I have a particular connection to my local area as well. But every time you pick up a book to read up on your history, its British history you see - that's got to mean something.
Medieval Scotland was more Anglicised than England itself. By the 17th century England had a Scotsman on the throne. The 'Scots' language developed in northern England. And yet 18th century Scots was closer to Shakespearean English than the English of the same time period. Union was originally a Scottish vision, yet it was first enforced by an Englishman. William Wallace's family were Welsh immigrants. The place names of north-east Scotland could easily pass for Welsh. Half the population of Northern Ireland is basically a forging of English and Scots peoples. The very term 'British' was first used to apply to a population group when the Scots Gaels of Clan Campbell appealed to the King to refer to the settlers in Ulster as such.
The fact is, even before there was a British nation, we all share a British history. If anything, there is far less diversity in the history of the component parts of the UK when compared to the component regions of France, Italy, Germany etc that would never contest the fact that they have a shared history.
It's all very well to talk about the finer points of how independence will affect Scotland in terms of oil revenue, EU membership, any possible currency changes etc. But the fact is that what really matters is a shared history. That is the reason I can look at the people around me and say - yes, I have something in common with these people, I share a similar identity and values, and I want to take part in their government and institutions.
Now, I can say that I feel this with Britain. Or at least, my concept of Britishness. But I can't say the same with Mr. Salmond's idea of Scottishness.
Bookmarks