The aftermath of the independence referendum.

Deflated "Yes" campaign balloons lie on the grass in George Square after Scotland voted against becoming an independent country, in Glasgow

I’m ready to embrace the challenges ahead that independence will bring. The only remaining question is do enough of us want to write our future?

That would be No.

Currently I’m reading Blood Meridian by Cormack McCarthy. Every engrossing page contains vivid imagery of nature and man’s inhospitable thirst for death and suffering. Its theme remains constant: humanity’s predilection for acts of futility.

So it made sense for me to consider the result of the Scottish referendum on similar terms.

All that remains is to pick over the how, the why and what will follow.

Sadly the result confirmed that many Scottish people cannot, or even worse choose not to see the current political and sociological perniciousness that characterises Great Britain today. Perhaps they’re still married to a sentimental idea of what being part of Great Britain used to stand for; the welfare stare, the creation of the NHS and solidarity against fascism in two world wars being the main facets of its social cohesive. Clement Atlee’s leadership was its high water mark. The slow erosion of those facets since has been insidious, exacerbated by Thatcherism, homogenised by Tony Blair, and then crudely lionised by the current Coalition of Losers.

Part of me enjoys the spectacle of this decline as through collective complicity it’s thoroughly deserved. How the empire was built – through worldwide subjugation, in the name of hubris and greed, working under the pious and illusory banner of democratising countries and civilising ‘the natives’ – is perversely at the root of its decline. Its subjects have allowed themselves to be subjugated by another surrogate empire of elitism created within it, deregulated capitalism. Even worse they’re immured into allegiance to it through a sense of entitlement that it should and does work for them, its genesis a transposed mythology of belonging to affluent conditions that was never theirs or earned. Today it has many manifestations; Thatcher’s brand of screw-you-over aspiration, provincialism, the bullying and ridicule of virtually all minorities, and the vacuous vainglorious consumerism of shite from a defective mainstream culture that’s satisfied with remaining within its own mediocrity. All of this fomented and inculcated by a hysterical media which feeds it and feeds from it.

The delusion that this decline, particularly in altruism, levels of education and individualist thinking, isn’t happening, is now the zeitgeist. In fact you could say it’s more of a faith than anything. I’ve been there, just last Thursday in fact, in the thrall of it, the abyss of hope, where cultured rational thoughts often perish, as district after district agonisingly voted No. Denial is seductive, just like the smell emanating from a curry house as you walk by. To immediately succumb to the inevitability of the alternative, is just too dismal, and that’s why you believe in the narrative. Denial is also reductive, and the inability or unwillingness to perceive it is even more so.

The main difference between the calls of unionist solidarity and sovereign self determination is those defenders of the unionist faith, particularly from the left, need the fanciful notions of workers solidarity and other socialist values returning to fashion to assuage and eventually permeate the culture of mainstream politics. Such traditions have long since been expunged from Westminster’s core values, as they have very little in common with the largest demographic in Britain’s electorate – a politically apathetic swollen bourgeois with mortgages. By voting Yes, the subsequent belief was, and is, that we could devise a political system that would be voted for and held to account by the people of Scotland. It wasn’t a solution to many of society’s ills, but it was a start.

There’s no starting over in Westminster. And in the aftermath, having voted Yes, it was reassuring to be left in no doubt about it. The politicking with May 2015 in mind started immediately, with the rotting carcass of the independence referendum becoming the latest meal for Westminster’s vultures to squabble over. Within twenty-four hours Cameron’s devolution proposal was throttled, threatened by the various bureaucracies and plutocracies that a party political pissing contest always stirs up. It’s clear that Cameron, with the help from other ideologues like Gordon Brown (I’ll get to him), paid lip service to giving Scotland more powers. It’s the hegemony at their finest, appearing to disagree to agree, ‘Yes, Scotland, we want to give you more devolved powers, but we’re trying to position ourselves so that we can preserve/win the support of the voters in our largest voting block (England) whilst giving away as little as possible to Holyrood.’

