The Same, But Different

I've been back in the States for about five days now, and it's very bitter-sweet. On the one hand, of course it's great to be home with friends and family, but of course I will miss my other home of Scotland and the friends I made there. I just wanted to publish this last post mainly focused on differences between Scotland and the United States, some shallow but some much deeper.

Let's start with the shallow ones.

• When you turn the hot water on, it's usually hot enough to scald you, so there's a "Caution: Very Hot" or "Scald Warning" sign at each sink.
• They say things like "wee" and "it's peeing outside" when it's raining really hard.
• They eat haggis and drink Irn Bru.
• Obviously, they drive on the left side of the road.
• Along with that, people often park on the sidewalks in the less populated areas and any which way they desire (so you don't have to park facing forward on the left side of the road).
• They use military time, which, as I mentioned, definitely tested my basic math skills.
• The portions for soda at McDonald's and other restaurants are notably smaller.
• There is massive waste-consciousness throughout the UK.
• Grocery bags are 5 pence each
• There are switches next to each individual outlet so that power isn't wasted when they're not being used
• Air conditioning is rare
• Etc. etc
• There's usually not much ice in sodas, and on that note, the Coke and Pepsi definitely taste a little different (a little more syrup-y, we think).
• They have much stronger feelings about Mel Gibson in Scotland.
• The table is usually set on the left, not the right like in the US.
• There's barely any meat on their sandwiches and toasted sandwiches are called "toasties".
• Sandwich bread is also buttered often.
• Things generally move a little slower.
• Dogs are often walked without leashes.
• Instead of "to-go" they say "take-away."
• Fox News is more of a comedy experience than a serious news program.
• The country is A LOT smaller - it's about the size of Ohio.

The shallower differences certainly play a role in revealing some of the bigger differences between the United States and Scotland (or sometimes the UK in general). For instance, the UK and Scotland particularly value sustainability and being environmentally friendly as seen through paying for grocery bags and switches on outlets. Paying for grocery bags is an initiative by the government revealing that it's part of the UK's value system to be environmentally conscious. The ability to park whichever direction on the side of the road and walk dogs without leashes reveals a more relaxed set of public laws. Perhaps this reflects a more homogenous society, but I found it interesting that a nation thought to have a great amount of government intervention doesn't sweat the small stuff like dogs on leashes or parking issues.

The similarities between our two lovely nations shouldn't be ignored either. Obviously we speak the same language, our pop culture is more or less the same, and we both have a pretty rocky past with England. Another rather fascinating similarity I found between Scotland and the States is regionalization. Although Scotland is roughly the size of Ohio, Scotland is just as regionally divided as the United States is. For instance, I had mentioned the city rivalries throughout Scotland (Aberdeen vs. Dundee and Glasgow vs. Edinburgh) - yes, they're rivalrous, but each city and region of Scotland tends to have a slightly different culture, just like you find between the different regions of the States. And just like we have red and blue states come election time, Scotland has "yes" and "no" cities in reference to the Independence Referendum.

Scotland and the U.S. are also extremely historically connected. I know I've mentioned the Declaration of Arbroath a few times - that document that may have had a hand in inspiring parts of the Declaration of Independence - but there are many many more connections. For one thing, Scotland and the colonies were important trade partners in tobacco, and perhaps more importantly, people. Scottish emigration to the U.S. has all but shaped our nation in the realms of education, religion, culture, and ideas. The real question is why we don't know about it. At the end of the Institute, we all had to write a big old essay, and I wrote mine on the connection between Scotland and the colonies in America in the 17th and 18th centuries. Something fascinating I read in T.M. Devine's book, Scotland's Empire and the Shaping of the Americas, 1600-1815 (really a good read, you should look into it if you're interested) concerned a sort of "Scottophobia" that emerged post-Independence in the colonies. Why, you ask? The Scottish immigrants were almost all loyalists. As you probably know, many loyalists fled the colonies after and during the Revolutionary War and those who stayed were not treated well at all. So perhaps the general anti-Scots sentiment that was a central part of colonial popular culture at the time wiped remnants of Scottish records from our historical recollections. It really is a shame. But it would make sense since Scots who did remain influential and prominent post-Independence were all patriots - John Witherspoon, the Ulster-Scots generally (Scotch-Irish). Anyway, it's crazy what happens to history when popular culture gets involved, isn't it?

