2021. At the earliest.
Didn't think I'd answer it so quickly did you? Or directly? The referendum was of course now just a year ago and is still pretty recent. Not that there hasn't been a great deal of change since then of course we can now enjoy a strong SNP presence in Westminster, higher approval ratings of the party with a leader that even Alex Salmond must secretly envy in terms of popularity and now the gap between Yes and No is starting to narrow according to opinion polls. But should we really rush the second referendum?
I think we have to be patient and I believe Nicola Sturgeon will be able to work out when the time is right to include it on a manifesto. I have made this very comment recently on Facebook feeling that although I very much look forward to the day we win the campaign for Scotland to stand on its own two feet, the case for independence will need a bit more time to be won. And it appears someone picked up on my comment because soon an article appeared in Bella Caledonia reading:
"Such ideas will naturally draw critical responses and these are welcome, but too often in recent months a tiny but vocal minority have sought to silence any criticism of the SNP and its strategy, by telling many of us to ‘be patient’ and put our faith in leaders who ‘know what they’re doing’. This is a curious development considering that throughout the referendum we were actively encouraging people to think critically about power and leadership. In fact, those who were very active during the Yes campaign will readily tell you that the best strategies were not devised by ‘experts’ in Hope Street but by activists in the housing schemes and high streets across Scotland. I can think of no greater deterrent against independence than the prospect of a country where criticising politicians is frowned upon or worse, regarded as disloyal. "
I'll put my hands up and admit my guilt in response to this. I don't want to be mean to the author of this, he is of course one of many making a valuable contribution to the whole independence movement and I only wish five million people in Scotland shared his view! But unfortunately at the present moment just over two million people don't share his view and that is very unlikely to change significantly any time within the next couple of years. Which is why there is no point in staging another referendum so soon if we're unlikely to win it.
Let me set the record straight here. I am a member of the SNP not because I see it as the sole vehicle in the Yes movement but because that is what I feel is my natural political home. I am not quite as radical as others, the SNP fits with my more moderate pro-independence views. But I don't just have a follow-the-leader attitude and there is much I question in the SNP's leadership. I'm really glad I was in the SNP in 2012 when the Conference debated NATO, I was one of the delegates that voted against. Now that 100,000 new members have joined from the Yes campaign there is a much greater chance of policy being influenced in a radical direction not simply in terms of what will appeal to hardened unionists. I'm also growing to be increasingly sceptical of value of a single police force and now have my doubts about whether or not it should have been one single force or instead four large forces.
Of course I shouldn't have inferred that everyone on the Yes side, if that's what came across, is an SNP supporter or that Nicola Sturgeon was a leader for everyone in the Yes movement. And yes, it is activists who should be determining the direction of movement for the Yes side. But does my own voice count in all this? If I believed we could win the referendum convincingly were it to be held next year then I would demand it be held then. But what is the point in holding another referendum if we are unlikely to win? Truth is I trust Nicola Sturgeon to decide the suitable timing of the second referendum because it will fall to her to decide whether it is included in the SNP's next term and I know she's a cautious politician, she won't be perfect but I believe she is as canny an operator as Alex Salmond. Contrary to how it sounded my comment to 'be patient' is not submissive, it was, believe it or not, meant to be a statement of confidence. Confidence that the case for independence will only grow with time, give it a few years and we will have a consistent majority in the polls. Is the hunter lion in the Savannah crouching, hiding in wait for some time really timid just because he's not going straight in for the kill? No. He is waiting for the right moment to strike, if he is too hasty, the prey may be in a position to run away before the lion can catch him. If he waits too long the prey will also end up beyond reach. That is all I mean when I advise we take our time over the staging of a second referendum. If we hold it too soon, opinion won't have shifted much in our favour. But yes, hold it too late and our opportunity will pass.
Spontaneous grass-roots activisim is important of course. But good strategy is crucial. I don't think a second referendum should be in the 2016 manifesto because it will only play into the Unionists hands and we won't win, that is me being realistic not pessimistic. The SNP keeping the referendum off the table for a few years will tranquilise the opponents in their anti-independence tirades. Either that or we will expose their hypocrisy if they bang on about an independence referendum that isn't even part of five-year term having had the audacity to tell us to 'move-on'. Including the referendum on the 2021 manifesto will be a great idea. In the weeks after the 2014 referendum one of my work colleagues reiterated his opposition to independence being quite passionately 'British' (as if being British is somehow dependent on being part of the UK) yet was surprisingly quite generous in terms of the timing of a second referendum saying it should not be held for another ten years (others would say fifteen). So here's where it gets interesting. If every unionist was like my colleague then the inclusion of a referendum on the 2021 manifesto would really test their convictions. Would they want the referendum held straight away like they did in 2011? Or would they want it to wait three and a half years like last time so they could have their wish fulfilled that another referendum is only held after ten years. We could alternatively test unionist opinion on the timing of a second referendum to the max by pledging it in the 2026 manifesto instead, that way 15 years will have passed if again we wait three and a half years. But 2026 is way too far in the future, so the second referendum should be pledged on the 2021 manifesto and held within a few months hence. By holding it reasonably soon after the election anyone complaining about a long period of uncertainty can be reminded of the referendum's short timetable.
My advice that we should wait six years or so for the next referendum is not me telling people to cease in their general everyday activism until that time. Quite the contrary. All the good work done by activists should carry on as normal in all the years leading up to the next referendum, gaining more and more people's trust in our cause. The media won't pay much attention to it but that will largely be a good thing as the grassroots campaign can operate under the radar and not be so subject to the hostile media. With opinion polls shifting in our favour the unionist parties will have to address the inevitable sooner or later or they risk losing support. They will have to face up to the fact that accussing us of being 'nothing but vile cybernats' will serve no good whatsoever. The unionist media, especially the likes of the Daily Record, will also have to change their tune as they watch sale figures plummet. We don't ask of the mainstream media to take our side, we just ask them to be balanced.
I'm sorry if people thought my 'be patient' view was a call to lay off from campaigning, it wasn't. But my warning is clear. Whenever you hold the next referendum the likelihood is that will be it not just another six years but for a lot more than ten years. Can we wait another twenty years for the referendum that will win a Yes vote? Certainly not. Can we wait six years? Yes we can! Six years is exactly what we need to shift public opinion. So please please please folks, do not mistake my advice for partisan loyalty. I want to win the next referendum no less than you do. But we cannot afford to get the timing wrong.
Saturday, 26 September 2015
Monday, 7 September 2015
Who else but Jez?
It has fast become 2015's answer to last year's Independence Referendum in terms of the 'Big Vote'. But only because of one man, Jeremy Corbyn. For too long Labour has taken the centre ground in order to win elections and in 13 of the last 18 years has been in power as New Labour, the party of big business. Granted Labour under Blair and Brown was never as callous as the current Conservative government in the way it has treated benefit claimants and Blair had his diplomatic honeymoon period in the late 90s when he oversaw the Good Friday Agreement and the birth of devolution (though that was in a large part thanks to the late Donald Dewar). But the overall direction of Labour has not been positive, sacrificing principles only to end up rejected at the ballot box by the millionaire bankrolled Tories.
