Alistair….Darling….Please can we make it up?

This article was taken (with permission of course) from http://auldacquaintance.wordpress.com/ .

Alistair..Darling…Please can we make it up ..We were wrong, we really shouldn’t have fallen out of Love with you, and we want to try and make things work…Can we try again please? Pretty please? Hugs and kisses….Scotland xox

And so it was, that Alistair Darling former Chancellor of the Exchequer for the failed Labour UK Government woke up from the LSD inspired dream,(it was rather old currency) in which he had got rather excited, and arose to his full height shouting ” Oh Yes, YES, YES!!” Before belatedly correcting himself and muttering “I mean Oh no, no no”

“But that was rather a good dream” thought Alistair..”I think I can use that for my Blether Together Speech”.

And so it came to pass that Alistair found himself delivering his speech in East Lothian last night, roundly encouraged by three separate groups of Independence supporters who had donned Saltires and We Love London Government T.Shirts, especially for the occasion(At least that is what Alistair thought the T.Shirts said, his eyesight like his mental faculties are not quite as sharp as he thought them once to be)

Greatly encouraged by this rousing reception,Darling.Alistair proceeded to deliver his speech in the form of an Aria in the key of B.Flat.

He didn’t quite begin with the words “I had a Dream” which is possibly just as well, as some music critics would have been commenting that he had a delusion..and the arrangement was rather stilted and flat,but we have to give him half marks for effort,although I do believe that Alistair thought it rather good himself, but lets not be churlish and disappoint him..We think you are wonderful Darling..More More More..Please!

However lets get on with some of the content of his dream speech.

His keynote speech claimed An independent Scotland that kept the pound as its currency will “slowly and surely” return to political union with the rest of the UK, that independence would mean the loss of all British culture to Scotland and would lead to relatives of Scots in other parts of the UK becoming foreigners.

Ahhahaha Alistair…Ever the comedian.
British Culture? Oh my goodness, what on earth is British Culture? It’s a conundrum right? How can we lose something which nobody knows what it is, and doesn’t even exist. There are many cultures and sub cultures in this geographical area we call the British Isles, but nothing that we can describe as British Culture. We Have Scots Culture, English Culture, Irish Culture, and Welsh Cultures, with all their quite separate traditions, and I know you and your best buddy(joke) Big Gordy have tried your best to make Scotland North Britain,and call us North British, but Scots Culture is one of the most recognisable cultures on the planet. Why would we want to even try and reinvent ourselves as something undefinable?
As for my niece in Bristol, are you honestly trying to say she will be a foreigner to me, should we go our separate ways? Indeed my Cousin John in Australia is already a foreigner to me, because he lives outwith the Uk? How and when did this happen??

Ally carried on though, warming to his theme. British music will no longer be ours.

Eh? Whit? I can no longer buy any JLS or Jedward CD’s and don’t have to associate myself with The Brits awards? Yes..Yes..Yes an Independence Bonus I had never thought of. A damnable downside though is that we get to be represented In the Eurovision Song Contest.
Ahh well..Only partly true I am afraid. There is nothing to stop my children buying whatever they like.They already buy musical junk from around the world..I swear I heard somebody playing the Cheeky Girls the other day, and they are from Transylvania and more terrifying than Dracula musically.
Goodness knows..We might be forced to have a proper music industry in Scotland, and our youngsters not having to go to London to be recognised. That is Bad, right?

Further more Alistair warbled on, like a demented canary, by saying “British sporting success will be someone else’s to celebrate”

I really have no idea what Alistair was dreaming here, it is rather obscure in a technicolour sort of way. By removing ourselves from the Union, we are no longer British? We no longer live on the British Isles? We are to be banished from Britishdom? No longer are our Celtic Cousins in Ireland, Wales and Cornwall related to us?
Goodness gracious me..
We will have to make do with calling Andy Murray, Scottish, and he can’t be called British when he wins anymore? We are barred from cheering our neighbours in these Isles on? We will be forced to have a Scottish Olympic squad, like Ireland does?
How awfully terrible a prospect is that? It hardly bears thinking about.

But he is a trooper is our Darling, Darling. And so he carried on..

With regards to SNP plans for Scotland to keep sterling if the country voted to leave the UK in the 2014 referendum,with Scotland part of a “sterling zone” with the rest of Britain.

He had this to say:
“There’s two things about a currency union. One is you have to ask the other lot if they want to go into it and nobody has and nobody plans to. But the second thing is this, with a currency union, as you see in Europe, you have to submit your budget to somebody else for approval.

“So if the idea of independence is you can go your own way, what is point of getting yourself into the situation where you actually have to submit your budget to someone else, who will not let you go too far away from wherever they want to be in order to preserve the currency?”

In short..Alistair feels that Scotland will have no say in the currency union. Funny thing is, I never thought we had any say just now? We have no representation or say in the Bank of Englands Board, which is disestablished from the British Government, and an Independent body.
The Bank of England,which we do actually have a share in, it was established by a Scot too! Independently sets rates, and it is up to the Government currently, to frame its own economic policies. Often to disastrous effect! Ozzy Osbournes long distant relation Gideon is making a right pigs ear with his austerity measures. However, he is merely following in the great traditions of Gordy Brown who put an end to Boom and Bust, by making us Bust. And of course Ally Darling himself, who promised us all greater cutbacks than dear old Maggie had only dreamed of.
An independent Scotland, would have representation on that Bank Board, and we would have a say in setting the rates. Our own Government would then decide it’s own economic framework within that. for example, the current Scottish Governments appeals to Gideon, to create capital investment projects and stimulate growth, but are falling on deaf ears, would become reality in an Independent Scottish Government setting its own policies and making decisions.

