What Scottish independence could mean for Ireland

There has been much talk lately about the possible effect of Scottish independence on other parts of the UK. The obvious questions being asked are 'will Wales be next?' and 'could we see a united Ireland?'.

I'll come on to Wales in another post. But on this occasion I will shift my focus some 30 miles across the North Channel to a province with a turbulent history. It is of course no surprise that many Irish Nationalists will be eagerly watching what happens in Scotland on 19th September because it may help to galvanise their own objective for a Northern Ireland free from British rule and reunited with the Republic of Ireland.

In respect to Northern Ireland it's an awkward issue to try and read. Broadly speaking I would be in favour of a united Ireland. More immediately I feel that the province's political association with the UK is toxic. The union with Great Britain may have been suitable in the past when there was heavy industry like before 1970 when the Troubles began. From the perspective of people in Great Britain itself , Northern Ireland is an embarrassment. The Unionist assertion of 'British identity' is as far as I'm concerned an Ulster brand and therefore ironically an Irish brand. Most people in England, Scotland and Wales are not interested in going on marches dressed in orange wearing sashes, bowler hats and twirling batons. They'd far rather do things like go and watch a football match, go for a ramble, go ten-pin bowling, go to gigs, go to pubs or whatever other random thing I can name. Basically the people of Great Britain like to just do something exciting. So if all these Union Jack fanatics want to be 'more British' how about they be more like people on 'mainland Britain' - like, well more fun?

The matter of Northern Ireland's future should be debated a lot more on practical and economic matters rather than being a debate simply between two counter-nationalisms. I would love Northern Ireland to have the debate that Scotland is having, that is to say a civilised debate where not a bullet is fired and no blood is shed. What I feel would be reassuring is incidentally for more and more Catholics to come out in favour of the union with the UK while more and more Protestants aspire to reunification with the rest of Ireland. The debate then becomes more secular as Catholics and Protestants unite on the same side on both sides.

Cave Hill near Belfast

The Northern Irish debate would be somewhat different to the debate in Scotland for obvious reasons. The debate would generally be about a choice between two unions - the British and the Irish unions. As Scotland becomes independent Northern Ireland now becomes an exclave of the UK and, other than flying, the only way to travel to the mainland UK without going through a separate sovereign state is to take the longer boat journey to Liverpool. Which means the British Unionist argument in Northern Ireland about 'not wanting to create borders' would be, in contrast with the equivalent argument in Scotland, much weaker and rather laughable considering the elephant in the room which is the border with the Republic created as a result of Unionists wanting Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK. Oh the irony! Scotland, as the nearest part of Great Britain to Northern Ireland is a key cornerstone in the Unionists' attachment to the British state. Many of them are of course Scots by descent. So they may well begin to question the purpose of a union of which Scotland is not part especially when there's the European Union. I wouldn't be surprised if more and more of them see a union with the Republic as making more sense especially as the economy in the South starts to improve.

However, to get from one union to the other, Northern Ireland would possibly have to secede first. The people of the Republic aren't necessarily that much in favour of absorbing the North and Northern Ireland, if it does vote for Irish reunification, will have to ask the Republic's permission which they can't take for granted. There are some sections of Northern Ireland's population that would favour an independent Northern Ireland (or 'Ulster') but they're much smaller in number and mainly in the Unionist community who would want Northern Ireland to remain as an entity distinct from the rest of Ireland. Most people in Northern Ireland however would likely not see any economic viability in an independent Northern Ireland while a united Ireland with provincial devolution would be more ideal. As a new generation that has never known the Troubles grows up and they in turn produce another generation many of them will be more concerned with their own job prospects and their personal finances than any politics of identity. Whether they stay part of the UK or rejoin the UK would mainly be an economic debate for them.

The Northern Ireland - Irish Republic Border

It's fair to say Northern Ireland and the Republic do have their superficial differences as a product of their political difference. If you've ever gone by car to the Republic from the North you'll immediately notice that the road-signs look completely different, not just that they're bilingual in the Republic but they're of a different format altogether as are the road markings. The registration plates on cars in the Republic are also different to those on cars in the North. It therefore raises the question of how Northern Ireland would be effectively integrated into the Republic when the North's infrastructure may need a large overhaul and people across the province would have to spend time adjusting to the new-look highways. All that could cost money but many may see it as a small expense if they feel they would be better off as part of the Republic of Ireland.