At last we see someone from the left of Labour willing to challenge Labour's establishment and relieve Keir Hardie from a nauseating spin in his grave. Jeremy Corbyn is the lone baby boomer among the candidates in the Labour Leadership race the other three being from Generation X. They are all old enough to remember how horrible Margaret Thatcher was but only Jeremy is just old enough to remember the coronation and rationing. He may not have youth on his side but he has all the right ideas for running an opposition force in British politics. He wants an end to austerity. He wants to ditch Trident so the money can be better spent on frontline services like the NHS and schools. He wants to renationalise the rail network so money isn't being channelled by the greed of private franchises and large profits get spent instead on improving the service. He wants a more compassionate benefits system and an end to the bedroom tax. And he wants to seek peaceful conflict resolution and an end to Britain's involvement in unjust and illegal wars.
But these things just scratch the surface of what Jeremy Corbyn promises as leader. What he will do is seismic for the Labour Party, it will mean a wholesale shift in how the party tackles the malice of the Tories. Opponents will talk about the 1970s, a decade when I wasn't born and even my big sister is unlikely to remember (though if she has memories of being an only child she will!). Those on Labour's centre, the Blairites as we call them, constantly warn of being 'locked out of power for a generation'. But how can they be so sure? And should the party really be seeking to win power at the cost of principles? Surely the whole point of a political party is to seek to influence the political landscape in favour of its grassroots membership not be part of its elite. Should we be worried about another Tory victory? Yes we should but we shouldn't just replace the great whites with hammerheads. It is clear the grassroots of the party are more and more in favour of Jeremy Corbyn and so this is what a real Labour Party should stand for, the ordinary members, a lot of whom will come from poor and working class backgrounds.
So if another group in the Labour Party, chiefly the career politicians who have for too long dominated the party, want to try and win power at whatever cost I suggest they do so in their own space. Perhaps they should set up their own political party or maybe join forces with the Liberal Democrats who have shifted further into the centre in the last five years. If that really is the way power will be won good luck to them. But most likely they will need a coalition or power sharing agreement with Jeremy Corbyn's party next time and then they will have to make concessions to the left. Labour were left with just their most working class constituencies in May but only a few more constituencies won would have prevented a Tory majority though there might still have been a pact with UKIP and the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland. Notwithstanding the support of kippers and Belfast bedfellows Mr Cameron would have struggled against an opposition of left or would-be left parties. In the case of the 'would-bes' all we need is the genuine left-leaning politicians to be representing them on the green benches.
And what about the Scottish dimension. Well Jeremy is no fan of independence I understand that. He is opposed to a second referendum anytime soon and even to the transfer of certain new powers to the Scottish parliament. But that hardly makes him a red tory when his heart is in the right place on so many other social issues. And perhaps his opposition to independence is much more in touch with the solidarity argument that the actual red tories kept cynically throwing around during the run-up to last year's referendum. For Scottish Independence would rob parliament of Corbyn's greatest ally - the SNP. If the contribution Angus Robertson's team makes to Westminster 's progressive anti-austerity lobby is the reason Jeremy Corbyn doesn't want Scotland to leave the UK then we ought to treat that as a compliment unlike those who campaigned against independence but with a hatred of the SNP.
Don't get me wrong, I still want independence for Scotland and another referendum before long so it I am somewhat disappointed with Corbyn's indifference to the cause. And we really don't need Labour up here in Scotland anymore when there is a strong alternative. But who else among Labour's leadership hopefuls is going to help England in its own journey towards better social democracy than Jeremy Corbyn? Just about everyone among the radical left down south of the border is looking at him with great hope. This is the man who, if he is successful less than a week from now, will challenge the very foundations of the establishment and will remind his party of their own founding values. But his message should also be this: No fakes. If you're truly with the party on our values you can stay, otherwise please leave.
Then the party that calls itself Labour will once again be the party that Kier Hardie, who lived until almost one century ago, dreamed of. It's not likely to be an easy ride for Corbyn if he's elected but one thing's for sure, he has inspired a new generation of political activists who will be standing firm behind him to help ensure he lives up to expectations.
At last we see someone from the left of Labour willing to challenge Labour's establishment and relieve Keir Hardie from a nauseating spin in his grave. Jeremy Corbyn is the lone baby boomer among the candidates in the Labour Leadership race the other three being from Generation X. They are all old enough to remember how horrible Margaret Thatcher was but only Jeremy is just old enough to remember the coronation and rationing. He may not have youth on his side but he has all the right ideas for running an opposition force in British politics. He wants an end to austerity. He wants to ditch Trident so the money can be better spent on frontline services like the NHS and schools. He wants to renationalise the rail network so money isn't being channelled by the greed of private franchises and large profits get spent instead on improving the service. He wants a more compassionate benefits system and an end to the bedroom tax. And he wants to seek peaceful conflict resolution and an end to Britain's involvement in unjust and illegal wars.
But these things just scratch the surface of what Jeremy Corbyn promises as leader. What he will do is seismic for the Labour Party, it will mean a wholesale shift in how the party tackles the malice of the Tories. Opponents will talk about the 1970s, a decade when I wasn't born and even my big sister is unlikely to remember (though if she has memories of being an only child she will!). Those on Labour's centre, the Blairites as we call them, constantly warn of being 'locked out of power for a generation'. But how can they be so sure? And should the party really be seeking to win power at the cost of principles? Surely the whole point of a political party is to seek to influence the political landscape in favour of its grassroots membership not be part of its elite. Should we be worried about another Tory victory? Yes we should but we shouldn't just replace the great whites with hammerheads. It is clear the grassroots of the party are more and more in favour of Jeremy Corbyn and so this is what a real Labour Party should stand for, the ordinary members, a lot of whom will come from poor and working class backgrounds.
So if another group in the Labour Party, chiefly the career politicians who have for too long dominated the party, want to try and win power at whatever cost I suggest they do so in their own space. Perhaps they should set up their own political party or maybe join forces with the Liberal Democrats who have shifted further into the centre in the last five years. If that really is the way power will be won good luck to them. But most likely they will need a coalition or power sharing agreement with Jeremy Corbyn's party next time and then they will have to make concessions to the left. Labour were left with just their most working class constituencies in May but only a few more constituencies won would have prevented a Tory majority though there might still have been a pact with UKIP and the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland. Notwithstanding the support of kippers and Belfast bedfellows Mr Cameron would have struggled against an opposition of left or would-be left parties. In the case of the 'would-bes' all we need is the genuine left-leaning politicians to be representing them on the green benches.
And what about the Scottish dimension. Well Jeremy is no fan of independence I understand that. He is opposed to a second referendum anytime soon and even to the transfer of certain new powers to the Scottish parliament. But that hardly makes him a red tory when his heart is in the right place on so many other social issues. And perhaps his opposition to independence is much more in touch with the solidarity argument that the actual red tories kept cynically throwing around during the run-up to last year's referendum. For Scottish Independence would rob parliament of Corbyn's greatest ally - the SNP. If the contribution Angus Robertson's team makes to Westminster 's progressive anti-austerity lobby is the reason Jeremy Corbyn doesn't want Scotland to leave the UK then we ought to treat that as a compliment unlike those who campaigned against independence but with a hatred of the SNP.
Don't get me wrong, I still want independence for Scotland and another referendum before long so it I am somewhat disappointed with Corbyn's indifference to the cause. And we really don't need Labour up here in Scotland anymore when there is a strong alternative. But who else among Labour's leadership hopefuls is going to help England in its own journey towards better social democracy than Jeremy Corbyn? Just about everyone among the radical left down south of the border is looking at him with great hope. This is the man who, if he is successful less than a week from now, will challenge the very foundations of the establishment and will remind his party of their own founding values. But his message should also be this: No fakes. If you're truly with the party on our values you can stay, otherwise please leave.
