Just when you thought we’d covered every possible angle on Grant Shapps’ hastily withdrawn (if he ever meant it at all) pledge to introduce number plates for bike riders as part of a crackdown on cycling offences, Scottish author Ian Mitchell has popped up with perhaps the most extreme take yet on the issue du jour: that bike registration plates “could help destroy the United Kingdom” (link is external).

For some reason, I’m not convinced that Tom Nairn is now leaping towards the keyboard in a desperate rush to cite this latest compelling argument in favour of what some view as the ever-quickening disintegration of Britain’s constitutional fabric.

Of course, Mitchell isn’t up in arms over Shapps’ comments from a purely pro-cycling point of view (though he does argue that point as well in his piece for online newspaper CapX (link is external)).

Instead, the author appears to have approached the subject from an ideological stance that seems to have been largely washed away in the recent ‘Ulsterisation’ of Scottish politics – ‘unionist-nationalism’, as historian Graeme Morton coined it.

Some context (don’t worry, we’ll get back to bikes in a minute): in the mid-nineteenth century, an increasing number of Scots believed that Scottish social, political and religious concerns were being neglected down in London at the English-dominated British parliament, where decisions were nonetheless being made that affected the daily lives of those north of the border.

Far from being fully-fledged advocates for Scottish independence – in fact, they weren’t even that keen on devolution, despite threatening it as a last resort if the mob at Westminster didn’t pull their finger out – these unionist-nationalists advocated that Scotland should be properly treated as an equal partner in the union and criticised the apparent apathy and ignorance of anglo-centric English politicians and administrators towards distinctly Scottish issues.

One of these proto-nationalists, the churchman James Begg expressed his dismay in 1843 at ‘the ignorance which prevailed among multitudes of English people in regard to the state of Scotland… there are many English people who scarcely know that the Scots speak the English tongue, and who imagine that there is no dress seen but the kilt after crossing the Tweed.’

In opposition to the London parliament’s anglo-centric and unitarian instincts, in the mid-1850s a short-lived and unruly but pioneering nationalist pressure group, the National Association for the Vindication of Scottish Rights (NAVSR), was formed, whose protest against administrative neglect later inspired the campaign to establish a Scottish Office.
It’s of this long and broadly-based political tradition that Mitchell gleans his protest against the Transport Secretary’s hints last week at future “pointless, draconian measures”.

“I refuse to be subjected to rules like those proposed on cyclists,” he writes, with the stubborn defiance of a bearded Victorian Presbyterian.

“I refuse to be micro-managed by pale-fingered control freaks in airless offices. Londoners are welcome to destroy the freedom of physical movement in their city in any way they think beneficial. It is their manor. But this is my country.

“Cyclists may or may not be a problem in the south-east of England – I do not know, not having visited for more than a decade. But they are certainly not here in seaward Argyll.

“Every day I cycle about 11 kms along the shore here for a breath of fresh air and some exercise. Almost the whole route is on single-track roads where everyone travels slowly. Though I am sure I break the speed limit on some of the downhill sections, I have never found myself in conflict with a driver, pedestrian or sheep.

“I don’t use protective gear; I don’t wear cycling clothes. When the mood takes me, I simply put on a rain jacket or a sun hat, depending on the season, and hop on my bike.

“Without that kind of freedom, cycling becomes another aspect of the national conspiracy to chain everyone to chairs and smartphones. Why should I be forced to cramp my lifestyle because of rude humans (allegedly) five hundred miles away? It can hardly be said too loudly: This is not London.

Railing against this ‘anglo-centric Sovietism’, Mitchell concludes: “I would rather deal with the screaming barbarian hordes that we saw on display outside the Tory hustings in Perth last week (which can also provide useful exercise) than with the po-faced British bureaucracy when it is in a mood to destroy the freedom of simple cycling in the fresh air in a beautiful country like Scotland.

“This is not London, as I have said. This will not be Britain either unless this sort of repression stops.”

Now, back to close passes and Jeremy Vine…

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-26-august-2022-295507#live-blog-item-36937