Another slight thing the dear old Darling has forgotten about…The Republic of Ireland shared the pound and Sterling right up to 1979..Funny that.

Other things Darling loquaciously garbled were:

“If Scotland stays in the UK, it would benefit from the being part of the “largest and oldest single market” while the financial services industry would continue to have a single regulatory regime”

A market which restricts us to Westminster rules of trade, and doesn’t allow us to set our own corporation tax rates, to further attract Global investment in Scotland at competitive levels. And tied to a Financial Services Industry which nearly put us all in the grubber because of Brown disastrous handling of regulation. Sounds a good deal to me Ally.

“An independent Scotland would not have the global influence of the UK”, Mr Darling said. “Britain is “very influential in the world”, he added. “We’re shareholders in the International Monetary Fund. We’re on the United Nations Security Council. We’re major shareholders in the World Bank”

Yes..And??

A Union takes more than just one partner. If that partnership is dissolved, Each takes away their own share of ALL assets. Thereby our shares are divided..and Scotland retains its own shares in these establishments.

He continued on in his joyful merry way, by saying “Within the European Union (EU), it is the “big countries that have the influence and call the shots”
“We now find out that far from having legal advice that we would be guaranteed membership, no such advice exists at all. Frankly that’s not good enough. I’m pretty sure that Europe would not say to Scotland, ‘push off we don’t want to know you’. But if you apply or your entry is in any way questioned, there would be strings attached. More uncertainty.”

It’s a funny old thing, Alistair dear boy, but is Westminster not threatening to isolate the UK from Europe? And our European partners try to avoid us at all costs, and keep us out of the loop because of this Westminster Governments behaviour, while routinely giving Scottish MEP’s a very warm reception,and even an ovation or two.
Scotlands representation in the European parliament is 6 MEP’s, on Independence that increases to 12-14 MEPs, double our current representation, and decreasing the rUKs at the same time. It is a rather funny way for us to have less influence, is it not?
As far as current ability to speak is concerned, our voice is not easily heard, particularly in Fishing, where we in Scotland have the largest White Fish Fleet in Europe, but the British Government refuses to allow our fisheries minister to enter into quota negotiations..Damaging us badly. That’s a Union Dividend? Cool.

As for European membership…You obviously are as out of touch as your pal Gordy, who rarely turns up at Westminster these days, while he is away earning a nice wad doing turns at talking to anyone in the world who is daft enough to listen to him.
But in case you didn’t notice? Prof Avery a European High Commissioner told Westminster recently that Scots have been Citizens of Europe for forty years, and there is no mechanism for turfing us out!
Not that they would want to anyway…But good news! rUK get to not have to reapply either, under the same rules…

And finally the dear old Darling finished his Aria, by doing a somersault…Wow…really Impressive! We didn’t expect that.

He had begun by singing, if you recall

“An independent Scotland that kept the pound as its currency will “slowly and surely” return to political union with the rest of the UK”

and he ended with

There would be “no going back” if people voted for independence. He said: “They only have to win once. Once that has happened there is no opportunity for second thoughts.”

Wonderful! Bravo Bravo! More More!
To rapturous Applause in his own head, he took a bow and exited the stage.
What a Man!

Ally Darling then contently made his way home to dream again, and to play his favourite British Song, by the North Britisher Frankie Miller..

Darlin’
I’m feeling pretty lonesome
I’d call you on the phone some
but I don’t have a dime
darlin’
you’re so far behind me
tomorrow’s gonna find me
further down the line.

Takin’ me some paper
pencil in my hand
I’m gonna write.

Darlin’
you know I feel the cold nights
thinking of the old nights
spent along with you.

Darlin’
the tear is in my eye now
knowing I can try now
to make it back to you.

Darlin’
love you more than ever
wish we were together
darlin’ of mine.

Sweet Dreams Ally Darling

Note 1: Thanks to Andrew Haddow for finding this..Blows Darlings ludicrous Foreigner statements clear out of the water!!
UK Gov…Republic of Ireland legislation 1949

Note: LSD stands either for Old Sterling Currency..Pounds, Shillings, and pennies….But may also be a hallucinogenic banned substance

#Budget2012 Not a radical bone in our bodies.

[Firstly, I would like to apologise for the delay in uploading this to the blog. However, this piece is just as relevant now as it was a month ago when Ross wrote it]

“The independence of America, considered merely as a separation from England, would have been a matter but of little importance, had it not been accompanied by a revolution in the principles and practice of governments.  She made a stand, not for herself only, but for the world, and looked beyond the advantages herself could receive.  Even the Hessian, though hired to fight against her, may live to bless his defeat; and England, condemning the viciousness of its government, rejoice in its miscarriage.”

-          Tom Paine, Rights of Man (1792)

Few SNP policy positions annoy me as much as the pro-monarchy stance.  What little enthusiasm that institution can inspire.  Standing firmly in the republican camp, I struggle to understand why some people don’t instinctively cringe when they see ‘a royal’ on TV or in a newspaper.  To illustrate the point, take the royal wedding last year.  What a self-indulging, silly little charade the whole thing was, propped up by the rest of us gawking, curious subjects.  It was a proud display of Sycophant Britain, the BBC leading the way in kiss-arse broadcasting.  We’ll no doubt soon see more of the same, as ‘her majesty’ prepares for another milestone year.

