Dulce et decorum est pro patria jactura
Or so they tell the soldier they send
into their “theatre of operation”,
Or to the police officer they equip
with riot shields and guns
Or to working man whose job
falls to austerity
Or to the disabled child whose support
dwindles as the bills rise
Or to the homeless woman whose shelter
is closed because of other priorities
Or to the broken family that grieve
after a case of mistaken identity
Sacrifice is necessary, they preach to the poor
the disposessed
the weak
the sick
the hungry
Dulce et decorum est pro patria jactura
As they have never said to the banker
who gambled away millions
Or to the politician who fiddled the books
to claim their ‘fair’ share of expenses
Or to the businessman who juggled his accounts
to avoid their ‘fair’ share of taxes
Or to the journalist who scooped
an exclusive from a murdered child’s phone
Or to Cabinet Minister who with the stroke of a pen
let the blood of his compatriots
Or to the General who with a word sent
the flower of our youth to their deaths
Sacrifice is never made by the elites
the ruling classes
the rich
the powerful
the deserving
So my friend, don’t believe them when they repeat the old lie:
Dulce et decorum est pro patria jactura
(It is sweet and honourable to sacrifice for one’s country)
Written with a large nod to the work of Wilfred Owen. The lies of the powerful cost the lives of the populace, as true now as it ever was.
Monday 1 October 2012
Friday 20 July 2012
Equal and Free
Written with my partner Iain Davidson
Toxic Tories tenure
Bi-polar buddies
Intae workfare no welfare
Social Scotland Supports
Welfare and wellbeing
Common sense and common weal
Scottish votes for Scottish dwelling folks
English votes for English dwelling folks
Fair is fair
And less is mair
Free to be nuclear free
Wi' social justice for you n me
England is a fine place
But we dinnae need tae live by her grace
As we will nae longer be
"Scrounging Scots" ye see
But countries equal
And countries free
Toxic Tories tenure
Bi-polar buddies
Intae workfare no welfare
Social Scotland Supports
Welfare and wellbeing
Common sense and common weal
Scottish votes for Scottish dwelling folks
English votes for English dwelling folks
Fair is fair
And less is mair
Free to be nuclear free
Wi' social justice for you n me
England is a fine place
But we dinnae need tae live by her grace
As we will nae longer be
"Scrounging Scots" ye see
But countries equal
And countries free
Thursday 28 June 2012
This is certainly a bit presumptious....
This has been growing in my thoughts for a while, and I've posted lots of similar sentiments over on Facebook, but I'm going to put it all together now. What follows is an open letter to the Yes Campaign, one that I am asking people to consider putting their support to. If that strikes you as cheeky, apologies in advance!
Dear Yes Scotland,
We are greatly encouraged to see that you have appointed Denis Canavan and Blair Jenkins to head up your campaign, but We would like to urge you to go a step further than this in ensuring the relative neutrality of the campaign. We believe in an Independent Scotland passionately, but we have great reservations about the political balance of the campaign. It is currently accepted that the SNP government will be responsible for post Yes vote negotiations and for the creation of the constitution, but we do not think that this is truly the democratic way forward. We would like for the Yes Scotland campaign to commit to holding an election to create a separate, elected, body of people from all walks of Scottish Society to negotiate the settlement with the rUK and to write a new constitution in consultation with the people of Scotland. In this way, Scotland can truly live up to the "beacon of progressiveness" that Alex Salmond has called for. We only need to look as far as Iceland for an example of such a process in action.
Much has changed in the world over the last ten years - much and at a great deal faster pace than in previous decades. To keep up with this fast changing world we must use all the tools it offers and build with flexibility and equality in mind. We believe this can only be achieved with as inclusive an approach to re-building our country as possible.
Finally, as was declared in Scotland's most enduring constitutional document, we the people of Scotland are sovereign and it is our right to seize upon the possibilities of modern life to exercise this sovereignty in a truly meaningful and enduring manner.
Signed
Angela Kerry Miller
To add your own signature please follow the link to the petition
Dear Yes Scotland,
We are greatly encouraged to see that you have appointed Denis Canavan and Blair Jenkins to head up your campaign, but We would like to urge you to go a step further than this in ensuring the relative neutrality of the campaign. We believe in an Independent Scotland passionately, but we have great reservations about the political balance of the campaign. It is currently accepted that the SNP government will be responsible for post Yes vote negotiations and for the creation of the constitution, but we do not think that this is truly the democratic way forward. We would like for the Yes Scotland campaign to commit to holding an election to create a separate, elected, body of people from all walks of Scottish Society to negotiate the settlement with the rUK and to write a new constitution in consultation with the people of Scotland. In this way, Scotland can truly live up to the "beacon of progressiveness" that Alex Salmond has called for. We only need to look as far as Iceland for an example of such a process in action.
Much has changed in the world over the last ten years - much and at a great deal faster pace than in previous decades. To keep up with this fast changing world we must use all the tools it offers and build with flexibility and equality in mind. We believe this can only be achieved with as inclusive an approach to re-building our country as possible.
Finally, as was declared in Scotland's most enduring constitutional document, we the people of Scotland are sovereign and it is our right to seize upon the possibilities of modern life to exercise this sovereignty in a truly meaningful and enduring manner.
Signed
Angela Kerry Miller
To add your own signature please follow the link to the petition
Wednesday 20 June 2012
Let the people seize the agenda.
So we're well off the starting blocks and on our way, the campaign has started and it's a mere two years until the referendum. With the No campaign (or however they are choosing to style it) launch this coming Friday, all of Scotland's political parties are ramping up for the fight of their lives and the rhetoric is already feisty as they compete for our attention and our opinions. The line has been drawn in the sand between the sides, and all oblivious to the rolling of eyes and heavy sighs of the electorate they are trying to charm, because I think that everyone can see, that in spite of the fact this Referendum is unprecedented in UK history, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the political parties have only one mode of campaigning. They have to persuade us, they have to gain our vote, they have to do as they have always done and "get their message across". What they don't realise is that we are in completely new territory altogether and this is not going to be they way to win the Referendum from either side.
