Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

[Rolfe]

In Scotland it will nevertheless be perceived as English. I imagine in Americal or Canada it would likewise be perceived as English (or possibly "British", though there's really no such thing as a British accent).

Likewise Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa....

I used to find it extremely difficult to distinguish between different regional accents in England. They genuinely all sounded the same to me - just "an English accent". The first time I went to England for longer than a day trip was in 1975 when I was 21. I went to Exeter for a month. The people in the vet practice where I was doing my EMS were genuinely disbelieving that I couldn't tell the difference between the local Devon accent and the "London" accent of the senior partner.

I can see why, I guess, although at the time they all sounded like "posh BBC" to me. Having lived in England for 25 years I got a bit better at it though I still can't really tell Yorkshire from Lancashire. Which was a hanging offence in front of my late Aunt Hilda who was fron Manchester, but I just kept that quiet when she was around.

Many people from outside say they can immediately tell that not all Scots accents are the same. Harlan Ellison came to Glasgow and said "I can't make the Scots out, you all sound different." But then I remember being at a school camp in the 1960s where one girl was English. She had been sent to the camp by her parents to get her out of the way while they moved house from England to Scotland. There was also a group of girls from Dundee at the camp. Those of us from the west of Scotland found the Dundee girls quite hard going as their brand of Scots was almost impenetrable to us. Near the end of the week the English girl remarked that she was just beginning to realise that "Mairead Matthews' crowd" (the Dundee contingent) spoke differently from the west of Scotland girls. I was stunned, and tried to explain to her that all week we had found it far easier to understand what she said in her English accent than the Dundee accent. (It never even occurred to me then that she herself would have a regional English accent that other English people would be aware of, but no doubt she had.)

I fully accept that there are wide variations in American accents, but I can barely distinguish them. I can barely tell American from Canadian. I can't tell Australian from New Zealand, and indeed struggle to tell South African from either of these. I can just about tell Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland, but that's something I've worked on for self-defence. I've been known to confuse Welsh and Stornoway accents.

On the other hand I can tell Lanarkshire from Ayrshire.

We're all better at distinguishing fine local differences in our own areas than at telling even broad national differences we're bot exposed to frequently. But anyone who thinks they don't have an accent isn't really thinking about it. Everyone's accent will be perceived as "other" to someone speaking the same language.

 

[The Don]

In Scotland it will nevertheless be perceived as English.

There's an "English" accent ?

Even if there is, are there a default set of attitudes, beliefs and opinions that can be associated with that accent ?

 

[Craig B]

There's an "English" accent ?

Even if there is, are there a default set of attitudes, beliefs and opinions that can be associated with that accent ?

The last bit, there definitely isn't. There's an "English" accent, to Scottish ears, in this limited sense: that some people can be identified, from the way they speak, as probably being natives of England. In the same way, I hear English people referring to a "Scottish" accent, and that is what I understand them to mean. It is a perfectly reasonable use of the term.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What is an "ethnic" Scot ?

Are you referring solely to native Scottish Gaelic speakers ? What if that native speaker is ethnically Asian, African ?

I'm quibbling about two things. Firstly is your use of the word "ethnic" to describe the Scottish minority. Are you suggesting that the Scots are a distinct ethnic (as opposed to cultural, linguistic or some other distinction) group ? In which case what makes for an ethnic Scot ?

The second thing I'm quibbling about is your assertion that Scots are discriminated against. I'm not trying to be provocative here but I don't see that myself. What kind(s) of discrimination do you think that Scots face in the UK ?

Dictionary definition of ethnic minority:

a group within a community which has different national or cultural traditions from the main population.

Seems to be a textbook definition of Scots situation in the UK.

Feel free to quibble about whether Scots are discriminated against or not. It would make no difference to my claim that Scots are an ethnic minority in the UK.

Equally in an independent Scotland English folk would be an ethnic minority.

 

[Rolfe]

The last bit, there definitely isn't. There's an "English" accent, to Scottish ears, in this limited sense: that some people can be identified, from the way they speak, as probably being natives of England. In the same way, I hear English people referring to a "Scottish" accent, and that is what I understand them to mean. It is a perfectly reasonable use of the term.

I elaborated on that at quite some length, I thought. In my youth I genuinely couldn't distinguish Devon from posh London. I could certainly recognise an English accent, but to me they all sounded the same. If the same applies to outsiders' perceptions of the many and varied accents within Scotland, I'd understand that too. (Even people who can well differentiate the various flavours of Scottish accents often speak generically of someone having "a Scottish accent", and that's fine too.)