Cameron never had any intention, or the support of the house, to offer it. His strategist, Lynton Crosby, might be an arch right wing cunt from the school of Murdoch con-artistry, but that also means he’s an excellent exponent of appealing to our inherent desire to believe in the decency of a source and what it should represent, irrespective of the overwhelming prior evidence to suggest we shouldn’t. As George Orwell rightly pointed out, ‘they [the proletariat] can be granted intellectual liberty, because they have no intellect’. While much of the populace does lack intellect, it’s idealism without foundation that always vindicates political cynicism. Once again a litany of idealists, many of them voting for or supporting the No campaign because they wanted Scotland to remain in the UK, but with greater autonomy, blindly believed that the disintegration of the greater powers pledge after the No vote was ‘necessary’, as Westminster needed to ‘take their time’ to ‘get it right’.

Considering this, and when surveying the political landscape with Scotland, as a region, in mind, the further devolution pledge was a manoeuvre that carried no downside for Cameron or his party. Up here the Tories have little traction or votes to lose, and they don’t need Scottish votes for re-election. For being completely incompetent, and as part of the Better Together campaign that lobbied so hard for the preservation of a sitting Tory government, Labour have decimated their base in Scotland. That Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown both lied…sorry pledged, a timetable they couldn’t deliver just strengthened the PM’s hand. In a vain attempt to save face Labour were always going to repeal any proposal initiated by Call-Me-Dave for more devolved powers, claiming them insufficient. There will be no powers of any significance granted to Holyrood now. Objections from Westminster MP’s, rightly it has to be said, about the unfairness of more significant powers and autonomy being granted to Scotland, but not other regions in the UK, will put pay to that.

ballot box

I, and many others, criticised Russell Brand when he encouraged people not to vote, but now I get why he said it. We live in a culture that derides people for thinking differently and for refusing to accept that what currently resides in Westminster is the pinnacle of democratic fairness.

Since the result of the referendum we’ve had a myriad of No supporters from the rest of the UK and people who actually voted No, like the journalist Alex Massie, patronising the various movements that have come from the Yes campaign’s embers as being directed by petty ‘neo-Jacobite’ tendencies. God forbid anyone or any group, in a democracy, should have the temerity to challenge and pinpoint its inadequacies in representing them or the people who, for whatever reason, have capitulated to its veracity. The message from most to the Yes campaign was clear; ‘You lost. Now stop being bad losers, shut up and fuck off. Back into your place, and never bring it up again.’ You could understand this sneering somewhat if many on the Yes side were questioning the validity of the result, but nobody remotely sane did. The resolve of the losing side to build again, in an attempt to ultimately succeed, essentially following democratic process, was being derided. That’s where we’re at. Even the silly lefty platitudes of the liberal minded in an honourable attempt to diffuse any resentment were indicative of the cultural virus of systemic servitude. Typical sentiments such as the world being better with fewer borders is harmless, but also complete nonsense. Perhaps someone should tell them that in real terms the EU has none. Any vote that helps to maintain the legitimacy of these attitudes, however sanguine or sinister, is a galling prospect.

No doubt some haughty person will tell me that voting isn’t about winning, and while true, more than anything it should be about the exploration of alternatives, which, in turn, would necessitate significant divergences on policies. George Orwell, again, rightly prophesized in Nineteen-Eighty-Four that:

All the beliefs, habits, tastes, emotions, mental attitudes that characterise our time are really designed to sustain the mystique of party and prevent the true nature of present-day society from being perceived.

In the context of today if I could be so bold as to amend that observation: these mental attitudes are now held by the much of the electorate, media and by politicians to maintain the mystique not of party, but of choice. This mystique of choice prevents the true nature of present-day politics from being perceived. If people believe they have a choice then they will believe that the political process works.

It is this way as most people, even if deep down they know it doesn’t, still want their vote to count, so they vote for parties first and policies second. They make this concession within the framework of an entrenched consensus that only two parties can win a general election, and so invariably that often means plumping for the lesser evil (of the two) based on how they perceive the other. If most people extricated themselves from such a meagre cultural expectation, and voted for policies not parties, then any cross party ideological conglomeration would surely be diluted.