The Referendum may be about politics, but it most certainly is not about political parties. The SNP can't win the Yes vote, only the people of Scotland can, because an Independent Scotland is our prize, not theirs. While the Unionist parties continue to attack Alex Salmond and try to conflate the idea of an Independent Scotland with some kind of notion of perpetual SNP government in Holyrood they are showing quite blatantly their inability to slip out of the game of party politics (which is like the Game of Thrones but a little less bloody and a lot less sexy). It's almost sickening to listen to them as they play the man and not the ball continually and has me wishing for a red card in my pocket so I can send all of them off the field. Apologies now for all the mixing of metaphors!
The SNP, in their desperation to be seen as positive and whiter than white in the campaign are walking into their own trap too. The slickness of presentation is amazing, but it lacks humanity. The careful massaging of their message is understandable, but comes across as borderline control freakery. The recent fracas over the alleged threat of the Greens to walk out of the Yes Scotland campaign, while it was greatly exaggerated by the media and not the whole truth by a long stretch, illustrates an underlying problem with the campaign as it stands. Perhaps it is time for the SNP to learn to let go of their cherished ideological baby and let it grow up for itself?
Illusions by Richard Bach opens with a parable about creatures clinging to the rocks in a river. They are safe, comfortable but inexperienced with the larger world. One of the creatures decides it's going to try and let go as it wants to experience what lies down river. The other creatures plead with it not to, but it goes it;s own way none the less. It gets battered and bruised on it's journey, it learns and experiences much, and comes out of the process a much wiser creature than it began.
The Referendum campaign needs to be freed from the clinging insecurities of all the political parties, and it needs to be allowed to run free among the people so that new ideas and ways of looking at things can be absorbed into the debate, both Independence and the Union. It will quickly become stale, if it isn't already, while both "sides" of the debate rehash and reiterate the same old tired notions and arguments. Do you think that a radical proposal that might actually save the Union will come from any involved political party? Of course not, they are already all far too well trained to step outside the boxes drawn for them by their political masters. Will truly radical ideas about how an Independent Scotland will work come from politicians? Not while Alex Salmonds softly, softly strategy remains in place.
Efforts are being made by the Yes Scotland campaign to be inclusive and non-party political, but this is a false premise really, as it is still ultimately run by political parties. The website is very swish, designed with social networking in mind and struggling very hard to be inclusive, but facebook is already doing it better without trying because through facebook people are self-organising. The No campaign website suffered some leakage recently, as did the Tory campaign Friends of the Union prior to it's launch. It all smacks of them giving us the chance to talk about it while still trying to keep hold of the agenda for themselves, in truth, and that is a terrible shame really.
It's not necessary any more, from either side, to be so rigid and controlled in this debate. This is not a General Election where the parties are selling themselves to the people. It's not like any of them are going to lose seats come the morning after the vote this time, it's not like any party will gain new power or authority the next morning either. This is not about them, it's about Scotland and where her people decide to take her.
So what can we do to seize control of the agenda then? How can we reign in our politicians and prevent them from putting the rest of us off the debate entirely? It's not really that hard. As I already said, groups are already self-organising on facebook, some of them with specific agendas and some of them as general discussion and news groups. Being that we are mostly geographically close enough, it isn't much of a leap for these groups to start working together offline too. Of course, it's not all about facebook - that's just what I am personally best at. The blogoshpere has long been host to a nation of Cybernats and can also be a source of alternative debate on the referendum. We are slowly learning how to bypass the mainstream media that is often so closed minded and restrictive about the referendum, and we can learn to bypass the politicians too by organising our own events, media and discussions that will allow a truly diverse range of voices to be heard
We no longer need the politicians to talk to us, we can start talking to each other and take control of the debate for ourselves. We don't need to be given different options by either side of the debate, we don't even need them to listen to us, so long as we are listening to each other, because the political parties need us - they need all of us - to make this decision for them. We can turn around and dictate to them what terms it will take for us to vote either yes or no. If we want, for example, control over the process of writing a new constitution, we have the power now to come together online and in our towns and villages and tell them this is what we want and this is what it will take for us to vote yes in the Referendum. We can force these issues because in post-referendum Scotland all of the political parties will be scrabbling to re-align themselves with the new landscape of Scottish Politics. For the political parties of Scotland there will be a whole load of new powers suddenly available to them, but they must ask us to grant those powers to them. That's where the true power in Scotland lies, now and in 2014.
The Referendum may be about politics, but it most certainly is not about political parties. The SNP can't win the Yes vote, only the people of Scotland can, because an Independent Scotland is our prize, not theirs. While the Unionist parties continue to attack Alex Salmond and try to conflate the idea of an Independent Scotland with some kind of notion of perpetual SNP government in Holyrood they are showing quite blatantly their inability to slip out of the game of party politics (which is like the Game of Thrones but a little less bloody and a lot less sexy). It's almost sickening to listen to them as they play the man and not the ball continually and has me wishing for a red card in my pocket so I can send all of them off the field. Apologies now for all the mixing of metaphors!
The SNP, in their desperation to be seen as positive and whiter than white in the campaign are walking into their own trap too. The slickness of presentation is amazing, but it lacks humanity. The careful massaging of their message is understandable, but comes across as borderline control freakery. The recent fracas over the alleged threat of the Greens to walk out of the Yes Scotland campaign, while it was greatly exaggerated by the media and not the whole truth by a long stretch, illustrates an underlying problem with the campaign as it stands. Perhaps it is time for the SNP to learn to let go of their cherished ideological baby and let it grow up for itself?
Illusions by Richard Bach opens with a parable about creatures clinging to the rocks in a river. They are safe, comfortable but inexperienced with the larger world. One of the creatures decides it's going to try and let go as it wants to experience what lies down river. The other creatures plead with it not to, but it goes it;s own way none the less. It gets battered and bruised on it's journey, it learns and experiences much, and comes out of the process a much wiser creature than it began.
The Referendum campaign needs to be freed from the clinging insecurities of all the political parties, and it needs to be allowed to run free among the people so that new ideas and ways of looking at things can be absorbed into the debate, both Independence and the Union. It will quickly become stale, if it isn't already, while both "sides" of the debate rehash and reiterate the same old tired notions and arguments. Do you think that a radical proposal that might actually save the Union will come from any involved political party? Of course not, they are already all far too well trained to step outside the boxes drawn for them by their political masters. Will truly radical ideas about how an Independent Scotland will work come from politicians? Not while Alex Salmonds softly, softly strategy remains in place.
