What is it that first leaps into your psyche and thought process when you hear the word 'Scottish'? Regrettably, for many, notions of excessive alcohol consumption, sectarianism and rough-tough louts that strike out at the first thing or person that happens to enter their channel of vision penetrate initial (somewhat inaccurate) viewpoints. Barring those aggressive connotations, iconography such as the polarising bagpipes, tartan kilts or the much dreaded haggis and Irn-Bru seep into serious contention. However, as any Scotsman will likely tell you, these stereotypes are wholly imprecise and imperfect. Whilst, admittedly, these unconnected items do feature heavily within vulgar Scottish 'tourist' shops, they do not represent the majority of Scots. On the contrary; most Scotsmen detest the bagpipes and rarely wear tartan at all; only suffering the humiliation at momentous events (such as a wedding or a Calcutta Cup match at Murrayfield).
Following from my previous point, next of course comes Scotland's significant affiliation (and contribution) to sport. To some, the word 'Scottish' will immediately ignite memories of sporting achievements. Be it Glasgow giants Rangers or Celtic, Heart of Midlothian or Queen of the South, the Scots have a serious passion for football; and they have every right to. Scottish clubs can boast four European trophies between them - Celtic in '67, Rangers in '72 and Aberdeen winning both the Cup Winners' Cup and Super Cup in '83. Aside from football, Caledonia has always held a good relationship with the elegant game of golf. St Andrews is widely regarded as the home of golf and, as a result, Scotland shall always hold a special place in any golfing aficionado's heart. Add to those rugby, cricket and tennis (especially since Andy Murray burst onto the scene) and suddenly you begin to realise that Scotland - with a population of just over 5,000,000 - competes at a respectably high level in a staggering number of sporting contests (and that is all before I have even dared to mention Scotland's all conquering elephant polo team!).
But, with so much to choose from, what can truly be seen as the authentic - and meaningful - face of Scotland? Is it indeed the repugnant brand of iconography that currently symbolises them across the globe? Or is it their consistently over-achieving sporting exertions that set them apart? I think not. But one thing is certain; the face of Scotland is changing, and changing for the better. But in order to probe deeper into unearthing what exactly it is that is changing within Scotland, we need to make some stark comparisons between what we shall refer to as 'then' and 'now'. And by 'then', I do not intend to reminisce nonsensically about the perceived 'good old times' - a common title given to pre-Unionism. Instead, I shall return to the '60s and view how Scotland has altered its stance on issues so radically in the space of just five decades.
When, in the '60s, oil was found off the east coast of Scotland, the nation rejoiced. Nationalists heralded the discovery as some kind of concrete proof that Scotland could survive without England and, whilst that may have been true to a certain extent, lost the support of less radical Scots who also yearned for independence but were not anti-English. For the vast majority, independence is not about getting one over on their old Sassenach neighbours. Instead, it is about gaining crucial autonomy and much needed equality. But, undeniably, oil helped the Scottish National Party in their propaganda drive to entice endorsements and backing. Here is where my first comparison comes in; and it comes in the form of a comparison between two Scottish celebrity figures - Sir Sean Connery and David Tennant.
Scotland is "within touching distance of achieving independence", claimed former Bond star Sean Connery a few years ago. Sir Sean, a frequent SNP donator - and arguably as much a face of the party as its leader, Alex Salmond - has consistently endorsed an independent Scotland, despite living as a tax-exile in the Bahamas. However, aside from the small matter of dodging tax payments, the main problem with Connery as the face of the SNP are his misguided and warped views on other important issues. "I admit I'm being paid well, but it's no more than I deserve" finishing a respectable second only to, "I don't think there is anything particularly wrong in hitting a woman". Some would say these positions are further to the Right than staunch BNP and EDL devotees. Even the loathsome Alan Clark would fail to match these candid (and outlandish) statements. Compare Connery's views to those of Bathgate-born actor David Tennant. Tennant is a modern man in every sense of the word. He is a lifelong Labour Party supporter and regularly champion's working-class causes. Rarely - if ever - does he speak of Scottish independence.
And that is the main point. Liberal Tennant knows it is not his place to tell the Scottish public what to vote for. He no longer resides in his homeland and accepts that the choice must be down to the people who live there; the individuals affected by the day-to-day policies that change their lives. This is something Connery, as the previous face of Scottish celebrity culture, could not accept. Blatantly Scotland has undergone a shift in attitude from the '60s and '70s to now. Tennant represents all that is good about modern Scotland; he is left-wing, he is progressive, he is talented and, more importantly, he is intelligent. A far cry from the archaic and out of touch times of Sir Sean. Connery represented all those aggressive connotations I alluded to at the beginning. He was tough. He was a man's man. He was a stereotypical interpretation of a manly Glaswegian (ironic then that he should come from Edinburgh). Thankfully, Scotland has moved on and no longer needs these unpleasant relics to define them.