But a No vote has ensured we continue in that ‘tradition’ of limitation. Worse yet, not only has it condemned Scotland as a worldwide laughing stock and that of a region, but it renders every Scottish vote in a UK election meaningless. As it does those MP’s representing Scottish interests and their constituents in Westminster. Take Friday’s vote in the commons for Britain to join the bombing campaign against Islamic State forces in Iraq. The outcome of the vote was inevitable, but regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it, the members of the largest political party in Scotland, the SNP, all voted against the action. Those six votes made up fifteen percent of those who voted against it throughout the house, forty-three. In real terms, regardless of what party they represent, Scotland would have been dragged into a conflict without the say of any of their fifty-nine MP’s mattering.

Coming soon there will be other examples of Great Britain’s ‘weighted’ democratic representation. You are now powerless to stop either the Tories or Labour from taking us out of the EU with a referendum. With UKIP’s popularity rising – they’ve snatched Douglas Carswell and the appropriately named Mark Reckless from the Tories recently – there will be one. Labour will want to settle the issue for good, and it will inevitably appeal to the core support of UKIP and the Tories, who carry the megalomaniacal Little Englander myopia that isolationism will purify and preserve their cultural values. If successful it’ll separate the UK, and Scotland, ridden with debt, from the world’s largest trading block.

My hesitancy to vote will be a struggle to maintain as the general election gets closer. I’ve always voted and it’ll be a wrench to break that habit. But right now finding reasons why I should vote next May is proving difficult. Superficially a tactical vote against Labour seems tempting, particularly as my constituency in North Glasgow has been one of their strongholds for years. Sadly many of their seats hold large majorities, so wiping them out, at least in 2015, isn’t likely.

If I do vote it’s likely to be for the SNP, but just what is the point in sending any candidate south into Westminster’s ghastly cabal, condemning them to drown in the sea of its centre right groupthink? There are admirable exceptions, like Glenda Jackson, but they are a minority, and invariably they are marginalised as back benchers for not towing the party line. Iain McKenzie certainly didn’t, as he was sacked as a parliamentary aide almost immediately after voting against military action in Iraq. I haven’t even mentioned the highly contentious issues of the House of Lords, an unelected chamber that has the ability to obstruct or alter policy initiatives, or that Great Britain doesn’t even have a defined separation of church and state.

The Scottish elections in 2016 are another matter of course. Here I will certainly be entering the ballot box where I will vote for one of the following; Scottish Greens, Scottish Socialist Party or the Scottish National Party. That also means I’ll be voting against all the ghastly parties that supported Better Together; the Tories, Lib Dems, Labour and the grisly right wing triumvirate of Britain First, BNP and UKIP.

While I currently align myself with the SNP, I won’t be joining them. When it comes to voting I believe in being free floating and open to the alternative. The Greens and the SSP should have their chance to entice me with their initiatives between now and then. The Scottish elections are also a forum where I can actually influence things, primarily to preserve free prescriptions and university tuition. In my and many others crosshairs are Scottish Labour. For showing reverence and obedience to the Tory party in this referendum they are due a kicking, and I intend to part of that.

johann lamont asda falkirk

Will Johann Lamont still be in charge by 2016? She intends to be and we can but hope. For a start she’s a pathological liar and complete incompetent (as seen here, here and here). Look at that picture above for the Better Together campaign. She’s standing outside an ASDA in Falkirk, with a herd of her idiot followers grinning away, one carrying a placard that reads higher prices. Yes, ASDA, a huge supermarket chain worth billions, threatening its Scottish consumers during a recession with price rises if the country was to become independent is definitely something to gloat about. When it comes to acts of complete cuntishness why settle for half measures? Why not go the Thatcherite route and stand outside a foodbank, goading its users by waving £20 notes in their faces as they leave sheepishly?

