Things we don’t care about
Alex Massie, as is nearly always the case, talks some good sense today about the latest Unionist cause du jour – the evergreen scare story about how we won’t be able to watch the BBC after independence. The piece mentions the No camp’s odd obsession, which we’ve covered before at some length, with demanding the SNP specify every last detail of life in an independent Scotland, as if a Yes vote will grant the SNP permanent dominion over a one-party state.
And it got us thinking about all the other things the anti-independence parties furiously fixate over that we here at Wings Over Scotland – and, we strongly suspect, the vast majority of ordinary Scottish people – just don’t give a baldy badger’s bawhair about.
————————————————————————————————–
1. Membership of NATO
Is anyone other than a fairly small handful of diehard left-wingers massively bothered about whether an independent Scotland stays in NATO or not? The media’s been banging on for months about the SNP leadership’s proposed policy change, sensing a spot where it might be able to drive a wedge into the party (with some success, as numerous notable Nat bloggers have wrung their hands over it), but we’re struggling to think of a single day in our entire life which was touched in any discernible way by the UK’s membership, per se, of NATO.
The presence of Trident in Scottish waters is an obscenity, more on the basis of logic and economics than of morality. As a weapon it’s empirically pointless, a cripplingly expensive vanity project whose only true purpose is to keep hold of the UK’s permanent seat on the UN Security Council so that successive Prime Ministers can inflate their ego and play the Big Man on the world stage.
(Its supposed “deterrent” properties are laughable – the UK faces no credible military threat to its soil in the lifetime of anyone reading this post, and even if in some inconceivable future it was threatened by Russia or China, Trident could inflict no more than a fleabite on either nation. If we’re entertaining a ludicrous imagined future where either of them was prepared to mount an attack on the UK, we must also concede that the totalitarian leaders of those countries would be prepared to pay the price of a few million dead.)
But the SNP’s Trident policy is not up for debate. Most NATO members are non-nuclear powers, and there’s no reason to believe Scotland couldn’t be the same if it chose. Membership of NATO in itself is pretty small biscuits, involving fairly trivial expense and commitment. If Albania, Estonia and Luxembourg can manage it, along with our most obviously-comparable neighbours Denmark and Norway, we don’t think it would destroy Scotland.
By the same token, non-membership isn’t a big deal either. It seems to work fine for Ireland and Sweden, who maintain fully independent armed forces but still co-operate with other Western nations through such organisations as the Partnership For Peace.
So frankly, we don’t really give a monkey’s what the SNP conference decides with regard to NATO policy. As Trident will be leaving Scotland either way, leaving behind billions of pounds a year which can be spent on better things, we just can’t see any way in which membership will make an iota of difference to 99.9% of the Scottish population.
————————————————————————————————–
2. The monarchy
We were once resolute republicans on principle. The absurdly privileged lives of the royal family are clearly rationally indefensible, and that remains the case. Yet what sort of lunatic would be jealous of them? Unlike any of Britain’s other hyper-wealthy elite, we wouldn’t trade places with any of them given the chance.
We’d swap lives with David Beckham in a heartbeat (well, pending securing the services of a good divorce lawyer, anyway), but Prince Harry? No thanks. Forced to join the Army and get shot at, condemned to spend your entire life under the hypocritical scrutiny of the press, vilified for doing what most young men do on their holidays, with nothing to look forward to but a lifetime on the substitute’s bench, traipsing around the country opening cheese fairs just in case your grandmother, father and older brother all die before you.
And we don’t care how many butlers the Duke of Edinburgh has – we’d want butlers too if we’d had to keep working 30 years past retirement age, shlepping hither and thither across the nation and the globe doing stuff you don’t want to do because it’s your “duty”. Modern royalty lives the life of a brightly-coloured but neutered parrot in a gilded cage, and it’s welcome to it.
Countries like Canada contribute basically zero to the upkeep of the royals, so the economic argument of whether the cost of the monarchy is outweighed by increased tourism revenues is moot in the context of an independent Scotland. The Queen’s power is ceremonial and notional, so there’s no real-world political issue either. The only pressing reason to cut the monarchy loose is to make a statement to the world, and frankly we’ll be happy with voting for independence as a statement to be going on with.
(We also rather like the idea of retaining the monarchy in the short term purely as a symbolic gesture of friendship, an ultimately trivial but significant demonstration of the social union.)
If push came to shove we’d probably still elect to abolish royalty, more as an act of kindness and mercy than anything else. The death of Elizabeth 1, Queen of Scots, when it comes, will provide a natural opportunity to put the question to the people. But the idea that it would influence anyone’s decision in the referendum is farcical. If your vote hinges, either way, on whether Scotland would keep the monarchy or not, take a long hard look at your life.