Scotland boasts some of the finest educational institutions in the world; Aberdeen, Edinburgh, St Andrews, Glasgow and Dundee all possessing some of the finest universities around. Scotland produces 1% of the world's published research despite only representing 0.1% of the world's population. These are all things to be proud of. In the past, an academic would be considered a 'Jessie' (by numerous Connery-types), but now - and not before time - education is highly relished and encouraged. And with this education comes intellect, and with intellect comes consideration; leading me seamlessly to my main exhibit in this long-winded plight to ascertain what has changed about this great nation. Following the release of supposed Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, Scotland found itself firmly under the global spotlight. America condemned the Scottish government's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds, claiming that, despite Megrahi's terminal prostate cancer, he should remain in prison until death.
Initially, my liberal argument was all but smashed out of existence when a BBC poll found that 60% of Scots believed the decision to release Megrahi was wrong (compared to 32% who agreed with the verdict). However, and to my amazement, something wonderful occurred; something so miraculous and wonderful that even atheists like myself begin to wonder if there is indeed a greater being. Step forward Dr Jim Swire. Jim, who lost his daughter Flora in 1988 bombing, has campaigned fervently for the rights of Mr Al-Megrahi, regardless of the ridicule and abuse he has consequently received. Parallel to his beliefs that Megrahi is in fact innocent, Jim has praised Scotland's decision to release a dying man on grounds of compassion. He states, "The establishment of trust with the man accused of the murder of my daughter is something that should gladden the heart a little bit. It flies in the face of the ground-out trail of vengeance and hatred".
As well as Jim's passionate support, the Scottish government has refused to accept that they were wrong to release the Libyan 'criminal'. Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond reiterated recently, "It was the right decision...I absolutely know it was". To my astonishment, I have found myself feeling a sense of pride in Scotland's handling of the case. At times I feared for the worst. I truly believed that Scotland would bow to pressure and admit to a nonexistent error of judgement. Too often, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown was the centre of attention, with all sides of the Atlantic criticising him and Scotland as though they were in some way the same entity, synonymous, just because he happened to come from Scotland. The SNP were sidelined as petty jibes were made towards Brown from parts of the UK that were determined to turn this into a 'them' and 'us' scenario in which Scotland were the antagonists. Mercifully, Scotland left this arena with its head held high. Gordon Brown represented the UK (not solely Scotland) and rather than dent Scotland's reputation, smeared the names of all of us. Scottish representatives on the other hand portrayed themselves positively.
So, has the face of Scotland indeed changed? I believe so. No longer does Sean Connery embody Scottish attitudes and no longer does brutish thuggery symbolise its cultural persona. Media characters such as David Tennant and Ewan McGregor have helped to eradicate negative stereotypes. They show concern, intelligence and progression in nearly everything they do. They are, in every sense, true representations of the modern Scot. Politically, the SNP have successfully managed to pull themselves away from mere nationalistic propaganda and have exhibited a genuine ability to adapt to modern times. The compassion shown (and willingness to stand by it) during the Megrahi episode has allowed Scotsmen to feel a sense of pride in their main stalwart party. Diplomacy won over hegemony and selfishness - after all, a hard stance on Megrahi would have been easier and won more allies. If the people of Scotland do vote for independence, it, for the first time, will not symbolise a longing desire to escape Great Britain, but an expectation and trust in Scotland's ability to represent themselves respectably and, more importantly, independently.
Previously, when you heard the word 'Scottish', you would have been forgiven for eliciting downbeat and off-putting lexis. Sean Connery: rough, bully, fossil. SNP in the '80s: nationalistic, one-policy party, opportunistic. Now note the contrast. David Tennant: funny, intelligent, kind. SNP: compassionate, organised, progressive. Jim Swine: brave, commendable, benevolent. These new descriptions are fast spreading throughout Scottish culture. Scotland is no longer defined by that horrible Glasgow generalisation (that is not to say that some of it is not true - but it is not their core representation). Whether independence materialises or not, one thing is certain: Scotland is on the up. Progressing to new heights and journeying on an endless path to future successes. All thanks to its changing face.