Efforts are being made by the Yes Scotland campaign to be inclusive and non-party political, but this is a false premise really, as it is still ultimately run by political parties. The website is very swish, designed with social networking in mind and struggling very hard to be inclusive, but facebook is already doing it better without trying because through facebook people are self-organising. The No campaign website suffered some leakage recently, as did the Tory campaign Friends of the Union prior to it's launch. It all smacks of them giving us the chance to talk about it while still trying to keep hold of the agenda for themselves, in truth, and that is a terrible shame really.
It's not necessary any more, from either side, to be so rigid and controlled in this debate. This is not a General Election where the parties are selling themselves to the people. It's not like any of them are going to lose seats come the morning after the vote this time, it's not like any party will gain new power or authority the next morning either. This is not about them, it's about Scotland and where her people decide to take her.
So what can we do to seize control of the agenda then? How can we reign in our politicians and prevent them from putting the rest of us off the debate entirely? It's not really that hard. As I already said, groups are already self-organising on facebook, some of them with specific agendas and some of them as general discussion and news groups. Being that we are mostly geographically close enough, it isn't much of a leap for these groups to start working together offline too. Of course, it's not all about facebook - that's just what I am personally best at. The blogoshpere has long been host to a nation of Cybernats and can also be a source of alternative debate on the referendum. We are slowly learning how to bypass the mainstream media that is often so closed minded and restrictive about the referendum, and we can learn to bypass the politicians too by organising our own events, media and discussions that will allow a truly diverse range of voices to be heard
We no longer need the politicians to talk to us, we can start talking to each other and take control of the debate for ourselves. We don't need to be given different options by either side of the debate, we don't even need them to listen to us, so long as we are listening to each other, because the political parties need us - they need all of us - to make this decision for them. We can turn around and dictate to them what terms it will take for us to vote either yes or no. If we want, for example, control over the process of writing a new constitution, we have the power now to come together online and in our towns and villages and tell them this is what we want and this is what it will take for us to vote yes in the Referendum. We can force these issues because in post-referendum Scotland all of the political parties will be scrabbling to re-align themselves with the new landscape of Scottish Politics. For the political parties of Scotland there will be a whole load of new powers suddenly available to them, but they must ask us to grant those powers to them. That's where the true power in Scotland lies, now and in 2014.
Sunday 3 June 2012
Our best shot at reform by the people.
A yes vote will be a major chance to put in place important reforms needed in our politics that have been repeatedly fudged rather than addressed by Westminster. Four main issues, House of Lords reform, MP's expenses, issues of surrounding the lobbying of politicians by corporations, and Political Party funding reform. These are all fundamentally important to the health of our modern British Democracy.
When the Scottish Parliament was reconvened, rules were put in place to make a greater effort at Governmental transparency. Rules on MSP's expenses were much stricter than at Westminster. Lobbying rules were tighter and funding rules were tighter. We were not given a second chamber - devolution doesn't require it, so the problem of political appointee-ism that the House of Lords currently represents (notwithstanding the inclusion of the CofE Archbishops in the Lords) doesn't apply, yet.
Has anyone really forgotten the expenses scandal now that it's been pushed back from the parapet by other, more up-to-date events? Of course we haven't, it's filed at the back of our minds as yet another reason not to trust politicians. Are we aware that it's supposed to be fixed? Of course we are, but the real question is do we trust the fix? No, we are all well aware of the idiom about Turkey's not voting for Christmas.
Tied up with the fix was Political Party funding reform, but that has become a problem unto itself. It urgently needs fixing, but still our Political Parties are having trouble agreeing with each other the niggling details of how they propose to do it. Again it is reminiscent of Turkey's voting for Christmas. How can Political Parties be left to decide how Political Parties should be funded? Why were only representatives of the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour parties attending these talks? Are we to be expected that they will abide by the standards of 'Fair Play' taught to them in their public schools?
Then when they finally manage to come to some sort of consensus, it will be dragged before the meritocratic House of Lords. How is a Lord made these days? By following the party line no matter what, judging by some of the newly elevated modellers of the old ermine robes. Jack McConnel? Michael Forsyth? George Foulkes? Failed politicians rewarded for losing their places in democratically elected Parliaments with a lifelong seat at the table of the Lords. Good luck getting Lords Reform past these people - those cushioned benches seem to be pretty comfortable and the ermine robes are very warm in winter!
The lobbying of Government by "interested parties" is an issue that really deserves more coverage. Earlier this year the Government published it's proposal for a register of lobbyists. The proposed register will cover just 5% of lobbyists, being only those who lobby on behalf of a third party rather than those who lobby for their companies directly. This is hardly radical reform.
And here we sit, in the midst of ongoing financial turmoil caused by piratical corporatism (or corporate piraticalism) being governed by a party that gets more than 50% of it's funding from the City of London. What chance of much needed reform from Westminster? I'll tell you what chance, fat chance, frankly.
So, we all know we can't trust our political parties to deliver reform in Westminster, but what about in Edinburgh?
My biggest fear about Independence isn't that Scotland will become Skintland, or that Alex Salmond will become our perpetual Dear Leader, but that Holyrood doesn't stick itself to a constitution reigning in it's power to make decisions without the consent of the people of Scotland. I fear, as I have said before, Westminster-lite sat in Edinburgh.
In Iceland, the recent constitutional reforms have taken on a new and radical direction. The recently re-elected President of Iceland went into a good bit of detail about it in an interview he gave earlier this year which is well worth a read, but the gist of it is this, taken from the article Why Iceland should be in the news but is not. 1
The beauty of the internet is that if we have an issue with one form of communication like this, we can simply plug in something in another format to fix it. If you want to have more static debates, you can go and build yourself a forum from any number of free sites, put together one that meets your needs and then link that to the discussions in your facebook group.
Of course, I'm not in any way advocating our constitution gets written via facebook and free forums, but these could provide a template for a site dedicated to the writing of the constitution. I am fully aware that the SNP already have a written constitution, but surely things have changed a great deal since it was written and it would be far more appropriate to write a new constitution for today's Scotland, and to do it in such a way as any Scot can have an input. There should be a constitution roadshow too, to bring the process to the people who cannot either access it online or make their way to the Parliament to take part.