Then the party that calls itself Labour will once again be the party that Kier Hardie, who lived until almost one century ago, dreamed of. It's not likely to be an easy ride for Corbyn if he's elected but one thing's for sure, he has inspired a new generation of political activists who will be standing firm behind him to help ensure he lives up to expectations.
Keir Hardie
Sunday, 30 August 2015
A senate with proportional representation is needed as the last line of defence
Yet again a long time has passed since my last blog update. I should first take the opportunity to express my sadness at the loss of Charles Kennedy. We ought to remember that at the end of the day politicians are human beings like us and life after the end of a remarkable career isn't always going to be easy to adjust to. Yet Charlie had a life beyond Westminster to look forward to and when it came to arguing for the UK to remain in the EU, he would have been there a formidable debater taking our country, maybe even finding more time to lead the Yes to EU campaign. We'll never know.
There was a time before I properly followed Scottish politics, when UK-wide politics was higher on my radar. That was 2006 and earlier when Charles Kennedy was leading the Liberal Democrats at the height of their popularity and when I would have voted for them in Westminster elections. Under his leadership they represented the voice of progress, the party I really wanted in Government and it was because Charlie broke ranks with his own party to argue against the Iraq War that it seems he won over so many fans. When news broke that he resigned as leader in 2006, coincidentally as I remember on the same day the Observer started to resemble a tabloid, I felt very disappointed. When I would next get to vote for the Lib Dems Kennedy would no longer be in charge. Needless to say though, it was the SNP I voted for at my next opportunity. But I continued to feel that through Charlie's warmth a sense that this was a politician who was a real people's man. During the referendum campaign, I felt sure that Charles' voice was the one that stood out from the scaremongers quietly arguing positively for Scotland to remain part of the UK. But it seemed drowned out though by cacophony of Project Fear.
He was a proud Scot but more specifically he was a proud Highlander. Charles Kennedy will be missed by everyone and Scottish and UK politics is all the poorer for him not being here. My thoughts remain with his family and friends.
On the subject of electoral reform, the Conservative majority despite being the minority of the popular vote makes the case for electoral reform unanswerable. Except from the Tories point-of-view of course. Even Nicola Sturgeon, who benefitted by 95 percent of Scottish MPs being won by only 50 percent of the popular vote for the SNP, remains committed to the case for electoral reform. However, there's another elephant in the room, the House of Lords, and it could be argued that this is what should be sorted first because the second chamber is the difference between legislation being passed and it being rejected.
I have been in favour of a proportional system for the House of Commons through the use of the de Hondt method. But it is hard to see how such a system would work without either increasing the number of seats to accommodate additional list members or increasing the size of the constituencies so fewer constituency members are elected to allow space for the additional members. Of course we could use the PR system used for European elections but that means we could only really have regional MPs and fear with that is that a bigger constituency for members means the fear certain local issues would end being sidelined in parliament for 'more important' regional ones. And importantly people value the element of direct local accountability in a size of constituency where their voice is most likely to be heard in front of the Government in the House of Commons.
Far better in my opinion is to sort out the chamber which acts as the last line of defence against unpopular government policies, the upper house, currently the House of Lords. If you have a fully proportional composition of members in this chamber then ultimately legislation that the majority of people in the country didn't vote for doesn't get passed because that majority is properly represented.
It normally follows that the party with the largest share of the popular vote ends up with the most seats because usually the majority of constituencies each represent the country as a whole at a miniature level - the average constituency if you like. It makes sense democratically that the party with the most seats in the Commons gets the first opportunity to form a government, but it would only be able to form a government if it can get a Queen's Speech past both houses. Then it doesn't matter too much that there's not a proportional representation in the lower house if that's the price for direct local representation. The point with a revising chamber is that it is just that - a place for revising legislation. Yes the government has had more or less its own way in the lower chamber but now it's time to test that against the assumed opinion of the country as a whole. I say 'assumed opinion' because its assumed that the opinion of the party represents the opinion of the people that elect them if they are following through on their manifesto pledges.
If such a second chamber, lets call it a senate, is fully proportional and elected properly at the same interval as in the general election it would be a more respectable component of our legislature. And the members, the senators, would be more acutely aware of their responsibilities and the accountability at which they are held. When they turn up to work they actually have to get some work done and if you have them up for reelection every two years like in America then they really have no time to sit on their butts. The Government would have to regularly make sure that whatever laws they are trying to craft they have to be sure they can command the majority of the both houses.
One thing's for sure. The new intake of Peers announced in the dissolution honours list a few days ago taking the total to well over 800 makes a real mockery of democracy with these people having either stood down at the last election or been voted out by the public. And 826 is too many. Lets bring that number down to a size that can actually all fit onto the seats at the same time (without allowing any spaces for them lie down and doze!)
There was a time before I properly followed Scottish politics, when UK-wide politics was higher on my radar. That was 2006 and earlier when Charles Kennedy was leading the Liberal Democrats at the height of their popularity and when I would have voted for them in Westminster elections. Under his leadership they represented the voice of progress, the party I really wanted in Government and it was because Charlie broke ranks with his own party to argue against the Iraq War that it seems he won over so many fans. When news broke that he resigned as leader in 2006, coincidentally as I remember on the same day the Observer started to resemble a tabloid, I felt very disappointed. When I would next get to vote for the Lib Dems Kennedy would no longer be in charge. Needless to say though, it was the SNP I voted for at my next opportunity. But I continued to feel that through Charlie's warmth a sense that this was a politician who was a real people's man. During the referendum campaign, I felt sure that Charles' voice was the one that stood out from the scaremongers quietly arguing positively for Scotland to remain part of the UK. But it seemed drowned out though by cacophony of Project Fear.
He was a proud Scot but more specifically he was a proud Highlander. Charles Kennedy will be missed by everyone and Scottish and UK politics is all the poorer for him not being here. My thoughts remain with his family and friends.
On the subject of electoral reform, the Conservative majority despite being the minority of the popular vote makes the case for electoral reform unanswerable. Except from the Tories point-of-view of course. Even Nicola Sturgeon, who benefitted by 95 percent of Scottish MPs being won by only 50 percent of the popular vote for the SNP, remains committed to the case for electoral reform. However, there's another elephant in the room, the House of Lords, and it could be argued that this is what should be sorted first because the second chamber is the difference between legislation being passed and it being rejected.
I have been in favour of a proportional system for the House of Commons through the use of the de Hondt method. But it is hard to see how such a system would work without either increasing the number of seats to accommodate additional list members or increasing the size of the constituencies so fewer constituency members are elected to allow space for the additional members. Of course we could use the PR system used for European elections but that means we could only really have regional MPs and fear with that is that a bigger constituency for members means the fear certain local issues would end being sidelined in parliament for 'more important' regional ones. And importantly people value the element of direct local accountability in a size of constituency where their voice is most likely to be heard in front of the Government in the House of Commons.
Far better in my opinion is to sort out the chamber which acts as the last line of defence against unpopular government policies, the upper house, currently the House of Lords. If you have a fully proportional composition of members in this chamber then ultimately legislation that the majority of people in the country didn't vote for doesn't get passed because that majority is properly represented.