The SNP’s reluctance to not only distance, but remove, itself from this dimension of British politics and society is significant.  Whether it’s a deliberate act to gather and sustain wider support, or the genuine feelings of the party top brass, it’s a position that earns little respect.  To me it undermines some of the social democratic rhetoric that the party surrounds itself with.  It might even betray a slight conservative vein that runs through the party.

However, none of its policy positions are more important than the adherence to a neoliberal economic framework.  If the absence of republicanism undermines the social democratic mantra, then this engineers to blow it out of the water.  The corporation tax rate of an independent Scotland, for example, will remain a curiosity for anyone with an interest in what kind of country this is going to be.  Further, if the word ‘billionaire’ is ever to become a pejorative, then Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch hardly seem the type that a social democratic government should be entertaining.  The Government has put up little challenge to the neoliberal model – a model which has come to dominate entirely the political and economic discourse since the 1990s.  And courting big business has arguably been a hallmark of the SNP’s modern success.

I’m being too harsh on the Nationalists (you still have my vote, don’t worry).  This engulfs the UK left as well.

Take the budget announcement a few weeks back for example.  The adherence (the conformity) to this orthodox economics was proudly on display.  Profoundly so, I thought.  You could sense the complete lack of any meaningful challenge.  Everybody was playing the same game.  There was humming and hawing, smiling and frowning, nodding and outrage at the Chancellor’s economic orchestra: a spending lever here, a tax break there.  The neoclassical train ride: which way best to economic growth?

All aboard!  Everyone in the Commons, it seems, is a macroeconomic genius.  That’s good.  That’s excellent news.  I’m glad we’re in safe hands.  But what did that wee red briefcase mean?  Actually, come to think of it, what does economics mean?  It seems that economics and neoliberalism have become almost interchangeable; in meaning and in practice.  Given that the main parties are often accused of policy convergence (measured in Rizla paper thickness these days), you’d be forgiven for thinking that a genuine alternative to neoliberalism would be given at least some political consideration.

But only four years after the crash of financial markets the world over, this already seems unlikely.  Isn’t it amazing that fundamental change (or even just a challenge) to the economic system isn’t even remotely near the political agenda?  You sometimes hear the obliged - and reluctant - nip and tuck from the power holders: ‘tax the bankers, change their bonuses’.  A change to the bonus structure of bankers?  That isn’t an economic remedy; it’s political homeopathy.  A drop in the ocean compared to the larger problem.  It feels like an administered dose of Marx’s proverbial opium; charlatan talk designed to pacify and placate.  Nothing will change at the foundations.

A recent interview with the Green MSP Patrick Harvie however revealed some intriguing alternative thinking within the political arena.  If the mainstream pro-independence camp (I’ll exclude any Scottish fascists out there) can be broadly divided in two - let’s call the first the ‘nationalist vision’, and the second the ‘pragmatic left’ - then it is the latter that is generating the most appealing vision of an independent country.  Independence as a pragmatic tool for challenging the economic conventional wisdom is about as radical as it gets in British politics.  A move for the SNP from the first stance to the second would help provide Scotland with a broad base for a genuinely social democratic future.

Any such change though remains unlikely.  Because it is unorthodox it is impractical.  As Harvie points out, “The SNP cannot hope to make Scotland both a model for a low carbon economy and a rapidly growing Celtic tiger – the two are mutually exclusive.”  Where is this kind of rejection from the mainstream political left?  Greens aside, where are the politicians talking about the larger picture?  Overpopulation, depopulation, genuine environmentalism, an unsustainable global economic framework: these are going to be huge issues going forward.  What can the way we perceive economics and challenge orthodoxies possibly have to say about just such issues?  It is precisely because these issues are hard to hear that means we should be talking about them.

They should be the remit of the political left, but instead we see a First Minister chasing the rich and powerful, and hear a Labour Leader relentlessly uttering the phrase ‘jobs and growth’.  I may be an idealist, but I’m not an idiot.  I appreciate the immense difficulty in trying to articulate an alternative economic agenda - and then actually realise it.  But what’s the point in the left if it’s not going to be idealistic?  Labour and the SNP should be showing some radical thinking on this front.  Instead we see the same agenda of neoliberalism; hear the same rhetoric of neoclassical economics.  Why can’t they be a bit more imaginative?  Changing an economic system is an immeasurably difficult task.  But the abandonment of that ideal is truly diminishing the political arena.  It is lamentable that the main parties shy away from the debate on economic change.  And as admirable as the Green position is, it is the bigger parties that are capable of taking such notions and grinding them through the cogs of democratic government.

Where does independence come in?  Its greatest potential, Harvie concludes, lies in pragmatism: “I have very little interest in flags and identity and 300 years of grudge and grievance – that’s not what it’s all about”.  These are wise words, coming yet again, from an increasingly alienated party of the UK left.  [I’d be lying if I said that national identity is a complete irrelevance in my own support for independence, but fully appreciate the reason, logic and value of his argument.]  We shouldn’t feel empathy with politicians who see economic growth as something we’re destined (or is it doomed?) to chase.  The world can do better.  The biggest challenge facing economics today is sustainability.  And like renewable energy, an independent Scotland should try and find a way to lead in that respect, however great the challenge.