I look forward to hearing such a debate unfold but only if it is a peaceful debate. A unified independent Ireland looks to me like a natural and sensible arrangement but what I would like to see more than Irish unity is Northern Irish unity. The debate about Northern Ireland must transcend the province's traditional sectarian divide and be an enlightened discussion. Scotland's current debate could go a long way to inspire such a discussion.

 

Thanks to Game of Thrones, Northern Ireland enjoys a more favourable reputation these days as a filming location.

A new ally in the Land of the Silver?

If you're a member of the Tartan Army watching the World Cup you're maybe wondering just who to be cheering on in Brazil. Well don't be surprised if you see some Saltires fluttering around the stadium when Argentina step up to face Bosnia. Argentina is a country that will be looking on with intense interest at what happens on Peter Shilton's 65th Birthday, the 18th September - maybe they will be celebrating a Yes victory by doing a sort of Hand of God salute!

The reason why Argentinian fans would be so enthusiastic about a display of Scottish solidarity is not difficult to consider. The rivalry with England is something both Scotland and Argentina share on the football pitch. Both rivalries with England of course produce a classic display of world football notably in 1966, 1986, 1998 and 2002 for Argentina and 1996, 2013 and many others before for Scotland. Then of course the blue and white lends itself to a mutual support although for Scotland's strip it's dark blue compared to Argentina's midday shade. And of course, let's not forget, Scotland's fondest memory of the World Cup is their trip to Argentina in 1978 with THAT goal by Archie Gemmel against the Netherlands.

That goal.

Off the field, if many in Argentina's football fraternity are as entrenched in their views about the Falklands, or the Malvinas, as their political leaders in Buenos Aires then without doubt they will see Scotland's opportunity for independence as a chance to complete the quest for decolonialisation of the British state. The President of Argentina will be watching closely what happens at the other end of the Atlantic in September anticipating a Yes vote with eager anticipation.

Personally I don't agree with Argentina's posturing over the Falklands. It would be wrong not to want self-determination for the Falkland Islanders having wanted it so much for Scotland. They do not typically identify with Argentina, they prefer to turn to the British state for their citizenship and being descended from Anglo-Celts it's hard not to share their view. But it does mean, for people living here in Britain, relations with Argentina leave a lot to be desired. And for those Scots that want to see a good relationship with Argentina a Yes vote would they feel be exactly what they need.

With Scotland removed from the British state, Argentina can form a new bond with at least one part of the island of Great Britain that is refreshingly less acrimonious. And with that could potentially come new opportunities. For example if Scotland were to follow the Republic of Ireland's lead in 2008 that might include a Visa agreement which would allow Scottish citizens the chance to work in Argentina. Of course there's plenty of places around the world to work but why not Argentina? Many Scots in Scotland would love to be associated with that kind of foreign policy of reaching out and shaking hands. The UK's foreign policy appears so much to be stuck in the 19th Century. But that's Westminster's issue, Scotland can choose a different direction. Diplomatic disputes between Argentina and the UK over the Falklands are likely to have an unwanted negative effect on bilateral trade but this would not be an issue with trade agreements between Argentina and an independent Scotland who would have no responsibility for the Falklands.

So in the land of the silver (that's what Argentina literally means) could we find a new ally? Well hopefully a much more positive relationship with Argentina. But Scotland cannot be seen to take sides on the Falklands issue. One person who probably will have a strong opinion is Veterans Minister Keith Brown MSP. He himself saw action in the Falklands and if he is to hold a defence or foreign affairs brief in an independent Scottish Government he will be all too aware of the importance a good diplomatic relationship with Argentina. If Holyrood is not put under too much pressure to take Argentina's side on the Falkland's issue while refusing to aid Britain's watch over the islands, then there's no reason why Scotland can't strike the right balance in how it's government interacts with a country who really should be our friend not our foe.

In the meantime, I look forward to seeing an England v. Argentina Semi-Final hopefully with both Rooney and Messi gracing the floor having scored their first finals goal. Why it will have taken them both three World Cups to get to that stage of being a goal scorer in the greatest show on Earth I can only wonder. But what I can tell you is.... I can't wait!