Of course there's an English accent, as there is an American accent and an Irish accent and so on. Even if I can tell that someone's accent places them in Sussex, for example, I might still refer to that as an English accent.

 

[Worm]

I am generally described as having a generically 'English' accent.

I grew up in the West Country, but never had a broad accent, and now it only appears if I'm tired, drunk, or talking to someone from back home. I worked in hotels and in customer service for quite a while, and it seems to have trained the accent out of me. Although to be fair that's maybe to my ears - it's hard to assess your own accent.

I've lived here so long I don't have much trouble distinguishing various regional Scottish accents, though a lot of that is about particular words and phrasing than the overall accent.

 

[Architect]

I've lived here so long I don't have much trouble distinguishing various regional Scottish accents, though a lot of that is about particular words and phrasing than the overall accent.

Ach dinnae fash.

 

[Worm]

Fit like?

 

[Rolfe]

"A come fae Dundee but dinna let oan!" (What my Dad said to me when I told him the story of Mairead Matthews and her cronies.)

 

[Architect]

Fit fit fits fit fit?

Aberdonian in a shoe shop.

 

[Rolfe]

Deep....

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Speaking of accents, here's Sellers doing a run through, starting around 2:21.

ETA: Not best one of his. Here's the one I'd had in mind.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I can distinguish between quite subtle local accents.
I can tell if someone is from Redcar, Stockton, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool or Billingham. Going down the coast I can distinguish Guisborough, Loftus, Staithes and Whitby. Going south I can tell Moortops, Stokesley or Northallerton.

Further away it becomes generic North Yorkshire or County Durham accent then regional accents in general.

 

[Damien Evans]

I think a reasonable question is what determines that one part of a contiguous island is different from another.

How much consent to be part of that seperation is needed? No one asked any part of Scotland to be part of Scotland. However poor the consultation was there was at least some discussion about the formation of the UK.

You can take is as generic e.g. Serbia does not recognise the right of Kosovo to be a separate nation Kosovo does not recognise the right of self determination of the Serbian majority population in the North.

You can take it as relevant to Ireland where the population of Ulster chose to remain part of the UK.

How in creating new nations do we decide about the rights of that potential nations sub parts, and their right to self determination? Should all parts have an option to self determination as part of the process of forming a new nation?

One can see the same issue with Catalan independence, do all parts of catalonia want to be part of an independent Catalonia? In contrast Corsica in seeking independence as an island has a logical contiguous identity.

Is there a general rule we can apply?

Most island are single states, Australia, Iceland, New Zealand, Cuba, Madagascar, or parts of a larger state e.g. Zanzibar or Rhode Island! Ireland is a historical anomaly that will probably become a single state in future. Haiti is another exception.

Great Britain as an island not being a single nation goes against the general pattern, what is the particular circumstance that makes this island exceptional? The argument that because Scotland may vote differently from the rest of the UK, only means that all places that differ should be given self determination, what is it that would make it right for A but not B to have self determination? In the next referendum if there was not a majority vote for independence why could not the central belt go independent if there was a local majority? This is what would follow from the Scotland did not vote for Brexit argument.

(This does not mean I support the status quo; I do think that there should be political change, I just seek to understand the underlying principles).

By that logic, shouldn't Afro-Eurasia be one political entity?

 

[Damien Evans]

In Scotland it will nevertheless be perceived as English. I imagine in Americal or Canada it would likewise be perceived as English (or possibly "British", though there's really no such thing as a British accent).

Likewise Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa....

I used to find it extremely difficult to distinguish between different regional accents in England. They genuinely all sounded the same to me - just "an English accent". The first time I went to England for longer than a day trip was in 1975 when I was 21. I went to Exeter for a month. The people in the vet practice where I was doing my EMS were genuinely disbelieving that I couldn't tell the difference between the local Devon accent and the "London" accent of the senior partner.

I can see why, I guess, although at the time they all sounded like "posh BBC" to me. Having lived in England for 25 years I got a bit better at it though I still can't really tell Yorkshire from Lancashire. Which was a hanging offence in front of my late Aunt Hilda who was fron Manchester, but I just kept that quiet when she was around.

