In what respect does David Cameron differ from
Nicola Sturgeon? Obviously, one is a man, the other is a woman, one is leader of
the Conservatives, the other of the SNP. But, perhaps, the most important
distinction is that Cameron describes himself as English, while Sturgeon
describes herself as Scottish. But what is it that makes them so? What is it
about each of them that makes this distinction? Here we come up with an
interesting problem for it is not at all clear what quality Sturgeon has that
Cameron lacks and vice versa.
Why does Sturgeon describe herself as Scottish? I
have no idea about her ancestry, but I’ve never come across a Sturgeon tartan.
I know, on the other hand, that Cameron’s father came from Huntly and his name
could hardly be more Scottish. Many people around the world with a name like
Cameron, especially with a father born in Scotland would unquestionably
describe themselves as Scottish. They would be invited to a homecoming every
few years.
I sometimes get asked online where I was born. As it happens I was born here, but I have
relations from all over the UK and a grandfather who was born in Dublin. I am
not unusual in this respect. But even if I were not born here and none of my
relations were born here, would it matter? This is our problem, because the mere
fact that I am so frequently asked shows that it does sort of matter. So is the
difference between Sturgeon and Cameron that she was born in Scotland while he
was not? This becomes problematic for a number of reasons. I have a colleague
whose children were born in Bristol, because she happened to be working there.
But are these children then Scottish because she was born in Scotland and her
father was, too? But what of someone who moved to Scotland aged three and knows
no other country? Should this person be denied the quality of Scottishness
because of where his parents come from? It’s not difficult to see where this
sort of thinking leads.
The trouble though is that any quality that is
mentioned that might determine someone as Scottish may be lacking in someone
whom every reasonable politician in Scotland wants to describe as Scottish.
Unless we wish to base Scottishness on ancestry, someone can be Scottish no
matter what his accent, no matter what his culture, even no matter what his
language. A Scottish person may just have arrived from Poland or Pakistan. He
may not even know that he is Scottish. What determines someone as Scottish is
simply that he lives here and has the right to live here permanently. Everyone
who voted in the referendum is equally Scottish. The question where you
were born thus becomes offensive, for it attempts to make the distinction
between first class Scots who were born here and others who were not.
The issue is that the SNP are basing their ideology
on a quality Scotishness that can very easily be won. Any UK citizen, indeed, any EU citizen can gain it remarkably easily. They just have to move here and
live here permanently. My Russian husband by virtue of marrying me will in time
become Scottish. But why should this quality of living in Scotland matter so
much ideologically as opposed to living in, say, Aberdeenshire. It would be wrong
to distinguish between someone from Ayrshire and someone from Fife. But why is
it correct to found a party that wishes to distinguish between someone from
Newcastle and someone from Edinburgh? The act of discrimination is not grounded
in any real quality, so why discriminate at all? The SNP are founded on the
idea of gaining special treatment for Scots, but this, in the end, is as unfair
as if I set up the Aberdeenshire National Party founded on the basis of gaining
special treatment for people from Aberdeenshire.
The quality of being Scottish in the end amounts to
no more than living within the boundaries of a place that used to be
independent called Scotland. But if we look at the map of Europe there are
hundreds of places that used to be independent. Almost no-one in a country like
Germany would think there is a real distinction between someone who lives
within the borders of what used to be Prussia and someone who lives within the
borders of what used to be Saxony. There would be unfortunate consequences of
such a view as it would mean lots of Poles and Russians would turn out really
to be Prussians. To found a party based on a border that ceased to exist in
reality in 1707 is just as ludicrous as to found one on a border that ceased to
exist in 1871 and 1945.
There is no distinction between the citizens of a
nation state, no more than there is between the citizens of bordering counties
like Lancashire and Yorkshire. They may have a rivalry, but to found a party on
the basis that once the Yorkists fought the Lancstrians would be considered
quaint. Yet, in the end, there is no more difference between an English person
and a Scottish person than between a Tyke and a Lancastrian. This is not least
the case because anyone from the UK can choose to live anywhere. There is no
Scottish people for which a nationalist party is required, because any person
who lives here can be Scottish simply by virtue of living here. A people that
has no quality that distinguishes it from anyone in the world seems simply confused in
voting in such numbers for nationalists. Of course, perhaps, in reality these
people, or at least some of them, do think there is a distinction, but then
that obviously is to fall back on ancestry.
Are there any differences though between people the
world over? The answer to this, of course, is yes. A British person differs
from a French person because of citizenship.
This is a real distinction. Germany will not bail out Greeks, because
Greeks are not German citizens. We have a special duty to our fellow citizens
that we do not have to everyone else in the world. If this were not so, there
would be no nation states.
But there is only one citizenship in the UK. If a
person from the UK is asked about his citizenship, the only correct answer is
that he is British. This is a real quality that everyone in the UK has had
since 1707. It is the quality that distinguishes us from everyone else in the
world. It is the foundation of our nation state.
The SNP would like to treat British citizens
differently on the basis of a quality that is entirely arbitrary, i.e. residence,
while at the same time discriminating against other British citizens who have a
quality, i.e. citizenship that is quite real. There is nothing progressive
about this. Rather it looks like an odd prejudice based on too much concern
about border that disappeared long ago.
If you like my writing, please follow the link to my book Scarlet on the Horizon.
The first five chapters can be read as a preview.