If cutting the state from 60 million people to 5 million makes radical social democratic change that bit easier, then it is to be welcomed.  Might it even increase the likelihood of incorporating aspects of green/feminist/alternative economics into public discourse?  Admittedly, that’s a very hard proposition to make.  But the alternative of chasing economic growth inevitably leads in only one direction.

By the end of the budget, one important question had been answered (if further clarification was needed).  Has the case for economic heterodoxy been completely abandoned by the mainstream political left?

Sadly the answer to that is that it seems so.  Who then is left to call for that revolution in the principles and practices of government?  And will Scotland ever answer it?  For once, it would be nice to see the mainstream centre-left in this country taking the radical approach – by advocating (or more realistically reconsidering) both republicanism, and more importantly, an alternative economic agenda.

And whilst [as Tom Paine would have argued] independence in itself is of little importance, social democratic Scotland would get off to a nice start by swiftly arranging the first, and then articulating and incorporating the second.

Of course, the SNP and Labour - being Scotland’s political big dogs with the burden of governmental experience - shouldn’t be wasting their time with such lofty ideals.  There are far more important things to do.

Carry on with our lives.  All aboard.  Jobs and Growth.

Ross Croall, @croall89

The Importance of Being Rational

The Importance of Being Rational

Rationality is something that isn’t always that easy to achieve. I suppose, deep down, it isn’t a characteristic that has come ‘hand-in-hand’ without some form of resistance through our evolutionary history. And arguably its true value is still underappreciated in society. The same is true with consistency. How many times in your life have you found yourself contradicting something that you argued for strongly not 24 hours earlier?

It can be difficult to be both rational and consistent with what you say. Crucially however, that says nothing of their importance.

A few weeks ago I ‘tweeted’ some stuff about David Cameron, and about more general topics relating to Westminster and the independence debate. The first of these was an expression that the PM, and indeed the Conservative Party at large, lack the democratic mandate to govern in Scotland. That’s contentious and debateable, purely on the grounds of current democratic setup and legality. But the sentiment I stand by. And I think it’s a rational one. If you go with the General Election votes from 2010, then the Conservatives do not represent the Scottish electorate, or to elaborate one step further, the Scottish nation.

That however doesn’t mean that that view is inflexible and the correct one. Everyone should be perfectly willing to change their views and opinions when reason proves them wrong. Accepting when you’re wrong isn’t a weakness; it’s a strength, to borrow a motto of Alex Ferguson’s making.

I’ll guess what you are thinking. That humility hasn’t always been one of Fergie’s strong suits. But the principlein what he was saying I think is true. There’s reason and rationality behind it.

Another of the remarks that I posted on Twitter I immediately sensed with regret as the send button was pushed: “I relish the day when those fucking CLOWNS from Westminster come up to campaign‘NO to Independence’. Think you’re out of touch down south? Cross the border.” Nonsense. How can you talk rationality when you’re actingirrational? It was crass and made me look stupid. Where’s the rationality? Or the sensibility? Nowhere to be found I’ll answer. At the verybest it was just populist [if you’re a nationalist that is] drivel. A classmate – a Labour Party member –immediately and rightly pounced upon it, and there was little point defending a statement that I knew in my heart I had made wrongly.

But I know I’m not the only nationalist online spouting crap. And I know it’s not only nationalists that do so either.

Recently there was an article in The Spectator from Fraser Nelson. It was about hedging bets on or against Alex Salmond ‘winning’ the independence debate. Whilst reading through it there was one line- it was wedged in there amongst several others - that popped out at me (and Gerry Hassan has picked up on it too): ‘Scotland would be far worse off outside the Union.’ [My emphasis]. What does he mean by that? Democratically? In foreign policy or defence terms? Most likely he meant economically: in terms of revenue streams and spending power. Perhaps he meant all of them. But how could he know that? Economics isn’t a hard science. He might be right, or he might be wrong. I don’t know. But surely neither can he - at least not to such a strong and steadfast degree? We nationalists and Nationalists would obviously argue for the viability of Scotland ‘going’independent, but I don’t think I would – or could – argue the absolutely certainty of its success, regardless of how that success was framed. At the very least you could not ‘guarantee’ it in ‘economic’ terms.

Today the Scottish Sun has broken the story that the Labour MP Tom Harris has been made to apologise for posting a video on YouTube – a clip from Downfall (a 2004 film about Hitler’s final days in power) subtitled with some supposed comedic remarks from the SNP ‘top-brass’and ‘inner party’ members. The article also states that the Labour MP has lost (whether voluntary or forced) his new role of ‘media advisor’ of the party. The ‘faux-offence’, as a nationalist friend has righty labelled it, which met the video’s release was, I’ll argue, unreasonable. The video I didn’t find funny, but you need to doubt the extent to which people genuinely found it offensive. Collective outrage can be a dangerous thing. The same article did however highlight another perspective - that the widow of a concentration camp survivor found the video abhorrent. That’s reasonable, and it’s rational considering the personal connection. For most of the rest of us, I believe it was disingenuous, shrouded in overtly political point scoring.

As with many things in the social sciences, there isn’t a clear right or wrong answer. The truth often lies in the shades of the intermediary. Maybe joking about the Nazi Party is unacceptable, in which case I’m as guilty as Tom, and maybe it’s something that we should be outlawing as aggressively as sectarianism. But I just can’t feel supportive of that. I firmly believe the principle of laughter in the face of adversity.

Here’s what I’d argue.