Speaking of Tory bastards, Jim Murphy is a fucking parasite. Most parasites are hard to detect, but Jim is a unique case, as he’s averse to shame. Before the referendum Jim’s name carried little weight beyond his constituency. Not now. An awful legacy of this referendum is that he’s gained (some) national exposure. The shitty soapbox tour had no effect on the outcome, but seeing a man berating passers by in town and city centres throughout Scotland with a reclaim Labour by voting No directive, carries a lot of weight among those who blindly believe that always voting Labour, no matter what, is a solution.

I perused a number of different forums with English based Labour folk discussing the referendum. I did so because they were coming at it from a point of view of mild detachment. Quite a few saw Murphy as an admirable character. Whether they meant relative to others I’m not sure. One even called him a conviction politician. You can throw up now.

Thankfully up here in Scotland we’re on to him. He’s exposed himself to be the epitome of a champagne socialist. He talks of inequality, yet he couldn’t be bothered to vote against the bedroom tax, his expenses claims are exorbitant (approaching £200k this year) and he’ll happily take a ten percent pay rise. If there’s a silver lining it’s that Jimbo’s attached to Labour a party that has betrayed its principles and disillusioned many of its Scottish members, many of whom have defected to the SNP, the SSP and the Scottish Greens since last Thursday. His seat in East Renfrewshire will be targeted by the many factions of the Yes campaign. Here’s hoping that he’ll soon be sent packing into political irrelevance which includes bi-annual appearances on the scorn inducing Question Time. Mind you, I can see a better template for his future. He only need look at George Galloway, a magpie who cynically floats towards whatever simplistic anti-establishment zeitgeist is currently trendy, usually it’s the Western imperialism and military industrial complex is the root of all evil trope he shamelessly stole from Michael Moore, exploiting it not for justice or equality, or RESPECT, but wholly to maintain his own relevancy.

Speaking of relevancy, Gordon Brown’s stock has risen again. He’s like a turd that won’t flush. You’d think he’d keep schtum after his hideous failures as Prime Minister and Chancellor. Nope. His recent re-entry into the referendum vanguard is hypocrisy at its most exasperating, as his actions, while in power, never suggested any desire to grant Scotland more powers. Today he’s a backbencher with no power whatsoever, yet he’s going around making vows with the enthusiasm of some ned pissed on Bucky who now believes he’s a cross between Usain Bolt and Ian Paisley. As with Jim Murphy, the entirely of Gordy’s political career is wholly dependent on appealing to that poisonously forlorn meme held by the save Labour, bring it back left and make the UK better mob. They panted in unison at his hatefully verbose, itinerant, anti-Scottish Better Together speeches. In the grip of their own ideology they’re easily entranced by a ‘great’ speech that renders Gordy’s incompetence and perpetual lying while in charge irrelevant. It also validates Gordy’s message that we’re Better Together under the austerity he helped implement, yet he has received almost a million pounds over the last year through handshake deals with the suits whose nests he helped feather, and through his invectives against the straw man of Scottish Nationalism.

Hopefully the feeling of bitterness pervading my thoughts, and making me embarrass myself with irrational and vicious efforts on Twitter – even if the targets, such as Blair McDougall, that horrible disgustingly fat snide bastard, deserve it – will pass, as I’ll be a better person for it. But part of me wonders if it can. Is it possible to assuage the disdain with which I now view two million Scottish voters? If we’re to ever gain independence a good proportion of those minds will need to be changed, and that requires patience and engagement far beyond my means. For now my feeling towards those who voted No, wherever they fall on the spectrum, is this – what the fuck were you thinking? You voted to strengthen a faltering Tory government, for the guarantees of a new offensive in Iraq, that seemingly has no timescale, or plan; the continuation of deeply destructive austerity, no matter who is elected next May; the waste of resources that is trident; endemic and systemic tax avoidance by billionaires and large corporations; an ongoing RBS bailout which has lost all the taxpayer funds used to initially save it (£46B); a cartel of gas and electricity providers who hike prices with impunity, squeezing folk for every penny they can get until they freeze; a banking culture built on derivatives trading and excessive bonuses even in failure; ATOS expansion; more zero hour contracts; fracking (coming soon to West Lothian!); further NHS Privitisation; the annexation of oil in Scottish waters (strangely no longer running out any time soon), none of which will trickle down in that fraudulent economic model of wealth creators that many politicians, with imbedded Thatcheristic aspiration, offer their worship to; more foodbanks; wages increasing well under inflation; new laws to make strike action more difficult; pay freezes for nurses while politicians give themselves ten percent more; the mirage of another housing price boom to con a supine middle class pre-occupied with their mortgages; and yes, the worst of the cuts have yet to arrive, to clear a debt that’s rising.

