Albyn; or, Scotland and the futureMacDiarmid, Hugh
History
Albyn; or, Scotland and the future
MacDiarmid, Hugh
Scotland
In the meantime the extirpation of “a Scottish accent” in the
Scottish schools continues almost unabated, although, as Lady
Margaret Sackville says, and as the cultural poverty of post-Union
Scotland amply attests, “language imposed mechanically upon a
people without understanding of their peculiar ways of thought
can only be stultifying; and it is an impertinence to substitute
a pert, half-baked, and complacent education for the very ancient
culture which the Vernacular represents. Let education rather work
hand in hand with this culture and humbly learn from it to its own
great gain.” But the general attitude to England, and Scotland’s
relation to it, is far deeper, and for the most part other than mere
“protective mimicry.” Apart from the claim to which I have referred
there is a widespread reluctance to think about the matter—to discuss
it in any way. No probable, perhaps no possible, development of
Scots Nationalism could lead to a complete disjunction of the two
countries; or preclude their remaining parts of the British Empire.
Opponents of Scottish Home Rule, of course, generally argue that such
a measure would be a piece of retrogressive parochialism at variance
with the part we are called upon to play as citizens of a great
Empire. Especially is this argument being used against the newer
forms which that demand is taking. The reason for this is that they
represent that growth or rebirth of national sentiment in Scotland
in recent years, which has brought with it the increasing realization
that any measure of devolution which does not carry with it full
financial autonomy is not worth having. Besides, the powers granted
to the Irish Free State render it impossible, as derogatory to its
historical status as a nation, that Scotland should accept any less.
The latest Draft Bill meets these considerations, and is thus a far
more advanced measure than any of its eleven predecessors. A typical
comment runs as follows: “The Old ‘Home Rulers,’ while they aimed
at autonomy for the management of the strictly domestic business of
Scotland, jealously safeguarded Scotland’s position in the United
Kingdom and the Empire. Nothing was more repugnant to them than the
idea that the country should cease to have its full representation in
the Imperial Parliament. In the new Bill that ceases, and Scotland in
nearly everything but a joint interest in the armed forces becomes
detached and isolated; and provision appears to be made for the
severance at some future time of even this link.... It is a reversal
of the whole process of constitutional progress which governs
British history.” This is the generally accepted view. But—apart from
the fact that Great Britain occupies an altogether disproportionately
important place in the Empire which the growth of the other elements
must drastically correct in time—it is, nevertheless, completely at
variance with the history and present prospects of our constitutional
evolution.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account