300 Years and “so what"?

Although I was only 8 years old at the time - and watching on a TV in Scotland - I can still remember seeing the American bicentennial celebrations in 1976.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bicentennial):

"local observances included painting mailboxes and fire hydrants red, white, and blue. A wave of patriotism and nostalgia swept the nation"

And, in 1988, our friends in Australia celebrated 200 years of nationhood. Again, with widespread expression of pride and togetherness.

So, on the day that commemorates our tercentenary, why is there none of this in the UK?

Where are the parties? Where are the fireworks?

Why isn't there even one event that's comparable to the attention given in 2002 to Queen Elizabeth's 50 years?

Gordon Brown can lecture that the union is important to us and Blair can say that "we should celebrate today with pride", but their words fail to resonate on either side of the border.

Where is this "celebration with pride"?

Nowhere.

Instead the response has been "300 years and so what?" … an embarrassing silence followed by a shrug of the shoulders.

And the reason why is the same reason that Gordon Brown's proposition of a "British day" was so laughable: the union has failed to turn many nations into one. There is no nation.

Even after 300 years, people in England are still English long before they are British. And, in Scotland, we're Scots first.

On both side of the border, there's been a refusal to integrate and it would take a fool - and/or Gordon Brown - to think that it's suddenly going to happen after 300 years.

We should look at the Union for what it was: it was a way to prevent destructive in-fighting between England and Scotland and a way for the two countries to work together for mutual benefit.

And, as such, it worked well. And both countries profited from it.

However, this is the 21st century and we no longer need the Act of Union. There's an alternative that covers most of Europe - the European Union.

By being an independent part of the EU, we can still have the co-operation with England but without handing the running of our country to London and without being shackled to the false and unworkable notion that we're "British".

And we can have similar, direct and autonomous relations with the rest of our neighbours.

And the cost?

Only the loss of a treaty that neither the English nor the Scots think is worth breaking out the sparklers and firecrackers for.