George-Square cunts

Last Friday was hideous. The worst part, for me anyway, was walking to work in the morning. I passed complete strangers in the street and no longer glanced at them with disinterest but with a resentful suspicion bordering on contempt, did he vote No, did she? Then I saw some Union jacks flying brazenly. I could sense the smugness brewing. Then later on it spilled out, thoroughly emboldened with a No vote, the Union’s ugliest face revealed itself. A mob of comically insecure Orangemen and women, Neo-Nazi’s and the breathtaking arrogance that usually can be found where stupidity lurks, gathered in George Square in Glasgow, to hurl abuse at Yes voters or anyone who may look like one, spit at or beat up passers by, particularly those ‘who looked a bit gay’, burn Saltires, racially abuse anyone who wasn’t white protestant, male and who defines themselves as British.

Many in the No campaign will say that these people and their actions don’t represent them, but that wasn’t the case before last Thursday, was it? Many were unconcerned that the Orange Order marched through Edinburgh, or were willingly oblivious to the venomous attacks by right wingers, be it physical, orated or written, against the Yes campaign.

Not that I’m proud of this, but my immediate reaction to Friday night’s events was equally unsophisticated and toxic; fuck the United Kingdom and those in Scotland who voted to maintain it, may they be the ones to suffer the consequences of Westminster’s impending scorn more than any other.

But that attitude is just as pathetic, and the wrong way to look at things, as almost everyone in Scotland will suffer the consequences of a No vote on some level, especially those No voters who will come to regret that decision. These will be unifying forces behind the next movement for independence.

In his resignation speech Alex Salmond said defiantly ‘that the dream [of Scottish independence] will never die’. He’s right.

Yes voters starting again on the paths to achieving that dream cannot lose sight of the fact that independence will always be the means to the end. The dream is a much grander prize – autonomy.

A week on, and having calmed down, there’s little doubt now that independence for Scotland is inevitable. This was just the beginning, the first round, in which we landed a blow that shocked the complacent defending champion, making him wobble and slither on the ropes as his equally complacent and arrogant acolytes looked on, aghast. For the first time they saw everything they believed in struggle under the duress of genuine contention.

Another legacy of this referendum is that it’s strengthened the resolve of those who voted Yes, and we’ve made many of those who voted No think about independence and its advantages. Perhaps, now, in the aftermath, having seen that nothing will be done to change Scotland’s subservient position within the UK, they’re thinking what if too.

It’s a shame that it’ll take another round to land the knockout blow. It will take a generation, perhaps two, with continued suffering for some, to crystallise any introspective doubts they had about independence into the realisation that what devolution we have, or fight to get in the interim, isn’t enough. While a prospect that seems underwhelming compared to independence, the fight for more devolved powers, no matter how meagre they’re likely to be, has become an important step in ultimately acquiring sovereignty. It will allow the Scottish parliament to showcase its preference for continued investment in free university education, to prioritise health and public services, the things that the people of Scotland voted for, despite the budgetary constrictions set by its superior in Westminster.

But for now we can only lament the reality: we were so close to full autonomy, today. Good, bad or otherwise it would’ve been ours, our votes would’ve mattered, only for most of us to reject it and send the establishment home without having tae think again.

For shame Scotland. For shame.

