressed colony with absolutely no say in how Britain is governed, and in my time defending the UK, I have come across nationalists who are incredulous at the idea of Americans believing in keeping the UK together. Upon President Barack Obama’s comments in support of the UK last year, one newspaper columnist said that he could “remind an American president of what self-determination means in his tradition.”

     Well, an American president (and this American citizen) can say that we were inspired by self-determination coming from the British tradition of deciding their own affairs via sending representatives to Parliament to govern the country. In the present day, people in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, and Wales exercise self-determination as British citizens at national, regional, and local levels of government, and the British government (with Scottish representation) affirmed this principle of self-determination when it gave the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh the power to hold a referendum on secession. 

     So no, we have not forgotten the meaning of self-determination. Scots already have it as British citizens. The secessionists just want to change it to self-determination as Scottish (but not British) citizens.

     It is also worth making a distinction between Scotland today and the American colonies of 1776, in addition to what has already been said in this post.

     Scotland is part of the country known as the United Kingdom, the country from which America declared independence. America was administratively part of Britain within a colonial context; it was part of Britain the empire, not Britain the country. If America had been sending representatives to Westminster to have a say on issues affecting the peoples living there, you could make the argument that America was part of Britain the country.

     But that was not the case. We were colonies of Britain, with no parliamentary representation, and that is why we fought under the banner of “no taxation without representation.” Scotland by contrast is not, and has never been a colony. It has been part of Britain the country, with parliamentary representation and a say at the top table, including Scots taking leading positions in government such as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister for all of Britain.

     Today it seems as though Britain is fighting for its very existence. However, it has seen and been through worse times (i.e., World War II and the Blitz), and I believe it – and its people – will survive these trying times.

     From a solid foundation of hundreds of years, this country has much potential for a more dynamic, hopeful, and united future together.

     There is nothing wrong with Britain that cannot be righted by what’s good about Britain – nothing wrong with Britain that cannot be fixed by the British people as a whole from Shetland to Lands End.

     It is my hope as an American celebrating Independence Day that Britain remains together (and can celebrate a Union or Britain Day), just as we remained together after our bloody Civil War, and have remained ever since, and that the Special Relationship between us shall endure.

My performance of My Country, Tis of Thee/God Save the Queen in celebration of America and Britain.