It normally follows that the party with the largest share of the popular vote ends up with the most seats because usually the majority of constituencies each represent the country as a whole at a miniature level - the average constituency if you like. It makes sense democratically that the party with the most seats in the Commons gets the first opportunity to form a government, but it would only be able to form a government if it can get a Queen's Speech past both houses. Then it doesn't matter too much that there's not a proportional representation in the lower house if that's the price for direct local representation. The point with a revising chamber is that it is just that - a place for revising legislation. Yes the government has had more or less its own way in the lower chamber but now it's time to test that against the assumed opinion of the country as a whole. I say 'assumed opinion' because its assumed that the opinion of the party represents the opinion of the people that elect them if they are following through on their manifesto pledges.
If such a second chamber, lets call it a senate, is fully proportional and elected properly at the same interval as in the general election it would be a more respectable component of our legislature. And the members, the senators, would be more acutely aware of their responsibilities and the accountability at which they are held. When they turn up to work they actually have to get some work done and if you have them up for reelection every two years like in America then they really have no time to sit on their butts. The Government would have to regularly make sure that whatever laws they are trying to craft they have to be sure they can command the majority of the both houses.
One thing's for sure. The new intake of Peers announced in the dissolution honours list a few days ago taking the total to well over 800 makes a real mockery of democracy with these people having either stood down at the last election or been voted out by the public. And 826 is too many. Lets bring that number down to a size that can actually all fit onto the seats at the same time (without allowing any spaces for them lie down and doze!)
Monday, 30 March 2015
Why we cannot vote Labour after what they did in the referendum
I know this is my first post of the 2015 and in fact the first one since the end of September, a month we'll never forget.
I've been absent from here because I don't know what I can add that hasn't already been said by one of the many other people who campaigned for a Yes vote. In the weeks after the referendum I couldn't help feeling that a huge step had been taken backwards and now our goal was as far away as it was back before the election of 2007 when the SNP were only just seeking to enter their first term in office. A lot has changed since then but it will be just as many years if not more before the next independence referendum comes upon us.
However, there must still be a purpose for everyone who became engaged and energised by last September's campaign. There has to still be something we have worth fighting for. Well we do. There is a General Election coming up in less than forty days time and for the first time ever it is conceivable that the SNP could have a real influence on Westminster politics.
Of course the naysayers will as usual tell us that it is unthinkable that a party 'wants to run the very thing it wants to break up'. Which leads us to ask the question why did they want us to stay so badly in a 'family of 'equal' nations'? We were told Scotland brings added value to the UK that it brings something special to Westminster politics. Yet now it's looking like they don't want us to make a contribution to Westminster politics if we decide we want the SNP to represent us. It's clear there's no love lost.
But what is also clear is just how much Labour has alienated the Scottish population over the last four or five years. It seems like only yesterday that it was April 2010 when Labour could still happily claim Scotland as their own territory, that tactical voting to keep the Tories out seemed justified. Not this time though. Labour's current mantra - "vote SNP get Tory" - is no longer convincing. And it's ironic because what are Labour now but, well, the Red Tories. If Labour so badly wanted Scotland to banish the Tories we had that golden opportunity to make it so and make it permanent last September!
But my dislike of the Scottish Labour Party is far deeper than that. They just didn't respect the ordinary people who voted Yes. They couldn't appreciate the real concerns that motivated us to aspire to a different Scotland through a Yes vote. And whilst presenting erratic counter-arguments they stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Tories and the Lib Dems to try and unfairly blacken our name. So folks don't vote Labour. Vote SNP. And do it for these reasons:
And if unfortunately the Tories do emerge with the most seats then my message to Labour is clear:
Don't blame us, the people of Scotland, for your party's misfortunes. We only voted for the party we wanted to have fighting our corner, the party we felt represented us. If you can't win more seats than the Tories then look at yourselves not us. It can only be your fault, Labour, if you don't make enough effort to win over the hearts and minds of voters in the places where you're actually fighting the Tories. We accept no responsibility for Ed Miliband's ineptitude and if you walk away from any post-election talks of an anti-Tory alliance simply because you've lost then that is your problem. You will be the ones in the end letting the Tories in through the back door.
Game on!
I've been absent from here because I don't know what I can add that hasn't already been said by one of the many other people who campaigned for a Yes vote. In the weeks after the referendum I couldn't help feeling that a huge step had been taken backwards and now our goal was as far away as it was back before the election of 2007 when the SNP were only just seeking to enter their first term in office. A lot has changed since then but it will be just as many years if not more before the next independence referendum comes upon us.
However, there must still be a purpose for everyone who became engaged and energised by last September's campaign. There has to still be something we have worth fighting for. Well we do. There is a General Election coming up in less than forty days time and for the first time ever it is conceivable that the SNP could have a real influence on Westminster politics.
Of course the naysayers will as usual tell us that it is unthinkable that a party 'wants to run the very thing it wants to break up'. Which leads us to ask the question why did they want us to stay so badly in a 'family of 'equal' nations'? We were told Scotland brings added value to the UK that it brings something special to Westminster politics. Yet now it's looking like they don't want us to make a contribution to Westminster politics if we decide we want the SNP to represent us. It's clear there's no love lost.
But what is also clear is just how much Labour has alienated the Scottish population over the last four or five years. It seems like only yesterday that it was April 2010 when Labour could still happily claim Scotland as their own territory, that tactical voting to keep the Tories out seemed justified. Not this time though. Labour's current mantra - "vote SNP get Tory" - is no longer convincing. And it's ironic because what are Labour now but, well, the Red Tories. If Labour so badly wanted Scotland to banish the Tories we had that golden opportunity to make it so and make it permanent last September!
But my dislike of the Scottish Labour Party is far deeper than that. They just didn't respect the ordinary people who voted Yes. They couldn't appreciate the real concerns that motivated us to aspire to a different Scotland through a Yes vote. And whilst presenting erratic counter-arguments they stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Tories and the Lib Dems to try and unfairly blacken our name. So folks don't vote Labour. Vote SNP. And do it for these reasons:
- This is justice. Disputing our case for independence is one thing - trying to smear us quite another. Remember how all these Labour politicians tried to suggest we were all abusive cybernats? Okay maybe I'm exaggerating a bit but when a small number of abusive online activists attacked No voters it was all that was needed for Labour, Lib Dem and Tory politicians. They simply couldn't resist using the situation against the rest of us who were NOT responsible for what got said by those so called 'cybernats'. And yet they turned a blind eye to all the occasions when some of their own supporters metted out similar abuse against people who were voting Yes. I agree online abuse is wrong whichever way it comes from. But if you're going to condemn it you condemn BOTH sides and not just one side in order to try and bolster your side. The SNP went out of their way to condemn abuse on both sides but Labour tried to make it sound like a problem exclusive to Yes supporters. I am still to this day seething with fury over Labour's attitude on this matter, it was one of the biggest injustices of the whole campaign and just on that I will not forgive them! I accept the referendum result quite willingly even if it is not what I wanted as I accept people voted No in good faith. But I will struggle to come to terms with Labour tarring us all with the same brush. Of course I am equally annoyed with the Tories and Lib Dems but I reserve my biggest anger for Labour, the party who is feebly trying to win back Yes voters without so much as an apology.
