Skip to main content

The Scottish For Yes

Yesterday's elections in Scotland yielded an historic result: Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), will now have the majority needed to hold a referendum on independence.  Salmond's party has followed the strategy laid-out for them by the PQ, in Quebec, who held several referendums, but never quite managed to achieve the majority to fulfill their dream.  As an Anglo-Quebecer and Canadian, I was opposed to a separatist Quebec, a distinct province with a significant history that was better served in the federation - but I do welcome the chance Salmond offers his people for their own vote.  It seems obvious that Scotland has the culture, infrastructure, and history, to deserve a say in its own governance, and to determine whether it will remain within the UK or become its own country in the EU, like the Republic of Ireland, or Portugal.  Economics or fear may hinder the dream, but it may not - we might see a liberated Scotland in the next four years.  Meanwhile, in Quebec, it seems that the most recent election saw the tossing out of the Bloc, separatists, in favour of the pro-Canadian NDP.  In such matters, voters tend to be fickle, and torn between the devils they do, and do not, know.
Labels:

Comments

Kiss My Art said…
Dear Todd

I really don't understand why you opposed an independent Quebec but support an independent Scotland. I can't see any difference. The Scots are certainly selfish enough to break up the UK. Let us hope that they don't succeed.

Best wishes from Simon
Fri May 06, 05:41:00 pm 2011
Sheenagh Pugh said…
What's selfish about wanting to break up a fictional construct, or any relationship you feel isn't working?
Sun May 08, 06:50:00 pm 2011
Poetry Pleases! said…
Dear Sheenagh

'What's selfish about wanting to break up a fictional construct, or any relationship you feel isn't working?' Everything! That's why there are so many broken homes and damaged kids in our society. Losing Scotland would save England and Wales an awful lot of money but most of us still want to keep the union intact.

Best wishes from Simon
Mon May 09, 11:42:00 am 2011
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A  poem for my mother, July 15 When she was dying And I was in a different country I dreamt I was there with her Flying over the ocean very quickly, And arriving in the room like a dream And I was a dream, but the meaning was more Than a dream has – it was a moving over time And land, over water, to get love across Fast enough, to be there, before she died, To lean over the small, huddled figure, In the dark, and without bothering her Even with apologies, and be a kiss in the air, A dream of a kiss, or even less, the thought of one, And when I woke, none of this had happened, She was still far distant, and we had not spoken.
Post a Comment
Read more

Poetry vs. Literature

Poetry is, of course, a part of literature. But, increasingly, over the 20th century, it has become marginalised - and, famously, has less of an audience than "before". I think that, when one considers the sort of criticism levelled against Seamus Heaney and "mainstream poetry", by poet-critics like Jeffrey Side , one ought to see the wider context for poetry in the "Anglo-Saxon" world. This phrase was used by one of the UK's leading literary cultural figures, in a private conversation recently, when they spoke eloquently about the supremacy of "Anglo-Saxon novels" and their impressive command of narrative. My heart sank as I listened, for what became clear to me, in a flash, is that nothing has changed since Victorian England (for some in the literary establishment). Britain (now allied to America) and the English language with its marvellous fiction machine, still rule the waves. I personally find this an uncomfortable position - but when ...
15 comments
Read more

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se....
3 comments
Read more