Move World Cup 2022 to another country for the sake of football and sanity

It's the moment you dread. A little known or unremarkable country winning an honour that really belongs to someone else. Like Greece winning Euro 2004. You'll see these nations biding for something and feel insecure that they're even in the process. But you just don't expect the worst.

Yet I could have dropped whatever I was holding when I heard live on radio the announcement of the 2022 FIFA World Cup hosts. Minutes before, I had been left disappointed that England lost out to Russia in the bid for 2018. Now I was left in complete disbelief that Qatar had been given the right to host the 2022 World Cup ahead of Australia, Korea, Japan and even the USA. At least Russia has the size and international profile to match a competition of this scale but Qatar - this was probably the moment people had even first heard of the place.

Qatar - where?

It got you wondering, like with the allegations in the 2018 bid, if Qatar had also won hosting rights on the back of bribery. I have always believe they did. And now the Sunday Times has uncovered evidence that proves my and many other people's suspicion. That FIFA executives were involved in a major instance of corruption. Because there is no sensible reason on this earth whatsoever for Qatar hosting the World Cup and even if it was only a 22-man committee that decided on Qatar it is rather telling that so many of them managed to back this tiny emirate.

Qatar doesn't even need the World Cup, it doesn't need it for any great economic gain, there's already plenty going for it as a country of only 1 million people. It is a small and insignificant nation that lacks the image that bigger countries have and that appeals to fans of the World Cup. Italy, USA, France, Japan, Germany, South Africa, Brazil - these are all countries people know and love and want to visit. Who's particularly interested in visiting Qatar? It has hardly any history to make it a remotely interesting place outside of it's material artificial façade. It has no football culture and most or all of the stadiums will have to be built from scratch. Of course it's got the money to sort all that out and it can easily put in place a strong infrastructure, one thing Qatar would have to its credit. But the experience of being in Qatar for the World Cup both as a player and as a fan would be incredibly uncomfortable. If it's not rescheduled for the winter at considerable disruption to domestic seasons across the world it would have to take place in the unbearable heat of an Arabian summer. Of course they would have to install air conditioning but it still may not be adequate and playing standard could suffer considerably as a result. For fans the time before and after each match would also be exhausting and alcohol can only be bought in specific fan zones. If this tournament takes place here in a country with so little a soul where few people will find any real joy from the experience it will be a real denigration of this most wonderful of tournaments.

But what is really getting the international community to take note of this controversy are the human rights issues. Migrant workers. They come from Nepal. They're offered a better future but they arrive at Qatar, have their passports confiscated and are forced to work in labour camps so the new venues can be constructed quickly. In a climate they're far from used-to. The total squalor of the conditions they face amounts to nothing short of slavery. And there's one death a day. Think of the misery this is causing not just themselves but the families they've left behind in Nepal. They can't even escape and return home! To describe this horrifying con where migrant workers were legally trapped having been assured of good salaries as a human rights abuse is possibly an understatement. That FIFA is allowing the World Cup to be held here shows just how far the organisation has sunk. If the World Cup continues to be held here, I for one may refuse to watch it. Had the decision to host the World Cup been made by representatives from all 209 countries then it is very unlikely Qatar would have won.

The ghastly plight of migrant workers in Qatar 

Fortunately because it's still a whole eight years away, there's still time to move the World Cup to another country. Mexico is the country that hosted it twice with the shortest interval, 16 years. The second time came after Colombia was stripped of the right. The USA hosted it 20 years ago and in 2022 will have been 28 years previously, not far short of the time between when West Germany hosted it in 1974 and when they hosted it as a unified country in 2006 (32 years). America would have everything in place in time no problem, three years is probably the most they will need to prepare if Qatar could be stripped of the hosting rights. Korea and Japan who also lost out to Qatar will only have held it last 20 years previously though neither on their own. And Australia, the country that should have won the bid, would be a fantastic place to hold the World Cup. Although people love to go there for the sun it will be their winter so cooler but more pleasant for the players much like in South Africa. But would they have the stadia prepared in time? That will depend on when any announcement is made concerning World Cup 2022 being moved elsewhere. So either the USA, Japan or Australia for hosting the 2022 World Cup.

But not Qatar. This country does not deserve to stage the greatest show on Earth. Not now, not ever.

Why I have little sympathy with James Wallace

In case you're wondering who I'm talking about, James Wallace is the London-based Scot who wants to vote. Not just in any old poll but THIS REFERENDUM. You know? The one happening more than 300 miles away from where he lives. He supposedly has the God-given right to vote in this referendum because he is, well, Scottish.