- Additionally lest we forget how Jim Murphy's predecessor, Johann Lamont, tried to call our cause 'a virus'. You're hoping to be the next first minister and you effectively call a third of your own compatriots a virus? Is this the woman we were supposed to look up to? And then Jim Murphy himself using his Irn Bru crate tour of Scotland to call us 'nosiy nationalists' - now he's trying to reach out to us. It's laughable.
- Labour stood with the Tories to campaign in Better Together. They could easily have run the campaign without them but instead they invited them to take part. The result? A common message based on an anti-SNP theme. They may have won the referendum but the path they trod to try and maximise support will soon backfire on the party.
- When it comes to policies Labour are little better than the Tories anyway. To have given the Tories support for the UK austerity programme means they have endorsed cuts in their desperation to overturn the deficit. The consequence will likely be more unemployment and more of our vital frontline services at risk. For what? Some sort of better economic outlook one day in the distant future? They must realise that when some of their own MPs including Dianne Abbott and Katy Clark (an Ayrshire MP) rebelled something is a miss in this programme. The SNP on the other hand voted with their conscience alongside Plaid Cymru and the Greens to join the few brave Labour souls. The bill was passed with fewer MPs voting against than years I've been alive and I'm still a young man!
- Voting SNP means Scotland getting a far better voice fighting our corner in Westminster. Simple.
- It may actually be a blessing in disguise for Labour if they face annihilation in Scotland to the SNP. If they are to stand any hope of getting more MPs than the Tories they will have to win in England. Which means taking more centre ground possibly more than they would prefer. And then at least they could be willing to scrap some of their more regressive policies to get the votes of the SNP and treat it as a concession they had to make. I don't think the SNP will particularly mind taking the 'blame' for scrapping Trident.
- Contrary to Labour's arguments that the party that wins the most seats has the exclusive right to seek to form the next government, it is all dependant on whether or not the party with first priority (granted that's the party with the most seats) can get the first Queen's Speech passed. The party with the most MPs elected may feel cheated by a deal between two smaller parties but if the collected weight of their shared policies is good enough for parliament it's good enough for forming a government. There's a small chance Labour will win more seats than the Tories but if they don't they can be assured there'll be a good majority against Tory policy. Ed Miliband being Prime Minister is not a thought to savour. But if the SNP MPs we send to Westminster have enough influence then Miliband would only be occupying the floor of Number 10 while dancing to our tune! He may have ruled out a formal coalition with the SNP but if Ed Miliband is serious about gaining the keys to Britain's most coveted front-door an informal agreement with the SNP will be almost if not entirely unavoidable.
And if unfortunately the Tories do emerge with the most seats then my message to Labour is clear:
Don't blame us, the people of Scotland, for your party's misfortunes. We only voted for the party we wanted to have fighting our corner, the party we felt represented us. If you can't win more seats than the Tories then look at yourselves not us. It can only be your fault, Labour, if you don't make enough effort to win over the hearts and minds of voters in the places where you're actually fighting the Tories. We accept no responsibility for Ed Miliband's ineptitude and if you walk away from any post-election talks of an anti-Tory alliance simply because you've lost then that is your problem. You will be the ones in the end letting the Tories in through the back door.
Game on!
Monday, 29 September 2014
Scotland's referendum: what went right, what went wrong and how we will win it next time
What a long, long month September 2014 has been - and yet we still have a couple of days of it left! During this time I have been to two job interviews, been given one job, had to give it up to start the other and of course been as fully involved in the last two weeks of campaigning including one trip to a border tea party in Berwick as well as helping out at street stalls and then back to Newton Stewart for the big vote itself. Followed by great disappointment but then the renewed determination of the great defeated. It has been a dramatic, highly charged few weeks.
We came very close to winning a Yes vote in the independence referendum with 45%. Only another 200,000 of the swing voters who eventually went for a No vote could have been enough to win it for the Yes campaign albeit by a very slim majority. In the most deprived areas of Scotland we achieved our highest vote - Glasgow, Dundee, West Dunbartonshire and North Lanarkshire. This could only have been testament to the great work put in by the Radical Independence Campaign which made sure people realised this was a huge opportunity for change. But I believe that threats made by big banks and businesses, threats they didn't need to make and threats given extensive coverage by the mainstream media lost it for us.
However dejected we feel about the result, the fact that the Yes campaign grew support for independence substantially is a huge achievement. We were always the underdogs, yet in Glasgow we polled in a majority of those who turned out to vote. I will always feel proud of Glasgow for that support despite the Daily Record being so against independence. The ball is now firmly in Westminster's court, they have to deliver or face a loss in support for the Union - and the politicians down there clearly realise that. As the 45% we can help make sure they are fully held to account for what they do and don't deliver in the way of enhanced devolution.
It is hard to say if we made any mistakes in our campaigning, we could only really do our best but we certainly proved we were capable of doing our best. I think next time we will definitely need a bolder vision of independence because on certain issues we were ridiculed for not going all out in a break from the UK. Most notably was the question of currency. The SNP's preferred option of keeping the Pound Sterling put us at the mercy of Westminster who could and did say no to a currency union. And the Unionist politicians were able to use to Pound as a pawn in the argument in such a way that it was as though Scotland needed the English balance of payments into the Pound rather than the other way round. If England, Wales and Northern Ireland didn't sign up to a currency Union they would lose a important contrituion to their own currency by Scotland not being part of it and then they would have to pay all of the UK debt because they are legally responsible for it. In other words it would be the rUK, rather than Scotland, that loses out as a consequence of no currency union taking place. The pound would weaken without oil and other exports being a part of the economy. A separate Scottish currency would certainly be a strong currency as Jim Sillars has pointed out. So my view is that next time, we go the whole way and argue that an independent Scotland should use its own currency. This would put Scotland in a far better negotiating position at a future independence negotiations with Westminster.
I also think we made a few other mistakes in our arguments mostly where we were seemingly trying to soften the blow of independence. One of them was the idea that 'we're not really leaving the United Kingdom, because we'll still be part of a united kingdom with the Queen as head of state.' I don't think this was a very wise argument. The United Kingdom is a clear concept that refers to a particular sovereign state as governed currently from Westminster rather than all the countries with the Queen as head of state. Otherwise we might as well regard Australia, Canada and New Zealand as 'part of the UK.' If people say they 'like the idea of being part of the UK' then we have to challenge why they like it and why they wish to be part of the UK when it is as it is a state that doesn't work for everyone. For many of them its simply personal, a sort of nationalism, so we can't really do anything about that. But if they say 'we like Scotland being British' you have to challenge them as to what they mean by 'being British'. Why do we need to share a common sovereign state to feel like our fellow citizens and family south of the border are still very much are fellow citizens and family? And why should British only be the adjective for the UK when it is also thought by many to simply be the adjective of a place called Britain regardless of whether that's the UK or Great Britain. It's just those two definitions become unpegged with Scottish independence. I should say however that being British 'because we're part of the British Isles' is not a very good argument either because the name British Isles is contentious in the Republic of Ireland where there is no basis either political (UK) or geographical (Great Britain) for being considered British. I for one believe 'the Anglo-Celtic Isles' would be a better name for these isles where it lacks a rather imperialist set of connotations and seems more appreciative of different cultures within the isles.