Many people from outside say they can immediately tell that not all Scots accents are the same. Harlan Ellison came to Glasgow and said "I can't make the Scots out, you all sound different." But then I remember being at a school camp in the 1960s where one girl was English. She had been sent to the camp by her parents to get her out of the way while they moved house from England to Scotland. There was also a group of girls from Dundee at the camp. Those of us from the west of Scotland found the Dundee girls quite hard going as their brand of Scots was almost impenetrable to us. Near the end of the week the English girl remarked that she was just beginning to realise that "Mairead Matthews' crowd" (the Dundee contingent) spoke differently from the west of Scotland girls. I was stunned, and tried to explain to her that all week we had found it far easier to understand what she said in her English accent than the Dundee accent. (It never even occurred to me then that she herself would have a regional English accent that other English people would be aware of, but no doubt she had.)

I fully accept that there are wide variations in American accents, but I can barely distinguish them. I can barely tell American from Canadian. I can't tell Australian from New Zealand, and indeed struggle to tell South African from either of these. I can just about tell Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland, but that's something I've worked on for self-defence. I've been known to confuse Welsh and Stornoway accents.

On the other hand I can tell Lanarkshire from Ayrshire.

We're all better at distinguishing fine local differences in our own areas than at telling even broad national differences we're bot exposed to frequently. But anyone who thinks they don't have an accent isn't really thinking about it. Everyone's accent will be perceived as "other" to someone speaking the same language.

That's probably the most polite thing he's ever said!

 

[Rolfe]

You would think the Westminster government would learn something about engaging with people who have different views from them and encouraging peaceful processes rather than trying to block them wouldn't you?

Maybe one has to resort to violent non-democratic means in order to get Westminster's attention before they will consider engaging.

You would have thought that given all that's happened and is happening, Westminster might think to learn something, but apparently not. We're currently being told that all rules will be bent and completely new ones written to prevent a "hard border" between Northern Ireland and Ireland after Brexit. Scotland says, well if you can do that then you can use the same rules to avoid a hard border between an independent Scotland in the EU and post-Brexit England.

Oh no, comes the reply, we're doing this special rules thing for Ireland because of all the guns but since Scotland hasn't used guns then you can't have the same rules. (At the same time, of course, as dementedly characterising the overwhelmingly peaceful and cheerful referendum campaign of 2014 as divisive and confrontational.)

And then when we consider the possibility of Scottish independence, these very same people who delivered partition to Ireland (and India and Palestine and I don't know but whose fault was Cyprus let me guess) and you'd think should maybe have learned a bit, are only too eager to invent almost wholly imaginary separatist campaigns in Orkney and Shetland and bellow at the Scottish people (whom they're telling independence is too risky and an absolultely terrible idea all round) that they should immediately cut Orkney and Shetland loose because apparently three men and a dog can be found there who say they maybe fancy independence for the Northern Isles.

And they cap that with suggesting that if the Borders doesn't vote Yes in an independence referendum they'll just annexe that bit on to England.

I don't condone violence of any sort, but when you're on the other side of Westminster machinations and they're positively and almost explicitly telling you that the only way to achieve anything is to take up arms, I can see where the guy was coming from.

 

[Giz]

You would have thought that given all that's happened and is happening, Westminster might think to learn something, but apparently not. We're currently being told that all rules will be bent and completely new ones written to prevent a "hard border" between Northern Ireland and Ireland after Brexit. Scotland says, well if you can do that then you can use the same rules to avoid a hard border between an independent Scotland in the EU and post-Brexit England.

Oh no, comes the reply, we're doing this special rules thing for Ireland because of all the guns but since Scotland hasn't used guns then you can't have the same rules. (At the same time, of course, as dementedly characterising the overwhelmingly peaceful and cheerful referendum campaign of 2014 as divisive and confrontational.)

And then when we consider the possibility of Scottish independence, these very same people who delivered partition to Ireland (and India and Palestine and I don't know but whose fault was Cyprus let me guess) and you'd think should maybe have learned a bit, are only too eager to invent almost wholly imaginary separatist campaigns in Orkney and Shetland and bellow at the Scottish people (whom they're telling independence is too risky and an absolultely terrible idea all round) that they should immediately cut Orkney and Shetland loose because apparently three men and a dog can be found there who say they maybe fancy independence for the Northern Isles.

And they cap that with suggesting that if the Borders doesn't vote Yes in an independence referendum they'll just annexe that bit on to England.

I don't condone violence of any sort, but when you're on the other side of Westminster machinations and they're positively and almost explicitly telling you that the only way to achieve anything is to take up arms, I can see where the guy was coming from.

You've lost the plot Rolfe. The lesson you should be drawing is that Scotland had an independence referendum (and will probably have another one fairly soon) the results of which were accepted without violence. McGuinness/PIRA should have gone that route, rather than with bombs and bullets. You just seem to be fantasizing that, because it's frustrating when other people dare to hold a different view of the issue than you, "you can see where the guy was coming from" when he decided to try and achieve his goals via murder.

