The
break-up of the union
I am working on correcting your scripts, which is taking a
little time. Here are some initial comments, though.
When I have finally finished marking these commentaries and
you get your scripts back you will see that I have used a series of
abbreviations to code your mistakes. I am expecting you to research and all of
these mistakes.
V – vocabulary is wrong
ART – article problem (The/an etc
PRE – preposition problem
FRE or FR – this is French
CLU – This is clumsy
VT – verb tense problem
WO – word order problem
G – Grammar mistake
F – this expression is too formal
INF- this expression is too informal
EX – This word or expression doe snot exist
REP – repetition
PL – singular/plural problem
COU –Countable/uncountable problem
General balance text/context
How much of your commentary should be explaining what the
author says, his choice of tone and vocabulary, his intentions and so on, and
how much should be about historical and political events, and arguments he
« forgets » to use, question he ignores etc. There is no strict rule,
but I would say half of each. The biggest danger is definitely paraphrase.
It is crucial to understand the difference between an « explication
de texte » and a « commentaire de texte ». To summarize the arguments
of this Conservative and say something about the history of Scottish
nationalism is a good start . However, *commenting* his arguments is not
the same as summarizing them. In particular, the arguments, which are not
mentioned, which are part of the debate from the other side are a very
important element you should introduce. The writer says that Scotland would be
marginal and unimportant without the United Kingdom. But Scottish nationalists
point to countries of a similar size like Norway, to regions demanding independence
elsewhere, like Catalunya, and to Scottish oil riches (which are massive).
These are the arguments they would use against this gentleman.
A few people put in a paragraph on the situation this month
in Belfast (along the lines of « Elsewhere in the United Kingdom,
questions of unity and autonomy are also tense : for example, in Belfast ….).
This is excellent. You are showing you read the newspapers.
Historical
and political context
Most people
got some correct historical context in. Many remembered the particular situation of
the Anglo-Scottish Union and the compromises the English had to make
about the education system, the legal system and the presbyterian religion.
Good.
The more
recent political context was often missing. One of the main reasons that
Scottish nationalism has become so incredibly influential that a third of the
Scots want independence, a situation which seemed impossible 50 years ago, was the Thatcher
period. Remember in 1979, support for an autonomous parliament was much
lower at the 1979 referendum. Between 1979 and 1997, the Thatcher and Major
Conservative governments became very unpopular in Scotland. At one point there
were no Conservative members of parliament at all (zero !) on Scotland. In
this situation, many many Scots became frustrated that all the decisions were
being taken in Westminster by a Conservative government which had very very little
support in Scotland. When Margaret Thatcher decided to introduce the
controversial Poll Tax, she introduced it in Scotland one year before it was
introduced in England, and this decision made a lot of Scottish people angry.
This situation
made it possible to have a big majority in favour of an autonomous parliament
in the 1997 referendum, and subsequently for the Scottish national party to
gain a lot of electoral support. This process was accelerated after 1997 by the
policies of New-Labour which while not being identical to Thatcher’s policies,
accepted the primary importance of the market and rejected many traditional
Labour policies (such as nationalizations and systematic support for trade
unions) which were popualr in Scotland.
Because
Scotland has often been more left-wing than England. At the beginning of the
twentieth century « Red Clydeside » wa sthe name used to refer to the
strong and militant left wing trade unions in Glasgow around the shipbuilding.
There are social differences too – a far larger proportion of Scottish people
live in council housing than in England, and there is significantly more
poverty.
The other
important context of the rise of Scottish nationalism is the rise of Scottish
oil. The oil discovered in the North Sea off Scotland in the 1970s was a very
large find indeed, and helped the UK’s economy for many years. The fact that
Scotland had this oil made it easier for the SNP to argue that independence was
possible (especially seeing that other major aspects of the Scottish economy,
like shipuilding had declined massively from the 1970s on. There was also a
feeling that « Scottish oil » was not benefitting Scottish people,
but that the profit was being made by England.
The debate
today about Scottish independence
Students did
grasp the arguments used by this Conservative writer. But you must be able to
say in general terms what replies the nationalists are making to these
arguments. Not exact quotations, but general points. The unionists tend to say
that Scotland outside the United Kingdom would be small and insignificant.