————————————————————————————————–
3. Membership of the EU/Euro.
See NATO. Can a single person reading this article honestly and truly provide a meaningful example of their life being adversely affected specifically by the UK’s membership of the European Union? And more to the point, what do you imagine would change if we weren’t? Do you really think any of the power-hungry parties of UK politics would have conducted a massive bonfire of legislation in the name of individual liberty? Or would we have just got all the same laws with someone else’s signature at the bottom of the page?
We can identify no fundamental qualities inherent to EU membership. Some countries inside the EU are doing well in the economic crisis, some face disaster. Some outside the EU are doing well, some face disaster. Like any organisation, there are benefits and drawbacks to joining up. We don’t think the average person in the street could tell you with any degree of authority what any of them are, beyond the superficial, and we’re not sure we could either.
Ironically, one of the only compelling reasons to stay in the UK Union is, if you’re so inclined, to have the chance to leave the European one – it’s unlikely, but just about feasible, that one day in the forseeable future Tory and UKIP voters could combine to force a referendum on the subject. It’s one of the odder facets of Unionism, particularly at its right wing, that it only applies to certain unions.
————————————————————————————————–
4. Being in a monetary union with the rUK
One of the most bizarre aspects of the left-hand end of the Unionist spectrum, conversely, is the insistence that there’s simply no point in Scottish independence if it’s not going to turn Scotland into a socialist utopia overnight. Imagine you wanted a country mansion and a Ferrari, and someone offered you just the house without the car. By the logic of their referendum position, Unionists would tell their generous benefactor to get stuffed.
In the medium-to-long term, we prefer the idea of a Scottish currency, perhaps pegged to Sterling for as long as was necessary to ensure stability. But even if the most doom-laden Labour depictions of an independent Scotland having fiscal policy dictated by the misnamed Bank of England were true, that would leave us precisely no worse off than we are now.
Only an idiot would imagine that as things stand now the Bank’s executive would ever make a decision that benefitted Scotland at the rest of the UK’s expense. So the claim that Scotland would have no representative on the policy committee as an independent nation, and therefore be at a disadvantage compared to the present situation, is like saying that having Rangers play in SFL3 will stop them getting biased refereeing decisions.
Independence will give Scotland control of its taxation, defence and welfare. It will ensure that Scots decide whether we spend money on nuclear weapons and PFI, or education and healthcare. It will guarantee that Scots decide who takes the important decisions about their country, not the people of Essex, Surrey and Kent. That’s a glittering prize, and throwing it away because we’d keep sharing some things with our neighbours while we got up and running is the rationale of a petulant teenager, not a sensible grown-up.
————————————————————————————————–
5. Being able to watch EastEnders
We can only assume that most of the politicians and hacks trying to whip up a frenzy about the BBC still can’t program their video recorder, and indeed still use a video recorder. One way and another, broadcasting is global now. Between satellite, cable and the internet, anyone with an ounce of gumption can now watch just about any TV show from anywhere in the world, either live or within hours of its original broadcast.
The BBC will be available in an independent Scotland. Whether the Scottish Government comes to a financial arrangement with the Corporation to simply maintain current practice (whereby we can watch Newsnight Scotland as it goes out every night through our Sky box despite living in south-west England), or whether viewers have to take out a separate subscription in place of the licence fee – an optional payment which will make millions of English citizens green with jealousy – or whether people simply use any of the countless easy ways in which restrictions on digital broadcasting can be effortlessly circumvented, EastEnders will still be on (for those who want to see it).
The location of the BBC’s head office is entirely irrelevant to the conduct of its business, just as that of Sky is. At the end of the day, it’s a commercial business and if people want to give it money to enjoy its product, you can be absolutely sure it’ll find a way to take it.
————————————————————————————————–
So there you go. And of course, regardless of whether we personally care about these issues or not, none of them are fundamental to independence and none of them will be decided by the referendum. All will be matters for an independent Scottish Government, elected democratically and solely by the people of Scotland, to address in the fullness of time and according to the people’s wishes, expressed at the ballot box in elections. The only reason the Unionists are focusing on them now is to attempt to scare the Scottish people into remaining in a (literally) bankrupt UK in which three parties who no longer have any meaningful ideological differences can continue to carve up power between them.
Where humanly possible, the champions of independence should not be distracted and dragged into these false debates. Our case is powerful because it’s simple, and that’s the reason British nationalists are trying to kick up dust and mud around it.
Scottish people, and Scottish people alone, are the best qualified to run Scotland. There’s no rational logic behind the implicit Unionist assertion that Scots are better placed to run our own education and health systems, but somehow inferior at controlling defence and welfare. So whenever anyone asks you what will happen to X in an independent Scotland, don’t waste your time – simply tell them this:
“I’ll let the people of Scotland decide. Why, who would YOU have do it?”
.
As a one time foreign worker in 3 different EU countries outside of the UK and still a frequent EU traveller for work. I can personally say that being in the EU made and makes my life a lot easier. coming back into the UK is a pain, as is the money changing nonsense. Having lived in a large single currency area I can say that its much better for the consumer as it forces cross border competition.
So personally I am in favor of the EU and would seek further integration.