 

[Rolfe]

You've lost the plot Rolfe. The lesson you should be drawing is that Scotland had an independence referendum (and will probably have another one fairly soon) the results of which were accepted without violence. McGuinness/PIRA should have gone that route, rather than with bombs and bullets. You just seem to be fantasizing that, because it's frustrating when other people dare to hold a different view of the issue than you, "you can see where the guy was coming from" when he decided to try and achieve his goals via murder.

No. If we get through this without violence that will be a major plus. What I'm complaining about is the incitement coming from Westminster. It doesn't incite me to violence; my position is that we have non-violent means at our disposal and we go on employing those means.

That doesn't take away from the fact that Westminster is determined to hold on to Scotland by any means necessary, by lying and cheating and offering bribes it never intends to pay. Oh yes, and threatening.

I observe that if someone is of a violent disposition then this sort of thing is likely to lead to violence. Westminster continues on its road, happy to lie and cheat and threaten. I see the lies and the cheating and the threatening and a part of me understands why that incites violence in people who are so inclined.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe,

It seemed to me that the UK Government went to no small lengths to muddy the waters about the conflict by claiming it was between the Protestants and the Catholics. Sure the majority of Republicans were Catholic and, likewise, the majority of the Unionists were protestant...but the religious angle didn't really seem to be important. Instead, the I think the UK government tried to make it appear to be a religious war in order to obfuscate the facts and to make themselves look like the good gius when they went to NI and smashed the heads of a bunch of "religious whackos".

Is that about the way you saw it?

Yes, absolutely. I see it that way because of the way it spilled over into Scottish society and specifically the society I grew up in. I got seriously tired of people trying to make it all about religion when it clearly wasn't. It was ethnic dislike between a group of "native" Scots descent (i.e. somewhat less recent immigrants) and those descended from the Irish who arrived in Scotland at the time of the famine.

The people marching down the street with their flutes and their orange sashes aren't religious. They're anti-Irish bigots pure and simple. My ethnicity is on their side and I say nuke them from orbit it's the only way. My mother would say, "that's a right Catholic name that" and I'd reply, you mean an Irish name, Mum. I think she began to get it in the end.

So I see the same muddying of the waters in Ireland. It's always portrayed as a religious conflict as if a single one of the knuckle-dragging Neanderthals was concerned about transubstantiation or the immaculate conception or original sin or the need for mediation in confession or the veneration of the Virgin Mary. None of them has the faintest idea what these concepts are. It's probably less religious than the conflict in Israel/Palestine. It's ethnic/political, pure and simple.

And in spite of being of Scots protestant stock myself, my natural sympathies lie with the Irish nationalists who have reaped the consequences of generations of deliberate "plantation" of other ethnicities into their land, not as peaceful settlers intending to integrate, or even as "honest" invaders, but as colonists intending to outnumber and outvote and crowd out the native people.

And it's been happening for a long time. Robert the Bruce was at it. Sorry and all that.

 

[Rolfe]

Scottish nationalists have never been on the receiving end of state and state sponsored violence, so that's not really an apt comparison. The reality is that McGuinness and his generation of Irish nationalists didn't just decide to turn violent for political reasons, they were already in a situation where violence was being practiced against them and gerrymandering and censorship were used to prevent them from achieving anything through the ballot box.

The two situations are really very different.

That is a fair point. Westminster always treated us differently. The plan was always to assimilate Scotland by assimilating our best and brightest. The nobility and the politicians and the businessmen were attracted to London and given positions in the heart of the beast. So then we get "Why do you want independence, you have a Scottish prime minister and the cabinet is full of Scots and we're fed up being ruled by you porridge-wogs." The insidious fact that these Scots were entirely on board with supporting Westminster's agenda of appropriating Scotland's assets, in return for positions of power and acceptance into the inner circle of Westminster was never appreciated.

"We're bought and sold for English gold, such a parcel of rogues in a nation."

The parcel of rogues aren't the English, they're the Scots who took the gold. In 1707 these were the men who took the bribes to vote for the union and in the 20th century they were the Scottish MPs who went south and then made damn sure Maggie Thatcher's devastation of Scottish industry was unimpeded even as they went on protest marches and decried the social consequences.

And there was never any violence, or not for a long time anyway, and we still have peaceful means to campaign on, and that's what we're doing. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't burn in our hearts to the point where, while condemning the violence, we can at some level understand why some people felt they had been driven to it.