British, Scottish and a Great Sportsman

Image by National Collective

The controversy surrounding the Scottish National Party (SNP) leader, Alex Salmond’s, adornment of the Saltire at today’s Wimbledon Men’s Single Final is completely unprovoked. Whether the flag was used as a demonstration of national pride or as a ploy to further the politician’s nationalist agenda should not cause such concentrated outrage.

In celebration of a truly great British (and, indeed, Scottish) sportsman winning the British tennis grand slam, an air of patriotism and national unity is unsurprisingly the expected outcome. Yet, the Scotsman’s win has caused tensions on the polemical discussion of Scottish independence, with the referendum set to take place late next year. It is, hence, understandable that Salmond waving the Scottish Saltire can be deemed a deliberate and politically motivated action. Instead of finding ourselves drowning in celebration and positive feelings, we dispute among ourselves over the very thing which inevitably became the focus of today.

The first side of the argument suggests that Salmond used the Saltire as a political instrument, sparking a reminder that Murray is a Scotsman. Using the Wimbledon Central Court as a stage to display his political beliefs, Salmond stirred great feelings of patriotism among Scots watching from the arena and home. Knowing it would gain further media attention, it would rouse the debate once more and promote Salmond as a good party leader. But this argument uses the belief that people will make their decision over independence on the back of a great sporting achievement. It also suggests that people would not feel this patriotism without the presence of the flag (yet there were many others within the crowd that were also waving the same flag).

The other side of the  argument is that it was an innocent display of national pride from the Scottish leader. Remember that this is a person who has a great deal of passion for their nation; they may achieved high status and profile, but this does not necessarily mean they will exploit this for their personal and political gain. You cannot blame the First Minister for feeling a great deal of passion in a moment where an extraordinary man went to achieve their greatest sporting victory. We were all guilty of it during the Olympics last year, where many across the country did raise St George’s Flags in honour of their English sportspersons, despite them actually representing the United Kingdom (under the strange guise of Great Britain) as a whole. This is not exploitation of this particular moment or media, but a show of individual beliefs and pride in a representative of their nation.

Furthermore, arguably, regardless of Salmond’s presence, we were likely to see this debate raise its ugly head. I think it is this final point that partly excuses the Scottish parliamentary leader of their actions, whether deliberate or not.

We must remember that the issue of Scottish independence is a matter to be decided by the Scots without external influence. The biggest problem in this picture is not the presence of the Saltire, but the lady in the background who is distracted by her, likely, mobile phone from the victory that has just taken place in front of her.

“I’m not English, I’m British!”

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

The collective identity of a nation is fragile and, perhaps, malleable. Yet, in times of war, crisis and sport, it is one that unites a massive population and allows us to set aside our political differences. The fact that we think and feel differently is forgotten in these circumstances and instead, to an extent, we are able to come together as if one person and stand shoulder-to-shoulder in agreement, before proceeding into some form of patriotic endeavour. Take, for example, our coalition government during the Second World War. But what is it about national identity that makes us feel so united?

With the impending referenda on Scottish Independence in 2014 and the UK’s relationship with the EU (if the Conservative party win the 2015 General Election), political parties will be relying on this national identity to drum up support for their yes or no campaigns. In Scotland, it will be a question of “are you more proud to be British or Scottish?” We only need to look to the recent protests in Northern Ireland to note how important the aspect of national identity is to the electorate. It would appear that any threat to national identity is also a threat to personal identity. It is embedded in our cultural, language and ethnic differences. National parties such as the Scottish National Party, Sinn Fein and Plaid Cymru are also beginning to grow in prevalence.

In 1918, Woodrow Wilson, then president of the United States of America, argued that the best way to stop war from taking hold again was to grant the right to self-determination and end the control over smaller nations by empires and colonial rulers. This allowed countries such as Poland to regain its independence and saw the creation of countries such as Czechslovakia that were based on the ethnic identity of those who would be living in the state. The idea was that each country would respect each other’s sovereign rights. Ironically, it would seem, this bred tension between states and led to dangerous delusions of cultural superiority that then delivered the beginnings of the Second World War.

Hence, when Blair granted devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland during his first premiership, the concept of national self-determination was not new. In fact, it was rather modest of him to use referenda as a way of deciding when, in the past, independence or devolution of power have been simply handed over or fought out in a bloody war. However, we have approached an era of consent that tends towards allowing citizens to decide their own fate on their national identity, rather than the Government or, in some cases, colonial ruler to do so for them.

However, a national identity can be considered a strange concept. And if it is to unite a nation, how well does it do that? After all, we are sure to see in the Scottish referendum that not all of the electorate will see themselves as “Scottish”, but some will see themselves as “British”, both implying different relationships with their Government. Perhaps this is why the West Lothian question has never furthered. Are we in a state where “English” people see themselves more as “British” than “English”?

But as globalisation takes hold of the world, surely the concept of national identity is weakened, as we can never truly be unified on common characteristics in a more multicultural society, only in rejecting certain products or practices from other states, which can be quite rare. Maybe I’m not “English”. Maybe I’m not “British”. Maybe I’m not “European”. Perhaps, I’m simply “Earthish”.