Next time you’re standing on a shoreline somewhere, take a look down at the complexity etched onto the faces of the rocks below you, or the sheer multitude of sand-grains upon which you stand. Then take a look at the horizon and try to imagine not only the stupendous size of the planet that we call home, but the scope for variation in the life that lives here. I would doubt it’s truly comprehensible. We are now a species of some 7,000,000,000 (seven billion!!) souls, each one completely unique. Imagine the variation in history and upbringing that every single one of us has had. Imagine the differences in opinion that we all hold; the vast - or indeed slight - difference in values, and in the sentiments that we attach to those values. Everyone has their own story. The chances of any two being the same are profoundly remote. The chances that they will clash and collide are intensely high.

That we are even bound by and functioning as a society can sometimes come as surprise. That me and you and Tom might differ on this issue and others is not the core point here. The main point is that no one deserves a level of punishment that does not fit the crime. To publicly apologize for that YouTube video? - ‘Laugh out loud!’ comes to mind.

If you apply that to Scottish politics then of course not everyone will be in agreement. In essence this is what irks about the Tom Harris affair. When you think about the obvious differences in personality across our country, that one person should suffer for, what in my opinion, is so slightan offence, is both unjust and undeserving. The video wasn’t a political statement about the SNP being far-right; it was a satire of the party. If you really pushed him, would Mr Harris genuinely equate the Nationalists with the National Socialists? The video was made in jest and why, as a society, we haven’t taken it that way I’m struggling to fully understand. It’s not a stance that we should endorse, and it exemplifies reductions in levels of tolerance, liberalism and even more fundamentally, in humour. Self-degradation can be endearing, and being able to laugh at ourselves is (or was?) supposedly a national trait in this country.

Surely that’s why you’d rather a have a friend that was modest and funny - belittling and confident enough to see and take it as such - than one who was full of ego and who took themselves too seriously.

I don’t know the first thing about Tom Harris as a person. As a politician he absolutely does not represent my views, but on this issue I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him.

I think that this ‘offence-taking’should stop. It is often irrational and almost always inconsistent. I wouldn’t consider myself a ‘bad guy’, but I’ve certainly done things in my life that haven’t been nice, and that I haven’t been proud of. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Even as an atheist you have to admire the reason and rationality in those words. But can they breed consistency? Let’s hope so. For me to lambast Tom Harris for that video, or for me to even criticise it, would require a parachute to get down from what would be a very high horse. I’m not going to crucify someone for such a small mistake. If you could even call it that, is another question.

There is perhaps something unhealthy in expecting our public figures to be ‘whiter than white’. No human being I know is. Why should a politician defy the rules of human nature? We learn from our mistakes.

There’s no hiding from the fact that the debate on our country’s future has proven to be extremely divisive -and it shows no signs of abating. But we could all learn from the wise words of Carl Sagan when he compared the more petty trials and tribulations of human beings to the enormity of everything else around us - our interconnectedness and our vulnerability. He said that ‘it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one and other.’

And that must surely be an important foundation upon which to proceed.

How can you talk rationality when you’re actingirrational? You can’t. And one of those will have to change if this‘Proper Debate’ is to be had. Rationality and consistency aren’t achievable. Not one-hundred-per-cent; not all the time. But it’s something that we should be striving for.

Ross Croall, @croall89

And The Land Lay Still?

This is just a small post, and one brought on by impulse. It has been inspired by something I’m beginning to sense; something I’m beginning to feel happening in this country. Is Scotland about to wake (or has it already woken?) from a 304 year slumber?

It’s hard to tell for definite, but I think it might be more than just a feeling of hope.

I was on holiday last summer with my ex-girlfriend in sunny Spain, and brought along something to read, settling on the 4^th novel by the brilliant Scottish writer James Robertson, And the Land Lay Still - the title of which was taken from the poem ‘The Summons’ from late Edwin Morgan's Sonnets from Scotland.

The novel itself is preceded by Morgan’s piece, and for me it has a small nationalist tinge. I’ve never been one for deciphering or understanding poems to any degree, but I think the last line resonates…

“The year was ending, and the land lay still.

Despite our countdown, we were loath to go,

kept padding along the ridge, the broad glow

of the city beneath us, and the hill

swirling with a little mist. Stars were right,

plans, power; only now this unforeseen

reluctance, like a slate we could not clean

of characters, yet could not read, or write

our answers on, or smash, or take with us.

Not a hedgehog stirred. We sighed, climbed in, locked.

If it was love we felt, would it not keep,

and travel where we travelled? Without fuss

we lifted off, but as we checked and talked

a far horn grew to break that people’s sleep.”

Will the independence referendum pass? Who knows? But it’s something that I’m beginning to sense is increasingly possible. And if it does, it will be in no small part down to the money gifted by Edwin Morgan to the party. A selfless act and an example.

And if James Robertson could read this - I hope you have another book due in soon.

Happy holidays everyone.

Ross Croall, @croall89

Would I Vote For Independence?

On 1st July 1999, the Scottish Parliament took up its full powers as established by the Scotland Act 1998. Twelve years and three more elections since, we have a majority SNP government, which promises us a referendum on independence before May 2015.

I've said for years whenever anyone asked, that while I'd want to be a Scot if Scotland got independence, I'd vote for what we now have: devolution within the UK. I have always thought this fits our peculiar situation as a country - we have not been fully independent as a nation since 1603, and separating Scotland from the rest of the UK into a separate nation would be as bad as moving house when you've been married for 408 years: there's so much community property that would have to be divided, and with one thing and another it doesn't seem likely to be a friendly, unrancorous divorce. The last time something like this happened in Europe was 1905, the dissolution of the 90-year union of the crowns of Sweden and Norway. That ended peacefully, but Sweden and Norway had never become as closely married as England and Scotland.