This is what it takes to build a true democracy, this is what it will take to build Alex Salmond's "progressive beacon" and this is what it will take to reform our democracy so that it cannot be taken advantage of by wealth and privilege. Since the people were not consulted in 1707, then in truth they must be consulted in 2014, and not just in the ballot box.
1 I am aware of the mistakes in the cited article but feel the model provided is still an excellent representation of a model for the creation of the Scottish Constitution.
When the Scottish Parliament was reconvened, rules were put in place to make a greater effort at Governmental transparency. Rules on MSP's expenses were much stricter than at Westminster. Lobbying rules were tighter and funding rules were tighter. We were not given a second chamber - devolution doesn't require it, so the problem of political appointee-ism that the House of Lords currently represents (notwithstanding the inclusion of the CofE Archbishops in the Lords) doesn't apply, yet.
Has anyone really forgotten the expenses scandal now that it's been pushed back from the parapet by other, more up-to-date events? Of course we haven't, it's filed at the back of our minds as yet another reason not to trust politicians. Are we aware that it's supposed to be fixed? Of course we are, but the real question is do we trust the fix? No, we are all well aware of the idiom about Turkey's not voting for Christmas.
Tied up with the fix was Political Party funding reform, but that has become a problem unto itself. It urgently needs fixing, but still our Political Parties are having trouble agreeing with each other the niggling details of how they propose to do it. Again it is reminiscent of Turkey's voting for Christmas. How can Political Parties be left to decide how Political Parties should be funded? Why were only representatives of the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour parties attending these talks? Are we to be expected that they will abide by the standards of 'Fair Play' taught to them in their public schools?
Then when they finally manage to come to some sort of consensus, it will be dragged before the meritocratic House of Lords. How is a Lord made these days? By following the party line no matter what, judging by some of the newly elevated modellers of the old ermine robes. Jack McConnel? Michael Forsyth? George Foulkes? Failed politicians rewarded for losing their places in democratically elected Parliaments with a lifelong seat at the table of the Lords. Good luck getting Lords Reform past these people - those cushioned benches seem to be pretty comfortable and the ermine robes are very warm in winter!
The lobbying of Government by "interested parties" is an issue that really deserves more coverage. Earlier this year the Government published it's proposal for a register of lobbyists. The proposed register will cover just 5% of lobbyists, being only those who lobby on behalf of a third party rather than those who lobby for their companies directly. This is hardly radical reform.
And here we sit, in the midst of ongoing financial turmoil caused by piratical corporatism (or corporate piraticalism) being governed by a party that gets more than 50% of it's funding from the City of London. What chance of much needed reform from Westminster? I'll tell you what chance, fat chance, frankly.
So, we all know we can't trust our political parties to deliver reform in Westminster, but what about in Edinburgh?
My biggest fear about Independence isn't that Scotland will become Skintland, or that Alex Salmond will become our perpetual Dear Leader, but that Holyrood doesn't stick itself to a constitution reigning in it's power to make decisions without the consent of the people of Scotland. I fear, as I have said before, Westminster-lite sat in Edinburgh.
In Iceland, the recent constitutional reforms have taken on a new and radical direction. The recently re-elected President of Iceland went into a good bit of detail about it in an interview he gave earlier this year which is well worth a read, but the gist of it is this, taken from the article Why Iceland should be in the news but is not. 1
To write the new constitution, the people of Iceland elected twenty-five citizens from among 522 adults not belonging to any political party but recommended by at least thirty citizens. This document was not the work of a handful of politicians, but was written on the internet. The constituent’s meetings are streamed on-line, and citizens can send their comments and suggestions, witnessing the document as it takes shape. The constitution that eventually emerges from this participatory democratic process will be submitted to parliament for approval after the next elections.Internet technology actually allows for participatory democracy to become a reality. Look at the basic structure of a facebook group. Anyone can be allowed to post questions or points of argument, anyone can be allowed to post polls or respond to them. The polls have a useful tie-in between a user account and a vote on a poll, accurately preventing the problem of multiple votes which dogs most online snap polling. Admittedly, for something that requires a secret ballot this is not helpful, but for voting on issues in an open forum, it's ideal. The documents section allows for documents to be edited by a group of people together, and allows for a discussion on the contents of the document. Put all of these things together and you can have quite an effective forum for political debate and action. It's not perfect though, and good debates can get quickly lost as other posts displace them.
The beauty of the internet is that if we have an issue with one form of communication like this, we can simply plug in something in another format to fix it. If you want to have more static debates, you can go and build yourself a forum from any number of free sites, put together one that meets your needs and then link that to the discussions in your facebook group.
Of course, I'm not in any way advocating our constitution gets written via facebook and free forums, but these could provide a template for a site dedicated to the writing of the constitution. I am fully aware that the SNP already have a written constitution, but surely things have changed a great deal since it was written and it would be far more appropriate to write a new constitution for today's Scotland, and to do it in such a way as any Scot can have an input. There should be a constitution roadshow too, to bring the process to the people who cannot either access it online or make their way to the Parliament to take part.
This is what it takes to build a true democracy, this is what it will take to build Alex Salmond's "progressive beacon" and this is what it will take to reform our democracy so that it cannot be taken advantage of by wealth and privilege. Since the people were not consulted in 1707, then in truth they must be consulted in 2014, and not just in the ballot box.
1 I am aware of the mistakes in the cited article but feel the model provided is still an excellent representation of a model for the creation of the Scottish Constitution.
Tuesday 22 May 2012
Women for Scottish Independence.... controversial?
I got up this mornin', and I made myself a page. Yeah, I got up this mornin, and I made myself a page. Didn't see the trollin' comin', comin' straight for me....
Er... ahem. Anyway..
Today I founded the Women for Scottish Independence page on Facebook, then I spent a little while plugging it to a handful of groups and pages. Immediately the likes started rolling in, which is very gratifying, but I also started to see something I'd not really been expecting, and that was a fair amount of vitriol at the very idea of there being such a page.