Nationalists point to other countries in Europe like Norway or Slovakia which
are similar to Scotland from the point of view of the size of the economy and
the population.
The argument
which says that it would be much more difficult for England to have nuclear
weapons if they could not base them in Scotland is unlikely to be effective in
Scotland. Nuclear weapons are not particularly popular, an dthe SNP won the
last Scottish elections while being openly opposed both to the war in Iraq and
to nuclear weapons.
This is a
general rule if you are commenting a polemical text, which gives a firmly held
opinion – you should be able to put it into its political context. This means
saying what is the other point of view. For example, in this document, Mr Booth
gives a very positive view of the history of the united kingdom, saying i twas
a strong force in defeating fascism and communism. Other people might have a
less positive view – the United Kingdom
built an enormous world-wide empire, and many aspects of this empire
cannot be considered positively or with proud. Someone with different views
from Mr Booth might emphasize the slave trade, the domination of India, the
support for the nuclear arms race, as typical of the history of the United
Kingdom. Mr Booth’s choices come from his own view of the world.
A Scottish
Conservative
Mr Booth is a
Scottish Conservative. He was Conservative candidate – that is to say he lost
the elections. The Conservatives have very little influence in Scotland. In the
elections for the Scottish parliament, they won 17 seats out of the 129 seats
in total. His is a hard job. His position on the union is not surprising. The
official title of the Conservative party is actually the « Conservative
and Unionist party ». This name was taken mostly to indicate the hostility
of the party to any autonomy for Ireland, but applies to Scotland too. In
addition, various leaders of the Conservative party have been strong supporters
of the union. You will remember that Margaret Thatcher was not prepared to make
any concessions to Irish nationalists. The Thatcher years included dramatic
armed struggle over Northern ireland, the conflict over the hunger strikers
etc. and it was only under John Major
and then Tony Blair that a new agreement in Northern Ireland (the famous
« Good Friday agreement » becamse possible.
LANGUAGE POINTS Here
are some of the language problems one or more of you had. If you are not
certain you are at ease with these points, check them out, do some grammar
exercises, eliminate the problem.
1)
Be careful with the re-reading. A few students
had extremely basic mistakes like plural
adjectives. This is a question of re-reading. You must leave enough time to
re-read. How do you re-read. First look at all the verbs and only the verbs.
For each one say to yourself « What tense is this verb ? Why did I
choose this tense ? Am I happy with my choice ? ». Then start at
the top again and look at all the articles (« the » « a »
or no article as in « I love chocolate ». Again same question :
« what is this article ? » « Am I happy with my
choice ? ». The correctors are very professional people and sot hey
do not throw a paper into the bin when they see a plural adjective, but they
feel like doing so, this kind of mistake is taken extremely seriously.
2)
The translation of the French
« dont », which sometimes gives structures with « whose »
as a relative. Some students used « which » instead of
« whose » : not good. Urgent exercise to help you here : http://www.educastream.com/exercices-traduction-du-relatif-dont-b1
3)
A couple
of students said in their introduction something about « the document we
have to comment on ». « Have to » is not good here. It is
equivalent to « le document qu’on nous oblige à commenter ». Try something neutral « the document we
have been given ».
4)
The expression « at the level of » to
translate « au niveau » (« au niveau politique », « au
niveau économique ») is very clumsy and should not be used.
5)
The grammar of the verb « remind »
needs revising for some of you.
6)
Remember you must divide your writing into
paragraphs. You cannot have a single paragraph lasting more than a page !
7)
Remember that « eventual » is a
« faux ami » and does *not* mean « éventuel ».
8)
Do not use the expressions « we can say
that » or « we can notice that ». They sound extremely French.
9)
That extra « le » (from the English
point of view). Several students made this mistake. There are quite a number of
situations where in French you add an « empty object » in the form of
a « le », and in English you must not. « Je le sais » = I
know. » Comme je l’ai expliqué » : As I have explained. »
Comme nous le verrons » : « As we shall see ». etc. etc. etc.