Similarly I think we should have been willing to accept Scotland as a secessionist country rather than a co-continuation of the UK. I can understand the co-continuation argument but I think it reasonable for people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to feel that their own countries would form the outright continuation the UK in the eyes of the international community. The principle of co-continuation would mean we automatically remained part of the EU instead of having to reapply. But soon that principle could be unnecessary as the UK leaves the EU and so in any circumstance Scotland would have to reapply. We should be able to wholeheartedly embrace the idea of a new sovereign state emerge with an institutional blank canvas to paint up our own new internationalist society. Let South Britain and Northern Ireland be the continuation of the UK, we have our own agenda up here. UK is not OK.
It has been the most fantastic and unexpected response from 45% who didn't win that the SNP has suddenly enjoyed a sharp rise in membership numbers with people turning to Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon's party from often socialist backgrounds. This gives the SNP fresh blood that could help move the party in a direction towards a more radical vision of independence. I certainly hope that very soon we could see a revote on NATO which would overturn the prospect of joining such a controversial organisation. A reenergised SNP should also see a discussion had between radicals and moderates in the party about the what approach to taxation is the best to ensure Scotland is both a successful economy and a progressive society. Add to that the promise of a referendum on the monarchy and the thought of entering the European Union as our own state independent of a country that will probably be leaving it in 2017 and you have a very attractive vision of a new radical independent Scotland.
We came very close to winning a Yes vote in the independence referendum with 45%. Only another 200,000 of the swing voters who eventually went for a No vote could have been enough to win it for the Yes campaign albeit by a very slim majority. In the most deprived areas of Scotland we achieved our highest vote - Glasgow, Dundee, West Dunbartonshire and North Lanarkshire. This could only have been testament to the great work put in by the Radical Independence Campaign which made sure people realised this was a huge opportunity for change. But I believe that threats made by big banks and businesses, threats they didn't need to make and threats given extensive coverage by the mainstream media lost it for us.
However dejected we feel about the result, the fact that the Yes campaign grew support for independence substantially is a huge achievement. We were always the underdogs, yet in Glasgow we polled in a majority of those who turned out to vote. I will always feel proud of Glasgow for that support despite the Daily Record being so against independence. The ball is now firmly in Westminster's court, they have to deliver or face a loss in support for the Union - and the politicians down there clearly realise that. As the 45% we can help make sure they are fully held to account for what they do and don't deliver in the way of enhanced devolution.
It is hard to say if we made any mistakes in our campaigning, we could only really do our best but we certainly proved we were capable of doing our best. I think next time we will definitely need a bolder vision of independence because on certain issues we were ridiculed for not going all out in a break from the UK. Most notably was the question of currency. The SNP's preferred option of keeping the Pound Sterling put us at the mercy of Westminster who could and did say no to a currency union. And the Unionist politicians were able to use to Pound as a pawn in the argument in such a way that it was as though Scotland needed the English balance of payments into the Pound rather than the other way round. If England, Wales and Northern Ireland didn't sign up to a currency Union they would lose a important contrituion to their own currency by Scotland not being part of it and then they would have to pay all of the UK debt because they are legally responsible for it. In other words it would be the rUK, rather than Scotland, that loses out as a consequence of no currency union taking place. The pound would weaken without oil and other exports being a part of the economy. A separate Scottish currency would certainly be a strong currency as Jim Sillars has pointed out. So my view is that next time, we go the whole way and argue that an independent Scotland should use its own currency. This would put Scotland in a far better negotiating position at a future independence negotiations with Westminster.
I also think we made a few other mistakes in our arguments mostly where we were seemingly trying to soften the blow of independence. One of them was the idea that 'we're not really leaving the United Kingdom, because we'll still be part of a united kingdom with the Queen as head of state.' I don't think this was a very wise argument. The United Kingdom is a clear concept that refers to a particular sovereign state as governed currently from Westminster rather than all the countries with the Queen as head of state. Otherwise we might as well regard Australia, Canada and New Zealand as 'part of the UK.' If people say they 'like the idea of being part of the UK' then we have to challenge why they like it and why they wish to be part of the UK when it is as it is a state that doesn't work for everyone. For many of them its simply personal, a sort of nationalism, so we can't really do anything about that. But if they say 'we like Scotland being British' you have to challenge them as to what they mean by 'being British'. Why do we need to share a common sovereign state to feel like our fellow citizens and family south of the border are still very much are fellow citizens and family? And why should British only be the adjective for the UK when it is also thought by many to simply be the adjective of a place called Britain regardless of whether that's the UK or Great Britain. It's just those two definitions become unpegged with Scottish independence. I should say however that being British 'because we're part of the British Isles' is not a very good argument either because the name British Isles is contentious in the Republic of Ireland where there is no basis either political (UK) or geographical (Great Britain) for being considered British. I for one believe 'the Anglo-Celtic Isles' would be a better name for these isles where it lacks a rather imperialist set of connotations and seems more appreciative of different cultures within the isles.
Similarly I think we should have been willing to accept Scotland as a secessionist country rather than a co-continuation of the UK. I can understand the co-continuation argument but I think it reasonable for people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to feel that their own countries would form the outright continuation the UK in the eyes of the international community. The principle of co-continuation would mean we automatically remained part of the EU instead of having to reapply. But soon that principle could be unnecessary as the UK leaves the EU and so in any circumstance Scotland would have to reapply. We should be able to wholeheartedly embrace the idea of a new sovereign state emerge with an institutional blank canvas to paint up our own new internationalist society. Let South Britain and Northern Ireland be the continuation of the UK, we have our own agenda up here. UK is not OK.
It has been the most fantastic and unexpected response from 45% who didn't win that the SNP has suddenly enjoyed a sharp rise in membership numbers with people turning to Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon's party from often socialist backgrounds. This gives the SNP fresh blood that could help move the party in a direction towards a more radical vision of independence. I certainly hope that very soon we could see a revote on NATO which would overturn the prospect of joining such a controversial organisation. A reenergised SNP should also see a discussion had between radicals and moderates in the party about the what approach to taxation is the best to ensure Scotland is both a successful economy and a progressive society. Add to that the promise of a referendum on the monarchy and the thought of entering the European Union as our own state independent of a country that will probably be leaving it in 2017 and you have a very attractive vision of a new radical independent Scotland.
Saturday, 6 September 2014
The important difference between ethnicity, national identity, citizenship, residency and where you're born
For many people, it's nice and simple. You're born in a single country and in that same country, specifically the same region as your birth, you grew up, were educated and still live. Both your parents were born and grew up there as did many of their preceding generations. You therefore have the local accent and of course the citizenship of that country. You are quite unmistakably of that country specifically of that region.
But for many of us it really isn't as simple. Yours truly is a case in point. I was born in Oxford to an English mother and Norwegian father (whose father was Swedish). I grew up in a corner of southern Scotland called Galloway from the age of three, though spent some of my formative years in Penrith and the Eden Valley. That said my accent was the one my Mum and older siblings spoke, a southern English accent. I suppose that was awkward because everyone else in my class at Primary School had the local Scottish accent and even at school in the north of England my accent stood out no less. In relation to my father's side of the family, we regularly went on our summer holidays to Scandinavia to our cottage in Sweden where we saw all of my father's family and that helped reinforce my sense of being part Scandinavian.