The first accusation I came across was that it was sexist. Sexist? Really? The point of the page is to encourage discussion about an issue which deeply affects the Referendum campaign, and that is the lack of specifically female support. There are more women than men in Scotland folks, we really do need to look at this issue, I'm afraid, and we need to engage women in it both in discovering what the problem is and in finding the solution. Are Fathers 4 Justice sexist by the same token?
The second accusation was a bit of a stunner. There is shouldn't be such a group, apparently, it's segregationist. Currently facebook hasn't put a 'ban by gender' option on the plate so even though the vast majority of likes the page received today were from women, a few men did have the tenacity to sneak through under my nose. The cheek of it... they'll be hearing us talk about our secret women's issues and Mark Zuckerberg wont let me stop them! Of course, the whole premise of the accusation is a total nonsense, our page is hardly segregated from the rest of the world and isn't about to become segregated. What it does do is provide a forum for people to discuss the issues of Independence that affect women and it aims to do so without any party-political bias so that it can be as open as it needs to be. There are some issues, even now in the 21st century I'm afraid, that affect women more deeply than men, so women are going to be in the majority of people active on the page.
Er... ahem. Anyway..
Today I founded the Women for Scottish Independence page on Facebook, then I spent a little while plugging it to a handful of groups and pages. Immediately the likes started rolling in, which is very gratifying, but I also started to see something I'd not really been expecting, and that was a fair amount of vitriol at the very idea of there being such a page.
The first accusation I came across was that it was sexist. Sexist? Really? The point of the page is to encourage discussion about an issue which deeply affects the Referendum campaign, and that is the lack of specifically female support. There are more women than men in Scotland folks, we really do need to look at this issue, I'm afraid, and we need to engage women in it both in discovering what the problem is and in finding the solution. Are Fathers 4 Justice sexist by the same token?
The second accusation was a bit of a stunner. There is shouldn't be such a group, apparently, it's segregationist. Currently facebook hasn't put a 'ban by gender' option on the plate so even though the vast majority of likes the page received today were from women, a few men did have the tenacity to sneak through under my nose. The cheek of it... they'll be hearing us talk about our secret women's issues and Mark Zuckerberg wont let me stop them! Of course, the whole premise of the accusation is a total nonsense, our page is hardly segregated from the rest of the world and isn't about to become segregated. What it does do is provide a forum for people to discuss the issues of Independence that affect women and it aims to do so without any party-political bias so that it can be as open as it needs to be. There are some issues, even now in the 21st century I'm afraid, that affect women more deeply than men, so women are going to be in the majority of people active on the page.
The third accusation was pretty bizarre. Apparently we don't need such a page at all, and we shouldn't be bothering. Honestly? When women form 7% more of the population than men and still only 45 of our 129 MSP's are women, women make up only 24% of our local councillors and get only a third of public appointments, we don't need to bother with a page aimed at increasing female participation in Scottish politics? Is this what we call equality? Are we wrong to try and figure out how to change this? When I tried to question this gently, I was told rather summarily that women don't need help to participate, they should simply speak up for themselves and if they won't that is their own fault. I guess that also means we don't need to address the alarming decline in voter turnout either? It's fine to let the ruling classes get on with alienating people from politics with the kind of behaviour we've seen from the Coalition government in Westminster and to never try to reach out to all of those disaffected voters who just won't speak up is it? It's got nothing to do with the prevailing feeling of not being listened to that so many people report has it?
OK, so the last one really got me a bit upset. Of course that's not the way forward. We need to look at the issues that women don't feel are being addressed, and we need to do it out of the glare of the mainstream political forum of party politics so that they don't feel intimidated. I'm not inferring that women are timid here, just in case you wondered, I just think that it is a huge disincentive to speak out for most people regardless of gender, and this is the best approach to take.
One last little point, the majority of hostility the page received today was from women and not men. The vast majority of feedback we have had has been hearteningly positive, and I want to thank everyone for their support. For the Yes vote to carry the day in Autumn 2014, we need to work to bring all of the disaffected on board with us, we need to build consensus politics with the strength of voice and diversity that will trump the playground politics that currently undermines our democracy. With the page we're reaching out to the biggest disaffected group in Scotland, and I am not going to apologise for doing that.
PS. Maybe some people will be a little upset with the tone of this article, I will apologise for that as I am not out to make people angry. I simply needed to address the above issues for the sake of my own sanity before bed tonight, otherwise that blues song is going to keep going round and round and round in my head to the wee small hours of the morning!
Wednesday 2 May 2012
Over the line
Is it just me, or has a line been crossed in what is considered acceptable practice in a democratic country? I just looked up at facebook to see that the UK Government is banning ticket holders to Olympic events from taking photographs. Now, to be honest with you, I really don't care much for the Olympics, in fact, I think I can quite safely say I've been against the idea since before the bid was won. This has no bearing on the increasing alarm I feel at such restrictions being placed by a supposedly democratic Government.
Now this 'line' I'm talking about hasn't just recently been breached. To my mind, the first attempt at crossing the line was made with the Criminal Justice bill 1988, but it probably wasn't until after 9/11 that it was truly breached. What is the line I'm referring to? It's the line over which Ministers no longer even consider what the electorate thinks of their rights being curbed. It's the line when they stop saying to themselves "The voters won't like that," not the line where they stop taking it into account. If you think I'm being a little dramatic here, or if you think that we are doing much better now than say, 2 centuries ago perhaps, then consider this rather scary notion about whether or not Robert Burns would have been jailed under modern laws for his work.
Look at the increasingly invasive and restricting laws trotting their way through the Parliament in Westminster right now. Our government thinks nothing of demanding the right to snoop in our emails and social networking, they think nothing of preventing us from having free access to the Internet, they give tax breaks to the rich and are making poor people pay for the mess of management, legislation and piratical capitalism with 'austerity measures' that look increasingly like a massive privatisation drive. Meanwhile, back at the Olympics, they are stuffing the rooftops with Surface-to-air missiles and the skies with aircraft in the name of security. Wonder what it would look like to the rest of the world if a riot broke out and the rioters took hold of one of those SAM sites?