This idea of a skewed version of history is one that drives my own desire to devote myself to its study, and moreover, to teach it. My time in Scotland has certainly demonstrated to me that an alternative perspective on history can be far more telling than the traditional ones. We, not even as students of history, but as people participating in daily life, must constantly strive to remember that a lot of what we've been told about our past and about who we are has been skewed by whoever it is that wrote it down. We have to keep in mind that our teachers and textbooks chose certain things to cover, but had to leave out some other things. Thus, challenging what we think we know about our past and especially our present is a crucial part of life we should all be practicing more. So, take a trip to a country that's not England, France or Germany. Try Poland, Turkey, Lithuania, Switzerland, the Netherlands or of course, Scotland! Get the alternative story and tell me what it is because there's always a new perspective on history.

Well, this is the last blog post. Now, don't forget why I titled the blog this way. What I've written here is in no way all there is to know about Scotland. Granted, it's a good start, but there's always more to know about a place and always a different perspective on the same history.

Scotland will always have a special place in my heart

I know I've done it before, but a huge thank you to the US-UK Fulbright Commission for giving me the opportunity to have this unforgettable experience in Scotland along with all those who worked so hard to make it amazing.

And of course, thank you to all those who even read one paragraph of this blog - I'm glad I could share a Sampling of Scotland with you.

The EU, Edinburgh, and the End

This is my last blog post while I'm in Scotland! How sad is that? Probably less sad for you than for me, but either way, here we go:

On Tuesday we spent our last day in Edinburgh, and it was a truly stupendous finale. Our first stop was the Scottish Government at Victoria Quay where we met to talk to Miranda McIntosh and other government officials about Scotland's international agenda. Quickly, let me just say that events on Tuesday proved my rather naive statement in the last blog post that, in comparison to England, Scotland is rather inward-looking. Boy am I wrong. Firstly, on the level of the immense reach of the Scottish diaspora, but also on a more international relations-y level as well. So, here's what proved me wrong:

Firstly, we were told all about Scotland's role in the European Union (EU). As you might know, the UK government has been preparing for an "in/out referendum" concerning membership in the EU. Scotland, however, is completely against this referendum. This kind of caught me off guard. Throughout this whole trip I saw the massive number of distinctions between Scotland and England and the political conundrums of devolution, but it really surprised me that Scotland and England could be divided on an issue of international relations. But even so, they are divided, and Scotland's First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon (leader of the SNP) has actually requested 3 things in the event of an "in/out referendum:" firstly, that 16 and 17 year olds will have the right to vote in it (as they do in Scotland) secondly, that EU nationals be able to vote (so people living in the UK from the EU) and thirdly, that there be a double majority. A double majority would mean that not only would the majority of the UK have to vote "out" to leave, each particular nation within the UK would have to have a majority to leave the EU. So, Scotland would have to have an "out" majority, Northern Ireland would have to have an "out" majority, and Wales would have to have an "out" majority.

All of us with the Scottish Government Officials

The Scottish Government itself has developed an entire agenda about the benefits of Scotland's EU membership (detailing the importance of both the flow of trade and people, among other things) along with Scotland's Agenda for EU Reform. Both the platforms are very well put together and comprehensive, so if you're interested, you should absolutely check them out at the following links:

The Benefits of Scotland's EU Membership: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00473833.pdf
Scotland's Agenda for EU Reform: http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2014/08/5067

All of us outside the Scottish Government

So, not only does Scotland play its own, completely separate role in the international world, it also plays an important role for a particular country in Africa: Malawi. So, the Scottish Government's International Development Fund is given 9 million pounds a year by the Scottish Parliament for, as you might imagine, international development. But interestingly, one of their priority countries is Malawi! Why is that, you might ask. Scotland and Malawi have quite a historical connection actually! This is largely due to David Livingston, a missionary who actually negotiated an end to the slave trade in Malawi in 1859. Ever since then, Scottish missionaries and politicians have been inspired to support health and education in Malawi, and the relationship continues today. Your bells of imperialism might be going off, but the missionaries aren't really trying to convert - today the relationship is based off of supporting NGOs and other local organizations within Malawi to support development and health. They emphasized that they ask local Malawi people what they want help with and then give them the finances and some help to accomplish their goals. It really sounds like an amazing international relationship.