I haven’t lived anywhere in the EU where I could not get at least BBC 1 and 2 plus BBC world.
The one thing that should be constantly fired back is that if as is oft intimated that Scotland is an economic basket case then why hold onto to it.
Its like Aberdeen, they don’t seem to be able to play any better without Rangers in the SPL. In fact they may now rue that opportunity to up their game 3 times a season as they won’t be playing Rangers.
I care about NATO and I’m no lefty (so much so that if I lived in England I’d probably vote Tory much of the time). I care because NATO membership costs money and there are so many better things to spend it on than weapons. But in or out of NATO won’t make much difference to Trident. One way or the other it will be gone soon enough, either gone from Scotland or – and I think this is more likely – gone altogether as the MoD’s budget falls by around a tenth.
Young Massie deserves a rap over the knuckles for misuse of the “whataboutery” label in his article. And his ” evidence of how trivial the arguments about independence really are” aside is misplaced: it’s the No camp that want to sweat the small stuff, so surely that suggests that it’s the arguments against that are trivial? Apart from that, well worth the reading. I have only one question: what is this River City of which he writes? (No, I don’t have a TV.)
Another positive thing about the EU is its environmental legislation, which has protected Scottish biodiversity and landscape (in the main) and accelerated the development of renewables – a very positive thing for Scotland. It also keeps me in a job, for which I am (usually) grateful.
I have to say I barely watch the BBC these days (apart from BBC Alba), although I would be sad to be prevented from listening to Radio 3 (even though it’s gone downhill a bit since Classic FM came along); but I can’t see how they’d stop me in this day and age. Anyway, as long as I can get the Dave channels and 4OD, who cares!
I’m not voting Yes until I know the Scottish TV Schedule for the whole of 2015.
You could probably add t’lympics for me. I couldn’t give a flying fig if the Hoyster greets over a red, white and blue tablecloth for the rest of his career/life. Unfortunately being asked to join the IOC club seems to be seen as just behind recognition by the UN in terms of status, so it may be one of these meaningless but necessary symbols of nationhood.
Angus, I believe conventional forces will be sacrificed at the alter of WMDs before UK gives up trident or any replacement. Speaking to Unionists, they think WMDs are necessary to keep UK safe from terrorists and rouge states. Asked about another Falklands, they of course say they’re in favour of having both conventional forces and WMDs but even though UKs nuclear option would never be used in a first-strike attack (without USA’s say-so), we need to keep trident to keep UK safe and protect our interests. Yep, they don’t see the flaw in their argument no matter how much they’re pushed.
After all, Coulport is over 30 miles from Glasgow so it’s not as if Glasgow, Scotland’s largest population centre, would be under any increased danger of a strategic bombardment. Radiation fall-out? What’s that when it’s at home.
The irony is that the UK’s conventional forces are going to end up much the same as the SNP’s idea of a Scottish Defence Force (albeit on a – slightly – larger scale) but still the bitter together lot think this is an area they can attack independence (but, hey, they think Social Security / Welfare is an area they can attack independence). The only scenario where I can see WMDs leaving these islands (has Margaret Curran told us what the new name for Britain will be post independence yet?) is where an indepedent Scotland forces them out. Even a bankrupt UK will slash and burn everything of value to hold on to them.
@Don McC
“Rouge State”. Good Freudian slip as those advocating WMDs often subscribe to Cold War paranoia/logic.
Thanks for the article. None of the above will change my mind about the referendum. Only a YES vote is rationale and gives us the CHOICE to decide these decisions for ourselves. That’s the point that the pro-dependency parties just don’t seem to get.
It really ISN’T about whether we (Scotland) is in/out of particular institutions, or what policy the SNP will have in 2015 (who is willing to guarantee an SNP Government in 2016?) it’s about WHO makes these decisions.
It seems to me that decades of bad government in Westminster formed through an outdated electoral system (FPTP) has given the pro-dependency parties a sense of entitlement and superiority of the rest of us. Well, I got news for you – it hasn’t. And in 2014 we will start to reclaim our rights and privileges for ourselves.
After a YES vote, I look forward to reading the manifestos of the competing political parties for the 2016 election to an Independence Scottish parliament. THEN, I will decide for myself who I will entrust to take Scotland forward.
Another excellent post.
As a “diehard left-winger” I don’t agree with all of it, of course, but I can see that this is, broadly, a fair representation of where we’re at right now on these issues. I particularly like the point at the end of number 4, as I think it’s something that can’t be stated often enough:
“[Independence] will guarantee that Scots decide who takes the important decisions about their country, not the people of Essex, Surrey and Kent”.
I mention this because, even though it’s a truism for the Yes campaign, Scottish Labour has come up with a characteristically absurd (sorry, cunning) response to it. ‘Ah’, Scottish Labour tells us, ‘independence provides no guarantee that, sometime in the future, the Tories won’t get back into government’.