The SNP has won - more or less - two elections in a row. Both times they benefited from external events - the guddle of the ballots in 2007, the unpopularity of the Scottish Liberal Democrats following Nick Clegg's defection to the Tories in 2010. (Unfairly unpopular, it has to be admitted, since the Scottish LibDems had nothing to do with the actions of the Westminster party.) But win they did, and though confused London pundits may put this down to the genius of Alex Salmond, anyone familiar with Scottish politics knows it's quite a bit more complicated than that.

The last time the Tories were in power in Westminster they succeeded in making themselves so unpopular in Scotland that a Scottish Tory MP is now a rarer species than a giant panda: in 1992 all of the Tory MPs in Scotland could have been fitted into two taxis, and by 1997, the year of the total wipeout, the Tories were so worried about their electability in Scotland that even before Section 28 was repealed they'd started courting the gay vote. (The first time an official representative of the Conservative party ever attended a LGBT conference in Scotland was 20th June 1997 in Edinburgh City Chambers.) Conservative MSPs get into the Scottish Parliament, 15 of them at last count, benefiting from the list vote – ironic since Tory party policy is in favour of first-past-the-post.

Alex Salmond has nothing to lose and a great deal to gain if he puts off the referendum til the very end of the fourth term of the Scottish Parliament. David Cameron and Nick Clegg seem likely to keep the Conservatives in government in Westminster till April 2015, and the lackluster opposition of the Labour party combined with some interesting revisions of the Westminister constituencies mean that the Conservatives could even win a second term, and this time without even the tiny brake on their drive that the coalition represents.

And if that happened?

So far, the SNP and the previous SNP/Green coalition have shielded Scotland from the worst of the Tory cuts. If Scottish youth unemployment is at an all-time high, Scottish unemployment is still overall not as bad as it is in England and Wales. But things are bad all over, and the Tory committment to public sector cuts mean things are only going to get worse. In Scotland we won't (so far) suffer from Andrew Lansley's plans to allow the private sector to make use of 49% of NHS hospital resources: the Scottish Parliament have refused consent to the horrifying Welfare Reform Bill, the first time Holyrood has refused Westminster legislative consent, on the grounds that the changes to the welfare system proposed by the Tories at Westminster would result in damaging cuts to some of the most vulnerable people in Scotland.

But this shield can't stay up forever. The Tory determination to cut public services is ideological, not economic: claims by John Redwood that austerity is good for the country look as inaccurate as his own claims for expenses.

In simplified form, a government always gets the money it needs to run the country by borrowing and then gets a steady trickle or hopefully a flood of money coming in from taxes: the better the economy (and the better the revenue department) the more money comes in for the government to spend, and the better off we all are.

The claim by George Osborne and other right-wing thinkers that if the economy is doing badly and so less money is coming in from taxes, the thing to do is to create massive unemployment and cut services that people depend on, and to cut investment in young people who will be the creators of wealth in the future, and thus ensure even less money comes in from taxation - even if you could count on HMRC to collect all the money we're due, which we can't, and even if the Tory government had not been steadily cutting the number of tax inspectors trained to deal with megamillion tax avoidance, which they are. We aren't as badly off as Greece or Ireland yet, but those countries are where the Tory "austerity" is taking us to. Calling this Osbornomics is too much of a compliment to the Tory chancellor: he did not originate the idea of cutting the economy in order to save it, and he's hardly the only exponent of it in the current government.

Points of information: The UK's national debt is not excessive, is long-term, is largely internal: the UK lends more money to other nations than it borrows. The 2008 banking crash, caused by deregulation of the financial industry, is the cause of the current depression in the UK and the worldwide economy - the Tory story that we have a problem because Labour spent too much money on public services is, not to put too fine a point on it, a lie.

I lived through the last Tory years, 79-97: I remember just what they were like. We have, in this united country, built up shared treasures of community property - from the National Health Service to the Human Rights Act 1998, from the smallest of local services to help troubled teenagers to the grandeur of an education system that is in principle open to all and is in practice still one of the best of the world.

What the Tories are doing to our community property is nothing short of vandalism. Massive cuts are being made that will cause permanent damage - loss of experience and skill that can't be brought back. These are ideological cuts, all too clearly driven by the Tory party's financiers, and sadly, it seems Labour in Westminster has been far less radical in reaction to this than the SNP in Holyrood.

What will the SNP become in an independent Scotland? They're not exactly free of links between major donors and policy changes: Brian Souter, baron of the buses, makes huge donations to the SNP - and the SNP mysteriously dropped the policy of bus re-regulation. Iceland is an example of how a small country can come to disaster by predatory banks despite strong opposition from the Icelandic people. Would the SNP continue to be as radical in government in an independent Scotland without the spark of opposition to a Westminister government that's been steadily drifting rightward?

I've gone from being sure I would vote against independence to being unsure - is it really time to break up a 408-year marriage over a few unhappy years of Toryism? Can the damage the current Westminister government is doing be fixed once they're out of power? How long can the Scottish Parliament hold them off? How soon will the UK be able to elect a better government? Above all: is it really right to end the union because of a temporary political fault? Has English politics really become so alien that we'll never again be able to agree on a common government? I read English reactions to Tory cuts and I have hope: I listen to English MPs of all three major parties and I lose hope.

