Bid to read between playwright’s lines

If the rest of the Scottish electorate is as confused about the referendum issue as Scotland’s playwrights and artists appear to be, it is little wonder that most of the country is allegedly opposed to Scottish independence.

Playwright David Greig is reported as stating he had a “profound distrust” of nationalism, but believes that “independence offered a way for the country to shake it off” (The Scotsman, 13 August).

What in heaven’s name is that supposed to mean? What does he think nationalism is, or means?

Is he equating it with chauvinism, imperialism or even racism? What drives his desire for independence, and what does independence mean to him?

We have been fed the risible argument from the SNP and Yes campaign that somehow, the Scots/English Border defines the dividing line where Scots, on the one side, and the English, on the other, have diametrically opposed views about society and how it should be organised.

We are being told that Scots are more progressive, more caring and offer a much brighter future for Scotland’s inhabitants than the society being offered by our English neighbours.

So, is that what Mr Greig means when he claims that Scotland’s future should “not be guided by ethnic identity” but “it’s about where you live and do you have a stake in society”?

I have considered myself to be a hardline nationalist all my life, but would never describe the English as being “less caring” than my fellow Scots.

Whether or not he is aware of it, Mr Greig is most definitely allowing his desire for independence to be guided by “ethnic identity”.

If he rejects the notion of “ethnic identity”, how does Mr Greig explain “retaining a feeling of Britishness”? His distrust of nationalism obviously does not run to refusing to describe people as Scots or English or even British.

If nationalism is to be distrusted to the extent that Mr Greig wants “the country” (which country, any country?) to “shake it off”, why persist in calling people Scots, English or British? Should they not be called European?

But would Europe not then be “a country”, defined as “a nation” and then become alegitimate target for Mr Greig’s “profound distrust”?

The debate about Scottish independence has been reduced to farcical levels, where Scots can be “independent” but allow a “foreign country” to run their economy, their fisheries and just about anything else they have a mind to, including their legal system.

Scots must reject the notion of Scottish identity to the 
extent that to be defined as Scottish is akin to being racist.

Scots can call themselves Scots but only if they are 
prepared to also call themselves British, or even English or European, or one or other of some ethnic minority but never just Scots.

If Scots vote Yes next September, as I sincerely hope they do, I also hope they have decided it is because they not only want to be independent, they have decided they will actually be proud to be independent, and not apologetic.

Jim Fairlie

Creiff

Peter Jones, writing about Scottish Government Minister for Children and Young People Aileen Campbell (“Radical vision of a new republic”, Perspective, 13 August), hints at what some of us have long suspected, ie, the SNP stance on independence now is only one stance on the longer road to true independence.

Michael Collins, the Irish Republican, said when Irish independence was being negotiated that the initial compromise deal was only a beginning. They could go further later.

Is the same tactic being applied here?

If Scotland does vote Yes next year, it may only be the start; the real break-up of the UK will come later!

William Ballantine

Dean Road

Bo’ness, West Lothian