So, after our amazing discussion about the international role of Scotland, we had some free time to get some lunch in the amazing Edinburgh. Patty, Tim and I ended up stopping in a wonderful Parisian cafe that made THE BEST SANDWICH I'VE EVER HAD. It was truly spectacular. I don't know what they did, but it was magical.

Moving on. We met Leo outside the National Museum of Scotland for a short tour by David Forsyth, the Principal Curator. This museum was really thorough in Scottish history. We took a trip through centuries in only one hour seeing and learning many new things! One of my favorite moments was seeing this rather complicated looking chest:

Chest used by Scots as part of the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies which created the Darien Expedition

So a rather unknown and unsurprisingly untouched aspect of Scottish History is this failed attempt at joining the colonization trend going on in the 17th century throughout Europe. Essentially, the Scots wanted to take part in the amazing economic success that could be had through colonies and set up the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies which set up a project of creating a trading colony in Central America. It was honestly kind of an anti-English campaign since the English were limiting Scotland's trade with the colonies via the Navigation Acts. So, fundraising for the campaign was rather easy when one marketed it as a patriotic Scottish act to contribute and a middle finger to England as well. Although the funding was successful, that would be the reason for its ultimately enormous failure. Many of the people who joined the endeavor either lost an immense amount of money or actually died from disease. It's not really a huge surprise that Scotland failed in trading with countries like Africa and the Indies with a base in South America since one of their main trading goods is wool. Anyway, it failed for an abundance of reasons, but the results were quite drastic. This Company was backed by 25-50% of all the money circulating in Scotland (great job marketing, guys!) so when the endeavor failed, it destroyed the economy of Scotland. Now, the colony was abandoned in 1700. Hmm. Something rather important in Scottish history happened right around 1700. I'll give you a hint. It's not this union...

One of the first symbols of the union of the Scottish crowns

It's the Act of Union. Or the Treaty. I'm in Scotland, it's the Treaty of Union...1707. The destruction of the Scottish economy due to the Darien Venture contributed hugely to the union of English and Scottish parliaments in 1707. I don't think it's a very popular thing to talk about in Scotland. Not one of our lecturers even mentioned it, which is pretty fascinating actually.

Quick sidenote, you might recognize these, but they were original woodcarvings from the ceiling of the King's Bedchambers in Stirling Castle! Liam and I had seen the rest when we were there a couple weeks ago. 

Alright, after our super awesome tour of the National Museum of Scotland, we headed to the National Library of Scotland. Our experience here might have been my favorite of the entire trip. You'll see why. We started out by going through the personal records of Dame Muriel Spark, a rather famous Scottish writer deemed Scotland's "grand dame" of literature. It sounds kind of invasive...going through personal records...but it felt more like sharing in someone else's life for a bit. We were walked through her life by a good friend of hers, Alan Taylor, who spoke extremely fond of her as he told us about her life. She sounded like an amazing woman and she just happened to keep almost all of her records (apparently because different men in her life kept trying to screw her over), but this results in an amazing insight into who she was. We were all captivated while sifting through her personal letters and passports along with a short telegraph from Maggie Smith (the actress who played Professor McGonagall in the Harry Potter films) thanking her for writing such a wonderful character for her to play. If you're interested, we were told that her most famous and favorite novel was The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, so if you'd like to find out why Dame Spark was in fact a Dame, that would be a good place to start. After learning about Dame Spark in such a hands-on fashion, we moved on to learn about the National Library of Scotland's connections with America. Also in a very hands-on fashion.

Dame Muriel Spark (thanks for the photo, wikipedia!)