If I vote for independence, it will be because I feel there is too much risk of an ongoing right-wing government in England - Labour in Westminster seems to be running to the right in order to win votes from the Conservatives: a pattern that results in the Tories running further right, and eventually overturns the whole ship. It will be because I believe that Scotland still holds as a nation to the principles of universalism which underpin a working welfare state. The SNP long ago rejected the concept of Scottishness as a racial characteristic, identifying anyone as a Scot who wants to be, who's born in or living in Scotland, whether they're Henderson or Hussain, Dalgleish or De Luca. Can we hold to this, if a majority vote for independence? I hope so. Because I can't help thinking that I'm not the only one who's doubtful about breaking up the union, but horrified at what another few terms of Tory government would do to Scotland after what the last lot did.

Written by Jane Carnall

Independence, Nationalism & Internationalism

A few weeks ago I had a conversation with my boss about how the concept of nationalism reconciles itself with the idea of solidarity. His argument was one of greater collective responsibility taking precedence over issues of autonomy, self-governance or in this case, independence. Playing devil’s advocate, he made a good fist of it, and I did concede the point that I might have more in common with a 22-year-old from a metropolitan English town than with people from the Western Isles or other remote areas of Scotland. I suppose it’s a fair view, and one that has always brought issues of class as well as struggles of race and gender, historical and geographic elements, and wider social structures into line with how we hold the nation as the best way to analyse and describe society.

But I also think that I missed my point somehow. Something I’m similarly afraid of doing here!

I’ve never had any bother with people substituting independence with separation, or calling us separatists rather than nationalists. A rose is a rose, and this is one that’s not worth bickering over.

But equating Scottish independence with some sort of unwavering self-interest or abandonment is annoying. It’s the same reasoning that angers me when some Scots use self-interest as a way of sticking with the Union. When the‘English subsidy’ argument is played (its truth here is irrelevant), and Scots use it as a reason againstindependence, I can’t help but feel the opposite. Isn’t it an embarrassment if your neighbour hands out subsidies? Surely we have more pride than that. Surely your neighbour doesn’t deserve being made to ‘play the fool’. Isn’t that a reason for change?

Nationalism and independence for me have never been about revelling in ostracism and neglect; about choosing – about aligning - about picking-your-side; about ‘turning-a-cold-shoulder’to the troubles faced by others; about pure self-interest in the face of the good and greater causes. Nor is it about excluding Scotland to global (or even British) issues in exchange for our own greener pastures.

Independence for Scotland is about our future. And it’s a process as well as a destination. I’d argue that it’s also a stance. There are causes all around the world worth supporting. None are hard to find. They range from climate change to economic improvement - from social and legal justice to nationalism, separatism and independence - from a peoples’ freedom to their cultural and historical recognition, the world over.

Catalonia and Scotland are often used as the two prime examples or case studies in the ‘Nationalism’ and ‘Regionalism’chapters of politics textbooks. Similarities are easy to find. Both share a different sense of nationhood to that of the states to which they belong. Both have had a rich cultural heritage with language playing an important role. And the differences too are also fairly easy to find. It has been a long time since Scots and Scottish culture was suppressed. Catalan identity and culture was suppressed until the 1970s. Catalonia also had a parliament of its own some 20 years before ours was reconvened, and continues to operate with greater responsibility over matters of autonomy.

Last century Catalonia had war on its doorstep and found itself as one of the main strongholds for the Republican side of the Spanish Civil War. It was the location of the Loyalist’s last stand and a rallying-point for the anti-fascist fighters. This presumably has reasserted, and perhaps redefined or redrawn what it means to be Catalan.

I was first drawn to Barcelona (if you exclude the footballing side of things) by the story of Ethel MacDonald. Ethel was a Scottish anarchist who travelled to Spain in the 1930s to report, both on and for, the Republican side in the fight against Franco. (A brilliant documentary telling her story is available here on YouTube). To me it showed the best side of Scotland, a side which again is often found wanting today. It showed the idealism and optimism of a person who viewed the world on a genuinely international scale, and who acted through the courage of her convictions.

Whilst I doubt that Ethel was ever a Scottish nationalist, that is not the important point. This is not ‘tallying-up’ who the good and bad guys are, or who’s on whose side. But she can be held up as a beacon and an example to follow; a true internationalist and a woman who should be a strong cultural and historical inspiration for Scotland. But sadly, like so much of our rich history, this story isn’t taught in our schools. I had to learn much of our history - after those formative years - by reading the brilliant work of Arthur Herman (himself an American). However one-sided the central strand to that book may be, it gave a view of Scotland that was scarcely to be found in our education system.

And apart from her reporting, to me Ethel also embodied the struggle of a country seeking recognition – seeking to define itself. That country was both Spain and Catalonia, but in a way I also thought she spoke of Scotland. The Spanish cause was universal; fascism meeting anti-fascism, with the outcome having great consequences for Catalans, Spaniards and Europeans alike. The cause was international. I can’t remember where I read or heard this, but per head of population, more Scots headed to join the XV International Brigade and fight Franco than any other nationality. If that’s true then it’s a history that we should be proud of, and one that we should be encouraging in our schools.