On the surface, this is true. If there’s a Yes vote in 2014, no-one can guarantee that there will never ever be a Tory government in Scotland sometime in the future. So far, so good. But what we CAN guarantee after independence is this. If there is a Yes vote in 2014, then never ever again, in a general election in an independent Scotland, will the Tories be able to form a government on the basis of winning one parliamentary seat (less than 2 per cent of all parliamentary seats) and with a 17 per cent of the vote.
In plain language, if the Tories wanted to get back into power in an independent Scotland then they would have to become popular again. The only way they could do that is if they started to support policies that were radically different from the Tories at Westminster, and the only way they could develop the capacity to do this latter is if Scotland was independent. Either way, independence would finally free us from the pernicious policies of Westminster Tories who haven’t won a general election in Scotland since 1955 but who have, nevertheless, inflicted their policies on Scotland with monotonous regularity throughout the period from 1955 to the present.
One final thought. Scottish Labour is being unduly bashful in raising the spectre of a Tory government in an independent Scotland, so let me help them out here. What they really mean to say to us is this: independence provides no guarantee that, sometime in the future, the Tories won’t get back into government after 2014 but what we also need to acknowledge is that, after independence, there is an equal if not a greater possibility that Scotland might vote in a socialist government.
There, that’s better.
Personally I’m more worried about a Labour government being voted into Holyrood after Independence, but I suppose it’s the chance we’ll have to take.
Right, so what you’re saying is that in an Independent Scotland I won’t have to pay for WMDs or have them stationed near where I live, I can pursue independent defence, foreign, welfare and economic policies best suited to my own needs and in tandem with my neighbours, I can still have the Queen if I want (but I stopped believing in that kind of stuff when I was still at Primary School, along with Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Stork that brought my wee brother and sister) and best of all, I won’t need to put up with Eastenders? What’s not to like? Where do I sign?
Slightly off topic. It’s noticeable that the majority of tweets from the No side appear to be dominated by the bitter united etc brigade.
Their language is that mostly used by bigots. I supposed that’s hardly surprising considering the last bastion of Britishness in Scotland is the Orange Order.
“As a “diehard left-winger” I don’t agree with all of it, of course”
Let’s be clear: I’m a diehard left-winger myself. I’d vote for Scotland in the EU but out of the Euro (new Scottish pound), no monarchy and probably out of NATO, were those issues to be put to individual votes. I just don’t feel very strongly about any of them, and certainly not in the context of independence. I’m not sure any of those issues, including independence, are left-right matters.
Independence is about getting access to the right to choose the policies of the country wholly based on what the Scottish politicians offer and more importantly what the Scottish electorate and ONLY the Scottish electorate want.
Only yesterday the Herald was bleating on about its great that in Scotland we only on average pay 20% of earnings on mortgage but in SE of England its 30%. No admission that this naturally should impact fiscal policy…..just that first time buyers should be rushing out to get a mortgage as its less expensive than in Surrey.
Can i also say that as a past casual Labour voter I’m now at a crossroads in my life where I think I detest Labour more than the Tories. Their self serving faux concern for the working man in Britain makes me sick to the stomach.
A party who have had multiple generational hegemony in Scotland have delivered the arse end of feck all.
I can only come up with ONE reason why the Bitter together campaign keep harping on and on and on and…….. about NATO, the Queen, the E.U, the Euro etc and it is because of ONE simple fact. They have NO answers to the question “Why are we better together?”
The Bitter camp have NO answers, NO solutions, NO ideas, NO concept of what can be achieved by Scotland being Independent, NO vision and NO hope! 😆
Thinking about it that is why they are the NO campaign. :LOL:
If I can’t watch Dr. Who and Family Guy reruns, I’m afraid Independence just isn’t viable until there is a legitimate alternative.
It’s already been a terrible blow to the Independence movement that The Simpsons has moved to channel 4 – now there is no guarantee for me at all.
As usual Rev, you are speaking the things I think but didn’t think I thought I thunk.
With the exception of your point about the EU, that is. There are several advantages which Scotland accrues through membership of that Union, not least EU environmental laws, human rights protections and a lack of immigration restrictions, both on Scots abroad in Europe and Europeans coming to Scotland.
Furthermore, we could potentially accrue even greater benefits with an independent fisheries policy, a veto on EU constitutional changes which argue for greater currency and energy centralisation and, most importantly, on dropping many of the UK’s draconian anti-immigration policies regarding EU students and workers that our country should be welcoming with open arms.
Otherwise, superb stuff.
As I said, I’m essentially pro-Europe. I just don’t care very much, to the point where it wouldn’t make any difference to how I felt about independence. If an independent Scotland definitely would, or definitely wouldn’t, be in the EU, I’d still want independence.
Don’t worry, Duine Bochd – we’ll just make our own version of Family Guy up here, starring Frank McAveety as Peter Griffin, James Kelly as Chris, Ian “You Will Bow To Me” Davidson as Stewie and Malcolm Chisholm as Brian. If you think the Griffins are dysfunctional……….