One of the curators casually takes out a large, old book and opens it up to a really old letter. He then asks us "do you recognize this handwriting?" We all shift in our seats to get a closer look, and then throw out some guesses: "John Adams?" "Thomas Jefferson?" "Nope..." "James Madison?" Then the curator told us it was a letter written by George Washington. WHAT?! We were all speechless. You don't usually see letters written by the original commander in chief I guess, so we were all pretty stunned. I was sitting a foot away from a letter written by GEORGE WASHINGTON. How crazy is that? His handwriting is kind of sloppy actually when you compare it to people like Ben Franklin WHICH WE ALSO DID. This book had letters upon letters from massively important people - many of them founding fathers - in American history. It was incredible - truly spectacular - to be that close to our own nation's history. And I think we all got a little sentimental about home - I know I did.

Here we are, looking at the letters of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and many other Founding Fathers

Well, if that wasn't stupendous enough, after a little free time on the streets of Edinburgh, we headed to our last reception at the Royal Society of Edinburgh, hosted by Angela Constance, the cabinet secretary for EDUCATION and Lifelong Learning. How amazing is that? I'm pleased to say I was able to have a lovely conversation about education in Scotland with Ms Constance* along with the Director of Student Experience at the University of Strathclyde, Amanda Corrigan. I also was asked to speak about my time in Scotland so I'll include the speech below.

Speaking at the Royal Society of Edinburgh

"So, I have been tasked with answering two questions for you all, neither of which are particularly easy to answer: firstly why I chose to apply to the Scotland Summer Institute and secondly what my best experience so far has been.

So, why did I choose Scotland? One of our lecturers from last week, Dr Eammon O’Neill, summed it up perfectly. He said something along the lines of “Scotland knows America, but America doesn’t know Scotland.” America doesn’t know Scotland. Well, that’s for sure, all we know are kilts, golf, and whiskey. But why? 

In the United States, world history is taught in a rather narrow fashion – one with the perspective of European males and focused mainly on England, Germany, France and maybe a quick unit on Asia. It wasn’t until I began my study of history at the University of Illinois that I was finally exposed to the other perspectives of history and found that I learned the most when the traditional perspectives were challenged by an alternative story. So, after scrolling through the institutes in England, upon seeing the Scotland Summer Institute, I immediately knew it was the institute for me. Spending five weeks in Scotland surely would open a whole new world of cultural and historical understanding --- and of course, our time in Scotland has done all that and much, much more. 

So what has been the best experience so far? It’s more than just trying haggis, Irn Bru and attempting to play the bagpipes (all of which we’ve done). Perhaps it was the first time we held documents from the 12^th century in the archives of Glamis Castle and fully realized the vast and deep history of this amazing nation. Maybe it was talking to Jenny Marra, a member of the Labour party leadership in the Scottish Parliament, about the referendum and the general election. Or it could have been our day at the Irn Bru factory getting insight into the truly bold spirit of Scotland.

I guess the best experience so far has been having my previously held conceptions about Scotland challenged in diverse ways on a day-to-day basis. There is nothing more valuable in one’s education than a new perspective and I feel incredibly grateful to have been able to gain this extraordinary exposure to Scotland’s amazing history and culture from all those we’ve worked with. So a huge thank you to the Fulbright Commission for this unforgettable experience, along with Leo, Daria, Graeme, Pat, Keegan, John, Neil and all the others who have worked so hard to make our experience a truly stupendous one. I like to think that because of all of you, upon our return, we will all be Americans that know Scotland."

So, after speaking to everyone and enjoying the company of those that have provided us with such a spectacular five weeks, we ate a quick dinner in Edinburgh and hopped on the train back to Glasgow. It was a perfect end to our academic and cultural experience here in Scotland. Today (Wednesday) and Thursday will be spent on presentations about our time in Scotland and on Friday we have a couple debriefs from Strathclyde University and the Fulbright Commission. I will touch on all that in my final blogpost which will likely come out once I return to the United States on Saturday. 

So, as usual, cheers until the next one.



*For anyone starting to read this blog now, in the U.K. they typically do not use a period after titles like Ms., Mrs., Mr., Dr., etc, so I refrain from doing so in my blog posts as well.

Independence, England, and Irn Bru

Alright, on Friday we had one lecture all about the independence referendum that occurred on September 18th, 2014 (my 20th birthday as it would have it) by Dr Neil McGarvey of Strathclyde's School of Government and Public Policy. I know I've already written plenty about it, but Dr McGarvey provided several new insights, so I'll just be sharing those.