My brother used to live in Barcelona, and I was lucky enough to travel there a few times each year to visit. It is a place with an explicitly international feel; a city so vibrant and awash with culture that it may as well reflect the world at large. But it is also a city with a distinct and rooted Catalan identity. The locals are often quick and eager to assert their language, their identity (perhaps rightly so) and yet the pull factor of Barcelona for many people around the world remains undeniable. It is perhaps unique. The history of the War and Franco’s suppression is all around, and yet it’s a place reborn and redefined as a distinctly ‘World City’. It’s why you don’t feel so guilty (or angry?) when walking down Carrer de Sants to see ‘Go Home Tourist’ (in English I’ll add) graffitied onto the face of a building.

Where does the sense of your own culture and national identity stop, and that of the Universalist and Internationalist inside of you begin? It isn’t always an easy thing to ask yourself.

Only recently have I started speaking to an exchange student at university – a Kurd who moved to America at a young age - and who proudly identifies with both nationalities. The energy, pride and enthusiasm he has for his own Kurdish culture doesn’t detract from the sense of principle that seems to come hand-in-hand with being an American – including the attachment to liberty and fundamental human rights so beautifully laid down in their constitution. He wears his‘dual-identity’ a lot better than I have been able to with my ‘Scottish-as-well-as-British’one. This was also a reminder to me that we Scottish nationalists do not have a monopoly on Scottish national identity, and that it isn’t ‘wrong’ to feel both British and Scottish.

Although that still isn’t going to dissuade me from fighting against the notion!

This man is now a friend, and has helped enlighten me to the struggle faced by the Kurdish people throughout the middle-east. The Kurds are a truly‘stateless nation’, and have suffered serious, repeated and often brutal suppression and repression and the hands of neighbouring governments - from those of Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran. It’s not an aspect of Middle-Eastern politics that is given much coverage in the UK, and perhaps the wider Western World, but the struggle of a people to achieve recognition, freedom and respect is a familiar one. The material is there to learn more about the Kurdish plight, and it is something that I think deserves more attention from the wider world. In relation to Europe, the violation of human rights by the Turkish state towards the Kurdish people there appears to be affecting their case for accession to the EU. And in Iraq, the brutal genocide embarked upon by Saddam Hussein resulted in the death of many thousands of Kurds – thousands of whom died through the state’s use of chemical weapons.

Kurdistan too has been subjected to bloodshed from within, with Civil War compounding state repression and adding to the misery brought by both Gulf Wars in the area over the last two decades. I suppose it puts the grievances we feel into perspective. But then again independence is about a better future, and there’s nothing wrong with wanting a better future.

Learning from my friend Kahin was interesting and enlightening. Not that this 22-year-old Airdrieonian had anything to contribute though - my ignorance was embarrassing. But if you want to know more about the uplifting reconstruction that is on-going in Iraqi Kurdistan, the late free-thinker Christopher Hitchens has written well on a cause that you sense was very close to his heart.

Scottish people with a nationalist inclination should be supporting all of these causes, not least and not just, our own. Soft or civic nationalism today seems to me to be about localising governance as well as improving our political architecture - a far, far cry from the patriotism and jingoism tearing this continent apart in the early 20^thCentury. An independent Scotland need not, and certainly should not, be an inward looking country, ever impoverished by the genetic ‘chip on our shoulder’.

Think about Scotland as a truly international country and Edinburgh a ‘Barcelona of the North’.

Would Scotland benefit, and in return benefit the world, by having her own say on the international stage, her input into global issues? Scottish nationalism and independence isn’t – at the very least doesn’t have to be – an introverted, introspective, parochial, self-absorbed and bickering ideal. It can be as dynamic, as egalitarian, as outward-looking and as encompassing as we choose to make it.

It’s also why I have a hard time trying to understand the argument, often levied at us, that there are too many pressing matters at hand (usually economic) and that Scottish independence MUST take a backseat. Independence holds the potential to become a means to their ends - a tool to help. There’s no absolute guarantee that independence for Scotland will drastically improve our living standards or our happiness. But I’m steadfastly convinced that it will prove a sound and solid ‘building block’ to a better future. It’s hard to neglect a lot of the good that has resulted from the independence of many former British colonies and territories. Yet many at home still seem stridently unwilling to even listen to the merits of the Scottish cause.

Clichés can often irritate. But take a moment to think of any truth that you can see in this statement – “You’re often keen to support independence for any other country, but never for your own!”

It has often been levelled at our opposition, and it’s not an argument that I’ve given much thought to until writing this. But the logic is there, proudly pointing out the contradiction behind some progressives’ thinking. It’s also a cliché to see a Palestinian flag, next to the Senyera of Catalonia and the Tricolour of Ireland, in a sort of bannered collage - a homage - to typical ‘soft-left, liberal’ causes. But isn’t there a reason that clichés become so? Perhaps these causes bring out something in us – compassion, romanticism, idealism?

And where is the Saltire? Supporting and being part of these causes for us is one in the same.

Scottish nationalism is a progressive cause - the next logical step in dispersing democracy. Being a nationalist doesn’t negate being an internationalist. They’re not ‘mutually exclusive’.

Don’t let the opposition Unionists argue otherwise. Just because you’re a Scottish nationalist doesn’t mean that you don’t care about English and Welsh healthcare reforms, the Eurozone crisis, Spanish unemployment, maquiladoras, gender equality, peace in the Middle-East, North Korea, climate change, social justice or even bloody space exploration for that matter! Everyone in this planet is in it together.

Visca Catalunya! Alba gu bràth! And freedom, respect and recognition for the Kurdish people

Contributed by Ross Croall