PAT Kane’s article “Why I’m supporting England – and how doing so can be good for indy” (June 26) is to be commended and I write to reiterate some of the points and raise additional thoughts for possible debate.
He highlights Gareth Southgate’s willingness to publicly raise and offer candid opinions on racism, inequality and identity; there are lessons that politicians could learn.
Confusions and misunderstandings associated with flags and national identity are raised when Pat writes: “In the last few decades, nothing has unravelled the use of the English flag [presumable meaning here the red cross of St George] as a signifier of white identity more than the many black faces belting out God Save the Queen when the teams line up before kick-off.”
READ MORE: Pat Kane: Why I'm supporting England at Euro 2020 - and why that's good for independence
Is God Save the Queen Britain’s national anthem or the English national anthem? The issue here being that England and Britain have for so long meant the same thing; an elision of England and Britain; Englishness and Britishness, to mean the same; but certainly “as a signifier of white identity” both flags mean the same.
With the tide now moving strongly away from a sense of British identity and its associated legacy of Empire, I would suggest that it is not the English flag that is unravelling, but that of the British flag of the Act of Union, the “Jack”. Conversely it is the flag of the St George Cross that is actually unfurling, as that sense of pride builds in an English national football team and nation whose true identity until now has been subsumed by a British identity that is presently of doubtful credibility; where a proud and now rebranded English identity is set to transform the nature of politics to a new era. From a Scottish perspective, supporting this ideology would certainly be – in Pat’s words – “good for indy”.
I am not a football follower myself but I was impressed with Gareth Southgate’s style of management at the time he took over the England team in 2016. Pat’s article reinforces my initial impression of the man; his honesty, integrity and empathy with his team players. The nature of this approach is admirably displayed for starters in Marcus Rashford, whose efforts to pressurise the government to be more conciliatory to the needy during the pandemic were exemplary. Marcus led the way when Boris Johnson was slow to show concern for the less fortunate in the country.
Pat writes that Southgate has been “hugely more capable of linking older and newer conceptions of Englishness, the monocultural past and the multicultural present and future, than any leading politician”. His approach is unlikely to be met with any great enthusiasm from the current governing political elite. This is illustration of how there are two diametrically opposed strategies at work in this land we inhabit: one forward-looking, progressive, positive and designed to unite (perhaps wrapped in the flag of St George?), the other to resist change and insist on the status quo (wrapped in the Jack). One strategy that seeks to face up and find solutions to major societal antagonisms and unite people; the other content within the government, and the British media in cahoots, pulling in the opposite direction following the tried and trusted divide-and-conquer strategy of old, trying to maintain the Union at all costs and attempting to create “culture wars” around “woke” attitudes.
It is indeed in the interests of Scottish independence to demonstrate and exercise the same positive public messages emanating from the English team and cheer them on in the European competition; it is in everyone’s interests to do so.
I wholeheartedly endorse Gareth Southgate and his team for such an exemplary, proactive approach to resolving the current and deep-seated problems on these islands we inhabit. And thanks to Pat for bringing such a positive story to the pages of The National.
Dave Finlay
Falkirk
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here