As agreed in the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement, the Scottish Independence referendum is only open to people who live in Scotland and with good reason. Can you imagine the legal nightmare involved in trying to decide precisely which expats are eligible? Yet this same nightmare is just what James Wallace wants.

The first thing I ought to comment on is the name of his petition, 'Let Wallace Vote'. Why isn't it called 'Let James Vote' or 'Let Mr Wallace Vote'? Surely the voter is supposed to be someone you're on first name terms with like Joe the Plumber during Obama's election campaign some years ago. I can only wonder if this is his way of giving the title a Scottish tone since Wallace has obvious connotations in a debate about Scottish independence i.e. Scottish patriots.

 

Let Wallace vote

Now I don't question his patriotism for Scotland. And Mr Wallace I'm sure is a nice guy, possibly the sort I'd want to have a bit of Premier League footy banter with at the local pub, as long as he doesn't talk about Chelsea (I'm a Liverpool fan you see)! In all sincerity it's good that he has found a job in London, always reassuring to know that there are plenty of home-grown graduates who have made it far and wide. If I was one of his family I would be very glad for him in having found a desired career. But Mr Wallace lives in London and will be there indefinitely which means he is not directly contributing to Scottish society, he is not paying taxes in Scotland, he is not subject to the many issues affecting Scotland which may or may not affect the south of England and won't be anytime in the near future. So why should he have the vote when democracy is about people being able to make decisions about the very communities where they live? He would accept that he has no right to vote in Holyrood elections as he doesn't live there and nor even a referendum for further devolution if Devo-max and not independence had been the Yes option. So there had better be a very very good case for that to be different with the independence referendum.

Which leads us neatly to the question, What is James Wallace' case for wanting the vote? Well to answer the question I should perhaps dissect a little his petition calling on expat Scots to be given the vote. Because it's not that long I thought I might as well copy and paste it here:

I'm James Wallace.
I, along with over one million future Scottish citizens will not be able to vote in the Scottish Referendum on Independence due to take place on 18 September 2014.

I was born in Scotland, all my family live there, I have lived there all my life until I moved to London in 2012 to start my career, I will return.  I'm Scottish. if Scotland becomes independent I automatically will become a Scottish citizen but I have no say in this decision. Never before has a vote for independence been based on a franchise like this. 

Scotland needs to encourage its workforce to be international, to learn, and to bring this knowledge back to improve our nation.  In its history Scots have explored, ventured to new areas in the world and then improved our country.  They should not be denied a vote on their future.

I have obtained a legal opinion stating that excluding all non resident Scots is illegal.  I have called on the leaders of all parties to come together to ensure that the legality of the referendum cannot be challenged either before or after the independence referendum. 

James Wallace

  Example: if I lived in New York (or anywhere else in world) I could vote for my Scottish MP in westminster elections. But under these rules would not have a say on whether i get that vote in the future. This makes the referendum franchise rules undemocratic. Fact.


So there it is. James Wallace wants to vote because with Scottish independence he will 'automatically become a Scottish citizen'. He's right - to an extent. Under the plans listed in the White Paper anybody who was born in Scotland before and beyond independence day will be regarded as a Scottish citizen. I would say it's a spiritual prerogative to have the citizenship of the country where you were born. But has James Wallace heard of the right to renounce citizenship if you don't want it? Ah, see my point? You can renounce UK citizenship by politely saying to Teresa May, 'you can take this citizenship of mine and you can shove it up your proverbial backside, preferably before your lot brings back conscription for all healthy male British citizens between 16 and 40'. Likewise you will be able to renounce Scottish citizenship if you so wish. So James, if you don't like being a Scottish citizen then by all means renounce your Scottish citizenship. But why would James Wallace want to give up his Scottish citizenship? Well, possibly he's a little suspicious of Alex Salmond. Oh well, that would be his problem.