Very fittingly, Dr McGarvey began by discussing the culture of Scotland itself which plays an immense role in the independence referendum. Scotland is actually the only country to vote against being independent when given the opportunity to vote. That alone reveals a lot. As Dr McGarvey noted, Scotland really is a very unusual nation. It's already pretty independent: it's got its own sports, its own religion, its own press, its own education system and of course, its own legal system! So Scotland is essentially a nation without its own state otherwise known as a stateless nation.

Thanks for the picture, dailywhat.org

Really quick about the education systems since I haven't touched on this already. It's all quite interesting. So, I think I mentioned that people from Scotland go to University in Scotland for free while the rest of the U.K. has to pay 9,000 pounds; however, any country in the EU can go to school in Scotland for free. It's all quite odd. But, compared to England, Scotland's university degrees are for four years and you can study several different subjects where, as I understand it, in England students only need 3 years of university for a degree, but it's much more specialized in terms of subject area. Interesting, isn't it?

As Dr McGarvey explained, over the years of devolution, Scottish politics has developed its own agenda very separate from UK politics while also experiencing an overall decline in Britishness while Scottishness has been accentuated. In fact, he mentioned that if you ask someone in Scotland if they voted yes or no for independence, they would often say "no, but I'm not a unionist" or "yes, but I'm not a nationalist." This makes it seem like Scots shy away from polarized politics and prefer more moderate approaches, which from what I've seen so far, is accurate. After all, the referendum was praised throughout the world as surprisingly peaceful. This doesn't mean, however, that there weren't strong feelings or exaggerations. Here, for instance, is a video of someone very clearly in favor of independence narrating the arrival of English politicians to Glasgow to try to lobby for the "no" vote:

There were many really fascinating results of the referendum. On the surface, the "yes" vote was 1,617,989, or 44.7% while the "no" vote was 2,001,926, or 55.3%. The voter turnout was massively high at 84.6%, but don't forget that 16 and 17 year olds were allowed to vote for the first time as well, which probably added to that number. In terms of demographics, older people generally voted "no" while men typically voted "yes" along with less well off people. All in all, the referendum inspired a wave of interest in politics from all walks of Scotland. Independence and all its trappings became the dominant conversation topic so much so that bars had to put up signs that said "nae indy debates at the bar" (no debates about independence at the bar). The populace was engaged in politics like never before, which perfectly attests to the importance of this referendum.

Now, a little bit about devolution. The process of devolution (the process of distributing the power of a unitary government to its regional governments) is different in each nation of the U.K. So, Wales has different devolved powers than Scotland, which are different from Northern Ireland. 1999 marks the year of Scottish legislative devolution through the Scottish Parliament, but they already had administrative devolution for several years through an institution called the Scottish Office, a branch of the U.K. government that handled administrative affairs for Scotland. Dr McGarvey also noted that devolution is actually more of a conservative policy, which is kind of surprising. But seeing as it's an alternative of independence, it makes perfect sense. It's all about perspective, people. Another piece of evidence for this is that in the Scotland Act of 1998 which established the Scottish Parliament, the supremacy of the U.K. Parliament was reasserted. Finally, Dr McGarvey mentioned that he considered the U.K. to be not a unitary state, but a state of unions, because each of these nations have unique powers and governments. I was taught in high school that the U.K. was a unitary state, but it certainly doesn't seem to function much like one - especially considering the massive devolution in Scotland.

There is a ton more to write about on the subjects of independence and devolution, but I will spare you all for now and you can ask me more when I return if you so desire.

After our lecture, Nina, Omar and I hopped on a train to London for the weekend to get some first hand experience in comparing Scotland to the rest of the U.K., and let me tell you, from what I saw, Scotland and England could not be more different.

First, I'll go through what we did before doing a full-on comparison. We arrived Friday evening and met Nina's friends, Lauren and Niko, who we were staying with. They showed us around the city a little bit before taking us to a truly phenomenal Mediterranean restaurant in Soho called Cookhouse Joe's. Have you every had Halloumi? It's good and you should try it. Then we stopped by a gelato place where I had kiwi, gin and elderflower sorbet - what? It was really amazing though. After feeding ourselves, Nina, Omar and I walked around London ourselves a bit. We said goodnight to Big Ben at midnight and watched the London Eye slowly spin lit up by its red lights.