Look at the UK as it stands. CCTV is more prevalent here than in the rest of the world, we are no longer allowed to gather before Parliament to protest, the police, although not routinely armed, use delightful tactics such as 'kettling' on peaceful protests and have used the powers given them under the Terrorism Act (2000) in such a way that the European Court had to intervene in 2010. What about last summers riots in England? The young, poorly educated and disaffected may have gone on a criminal rampage and caused large amounts of damage, but they are poorly educated and disaffected, they have been failed by the system that was supposed to help them. The response in handing out horribly harsh sentences to those who were caught did not even try to address the causes. Do you think the increasing bite of Austerity is going make things any better for people from these deprived parts of these islands? I don't think so. It looks to me like we are heading into a downward spiral of state intervention that will leave our human rights scattered behind it like ash on the breeze.
There is so much blatant disregard for Human Rights in the UK that they have become more associated with things that prisoners shouldn't be allowed than what the rest of us should! Perhaps, with our 'British' sense of 'entitlement' we don't think we need our human rights safeguarded? That seems somewhat typical of the short-term thinking rife in Westminster politics currently, which is driven by populism and the desire to woo swing voters in the South-East of England. Nobody ever seems to imagine that this kind of infringement of our human rights might ever be turned on us.
Yet, that's exactly what is happening. Banning people from taking personal photographs and posting them on social networking sites might not seem like an infringement of human rights, but it's definitely an infringement of privacy, and we do have a basic right to privacy in the UK!. Passing laws to snoop on email and other internet correspondence of private British Subjects is also a huge infringement of privacy, and therefore an infringement of our human rights!
Public outcry is treated with contempt too, though. Look at how little has been done in practical terms to deal with the perpetrators of the banking crisis, or at the tokenism of the MP's sacrificed in the expenses scandal. While party leaders are still tripping over themselves to ingratiate their party with The Sun, we are treated to the spectacle of the Leveson Inquiry. There is so much mock outrage from the Political Parties over phone hacking, while they are concurrently trying to pass laws that let them do exactly the same thing to anyone in the country. Who believes Leveson will end with anything other than a fudge and a string of legal action from the celebrities that can afford such a thing?
We the electorate are here merely to be consulted once every 5 years on who gets to exercise the Royal Prerogative. Election promises are made and ditched practically on one breath and there is very little effort to stem the tumbling turnout numbers for elections (with the exception of the 2010 UK GE). Look what happened to the AV referendum. Cobbled together as a sop for the Lib-Dems to get them on board for the coalition, it was undermined and undersold deliberately so that there could be no drastic change to the electoral system, even though there was genuine concern about the result of the 2010 UK GE. We were also promised the right to recall MP's who were not living up to their obligations, but the bill that has been drafted has been branded 'deeply flawed' as the ultimate power in it really lies with the Government, not the electorate. There is a lot of hot air about the "West Lothian Question" but not a whole load of action being taken - Scottish MP's from Labour and the Lib-Dems (oh, and David Mundell) still vote on English issues and it's now been 13 years since the Scottish Parliament opened and 35 years since Tam Dalyell proposed it. The political will for reform of the political system that benefits the political parties so much is minimal. And, of course, there is Lords reform, which has been such a long, painful process and is yet to lead to a single vote being cast by the people for a member of the so-called 'Upper House'.
Which takes us in a very round about way back to my original point. Our government in Westminster actually cares nothing at all for what the electorate think of their actions. We are not even in their thoughts, except as a statistic to work around. Time and time again, they attack our rights and freedoms, and we do very little except grow increasingly apathetic. The line has been crossed, voters are merely operating in a consultative fashion and politicians even treat that level of contemplation with contempt. Democracy in the UK is entirely dysfunctional, and this is leading to a dangerous erosion of our rights. What's to be done about it?
Now this 'line' I'm talking about hasn't just recently been breached. To my mind, the first attempt at crossing the line was made with the Criminal Justice bill 1988, but it probably wasn't until after 9/11 that it was truly breached. What is the line I'm referring to? It's the line over which Ministers no longer even consider what the electorate thinks of their rights being curbed. It's the line when they stop saying to themselves "The voters won't like that," not the line where they stop taking it into account. If you think I'm being a little dramatic here, or if you think that we are doing much better now than say, 2 centuries ago perhaps, then consider this rather scary notion about whether or not Robert Burns would have been jailed under modern laws for his work.
Look at the increasingly invasive and restricting laws trotting their way through the Parliament in Westminster right now. Our government thinks nothing of demanding the right to snoop in our emails and social networking, they think nothing of preventing us from having free access to the Internet, they give tax breaks to the rich and are making poor people pay for the mess of management, legislation and piratical capitalism with 'austerity measures' that look increasingly like a massive privatisation drive. Meanwhile, back at the Olympics, they are stuffing the rooftops with Surface-to-air missiles and the skies with aircraft in the name of security. Wonder what it would look like to the rest of the world if a riot broke out and the rioters took hold of one of those SAM sites?
Look at the UK as it stands. CCTV is more prevalent here than in the rest of the world, we are no longer allowed to gather before Parliament to protest, the police, although not routinely armed, use delightful tactics such as 'kettling' on peaceful protests and have used the powers given them under the Terrorism Act (2000) in such a way that the European Court had to intervene in 2010. What about last summers riots in England? The young, poorly educated and disaffected may have gone on a criminal rampage and caused large amounts of damage, but they are poorly educated and disaffected, they have been failed by the system that was supposed to help them. The response in handing out horribly harsh sentences to those who were caught did not even try to address the causes. Do you think the increasing bite of Austerity is going make things any better for people from these deprived parts of these islands? I don't think so. It looks to me like we are heading into a downward spiral of state intervention that will leave our human rights scattered behind it like ash on the breeze.
There is so much blatant disregard for Human Rights in the UK that they have become more associated with things that prisoners shouldn't be allowed than what the rest of us should! Perhaps, with our 'British' sense of 'entitlement' we don't think we need our human rights safeguarded? That seems somewhat typical of the short-term thinking rife in Westminster politics currently, which is driven by populism and the desire to woo swing voters in the South-East of England. Nobody ever seems to imagine that this kind of infringement of our human rights might ever be turned on us.
Yet, that's exactly what is happening. Banning people from taking personal photographs and posting them on social networking sites might not seem like an infringement of human rights, but it's definitely an infringement of privacy, and we do have a basic right to privacy in the UK!. Passing laws to snoop on email and other internet correspondence of private British Subjects is also a huge infringement of privacy, and therefore an infringement of our human rights!