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Song Of The Day – This Feel Within by Annette Peacock

From the album ‘X-Dreams’ (1978)

Posted in Song Of The Day | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Song Of The Day – Everybody Knows by Leonard Cohen

Posted in Song Of The Day | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why I’m voting Yes.

YES SCOTLAND

I’ve been writing steadily for about seven years now. Not for one second do I think I’m good, or even average at it. It can be hard to offer an honest, objective appraisal of one’s own work, and really, being good at it isn’t the point, not for me anyway. When you enjoy doing something, particularly a thing that requires creating something from scratch, it becomes an edifying process.

Repeating the process over and over again when writing, whether over the short form (articles, short stories, poems), or the long form (writing a novel, which is still ongoing, not that you were asking) now holds no fear. I always come up with something, or I believe that I can, whether it’s an idea, an angle, a sentence, a character, a character trait or a plot. There’s always an event, or a reaction to said event to comment on. There’s always another article to write after I’ve finished the last.

So I’ve framed this referendum on Scottish independence through my experience of the processes of writing. It’s probably why I’ve been predisposed to voting Yes from the start. The basic procedures of developing a story or crafting a paragraph are similar to those required in building a country’s constitution. Both will be based on ideas, a dialogue of many voices (I’m not schizophrenic, at least I think not), there’ll be some trial and error involved, there will be mistakes, you will learn from them, and ultimately you’ll weigh up the options and a series of decisions, informed decisions, will be made and things will proceed from there.

Of course it would be nice if it turns out I’m a good writer and that Scotland, the people of Scotland, and the government we elect in Holyrood are all capable of running an independent country that is ‘successful’, ‘fair’ and ‘serves our needs’.

I can recognise that the main argument against independence involves the uncertainty in the aftermath of a Yes vote. The Yes campaign is portrayed by its sceptics as idealistic, its plans underdeveloped and its proposals based on speculation. It’s a country that doesn’t have control over retaining its own GDP, or its budget, so of course its proposals are mostly speculative, as they are whenever any government proposes a new policy or a piece of legislation. This aversion to going from known circumstances, even if they are unsatisfactory, to the unknown, reminds of a scene from an episode in Mad Men. Don Draper finds out that Lane Price has been embezzling money from Sterling-Cooper. Don goes directly to Lane and tells him that he needs concoct a legitimate reason for his resignation, so Don can bury the evidence. Lane looks shell-shocked, when he realises what that means – starting over. Don, who permanently lives a lie of stolen identity, that’s required periodical reinvention to stay one step ahead, is used to starting over. He tells Lane that the worst is over, and that the contemplation of what lies ahead is often harder than the reality.

Here Lane Price and Don Draper are allegories of Yes and No voters in this referendum. Lane is fearful of change because he envisages the outcome of change being worse than what he currently has. While Don represents the Yes voters and Scotland’s capability to manage changing circumstances imposed by factors outwith its control, in this case Westminster’s austerity. Don’s fearlessness at the prospect of doing something new, as it has improved his station in life, mirrors the growing attitude of those moving to a Yes vote. Why can’t we, we shouldn’t we?

Which leads me onto the one argument against independence that I find most troubling, but, nonetheless, is pushing many people to Yes: it’s the belief held by some that we’re not good enough to be an independent country. Anyone with a modicum of sense knows that this assertion is fallacious. However, given its complete ineptitude, the tone and rhetoric of the awful Better Together campaign has become entirely beholden to, and as such reliant on, inculcating such a notion to succeed. How sad.

As a Scot it’s hard not to be insulted by the disingenuous strategy of Better Together’s campaign. It has somehow managed to misrepresent the psychology of the Scottish electorate; the motivations of Yes and No voters, and most egregiously of all it has piously attempted to present the intentions of its public leadership as synonymous with the intended altruism of its patronising slogan.

