Yesterday Scotland undertook a referendum to decide whether to stay in the United Kingdom or to leave it. For me it roused questions about identity, freedom and what is actually in a name. It seems a moral battle between the yearning of the tender heart for independence, versus the consequential reality in its citizens' interests in detaching membership from the UK.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
It’s hard to imagine the Scots' battle for independence without conjuring up the image of the Guardian of Scotland, William Wallace; however instead of a sword, he is holding a ballot paper.
It’s interesting to consider independence in today's society: the term literally means “the power or right to act, speak or think as one wants". However in a country that is already free, where their citizens have freedom of speech and the right to do whatever they like to, within the strictures that our actions not hinder on others, then what is a name on a passport or a line on a map?
We have to question the ramifications of stepping out from under the overarching banner of the UK. There will obviously be a change in governance; will the civil liberties of its citizens be jeopardised or - the issue which has England chewing their fingernails - hinder defence? Will removing Scotland out from the UK placard create weaker defence within the other UK countries? Will the Scots continue to be England's ally?
I am of the opinion that identity matters, but it’s not the identity that is given to me by a name but rather the identity that I make for myself, that my family makes for me and my friends, neighbours and community.
Australian regions have faced many amalgamations with passionate resistance with a fear of losing their local identity. For instance in the February 11 amalgamation of the Yass Shire to the Yass Valley Council in 2004, some areas thought they were misallocated and fought to be returned to an area they could identify with. To give a broader example, Australia’s sub-culture with our Aboriginal and indigenous community.
As a multicultural country, Australia is put together like a patchwork quilt of opposing cultures, traditions and religions beneath the radiant Southern Cross: nothing is taken but gained.
It is important to understand the autonomy in maintaining a cultural heritage. However we already have a clear perspective that Scotland has its own heritage and culture. The mere fact that none of us could clearly articulate the difference being under the United Kingdom's name, means the Scottish reputation and culture really has always remained unique and widely understood. So what is cultivated within a name in a country with such rich heritage. Perhaps it’s about austerity or to shake off governance from London and run society from a profoundly socialist agenda.
It's important for any culture to maintain a sense of healthy pride in what makes them unique, but Scotland doesn't seem to have ever lacked in that department; we all have at least a stereotype description of Scotland and they will never be large enough independently to influence the world's political stage, so what is it they actually think they are gaining? Is there complete distaste in divorcing the oldest royal democracy in the world. After all, we already know when a Scotsman, an Irishman and an Englishman walk into a bar, something funny is about to happen…
Oh Scotland, will you still love me tomorrow?