@MajorBloodnok,
I share your concern Major but, at the same time, I assume that, like me, you’d make the elementary distinction between the present Scottish Labour party and a “socialist government”.
Admittedly, I was taking a ‘in the fullness of time approach’ in the last post, and that doesn’t admit the possibility that the buggers might win in 2016 or subsequently, after independence. But I was anticipating the ideological space that will open up for the left after independence.
Following through on that anticipation, I’m hopeful that, after independence, a new socialist movement will emerge that will leave the present Scottish Labour party in a similar position, in a re-shaped political spectrum, to where the Liberal Democrats are right now. I’m not a median-voter theorem reductionist but I do think that, after independence, all political parties in Scotland will need to re-position themselves in a way that just isn’t possible as long as Scotland remains part of the British state.
@Rev. Stuart Campbell,
I wasn’t questioning your left-wing credentials – I’ve been reading your blog long enough not to need a reminder of them – but I was agreeing with you when you said:
“Is anyone other than a small handful of diehard left-wingers massively bothered about whether an independent Scotland stays in NATO or not”.
That’s why I think that NATO is a left-right issue and I thought that you were arguing this too. Historically and contemporaneously, the left has been critical of NATO not only because of its responsibility for the proliferation of nuclear weapons, its military adventurism and so on, but also because NATO has been a front for US hegemony. Ever since the establishment of Bretton Woods, the US has been in a position to orchestrate the development of advanced capitalism. US economic imperialism provides the foundation for its military and foreign policy imperialism. Anything, however marginal, that weakens US military and foreign policy imperialism is, de facto, a good thing if you’re on the left because it will weaken US hegemony.
The monarchy is also, I would argue, a left-right issue. It’s not for nothing that Edmund Burke referred to the French revolutionaries as a “monstrous faction”. In other words, one of the reasons that it’s difficult to find staunch opponents of the monarchy on the right, particularly in England, is because the institution of the monarchy resonates so strongly with traditional conservative (with a small ‘c’) beliefs and values.
It is one of those enduring institutions that has stood the test of time, resisted ‘social engineering’ (as in France and elsewhere), it’s conducive to a ‘natural’ hierarchical ‘order’ in society that we would do well not to tinker with. More than this, the durability of the monarchy underpins the constitutional inertia that we associate with England.
The others are, I would agree, more difficult to construct as left-right divisions, although the reasons behind the positions of the left and right on these issues are, usually, different, with the obvious exception of Eastenders which has never been the same since Frank Butcher copped it.
Are any of them ‘game-changers’ on independence? In my opinion, no, because the benefits of independence far outweigh the (hopefully) temporary costs of tolerating them.
If I won’t have to fork out for Strictly Come Dancing anymore, I’m sold on independence.
I wonder if David Cameron watches Top Gear….
I have been working a lot in Dublin over the last ten months and the whole Indyref discussion has come up a lot as some of my Irish colleagues are very interested in it. Every time the whole BBC discussion comes up from the No camp I mention it and they just fall about laughing and then point out that in the Republic they can all happily watch BBC. In the very first discussion, before I’d explained any of the current debate, one of my colleagues said “wait, I bet they’re saying you’re too small or too stupid or even too poor to run your own country.” Right on all three.
As long as W.M.D are removed from Scotland I am not fazed about nato one way or the other . I personally want nothing to do with nuclear ! be it power or weapons , it only takes one accident and our children and grandchildren would be paying the price for years to come .
I have no time for the monarchy but I accept that there is a section of society in Scotland that adores them although I am beginning to wonder if that section of society can tell the difference between political independence and getting rid of the monarchy .
I am pro European but I believe that in the short term we should continue to have monetary union with the r.u.k .
This is to protect the r.u.k pound in the short term as it would not be in Scotland,s interests to let r.u.k pound crash .
Scottish Skier
SORRY If I cant get strictly I might have to reconsider my voting intentions .
Are we still going to be able to watch the Eurovision Song Contest with perhaps Moira Anderson singing for us? 🙂
So long as I can get Big Bang Theory from somewhere, anywhere, and still get to watch the wonderful Professor Mary Beard discussing the Romans, I think I’ll be ok.
Kenny Campbell
‘Only yesterday the Herald was bleating on about its great that in Scotland we only on average pay 20% of earnings on mortgage but in SE of England its 30%.’
Even that should be considered in the context that the average annual income and house value in Scotland is lower than the UK average; that’s the UK average, not even England’s. Amazing for a country whose GDP per capita is just below SE England’s without geographical oil share (and above it with).
NATO, the Monarchy, any soap opera or the Euro – none of these issues are relevent
when compared to the upcoming YES vote for independence. Voting YES is the only
way we can control our future, all else will give us another Tory government or put us back into the clutches of Labour again. We are an energy rich country but under Tory and Labour governments we have Scottish pensioners freezing to death in their own homes. We marched in our millions to protect the lives of our soldiers but the Westminster government ignored us and Scottish soldiers are sent to fight and die illegal wars. Labour/Tory, Tory/Labour, it
doesn’t matter to them they are just two sides of the same Westminster coin.