I'm not Scottish. I do not consider myself to be Scottish. I still live in Scotland but what I am in terms of national identity is quite different to where I call my home. Because national identity is an aspect of personal description while my home is a matter of location and where I feel I belong. So while my home is Scotland, I am English. My national identity relates to my parents' backgrounds and I have identified one of those backgrounds as my primary nationality, the one I give if I can only state one or only feel like stating one. That primary nationality is for me determined through a stronger sense of association with that background than the other. If I had grown up anywhere in Scandinavia speaking their language I probably would have given my identity as Norwegian so in some respects my upbringing does determine my primary nationality in terms of choosing between English and Norwegian. But I grew up on the west side of the North Sea speaking English as a first and only fluent language meaning I felt more English than Norwegian. So ironically I'm English because I grew up in Scotland. Strange isn't it?
I don't particularly like the word 'national identity' used for individual people. It's supposed to be a collective thing - the national identity of Scotland is about an overall image and character of a nation. But people within any nation are highly diverse culturally and you can get someone born and bred in Edinburgh who has more in common socially and culturally with somebody from Auckland, New Zealand than someone living just next door. When I say "my national identity is English", it is merely a statement of my association with the country of England than me being a microcosm of the English national character, whatever that might be. Still the term 'national identity' is a word used on individual basis' so I guess I will have to use it. So my national identity is English. Or to be more precise I am English first. Then I am Norwegian and then I am Swedish. And distantly I am equally Scottish and Irish but I have little knowledge of the ancestors they refer to so I don't really feel they're part of my national identity.
This is why I objected to one particular Unionist complaint. When a couple of years ago they started going on about a supposed false choice between Scottish and British I did a bit of google research to investigate the origin of the complaint. Blow me - the offending question about ethnicity drafted in 2008 for the Scottish Government's 2011 census. The multiple choices included Scottish, English, Welsh, Irish, British and so on and you could only choose one. You also had an 'Other' box with a space to write in the term you use to describe your ethnicity. The cause of offence was that if you stated Scottish you were saying you were not British. But this was to misunderstand the question. It asked you which best describes you ethnicity. Not your national identity but your ethnicity. Many people who are Scottish in all lines going back several generations would have chosen 'Scottish' because they don't know of any other ethnicities in their background but people who tick British do so usually because a number of their family lines are also ethnically English, Welsh, Irish or a mixture so the word British is used as a means of combining them all. The reaction from the unionists seemed to suggest people should have be an additional 'Scottish and British choice'. For one thing this would betray many people's feeling that to say you're Scottish is to actually say you're British. A lot of people in England feel that stating you're 'English' is stating you're 'British' because quite simply England is a nation of Britain. Likewise with Scotland. The suggestion was that people on either side on the constitutional divide are somehow divided by ethnicity. Such a suggestion would be both unwise and absurd because ethnicity is nothing to do with political preferences. Lets just for argument's sake take the Proclaimer twins. Imagine Craig Reid converted to being pro-union while Charlie Reid stayed firmly in the pro-independence camp. Does Craig Reid suddenly have a different ethnic background to the very person with whom he shared the same zygote? I think not.
Now for nationality, the official kind, that is to say citizenship. Yes in case you haven't realised there's a difference between nationality and nationality. Two definitions of nationality, one being official (citizenship), the other being unofficial (national identity) and often based on the subjective. I would gladly take up Scottish citizenship but that wouldn't make me Scottish by the concept of national identity that I explored in an earlier paragraph. My national backgrounds would continue to be English, Norwegian and Swedish. But I would now be a citizen of the Scottish state and so would be officially saying I have trust in that state to look after me. It will be a much more notable statement when, despite being allowed to keep British citizenship in duality with Scottish citizenship, I renounce British citizenship in favour of just Scottish citizenship. I haven't yet decided if I'll actually do that but I'll think about it. But I can tell you that despite all my pride in my Norwegian heritage I'm absolutely glad I never held Norwegian citizenship. If I had done so I would have been required to do national service at the age of 18. No way would I have wanted that! So for me citizenship is about the sovereign state to which I choose to belong and be protected by.
Residency is about where I live and is an unofficial kind of citizenship. Because there is no such thing currently as Scottish citizenship the franchise of a referendum in Scotland can only pragmatically be determined as the people living there and therefore making the most directly contribution to the Scottish economy and Scottish society. So a Scottish resident may or may not be Scottish by origins or self-identification but he or she is considered one of the Scottish people when it comes to determining Scotland's future.
Where you're born? That's surely the easiest thing to understand. But the country of your birth could be anywhere, you could be born when your parents are on holiday abroad for example. Many people feel a certain bond with the country of their birth regardless of its relevance or irrelevance to their parents' national backgrounds. If I had been born in say, Yemen, I may have been tempted to have describe myself as Yemeni for the novelty factor. Incidentally someone who was born in Yemen was Eddie Izzard although he would generally describe himself as English. Still I think many people would make a case for the entitlement to citizenship of the country of your birth if you choose since it is listed on your own passport and birth certificate and if you're born in 'Yemen' you're 'born Yemeni'. Fortunately for me I don't have that confusion, I was born in England so my primary nationality is also my birth nationality.
As for the question 'Where do you come from?' for me that is a bit ambiguous. Are they asking me my nationality (national identity) or my country of residence? Well if I'm being asked that question in my country of residence, Scotland, I would usually say something, South-west Scotland, Dumfries and Galloway or Newton Stewart, depending on how well they might know the places around Scotland. However, they may enquire further about my accent so I would mention that my family are from Oxford originally. If I'm somewhere abroad, like Italy, India or somewhere else where they're quite chatty and I'm asked the question of where I come from then my simple answer would be 'Scotland'. What they're interested in knowing is the country where I live for most of the year, the country which was the starting point of my journey to that destination where I'm talking to these very friendly people. They want to know about where you live because that's the place you know the best, that's your home. If however I'm being asked what my nationality is, well that's different, then I say 'I'm English' because they're asking me about my national description not about where I live. But normally the people I get talking to ask me where I come from so that's okay.
So there you have it - the difference between birth, ethnicity, nationality and so on. They are all different ideas, each with their own meaning. And for people like me their descriptions are hugely mixed up but the more I explore them the more I understand what's what. Is there anything in there that's a source of pride for me? Not really. Except for my Scandinavian heritage because that means I've had somewhere truly wonderful to visit during Summer holidays. And I also like the fact that my English Great-Grandfather drove the Flying Scotsman (though only from London to York). I feel privileged to have lived in Scotland most of my life and now I feel a I have a massive chance to help shape that nation's future and determine the sort of place it becomes. But different aspects of my personal description I treat as individual subjects which may or may not be relevant to a debate about a country of 5.3 million people and therefore 5.3 million different identities.
But for many of us it really isn't as simple. Yours truly is a case in point. I was born in Oxford to an English mother and Norwegian father (whose father was Swedish). I grew up in a corner of southern Scotland called Galloway from the age of three, though spent some of my formative years in Penrith and the Eden Valley. That said my accent was the one my Mum and older siblings spoke, a southern English accent. I suppose that was awkward because everyone else in my class at Primary School had the local Scottish accent and even at school in the north of England my accent stood out no less. In relation to my father's side of the family, we regularly went on our summer holidays to Scandinavia to our cottage in Sweden where we saw all of my father's family and that helped reinforce my sense of being part Scandinavian.