First night in London

About to say goodnight to Big Ben

The London Eye at night

London at night

Right, so, the next morning we woke up bright and early to be touristy tourists, but also get a sense of what London is all about. While we walked from Picadilly Circus to Buckingham Palace to St Paul's Cathedral and beyond, we began to notice one hugely important thing about London: it's very international. About 1 in 3 people in London are not from England. We probably heard at least 15 different languages throughout our day and saw people from all over the world. It's not just the people though. The food was all very internationally focused, all the tour places we went offered audio guides in a ton of different languages, and to top it off, on all major cross walks, the street literally told you which way to look for cars coming. Like, instead of the white lines in front of you, it said "LOOK RIGHT --->" or "<--- LOOK LEFT." If that doesn't prove the internationality of London, nothing will.

Picadilly Circus

Omar, me and Nina at Buckingham Palace

The London Eye

Nina and I at Somerset House

My favorite touristy thing we did was St Paul's Cathedral. This is a splendid cathedral in the middle of London that has been a very historically central venue for important moments such as William Churchill's funeral and Princess Diana's wedding. There are over 500 steps to be climbed in order to get to the top of St Paul's cathedral - which is really kind of torturous - but the view is so worth it. See for yourselves:

St Paul's Cathedral

The view from St Paul's Cathedral

The view from St Paul's Cathedral

The view from St Paul's Cathedral

To go along with how internationally focused England is, the cathedral also had monuments to all sorts of countries throughout the world including a huge tribute to the "American dead of the Second World War" which stands behind the high altar - which is a very sacred and important place! Such splendor devoted to a former colony of England speaks volumes about the culture of this city and its central cathedral.

My other favorite event was seeing a Vivaldi orchestra concert by candlelight in St Martin-in-the-fields, a lovely church near Trafalgar Square. The music was splendid and the venue matched it perfectly.

It was at this concert I began to consider some differences and similarities between Scotland and England and a comparison between the two. The first thing that sparked this was when I noticed a rather large royal crest at the front of the church on the ceiling. "Huh," my American brain mused, "what about separation of church and state?" Well, dummy, this is England! The Anglican Church was made for the state! Henry VIII split from the pope and made the monarch the head of the church, remember? Right, well, the situation in Scotland is the same, but different (as many things here are). Scotland has a legacy of Presbyterianism, which is certainly ingrained in their state structure as well. Our legal expert from last week, Dr Norrie, agreed that in Scotland there really is no separation of Church and State. It certainly would be difficult to enforce given the relationship between the church and state in England.

Eventually I also came to notice the constant distinction between England and Scotland in London. Signs and information would never call people British - only Scottish or English. This reminded me of what Dr McGarvey mentioned about the decline in Britishness. Come to think of it, I don't think I've heard the term "British" once in reference to a person. This just goes to show the relentless separation of Scotland and England as distinct nations and cultures. More on this in a second!

First, I'll quickly detail our second day. We woke up and headed over to King's Cross to experience some Harry Potter nostalgia. The line for Platform 9 3/4 (kind of a cheesy rip-off people, not gonna lie) was quite long, so we decided to head to the British Library first to go through an AWESOME ONCE IN A LIFETIME EXHIBITION ABOUT THE MAGNA CARTA AND IT WAS THE AWESOMEST AWESOME THAT EVER DID AWESOME. Really quick, for those of you who don't know, the Magna Carta was this rather important document that was a result of the English barons of 1215 and their rebellion against King John basically for some important governmental changes. What it established was that the King had to follow the law, just like everyone else, and the people would not be subject to tyranny. Sound familiar?! Thus, traces of the Magna Carta's message are found throughout all of European history. It doesn't matter that Pope Innocent III (who happened to be England's feudal overlord at the time) annulled it like, 10 weeks later - not important. The document lives and breathes to this day in all sorts of things including, I don't know, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Speaking of those, they both happened to be in this exhibit. Yep. Thomas Jefferson's personal copy of the Declaration of Independence was sitting in front of my face and so was the freaking Bill of Rights. I definitely cried a little. It was magical. (Also, note again the reverence afforded to the United States in this London, Magna Carta exhibit. Okay, moving on.) Okay, also about every copy of the Magna Carta in existence was there, including the closest thing to the original we've got and a few papal bulls and all around amazing medieval and modern documents. It truly was once in a lifetime. Sorry for geeking out here, non-history folks.