Take the evidence of this last week alone; we’ve been treated to Gordon Brown’s hypocritical attack on the ‘fanatical nationalism’ of the SNP (how many fucking times does it need to be pointed out that the Yes campaign isn’t the SNP?); the phantom new devo max offer/lie Gordy fronted only for William Hague to deny at PMQ’s that such an offer had been extended, and that ‘it wasn’t government policy’ to do so; Nigel Farage’s odd speech in Glasgow, an event that quickly and thankfully became an irrelevance due to complete disinterest; the ‘selfless’ jingoistic and xenophobic Orange Order marching through Edinburgh for Queen and country; another march, of Labour MP’s ‘our imperial masters’ through Glasgow city centre, at the taxpayers expense, just to see Ed Miliband, Labour leader, give a condescending speech at the top of Buchanan Street asking you to vote No and maintain a rancid LibCon coalition government nobody voted for; Ed Miliband’s equally condescending and risible border patrolling gaffe; we saw pitiful scaremongering attempts by BP, Asda, John Lewis, TSB and even RBS, that the prices of their products might rise in an independent Scotland, that businesses may move and jobs would be under threat (which the CEO of RBS refuted), all of them allegedly encouraged to do so by Number Ten and the Treasury, where there’s little doubt they have significant lobbying privileges; Nick Robinson of the impartial and thorough BBC shamelessly misreporting that Alex Salmond didn’t respond to his question, when he did, and then some; yet more currency union misnomers that need refuting daily; George Galloway making seven thousand plus teenagers, Ruth Davidson, and everyone watching at home, recoil (no, not for wearing that hat) for citing the defeat of the Nazis as a reason to vote No; and last but by no means least David Cameron bunkered away safely in Edinburgh speaking to an equally safe audience of sympathetic at best, apathetic at worst, financial workers.

It’s a shame these figures from Westminster, and the upper echelons of business and finance, have attempted to lower the tenor of democratic debate to the mudslinging levels we’ve become sadly accustomed to seeing in London. Worse yet it is wholly unrepresentative of a nuanced position held by a number of No voters. When devolved from my own viewpoint I can understand them wanting to eschew risk. The known may be unsatisfactory, but it is known. Policies are only proposals. Financial markets can shift unexpectedly. In the global market place jobs and operations often move. There are no certainties in the outcome of this referendum, whether it is a Yes or No vote, and that is a central truth.

Like me, many people will assess the landscape of this vote on terms that suit them and their intellectual and ideological station. I think now the difference is many, and I think the majority, especially after the last week’s events, even if they’re inclined towards retaining the Union based upon an emotional attachment, are now analysing the question again.

And if they’re looking, they’ll not fail to see the craven methodology of Better Together’s campaign strategy, particularly the contributions from the Labour party, as unforgivable, regardless of the referendum’s outcome. They’ve made Scotland look bad. They see its lies and smears about the Yes campaign, thinking you’ll fall for them, instead of adopting an analytical strategy that focused on the questions the Yes campaign cannot or will not answer. They will be cognisant that the Westminster hegemony continues to hang its hat on a trickle down economic model, based on the brazen myth of wealth creators. There’s the favouring of aspiration and privatisation, that hasn’t decreased the debt (still rising) and has furnished those at the bottom with foodbanks, zero hour contracts (if you’re lucky) and the other ghastly end results of welfare austerity. George Monbiot had it right, if you were part of an independent country, especially one that contributes more revenue per head than it receives from the UK treasury, would you choose to join a country with this political ideology that favours elitism and a highly insular concentration of wealth?

Unless you clearly benefit from any of these policies, and few do, all of it is bound to have an influence as people tend to cast their vote on the following criteria: their interpretation of the facts, being guided by self-interest (personal circumstances), altruism, pride, or a combination of all. And that cuts both ways. Look at the lowest common denominator and you’ll find Yes voters whose primary motivation is a desire to stick it to the English and their establishment, just as you’ll find, on the other side of the same coin, the hardline Unionists who also exhibit the self-loathing complex of inferiority. The only difference here is that their resentment at their supposed enslavement by imperialism is misplaced. To paraphrase Alan Bennett ‘they are in the grip of ideology, and ideology tends to drive out thought’.

