Lost Britishness

It would be churlish to begrudge correspondents Andrew Gray and Robert Veitch their Union Jack-tinted spectacles (Letters, 24 May), but they are living in the past. Being British was, indeed, "something special" in the 19th and first half of the 20th century, not all of it good, though.

People "knew their place", whether that was punkah wallah or shipyard riveter, and their expectations were low. This made them (us) very easy to manage, and a patriotic war would usually come along timeously. Those with longer memories than I may say, "but we were happier then". Perhaps.

In any event, "Britain" has no divine right to go on and on. Already, it must be the longest-lived unitary state in history (recent watery devolution notwithstanding). Everything changes and, as Eamonn Butler put it in the same issue, "the English neither know nor care" about Scotland (other than as a refuge from their own overcrowded and troubled bit of the island).

Perhaps Mr Veitch's English friends (and even a red-hot Nat like me has plenty of those) should send him some of the venomous anti-Scottish views now casually expressed "down south" but omitted from the Scottish editions of "national" tabloids.

Butler is right – it is England that will make Scotland independent.

DAVID ROCHE

Forest Way

Blairgowrie, Perthshire

I wouldn't want to prolong discussion with Dr David Purves, but I really do object to his smear that I took pride in the sacrifice of Scots' lives in the Second World War.

What I said was that his nationalistic view of Scottishness may be widely fashionable today, but it is quite wrong to suppose that it was always so. In wartime Britain, Scottish soldiers, sailors and airmen were proud to be British. There were a few nationalists around, but they were generally regarded as figures of fun – this didn't apply to our "kilties" who were much admired, and the overwhelming majority of Scots who fought in the war were extremely comfortable with their British nationality.

Few outsiders really understand what war does to its victims and, indeed, their families. Every victim is different but their suffering marks them for life. However, among the many I've known, pride in one's country, whatever that may be, isn't the first thing they have in mind.

My objection to nationalism, all nationalism, is that it engenders enmity between people and has caused more war and violence than anything else known to mankind. Dr Purves might care to reflect on that.

ROBERT VEITCH

Paisley Drive

Edinburgh