But I'm sure he wouldn't renounce his Scottish citizenship, he would embrace it with pride. Like I will too as someone who is NOT Scottish but will be normally resident in Scotland on day one of independence. However, I've only touched on half of James Wallace' paranoia about his citizenship. The other half appears to be a belief that by becoming a Scottish citizen he will then lose his British citizenship, well that's his implication anyway. But how would that work exactly? Would the Met come round to his house in the middle of the night and seize his passport in complete breach of his human rights? Oh but wait a moment, I'm just having a little look at some comments on the campaign's Facebook page and they appear to be saying it's Alex Salmond who wants to take away their UK citizenship! No sorry but that's just taking the piss now. For that to make any sense you're looking at a rather ridiculous Interpol operation!

As is made clear in the white paper the Scottish Government's intention is to let Scottish citizens hold dual citizenship with the UK if they wish. That's hardly Alex Salmond 'wanting to take away people's British citizenship'. As the current rules state any British citizen who wants to hold dual citizenship with another country can do so as long as that country allows it. Again you would have to be questioning Alex Salmond's wish to let people hold dual-citizenship to question that rule applying to Scotland and its citizens.

So then what really is left of James Wallace case for getting the right to vote in this referendum? That he may be returning to Scotland sometime? So what? You may be returning? May be? When? If you haven't got any arrangements made to move back to Scotland  how can we know your intentions? How are the Electoral Commission supposed to know? And so what if you're moving there and have family there? I have some family down in Surrey, my maternal Grandmother for one. I would rather there was no prescription charges down there but should I be able to do anything about that through the ballot box? Of course not, I don't live there, it's not my business, it's for my Gran and others like her in England to cast her vote to help get the right government that will abolish prescription charges. It is for my Gran, not me, to elect the councillors that will make the right decisions on a local level in Surrey council. And it is for my Gran, not me, to vote in any local referenda including devolution for Surrey. Of course devolution for Surrey as a wealthy part of London's commuter belt is a little pointless but you get my point. As someone born in Oxfordshire, should I have a vote in a similar referendum down there, one for devolution for Oxfordshire? No I shouldn't because I don't live there! Nor should my Mum, who was born in what is now southwest Greater London, be entitled to vote in the London Mayoral Elections.

The referendum on Scottish independence is about further powers for Scotland albeit the maximum amount of further powers. It is the people living in Scotland who will be directly affected by the result of the referendum. People are not voting in this referendum merely on the idea of national identity or citizenship, they are voting on how empowered they wish to be in the country where they live. What James Wallace wants is for some 500,000 to 1 million people living outside Scotland to decide how empowered people living in Scotland should be. Think about that for one moment. If a majority of say 100,000 over the rest of the voters living in Scotland, feel the best interests for themselves are to have the MSPs they elect to represent them in the Scottish parliament making all of the decisions at a national level that affect them then why should that voice be cancelled out by some 200,000 who are not affected by what goes on in the Scottish parliament who are not represented by and do not elect any MSPs?

Whatever your view on independence many people in Scotland feel this is a fantastic opportunity to be able to live in a country free from the mess of Westminster. It would not be fair that they lose out simply because of people who most likely will be voting No on a rather vague and irrational fear about their supposed citizenship status. Although they will be able to read the Herald and Scotsman online, generally speaking people south of the border, Scots or not, will be a lot less well informed of the debate because there is not going to be the same access to the level of coverage with this referendum that we get north of the border. They won't be getting leaflets through their door, they won't be able to pop along to any public meeting unless they live near the border, they won't be passing Yes or BT stands when out shopping and they won't have STV on their TVs. They can have a valid and strong opinion but it would likely pale into insignificance compared to the minds that are made up north of the border. The Scots south of the border are British citizens living in what will be considered the continuing UK. So what on earth can the reasoning be for them losing that citizenship? That the UK won't allow dual citizenship with their nearest and dearest neighbour while allowing it with all other countries? Well if anything that would sound like little more than revenge and can be challenged in a court of law where the UK government would lose. For sure.

I said I have little sympathy with James Wallace. Well, to be generous I'll add an indefinite article. I do have a little sympathy with James Wallace. It is understandable that he'd love to be part of such an important decision about the country of his birth. Of course he will have strong views on what best for the citizens of Scotland that live there and may have good reasons for those opinions. But he doesn't live in Scotland and far from having to change his citizenship, he will be able to hold Scottish citizenship jointly with UK citizenship. That should be seen as a bonus, a privilege rather than an obligation. So if Mr Wallace wants to choose not to hold Scottish citizenship he will have every right to do so following independence. But why do it through potentially outvoting the resident population of Scotland in their decision about what sort of country they want to live in? The least he should do to make his campaign remotely convincing is to include someone who would vote Yes especially if they are voting Yes for a better future for their family back home. Otherwise his campaign comes across as little more than an attempt at gerrymandering which is no doubt an accusation he's levelling at the Scottish Government!

Also as I touched on at the start Mr Wallace is entering legally dangerous territory since it will still be unfair for some people. Because who on earth do you define as Scottish expats? Yes James Wallace is certainly one of them, he ticks all the boxes in being Scottish other than residency not least because he was born in Scotland. But what about if I myself moved down to England and James Wallace has his way? Would I be allowed to vote? No I wouldn't because I neither live in Scotland nor was born there. Yet I've lived in Scotland longer than possibly than James Wallace has been alive! That's right, if James was born after March 1988 he was born after I moved to Scotland. I moved up when I was only three I spent the majority of my school education in Scotland including all of primary school. I call Galloway my home, before moving to Edinburgh, Newton Stewart was my local community. I still feel it is. I far more naturally take pride in the local talents of where I live than the ones that hail from Oxford where I was born. I've noticed James Wallace having the cheek to comment on the "French people living in Scotland can vote but not Scottish people living in France" like it's big irony. Yes James, that's right, French people living in Scotland can vote in this referendum. But the irony in the first place is that French people are living in Scotland and that Scottish people live in France. Don't tell me you're saying it's unfair that French people generally should have a say in the future of where they live while Scottish people don't have a vote in the future of where they don't live. I actually think that is fair. Because generally speaking French people living in Scotland are going to be working in Scotland, paying their taxes in Scotland, sending their children to school in Scotland, getting NHS treatment in Scotland and so on. What's wrong with French people voting in this referendum?

 

Oxford, where I was born - lovely city but I don't live there so why should I

vote there?

For Labour's Elaine Murray MSP to get involved in 'Let Wallace Vote' doesn't do her any favours. She had started supporting this campaign to extend the franchise for this one off occasion to include expats like James Wallace way back when her party were arguing that the electorate should not include 16 and 17 years olds because it should be the same franchise as votes in the Scottish parliamentary elections! They argued that any age extension should be for all elections. If this was Dr Murray's view personally as well then it would have made her downright hypocritical. Why argue for a one-off extension to include people, many of whom are probably well off, who don't live in Scotland getting to vote while arguing that 16 and 17 years olds, many of whom will be facing heavy competition in the jobs market, shouldn't enjoy the one-off extension to the franchise? How could that be fair?

See my point? All I can say to James Wallace is count your blessings, you have a well paid job down there in England, many of us here in Scotland are far less fortunate and we want to be able to vote for change. I know Mr Wallace cares about his own country and the issues his people face in their everyday lives but he should let them decide what's best for themselves. James Wallace has no obligation to replace his British citizenship with a Scottish citizenship, if he doesn't want the latter he can renounce it and just keep UK nationality status. So with the issue of citizenship eliminated this is a decision about how people are goverened in their everyday lives and that is not something that affects Mr Wallace directly any more than it does with the Holyrood elections. So Mr Wallace should not be allowed to vote on the 18th September referendum and if he wants to vote in Scotland he should first find somewhere to live in Scotland.

This referendum must be decided by the people whose everyday lives are in Scotland, the people living in Scotland.

A Service of Reconciliation?

I have to say it is a little patronising for the Church of Scotland to call their planned post-referendum service a 'service of reconciliation'. I understand such an idea would be needed in Northern Ireland although in a cross-denominational setting. But Scotland is not Northern Ireland. We'll disagree with each other verbally not violently and we'll all with maybe a few exceptions accept the result of the referendum and choose to get on with making the result work for the good of the country. We'll all, friends and foes, sit around the table at the pub together after the vote or if not a pub then we'll maybe all go for a nice little walk together in the countryside.

There is a place for the Church in this debate and a post-referendum service to bring politicians together in a single space. I'm not someone who thinks religion is just there to preach dogma. Although I disagree with the Church's stance against gay marriage I do feel the Church can do a lot to help people in their communities and could pass on some moral wisdom for the congregation. With politiicians the Church can be there saying, remember you are there to serve the people who elect you and you have to listen to their issues and their anger because that is your duty. For some politicians, especially those who are religious it is about finding moral courage and just having the time to pray to God and ask that that they, in that most difficult of occupations to get right, find the right answers, the right solutions to the problems and dilemmas they will inevitably face.