Thankfully they will be in the minority this time, as this referendum has done something amazing: cured what seemed to be an apathy towards politics that was fast becoming terminally ingrained in British culture. The causes of this apathy are apparent and widely agreed upon.

And that’s my core reason for voting Yes – having generated this level of interest and debate, the kind of environment where political discourse inevitably foments activism, ideas and creativity, I don’t want to see it squandered, and consign it as a footnote in history where idealism and pragmatism met but were denied the opportunity to consummate a lasting legacy.

There’s more riding on this than just Scottish independence too, it’s the democratic idea that everyone feels legitimised to have a say, and that their say counts.

We’ve seen grassroots campaigning from the Yes side that has embraced the many ideologies, ideas and methods of its movement. It carries within it bespoke elements that can be tailored to engage any voter. This includes minor parties, and the Yes campaign has given them the platform to permeate the debate by getting their message across. The Greens see the opportunity for a country that can be based on sustainable energy and jobs, and they appeal to those who agree. Likewise the Scottish Socialists have the chance to bring people to Yes by calling for nationalised public services, education and health. Many Labour, Lib Dem and Tory members will seek to maintain the Union, but they’re also alive to the possibility that an independent Scotland would give them to the scope to reform their parties.

Add it all together and this critical mass allows for a myriad of perspectives to converge when discussing what an independent Scottish parliament, entirely in charge of the country’s finances, would be able to achieve. There are other questions, what kind of new political parties will form in the event of a Yes vote? How will the result of this referendum force the SNP to change? Will the process of writing a constitution create new laws, new forms of tax(es)? Will the welfare state, the NHS, and education be reformed? Will local councils be allowed greater autonomy with their budgets, or not? What voting system will decide future elections in an independent Scotland? I’d argue having come this far, where we feel everything is up for debate, we should take the next step and actually go from talking about these things in the hypothetical and abstract, to embracing the challenge of actually providing answers and solutions.

My fear is a No vote vindicates the formulaic modes of politicking that exists in Westminster, which, as we’ve seen, for the past decade and two different governments has provided no answers, no solutions for the people. There’s a good chance that a Yes vote puts that established order under pressure. For Scots in particular, whether you’re voting No or Yes, to go from this climate of engagement, to becoming a smaller percentage of a larger electorate, the majority of which is disengaged due the absence of a genuine alternative, lacks appeal. Instead of motivating change, a narrow defeat for Yes could deflate the movement in Scotland, and stymie any aspirations of a political movement in other parts of the UK, who have looked at what’s happening in Scotland with an appreciative jealousy. And just how will the legions of Yes voters feel about partaking in general election next year where our votes are rendered essentially meaningless? Not too enthusiastic I’d say, like much of the UK populace, which, lest we forget, got a government it didn’t even vote for last time.

Voting Yes won’t make me feel any less British, nor will it make me feel any more Scottish. And I don’t see it as abandoning the UK. The Yes movement for most isn’t about Nationalism, but us taking responsibility to demand change, for more control, for more say. That’s the bottom line, wherever you live, it’s up to you to do the same, and not rely on others to do it for you. If there’s a demand by enough people, be it in Wales and Northern Ireland for independence, or in the counties of England for greater autonomy, referendums will be held, and then you’ll have your say.

Which brings us to the most important question, why are we doing it? Why is this referendum happening? Because we can do better than this, and deep down I think most of us know it. The disagreement, if anything, is how to achieve it. With independence we have the chance to do so from a blank slate. That frightens some people, but that enough people care about it – with ninety-seven percent of the eligible electorate in Scotland now registered to vote, turnout is likely, in the context of recent European and UK general elections, to be abnormally high, probably above eighty percent – has shown me that we can take the next step. At the very least we’re prepared to decide. I’m ready to embrace the challenges ahead that independence will bring. The only remaining question is do enough of us want to write our future? I hope so.

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Song Of The Day – Anima by Vessel

From the album ‘Plush, Honey’ (2014)

Posted in Song Of The Day | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment