Duncan Weldon
:Chancellor Should Heed IMF Advice and Increase Infrastructure Spending Now
Alistair Darling
:Salmond's Default Position Bankrupts His Credibility
Professor Ibrahim Sirkeci
:Turkish-Kurdish Peace: It Is Different This Time
James Elliott
:Cameron's Mask of Anarchy Is Slipping, But Can the Men and Women of England Reclaim Their Lost Liberty?
Nicola Sturgeon
:Scotland Has Every Right to Be Confident About Our Economic Prospects
"I never could stomach these nationalists," Merlin tells Arthur in The Once And Future King. "The destiny of man is to unite, not to divide."
But in a world of ever-increasing human cooperation, the United Kingdom is discussing a break-up.
Many English and Scots say their countries would be better off without the other, but this debate isn't really about economics - it's about nationalism. It's an easy concept to sell because people want to believe 'we' are clever, brave and resourceful, and 'they' are holding us back.
But are we really going to break up the United Kingdom, which is divided by borders drawn virtually at random hundreds of years ago, just to serve petty patriotism?
These comparatively tiny islands built the greatest empire in history, defeated perhaps the most evil regime which has ever threatened humanity and has led the way for centuries in the development of democracy and the progress of science. If the country has declined in recent years, it is by comparison with the enormous world powers which have emerged - a problem that can hardly be solved by breaking into tribes ourselves.
Sport is ever-important to the UK's national identity, and the example of football offers powerful evidence that we are stronger united. Imagine the nation which could have boasted George Best, Bobby Moore, Kenny Dalglish and Ryan Giggs. That's not necessarily a case for Team GB - as rivalries like those between the home nations are what make sport interesting - but there's no doubt a united team would be stronger than its individual parts.
The same applies to the nation as a whole; the difference is that political unity really matters. Devolution is one thing, and probably a good one as many aspects of government are best done as locally as possible, but divorce would be a sad end to this wonderful union.
In The Once And Future King, Merlin warns Arthur that his enemies "want to smash up what we may call the United Kingdom into a lot of piffling little kingdoms of their own."
Arthur resisted them, and so should we.
Follow Alex Morrison on Twitter: www.twitter.com/adedalex
Iain Anderson: Britain Needs Its 'Yes' Campaign and Quickly
Martel Maxwell: Reflections on Burns Night From a Scot Living in London
Try concentrating on trillion of debt and rising, involved in wars that we should not be, bankers making a fortune whilst losing a fortune, huge unemployment, younger generation unemployment figure through the roof, pensioners trying to decide if they can afford to heat their houses, Tories trying to privatise the NHS.
It is not petty patriotism that is driving the break up of the union, its commonsense.
"Stronger together and weaker apart," just won't do any more.
However, I think your criticisms could also be levelled at Alex Salmond, who in my opinion is very good at sentiment and waffle and struggles when it comes to technical details. For example, he seems uncertain what Scotland should do for a currency if it gains independence and is now leaning towards a "devo-max" third option in the referendum (which he wants, in my opinion, because he knows he would lose a straight independence vote).
I also believe his request for 16 and 17-year-olds to vote is based on the fact they are more likely to be swayed by his nationalist waffle than more mature voters.
The currency issue has been addressed. Sterling will be Scotland's currency of choice. The Euro is not looking like a good bet right now, and, as Scotland already owns 9% (approx) of the Bank of England, continuing with Sterling makes a deal of sense.
Devomax is not the favoured option of the SNP. Their campaign will be for independence. The devomax option does have a substantial support in scotland, but as yet it remains completely undefined. The First Minister has intimated that he is open to including it as a choice if it can be defined. His stance is that of a democrat acknowledging support for a point of view. To refuse to even consider it would be anti-domocratic.
It has been SNP and LibDem policy to extend the franchise to 16 year olds as already happens in Austria and German Lander elections. The Labour party have also spoken in favour of it, but, since the SNP have suggested doing it in time for the referendum, all of a sudden they (and the LibDems in one more classic about-turn) have decided that now is not the time to do it.
Your case for the union was based on sentiment and waffle. You need something better than that if you hope to persuade people who are fed up with negativity and with being talked down to.
I for one am sick of the flag waving regarding WWII resulting from cherry picking history. The only reason German tanks never reached Downing Street was not down to some inherent British greatness, it was geography, we’re an island. Take away our surrounding sea water and we’d have gone the way of France and everyone else, and just as quickly. That’s a fact.
We were very lucky never to be subjected to the terror of occupation; however it might have given England some much needed humility when it comes to their present world view and relationship with mainland Europe.
Then along comes Mr. Morrison with his unique reasons for maintaining the union and I’m not sure if this is a comedy piece or not, seriously, I can’t tell.
Reason one: Merlin doesn’t support the idea of Scottish Independence. Merlin? Really? A fictional literary figure and central character of an ongoing children’s TV series?
How am I supposed to respond to this? Should I go Googling rebuttals from OTHER fictional characters? I wonder what Harry Potter’s views are on Scottish Independence? Perhaps I can present them in a serious debate? Sure, if I enjoy the sound of laughter.
Reason two: We might one day get a couple of Scottish football players into a national British side? Sure let’s just surrender our hopes and dreams for a self determined Scotland in favour of the above.
Mr. Morrison – and I know this may come as a shock - there are many, many Scots who do not give a hoot about football or sport in general. Football is merely that OTHER ‘opium for the masses.'
The future of the United Kingdom is a supremely important debate for all involved. It’s a serious debate for serious people. Bringing fictional magicians and football into it simply will not do.
But if your piece was satire I take it back.
I merely referenced TH White's philosophical point about nationalism. The book is actually an incredible work of philosophy as well as fiction, but I only mentioned it as an interesting point of discussion.
As for the football analogy, I made it perfectly clear that sport is not important ("the difference is that political unity really matters"). My point - which I tried to demonstrate by the example of football - is that we are stronger in all respects (not just sport) when we pool our talents.
I quite agree that this is a serious debate, so I'll make my serious points without any embellishment:
1. Nationalism is not a good enough reason to break up the UK
2. The UK is stronger than any of its parts would be if it breaks up
On the historical point you make above, I could write at length about Britain's immense contribution to defeating the Nazis. You are absolutely correct that others played a crucial (and perhaps even bigger) part, but that does not mean the UK did not play a pivotal role.
I did NOT say Britain didn’t play a pivotal role. I was countering your statement that Britain defeated Germany without mention of America, Russia or the countless other nations that sacrificed lives. I pointed this out because your omission appeared to be a deliberate oversight to serve your nostalgic pro-union agenda.
You say nationalism is not a good enough reason to separate. Well of course it’s not and if you believe that’s the reason many Scots yearn for independence you’re clearly not engaged in the debate.
Some people believe total control over Scottish interests is essential for our country to reach its full potential. In case you hadn’t noticed, Scotland and England are politically very different. England is by nature right of centre conservative while Scotland is traditionally left of centre socialist. Yes we share many things in common, but we also differ greatly in our values. Education, Healthcare, Defence.
Is it not fair for Scots to attain full control of their affairs so that public policy might better reflect those different values? We’re talking about true democracy here.
You say the UK is stronger together than alone. I would argue Scotland becomes stronger through self determination, and that it’s England that becomes weaker through loss of the British brand.
What does remaining in the union offer over total democracy and representation? I haven’t heard an answer to that simple question from the pro-union side yet.
www.newsnetscotland.com or http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4341-a-unionist-lexicon-an-a-z-of-unionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation
You will find some nationalism but you may be surprised at what else.