King's Cross station

The British Library

A lovely park I spent my last few hours in London hanging out in, soaking up the rays

Although I understand my two days in London in no way allowed me to fully understand English culture in contrast with Scottish culture, there was certainly a palpable differentiation between the two. London seemed to be looking out toward the rest of the world, unconcerned with Scotland or the rest of the U.K. while Scotland is very internally focused. London excreted a mixture of many different cultures forming one very tolerant and ambiguous amalgamation, while Scottish culture is clear cut and full of its own unique character. Neither is good or bad, but they are certainly different. And I definitely did feel a little homesick for Scotland while I was away.

DC Thomson in London - one of the only pieces of evidence I saw of a Scottish connection whilst in the city

That's not to say there aren't plenty of similarities between England and Scotland. They both sell bottled Scottish water everywhere! But beyond that, they're both very egalitarian societies, they both do not have much of a separation of church and state, they share very similar governmental structures and have similar cultural values. So, I suppose on the surface they are the same, but in personality, they are very very different.

Speaking of understanding Scottish culture, Monday was highly eye-opening in that respect. After a morning lecture about the Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences (all highly interesting, but this blog is already too long, so if you'd like to know more, just ask me), we headed to the Irn Bru factory! Okay, some background: Irn Bru (pronounced Iron Brew) is essentially the Scottish national drink. Scotland is the only country in the world where Cocacola is not the most popular soda (or as they call it here, ginger or fizzy drink) - it's Irn Bru. Why's it spelled like that? Legislation got passed that drinks had to come at face value, so basically that what the drink says it is has to be what it actually is. Now, there is a little iron in Irn Bru, so that was in the clear, but it isn't brewed like a beer, so the owner of the company said they'd keep the name and just spell it weird, thus "Irn Bru" was born. What does it taste like? Although it claims to have an indescribable taste, I will tell you it tastes like fizzy bubblegum cough syrup.

All of us heading into our tour of the Irn Bru factory! I know, we look good.

How in the world is this drink beating out Cocacola in Scotland? I would argue a combination of the fiercely spirited culture of Scotland along with phenomenal marketing. Two members of the Irn Bru marketing team met with us on Monday to tell us their brilliant formula for building a brand. Essentially they told us about two important concepts when it comes to marketing: the brand's essence and the brand's character. The brand's essence is developed from a lovely pyramid of traits of your product and turns out to be two words that fully capture the product's essence. Irn Bru's essence is "Bold Spirit," which after watching several adds was absolutely fitting. Their marketing scheme is quite bold. Jonathan Kemp, Irn Bru's Commercial Director, told us that if he thinks any of his competitors would print or run an advert (that's what they call ads here), he wouldn't do it. Irn Bru's marketing is unique, cheeky, bold, and filled with the spirit of Scotland. Here's an example:

See how the add pokes fun at Scotland while also giving off this unparalleled sense of pride? That is spirit. And that is Scottish culture. Remember the video of the Darth Vadar music and the English politicians? Classic Scotland. Scotland has the ability to make fun of its rougher side, but still embrace its culture all the same unlike any other nation I know of. It has a sense of humor, it's bold and cheeky, and it is fiercely confident and proud of what it is. Doesn't that kind of sound like a person? That's the second part of what Mr Kemp told us about building a brand: give your product character, like that of a person. So, Irn Bru's personality is essentially Scotland's personality, and that comes across in every advert you see and even the drink itself: bold spirit.

We all got a little nostalgic at the Irn Bru factory. Never before had we seen Scottish culture so greatly represented in a 2 minute video. It just showed us how very much we will miss this place and its very bold spirit.

This one of the last blog posts - I expect about two more. One with more events and one reflective one when I return to the States on Saturday. So until the next one, cheers!