Public outcry is treated with contempt too, though. Look at how little has been done in practical terms to deal with the perpetrators of the banking crisis, or at the tokenism of the MP's sacrificed in the expenses scandal. While party leaders are still tripping over themselves to ingratiate their party with The Sun, we are treated to the spectacle of the Leveson Inquiry. There is so much mock outrage from the Political Parties over phone hacking, while they are concurrently trying to pass laws that let them do exactly the same thing to anyone in the country. Who believes Leveson will end with anything other than a fudge and a string of legal action from the celebrities that can afford such a thing?
We the electorate are here merely to be consulted once every 5 years on who gets to exercise the Royal Prerogative. Election promises are made and ditched practically on one breath and there is very little effort to stem the tumbling turnout numbers for elections (with the exception of the 2010 UK GE). Look what happened to the AV referendum. Cobbled together as a sop for the Lib-Dems to get them on board for the coalition, it was undermined and undersold deliberately so that there could be no drastic change to the electoral system, even though there was genuine concern about the result of the 2010 UK GE. We were also promised the right to recall MP's who were not living up to their obligations, but the bill that has been drafted has been branded 'deeply flawed' as the ultimate power in it really lies with the Government, not the electorate. There is a lot of hot air about the "West Lothian Question" but not a whole load of action being taken - Scottish MP's from Labour and the Lib-Dems (oh, and David Mundell) still vote on English issues and it's now been 13 years since the Scottish Parliament opened and 35 years since Tam Dalyell proposed it. The political will for reform of the political system that benefits the political parties so much is minimal. And, of course, there is Lords reform, which has been such a long, painful process and is yet to lead to a single vote being cast by the people for a member of the so-called 'Upper House'.
Which takes us in a very round about way back to my original point. Our government in Westminster actually cares nothing at all for what the electorate think of their actions. We are not even in their thoughts, except as a statistic to work around. Time and time again, they attack our rights and freedoms, and we do very little except grow increasingly apathetic. The line has been crossed, voters are merely operating in a consultative fashion and politicians even treat that level of contemplation with contempt. Democracy in the UK is entirely dysfunctional, and this is leading to a dangerous erosion of our rights. What's to be done about it?
Sunday 29 April 2012
Be the change you want to see...
One of the things in the referendum campaign so far that really seems odd to me is the amount of debate about "How the SNP envisages and Independent Scotland". There seems to be a presumption on the part of the Anti-Independence parties that the SNP somehow owns the idea of an Independent Scotland and therefore is not simply allowed a monopoly on what it will be, but must provide answers about this secret Scotland they have in mind because they are keeping things about it from the rest of us.
There's so many things wrong with that approach that it's difficult to know where to start. I've heard it so many times and had it thrown at myself often enough, and it always strikes me as being completely back to front. Of course, the anti-independence parties want us all to think that Independence is solely the hair-brained notion of the SNP. They'd even like you to think that it's just Alec Salmond's idea if they can pin it on him, because then they can be ultra lazy and discredit Independence by discrediting Salmond.
So, you're busy with something at work one day and one of your workmates comes up to you, knowing of course that you are a supporter of Independence, and asks you "So, what's the point in becoming Independent just to go and join the EU?"
How do you answer this question? If you find yourself justifying the policy, saying things like "The EU will be good for Scottish trade," or "Being in the EU gives us an automatic market for our oil," then without realising it, you are still playing the game the anti-independence parties have set up for us, conflating SNP policy with the Scotland's constitutional future.
In fact, if you find yourself justifying any stated SNP policy for post-independence you're doing the same. Keeping the Queen as the head of state, retaining Sterling, not joining Nato (still SNP policy now, and I won't be surprised if it doesn't stay that way) and getting rid of Trident - these are all SNP policies, not things set in stone for the future of Scotland. These things will form the core of the SNP's post-independence manifesto, but we'll all get another chance to vote on that, and on the policies of the post-independence opposition parties. If people don't like these policies, they can do what they've always done and vote accordingly. Who knows how things are going to pan out afterwards.
We seem alarmingly prepared to acknowledge that the next two years are going to involve a lot of party political backstabbing and mudslinging to discredit the Independence debate. Why are we prepared to accept such a closed political debate? If the anti-independence parties manage to dictate the terms of the debate in this fashion, then it will not engage the already largely disaffected electorate. Years of political scandal have taken their toll, many people feel that politicians are only in it for themselves and dwindling voter turnout stand as testament to the growing antipathy of voters towards politics. We cannot allow such an important democratic decision to fall foul of this unhealthy trend.
Instead of becoming bogged down in party politics, why not ask people what kind of Scotland they would like to see instead? Gently challenge them to think about what Independence could mean, and in doing so, invite them into the debate. Too much of the story of the campaign so far is based around what the SNP, or Alec Salmond, would do with an Independent Scotland and this is drowning out the debate that needs to happen, in which every voice in Scotland needs to be heard.
We can sit around waiting for the anti-independence parties to allow the debate to become broader. We can sit around and wait for the media in Scotland to become balanced. We can sit around and wait for them to start playing fair, but really, can we guarantee that any of those things will actually happen?
Think about the flurry of negative press that the Independence debate has received recently by proxy of all the attacks on Alec Salmond. We are being forced onto the defensive by things which have nothing to do with the merits of the Independence case. If this debate is to be treated like what it should be, then we must collectively take it upon ourselves to force this much needed shift. Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world," and we should apply this here.
So, the next time someone engages you about what the SNP policy is for post-independence, ask them what they would like to see in an Independent Scotland. Get them to consider what kind of Scotland they feel would be worth voting for, because this is their chance to vote for a new kind of Scotland, and we cannot let people feel they are being left out of the debate by the politics of it. If we allow it to be played along party political lines, a great many people will turn away, and even if the majority of engaged voters vote yes, Scotland will suffer from a democratic hangover on Independence day.