A cottage in Sweden reminiscent of summer holidays
I'm not Scottish. I do not consider myself to be Scottish. I still live in Scotland but what I am in terms of national identity is quite different to where I call my home. Because national identity is an aspect of personal description while my home is a matter of location and where I feel I belong. So while my home is Scotland, I am English. My national identity relates to my parents' backgrounds and I have identified one of those backgrounds as my primary nationality, the one I give if I can only state one or only feel like stating one. That primary nationality is for me determined through a stronger sense of association with that background than the other. If I had grown up anywhere in Scandinavia speaking their language I probably would have given my identity as Norwegian so in some respects my upbringing does determine my primary nationality in terms of choosing between English and Norwegian. But I grew up on the west side of the North Sea speaking English as a first and only fluent language meaning I felt more English than Norwegian. So ironically I'm English because I grew up in Scotland. Strange isn't it?
I don't particularly like the word 'national identity' used for individual people. It's supposed to be a collective thing - the national identity of Scotland is about an overall image and character of a nation. But people within any nation are highly diverse culturally and you can get someone born and bred in Edinburgh who has more in common socially and culturally with somebody from Auckland, New Zealand than someone living just next door. When I say "my national identity is English", it is merely a statement of my association with the country of England than me being a microcosm of the English national character, whatever that might be. Still the term 'national identity' is a word used on individual basis' so I guess I will have to use it. So my national identity is English. Or to be more precise I am English first. Then I am Norwegian and then I am Swedish. And distantly I am equally Scottish and Irish but I have little knowledge of the ancestors they refer to so I don't really feel they're part of my national identity.
The border between England and Scotland. I grew up in both Galloway and Cumbria.
Ethnicity is deeper than that. It is about race, genetics, skin colour and so on. This is when I do take into account more distant generations. Broadly I am white Caucasian. Specifically I describe my ethnicity as Nordic Anglo-Celtic, in other words, Northern European. My ethnicity split on this side of the North Sea, Anglo-Celtic, considers the fact that as well as being English, there is also I understand traces of Welsh along with my Scottish and Irish roots. Nordic takes into account ancestry from any of the Nordic countries, not just Scandinavia. It is also thought that I have some distant Russian ancestry because of my nose and cheekbones!This is why I objected to one particular Unionist complaint. When a couple of years ago they started going on about a supposed false choice between Scottish and British I did a bit of google research to investigate the origin of the complaint. Blow me - the offending question about ethnicity drafted in 2008 for the Scottish Government's 2011 census. The multiple choices included Scottish, English, Welsh, Irish, British and so on and you could only choose one. You also had an 'Other' box with a space to write in the term you use to describe your ethnicity. The cause of offence was that if you stated Scottish you were saying you were not British. But this was to misunderstand the question. It asked you which best describes you ethnicity. Not your national identity but your ethnicity. Many people who are Scottish in all lines going back several generations would have chosen 'Scottish' because they don't know of any other ethnicities in their background but people who tick British do so usually because a number of their family lines are also ethnically English, Welsh, Irish or a mixture so the word British is used as a means of combining them all. The reaction from the unionists seemed to suggest people should have be an additional 'Scottish and British choice'. For one thing this would betray many people's feeling that to say you're Scottish is to actually say you're British. A lot of people in England feel that stating you're 'English' is stating you're 'British' because quite simply England is a nation of Britain. Likewise with Scotland. The suggestion was that people on either side on the constitutional divide are somehow divided by ethnicity. Such a suggestion would be both unwise and absurd because ethnicity is nothing to do with political preferences. Lets just for argument's sake take the Proclaimer twins. Imagine Craig Reid converted to being pro-union while Charlie Reid stayed firmly in the pro-independence camp. Does Craig Reid suddenly have a different ethnic background to the very person with whom he shared the same zygote? I think not.
Now for nationality, the official kind, that is to say citizenship. Yes in case you haven't realised there's a difference between nationality and nationality. Two definitions of nationality, one being official (citizenship), the other being unofficial (national identity) and often based on the subjective. I would gladly take up Scottish citizenship but that wouldn't make me Scottish by the concept of national identity that I explored in an earlier paragraph. My national backgrounds would continue to be English, Norwegian and Swedish. But I would now be a citizen of the Scottish state and so would be officially saying I have trust in that state to look after me. It will be a much more notable statement when, despite being allowed to keep British citizenship in duality with Scottish citizenship, I renounce British citizenship in favour of just Scottish citizenship. I haven't yet decided if I'll actually do that but I'll think about it. But I can tell you that despite all my pride in my Norwegian heritage I'm absolutely glad I never held Norwegian citizenship. If I had done so I would have been required to do national service at the age of 18. No way would I have wanted that! So for me citizenship is about the sovereign state to which I choose to belong and be protected by.
A Scottish Passport as it might look. This is something I look forward to owning one day.
Residency is about where I live and is an unofficial kind of citizenship. Because there is no such thing currently as Scottish citizenship the franchise of a referendum in Scotland can only pragmatically be determined as the people living there and therefore making the most directly contribution to the Scottish economy and Scottish society. So a Scottish resident may or may not be Scottish by origins or self-identification but he or she is considered one of the Scottish people when it comes to determining Scotland's future.
Where you're born? That's surely the easiest thing to understand. But the country of your birth could be anywhere, you could be born when your parents are on holiday abroad for example. Many people feel a certain bond with the country of their birth regardless of its relevance or irrelevance to their parents' national backgrounds. If I had been born in say, Yemen, I may have been tempted to have describe myself as Yemeni for the novelty factor. Incidentally someone who was born in Yemen was Eddie Izzard although he would generally describe himself as English. Still I think many people would make a case for the entitlement to citizenship of the country of your birth if you choose since it is listed on your own passport and birth certificate and if you're born in 'Yemen' you're 'born Yemeni'. Fortunately for me I don't have that confusion, I was born in England so my primary nationality is also my birth nationality.
As for the question 'Where do you come from?' for me that is a bit ambiguous. Are they asking me my nationality (national identity) or my country of residence? Well if I'm being asked that question in my country of residence, Scotland, I would usually say something, South-west Scotland, Dumfries and Galloway or Newton Stewart, depending on how well they might know the places around Scotland. However, they may enquire further about my accent so I would mention that my family are from Oxford originally. If I'm somewhere abroad, like Italy, India or somewhere else where they're quite chatty and I'm asked the question of where I come from then my simple answer would be 'Scotland'. What they're interested in knowing is the country where I live for most of the year, the country which was the starting point of my journey to that destination where I'm talking to these very friendly people. They want to know about where you live because that's the place you know the best, that's your home. If however I'm being asked what my nationality is, well that's different, then I say 'I'm English' because they're asking me about my national description not about where I live. But normally the people I get talking to ask me where I come from so that's okay.
Oxford, where I was born
So there you have it - the difference between birth, ethnicity, nationality and so on. They are all different ideas, each with their own meaning. And for people like me their descriptions are hugely mixed up but the more I explore them the more I understand what's what. Is there anything in there that's a source of pride for me? Not really. Except for my Scandinavian heritage because that means I've had somewhere truly wonderful to visit during Summer holidays. And I also like the fact that my English Great-Grandfather drove the Flying Scotsman (though only from London to York). I feel privileged to have lived in Scotland most of my life and now I feel a I have a massive chance to help shape that nation's future and determine the sort of place it becomes. But different aspects of my personal description I treat as individual subjects which may or may not be relevant to a debate about a country of 5.3 million people and therefore 5.3 million different identities.
Sunday, 31 August 2014
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)