Personally, from my perspective what I would like to see in any event of 'reconciliation' is just for somebody to stand up in front of the mixed crowd of politicians and public figures and make the point loud and clear on behalf of Yes voters that the vote they cast in favour of independence was not necessarily to do with identity and wasn't a proclamation of 'Scottish-only'. Many of us voting Yes are NOT Scottish. We don't identify as such but we still believe in a Scotland governed by those elected by its residents. I want someone to stand up and shake this notion of non-solidarity with the people of England from the minds of those hardened unionists who really don't understand the desire for independence. Because I and many others are very angry at the idea that we are indifferent to the suffering of people south of the Border. We want to lead by example as people liberated from the shakles of Westminster. But unionist politicians should realise that if there is a No vote we are simply going to stand-by and sulk of course we will work with other people to get the best deal for Scotland and I hope that unionist politicians recognise that if there is to be a No vote, which I hope won't happen.

A church service at St Giles' on Sunday 21st September is a good idea. It just needs to be something that humbles politicians. It needs to be a place where Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling can shake hands without the same political heat of the debate and maybe even be a place for the two of them to discuss the season ahead for Hearts as they kick off their time in the second tier of Scottish football. Basically lets just make it a service which lightens the mood up. But don't call it a Service of Reconcilliation, it is the wrong term because we will be a nation already reconciled to the decision made three days earlier, we will respect it regardless of the result because this is a referendum where hopefully not a single bullet will have been fired.

 

St Giles' Cathedral

Birthday time

And so I can announce on +428 that at 4.28 on 4/28 (written regrettably the American way) my age was confirmed as the age I will be on referendum day, 29 years old. And that is the age I will be, at heart, for the next eight months or so. Because once the new year passes, I always give the age I will be on my forthcoming birthday. That's just how I am. None of this business of pretending to be a younger age. What's wrong with the age I am? Okay I am starting to put on more weight but about time because I've been a little too skinny. Not that that matters too much.

Age for me is the number of years that have passed since birth. I judge each age that comes to me accordingly and based on what goes on. After all you could have a miserable adolescence and be in prison at 18 but have turned your life round and be travelling the world at 50. So it isn't always better when your younger. There's no inherent thing other than the passing of time that makes somebody such an age, some people look older some people look younger. Just like there's not really a such thing as being homogenously Scottish or homogenously British. Each person is as different in what their national identity means or doesn't mean to them as zebras' stripes.

I like the age I am, I like the physical maturity that has comes with it and hopefully on the 18th September I will remember 29 as the age when I helped make Scotland an independent country. It's as though the whole of my twenties have been leading to this point, this political climax. I did after all start following Scottish politics only when I was 21. Independence for the country I've known since I was three will certainly feel like a long time coming.

For now though there is much work to be done and before that birthday presents to open.

What if there's a No vote, then?

It is an unthinkable thought, the aftermath of a No vote. It is of course a likely outcome and that is why we are doing everything to campaign for a Yes vote. Indeed the need to bridge a gap is an extra incentive the Unionists just don't have. However, let me now offer my own approach to an outcome that favours a No vote.

First, there's the immediate aftermath of the No vote, the disappointment and deflation following so many months of hard campaigning but then the gracious acceptance that the people of Scotland have decided, albeit through listening to too much fear and scaremongering, to TRUST WESTMINSTER to deliver for them. This wouldn't be a vote to stay friends with England and Wales, our friendship and solidarity with people south of the border, especially with the working class, should be regarded as a given in any circumstance. There are many ways to help out people south of the border, the word charity comes to mind, but to give up our sovereignty in the hope that electing Labour MPs will be enough to bring a change of culture at Westminster would take some sacrifice. There has to be a very compelling financial case to stop people in Scotland deciding enough is enough we're taking control of our own affairs now. But a decision to be say No to independence, whatever the case, is a vote trust the UK political elite with important reserved issues. The moment I hear Johann Lamont declaring 'the people of Scotland have voted to remain British' is the moment I'll be fuming because for many of us being British is more about a simple belonging to a place that is called 'Britain', that is Great Britain. For many of us being British simply means being English, Scottish, Welsh or a mixture.