VOTE YES AND TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR OWN FUTURE.
Good post, Stu.
No matter the subject, the thing that matters is that Scots will decide.
Not Westminster troughers, but ordinary Joe and Josephine MacPublc.
Juteman is correct, the majority in the referendum will be found in the housing schemes up and down in the country and not determinded by the chattering classes.
Sorry stu for going O/T here but I felt, being the reasonably responsible :LOL: individual that I am you’d be interested in this ICM poll. 😀
link to snp.org
Now can someone please remind me WHY we are better together?
I like the posts from Jim Campbell and Juteman
They are both correct ! it is the people of Scotland who will decide .
While we can have a laugh , a moan and a good discussion on the various sites it is the normal man and woman on the street who will have the final say on the matter .
We can not promise them that they will be £500 better off with Independence but we can promise them that with Independence the decisions that effect them will be made by Scots in Scotland for the benefit of Scotland .
I dont care where people come from , I dont care what gender they are , If they look after the interests of Scotland , then they are Scots .
Check out the story of the wee first minister over on newsnet to see how people of all cultures put Scotland first .
I wish I had his get up and do attitude to help Scotland on the way to a yes vote .
@Marcia
Surely we have to find our majority anywhere we can and bring all sectors of society along with us, whether they be from the chattering classes or the, notoriously, taciturn working class.
I don’t mean to single you out for attention but I do find it odd on so many forums regarding Independence how the subject of class is seen in a 20th century context. What next? Will we be expecting the lumpenproletariat to betray the cause?
While it’s true that opinion polls show a greater support for independence among those at the lower end of the economic spectrum there are many in the middle classes who identify as working class and vice versa, and we need to explain independence to them all.
Also, with so many people haven chosen to disenfranchise themselves can we be sure that working class supporters of independence will turn out on R Day? There might be something good on TV. Yes, that’s a deliberate stereotyping of the working class that has as much worth as the fact that they’re all noble, salt of the earth, manual labourers.
I’m sure that, like me, you want the best for everyone in an independent Scotland, but for that we’ve got to work to ensure that our hopes aren’t purloined by ‘the money men’. Independence isn’t the answer – it’s the start, and living in a Social Democracy is a good start for me. As Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said ‘ an ambition without a plan of action is just a dream.
Cuphook
When I talk about chattering classes I am not talking about any specific ‘class’. There is the chattering class of the left and right and all things in-between. It will be the ordinary folk who don’t look at the Scotsman, Herald etc, don’t have Facebook nor look at twitter who will decide the referendum result. They have to be engaged in the process and that is then down to us all.
Although I agree with many of the things you say, I have to disagree about the following:
“we’re struggling to think of a single day in our entire life which was touched in any discernible way by the UK’s membership, per se, of NATO.”
The answer is *never*, but again, one could say the same thing about the average brit in the 17th century when substituting NATO for slavery. There are people who die because of NATO or whose lives get strongly affected because of NATO.
Independence is an opportunity for Scots to see their views (usually more ‘socially-minded’ than those of the English) being expressed politically with action. If it is going to be the same as with the UK, what’s the point? Not to see the Union Flag? There has to be a difference and it’d better be a good one because while we speak about this, we don’t speak of other problems that are still happening in Scotland.
Even if Scotland being part of the NATO makes no difference to NATO (it does from a military and strategic point of view because of its geographic position, mind you) it is still important to say ‘no’ if we don’t want to be part of it. In fact, if it made no difference, the SNP wouldn’t be considering now its position. Saying ‘no to NATO’ when it makes no difference is the same as saying ‘no to University fees’ when the Lib-Dems were not in Government.
It is our brave political choices and the way to explain them to others what makes a political difference. Alex Salmond and the SNP revisionist should keep this in mind.
@ Craig Gallagher,
“Can i also say that as a past casual Labour voter I’m now at a crossroads in my life where I think I detest Labour more than the Tories. Their self serving faux concern for the working man in Britain makes me sick to the stomach.”
Just to say, I agree with that. And have almost followed a similar trajectory.
What has been quite interesting about the rise of a decent bunch of people in politics has been the contrast between them and Westminster careerist politicians and their acolytes. Up until the rise of the SNP we were, perhaps unconciously, choosing from the best of a bad bunch. I expect, after we get our independence, that a similar breed of self serving psychophants will try to get themselves elected to the new Scottish Parliament. Hopefuly, if nothing else, our eyes will have been opened to that sort of careerist sell out. My disgust at the Liberals – who I have voted for in the past – knows no bounds….
As a fisherman the EU have affected my life massively with their crap along with others who have been left jobless due to the scrapping schemes after the mega failed CFP which was a blunder to allow foreign vessels to fish our waters when our own had used up meagre quotas then watching french or spanish vessels catching same fish and allowed to land them
NATO , well am an ex soldier so a possible alliance is sometimes a good thing but am massively against nukes
The royal family , dont bother me if they here or gone , they do have some benefits to the economy albeit in a roundabout way , but the civils list should be cut
Eastenders , I nam near slitting my wrists if I watch this , mind you I seldom watch telly , maybe a footy game or film but to mush dross , and the only BBBC channel I watch is ALba , there doesnt seem to be the same bias on their with programs like Diomhair and Oil Lies and Scotland I think it was called espeecially the version that wasnt shown in Scotland
As for being in a sterling zone give me a krona zone any day , mind you am second generation Norsk , granny was from Stavanger , if wee leave its the rUK who will lose the benefit of our oil helping to stabalise the pound
Of all the points above there arent any reasons to stay alligned with the UK as we would do as well ourselves in our fledgling independant country
Err, the quote should have been attributed to Kenny Campbell, apologies about that….
@Marcia
Sorry, but I disagree. The referendum will be decided by everyone regardless of perceived class. ‘The Scotsman, Herald etc’ or even the Record is not how most people get their information these days, and it’s more unusual not to have a Facebook account than it is to have one. (In that respect I’m unusual). And Twitter – a good proportion of teenagers, future voters, use Twitter.
Look at the last election. All the deadwood press was against the SNP, to some degree or other, yet they achieved the impossible and broke the D’Hondt method. People of every class have access to the internet and inconceivable amounts of information.
The chattering classes suggests those who can indulge in frippery, but all classes chatter among themselves and beyond thanks to IT.
I was at a party the other week and walked into a room where a Sri Lankan friend was asking another friend from ‘the schemes’ how he was going to vote. He reckoned he’d probably vote YES as things couldn’t be worse than they are now. My point is, this new Scot, who is definitely middle class had more ambition for the country than the born and bred Scot.
Regardless of what we want from independence we can’t dismiss any sector of society if we want a YES.
Before the election last year, the polls were indicating a Labour win at Holyrood. Yet, everyone I spoke to said they would be voting SNP and my experience was totally at odds with the polls. The SNP didn’t just win, they won massively.
Yet again, everyone I speak to insists they are voting for independence, yet the polls indicate a majority “No” vote. I don’t know anybody who is intending to vote “No”. I know 2 undecideds and I don’t know any devo-maxes.
And it’s not the case that I only hang out with people of the same political persuasion, gender or age group, either. What I think has changed, is that people have become more willing to talk about the referendum and are no longer reluctant to say, publically, how they will vote. I honestly think the tide is turning, but just as before, I can’t square the polling results with my own experience.
I agree with you Jeannie. I realised quite early in the last election that the polls had to be wrong and, as you say, I know people from all walks of life who intend to vote YES or might be in favour. The only person that I know who is a definite NO vote is a racist, homophobic, arsehole who is on the reich wing of the Tory party.
Still, we can’t be complacent.
O/T Back to my Scottish version of Family Guy – I’ve just found Meg – watching Scotland Tonight – and it’s none other than Kate Higgins from A Burd’s Eye View. If she had a wee beret on, she’d be perfect.
Labour were riding high in the Holyrood polls winter 10/11, however while they had a strong lead over the SNP (40 vs 30%), this was actually very weak in terms of the reasons behind it. Core Labour support has been ~30% in Scotland since 2003. New Labour were not popular in Scotland, just an anti-tory vote for Westminster for many.
In 2009, polls showed support for the SNP at a new high of ~40%. However, a good 10% component of that had turned to the SNP but were still voting Labour at Westminster to stop the Tories. This lot did just that in the 2010 GE. It failed. They panicked and were thinking to try again for Holyrood. Throw in a crap Labour campaign, the fact that these voters already liked the SNP, the failure of their Labour vote to stop the Tories in 2010, and they en masse turned back to the SNP in the few months ahead of May 11. It is a spectacular change when you look at poll trend; quite something to behold.
Chuck in the Libs who jumped to the SNP post 2010 (almost immediately) and there’s your 45%. 51% in total went to parties advocating independence.
What is particularly interesting about these 10-15% swingers (in previous lib voters who swung to the SNP), is that they seem to have decided they’re going to vote SNP at Westminster too now, well most of them anyway. Hence the SNP are at least on 43% for UKGEs from all the data I have, just slightly lower than the at least 46% they remain on for Holyood. 43% under FPTP would result in a Labour drubbing for Westminster, hence the panic within Labour at the moment.
An important thing to note about polls: Ignore all online surveys from Yougov unless you understand what you are looking at. Also, Y/N polls have huge variance and are being muddied by devo max which exists as an option in people’s minds for now.
@Slivertay
Ha ha. I’m sure you’ll be able to get SCD on iplayer. Or, if Rev Stu is still in bath he can record it for you…
[…] link to wingsland.podgamer.com […]
The policies discussed her are SNP Policies (or in the case of NATO, potential policies). By targeting these the BitterTogether lot appear to accept that following a YES vote, the snp will form a permanent hegemony in Scotland, whereas in fact, a whole new political landscape will develop. and each of these policies will be up for discussion (apart perhaps from the BBC).
Where does Lamont stand on Trident? Where does Davidson stand on the currency? Have these people actually considered what they will do in the event of a YES vote? They should be working very hard on their contingency plans, but instead they just can’t face up to the possibility.
That’s a good point and that is what the SNP should focus on to convince people to vote Yes: should independence come, for the first time, we would have a chance to decide on these policies. What is the fuss about taking this out of the agenda precisely now? That’s what I find annoying.
Again, for the record, the uk doesnt own trident delivery system, its a shared nato asset. thats why there will be a nato turn around by snp and a very slim chance of evicting trident from faslane and coulport. when they tried to disband the gurkha unit at garelochead, they gurkhas wouldnt leave, there was no one willing or capable of evicting them, they were allowed to stay!we will have nukes on the clyde for at leat 20 yrs after independence.
@Sion Eurfyl Jones
Not in their deepest darkest moments have they even considered what to do in the even of a Yes vote. I suspect both will fall on their political swords – one will go into exile and a career as a tory in England, I suspect ruth might do the same
Probably off topic:
The defenders of unionism are being driven slowly insane.
Here is an example from a certain Terry Kelly from Renfrewshire, who I seriously suspect appears as a character in the play ‘Zany Comedy Relief’ listed at top right of this esteemed blog.
————————————————————————————–
Terry Kelly, renfrewshire
@Alastair Waddell.
“Oh i forgot, you think that it’s only Scots who are narrow minded”
By a long long way the Scots. are the most narrow minded people I know.
—————————————————————————————
[My highlighting]
If I am right and that is indeed the same Terry Kelly, it is difficult to see people of any persuasion voting for him in the future…..
Here’s a link to the thread. You can make your own minds up:
link to tinyurl.com
The rest of the thread is quite interesting too.
Kelly is a nutter of the highest proportions. Knows virtually nothing about socialism and spouts made up nonsense on his blog. He has also recently taken to populating the Herald comments with nothing but anti Nationalist diatribe.
He recently had a potential ‘libel’ spat with some LibDems in his constituency and was forced to make a grovelling apology. He is perfect for the monkey in a red rosette moniker.
“He recently had a potential ‘libel’ spat with some LibDems in his constituency and was forced to make a grovelling apology.”
MORE INFO PLEASE.
So can anybody tell me who this first strike is supposed to strike at?
Is NATO really about a lot of countries or just a cheap force for the USA? ,a sort of TA!
Does the Fleet Street scribes not realise that like all political parties all can change after an election? i.e. An independent Scotland may just decide to opt out of NATO! then again we may not but it will be up to us not a half-baked 2nd year journalist student,if he is not then why does he write like one?(student of journalism)
My writing or grammar may be not first rate but I went to a junior secondary,and my English teacher was hopeless.I have that as an excuse.
I gave up watching television a while ago, that stuff rots your brain. Also I refuse to pay a licence fee for a biased BBC. You make good points Stu, I don’t really care about the stuff you mentioned. What really motivates me is Scots people taking decisions about what happens in Scotland.
the idea of not being able to watch the BBC only makes sense if Scotland didn’t pay one penny towards its upkeep. At the last report I believe the amount of monies paid to the broadcaster in license fees is around the £300 mil mark. and the total amount spent on Scottish content is 1/10th of that amount. We have been paying into this establishment since its inception. I kinda think we can go our own way on this one. As to east enders and what ever else they think we can’t watch – has someone told this to Europe, Asia, Africa, Canada and the USA? They can all see content made by the BBC?
There is also satellite and cable and the increasing use of the internet in peoples viewing habits. So it pretty much is a non issue, always was.
The monarchy – I am pretty much in tune with thomas paine on this one, in that the idea of a hereditary head of state makes as much sense as the position of hereditary lawyer or professor of physics. If the only argument left is that of tourism, then lets keep the palaces and open them to the public and ditch the families that were living in them. If they want to stay there, they can buy it from us.
Nato is another self licking lollipop that america has sidelined more times that I care to mention and frankly not worth it in the long run. We need something else to replace it honestly.
Europe – the problem there is that we have had to sit buy and watch English MPs waste one opportunity after another in Europe. Quite happy to sell all we have to Europe, but when it comes to investment and trade in europe and they all turn into demagogic belligerent fools. The tories and the demented twin UKip have cost the UK a lot in terms of investment and jobs. We need a new relationship with Europe as an Independent nation that does not go bug eyed at the notion. John Redwoods recent post on the subject, snidely concludes that we seeking someone else to sponge off. If they hired this man as a spokesman for better together, we’d have this campaign in the bag.
Concerning the monarchy, not quite so ceremonial: link to guardian.co.uk