There's so many things wrong with that approach that it's difficult to know where to start. I've heard it so many times and had it thrown at myself often enough, and it always strikes me as being completely back to front. Of course, the anti-independence parties want us all to think that Independence is solely the hair-brained notion of the SNP. They'd even like you to think that it's just Alec Salmond's idea if they can pin it on him, because then they can be ultra lazy and discredit Independence by discrediting Salmond.
So, you're busy with something at work one day and one of your workmates comes up to you, knowing of course that you are a supporter of Independence, and asks you "So, what's the point in becoming Independent just to go and join the EU?"
How do you answer this question? If you find yourself justifying the policy, saying things like "The EU will be good for Scottish trade," or "Being in the EU gives us an automatic market for our oil," then without realising it, you are still playing the game the anti-independence parties have set up for us, conflating SNP policy with the Scotland's constitutional future.
In fact, if you find yourself justifying any stated SNP policy for post-independence you're doing the same. Keeping the Queen as the head of state, retaining Sterling, not joining Nato (still SNP policy now, and I won't be surprised if it doesn't stay that way) and getting rid of Trident - these are all SNP policies, not things set in stone for the future of Scotland. These things will form the core of the SNP's post-independence manifesto, but we'll all get another chance to vote on that, and on the policies of the post-independence opposition parties. If people don't like these policies, they can do what they've always done and vote accordingly. Who knows how things are going to pan out afterwards.
We seem alarmingly prepared to acknowledge that the next two years are going to involve a lot of party political backstabbing and mudslinging to discredit the Independence debate. Why are we prepared to accept such a closed political debate? If the anti-independence parties manage to dictate the terms of the debate in this fashion, then it will not engage the already largely disaffected electorate. Years of political scandal have taken their toll, many people feel that politicians are only in it for themselves and dwindling voter turnout stand as testament to the growing antipathy of voters towards politics. We cannot allow such an important democratic decision to fall foul of this unhealthy trend.
Instead of becoming bogged down in party politics, why not ask people what kind of Scotland they would like to see instead? Gently challenge them to think about what Independence could mean, and in doing so, invite them into the debate. Too much of the story of the campaign so far is based around what the SNP, or Alec Salmond, would do with an Independent Scotland and this is drowning out the debate that needs to happen, in which every voice in Scotland needs to be heard.
We can sit around waiting for the anti-independence parties to allow the debate to become broader. We can sit around and wait for the media in Scotland to become balanced. We can sit around and wait for them to start playing fair, but really, can we guarantee that any of those things will actually happen?
Think about the flurry of negative press that the Independence debate has received recently by proxy of all the attacks on Alec Salmond. We are being forced onto the defensive by things which have nothing to do with the merits of the Independence case. If this debate is to be treated like what it should be, then we must collectively take it upon ourselves to force this much needed shift. Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world," and we should apply this here.
So, the next time someone engages you about what the SNP policy is for post-independence, ask them what they would like to see in an Independent Scotland. Get them to consider what kind of Scotland they feel would be worth voting for, because this is their chance to vote for a new kind of Scotland, and we cannot let people feel they are being left out of the debate by the politics of it. If we allow it to be played along party political lines, a great many people will turn away, and even if the majority of engaged voters vote yes, Scotland will suffer from a democratic hangover on Independence day.
Friday 6 April 2012
I'm offended when you call me Anti-English.
Ok, I'm being blunt here, but it's true. If we've got two years to settle this Referendum for me this is something I want off my chest and out of the way before we go much farther.
Yes, I am Scottish and do not identify with the word British except as a geographical and historical concept. I certainly do not choose to conflate it with the word English. I find many connotations of the historical aspect of the word British abhorrent, in much the way I find the British National Party abhorrent. The jingoism and the superciliousness I associate with the BNP and the colonial British Empire are things I would not like other people to associate with me. I apologise if you personally associate with those words in a different way and my stance is offending you, it would be hypocritical of me not to. Can we choose to understand it as a dispute of linguistics, and not of personal Identity?
Yes, I have voted and will continue to vote for the SNP. Just because it is simple to switch an S for a B on paper does not make the two parties similar in pretty much anything else. Weren't the BNP recently forced to change their party membership rules because they were blatantly racist? By contrast, our Nationalist Party have a fundamentally inclusive philosophy in their politics. It's Nationalism isn't about birthright, it's about living in the country of Scotland. In fact, if you go have a look at this New Statesman article you will read that:
And finally, yes, I will be voting Yes in 2014. This has got nothing to do with wanting to cut Scotland adrift at Hadrian's Wall so we can physically isolate ourselves from the English. Actually, if that were possible and we could row Scotland to the Caribbean for better weather, then I'd want to take the English with us too, frankly. We're all a bit pasty and lacking in vitamin D here in the British Isles. Can someone give Ireland a tow too while we're at it?
Oh, wait, I've ticked all the anti-English boxes there, haven't I? I've said Yes, I'm Scottish, not British. Yes, I am an SNP voter. Yes, I am even an activist and I will vote Yes in the Referendum. I've made my Declaration of Scottishness and declared common ground with the anti-English party. You may now feel that you can now be at liberty to call me anti-English with impunity,but that really does offend me, because a fundamental part of what I believe in is an all-inclusive society. In fact, I want the charge of anti-Englishness put to bed now so we can get on to real reasons why we would want to go down this path.
There could be some vision in someone's head, doubtless, of an SNP conference gathering sounding like something out of Monty Python's Life of Brian, but in the negative. In this hypothetical head, the cry will be imagined "What have the English ever done for us?" to be followed by some horrendous list of charges of stealing all our oil, our industries and dumping their toxic waste on us. But that's not reality, sorry. For starters, nobody in Scotland truly lays the blame for these things at the feet of the English people, we know exactly who is responsible for them. It's the Government in Westminster at fault for these things, and I most certainly do not conflate the Westminster Government with the English people. England is a wonderful country actually, with a fascinating, parallel, history to our own, a long history too, with a deep culture and a wonderful language for expressing all of that in.
So, in honour of one great bastion of Englishness, the aformentioned Monty Python, here is my own little list of "Things the English have done for us." It's by no means comprehensive, and it's largely based on my own tastes, but I hope it proves my point!
Pink Floyd
The Beatles
The Sex Pistols
Association Football
Robin Hood
JRR Tolkien
Alan Turing
Tim Banners-Lee
The internal combustion engine
The Micro-chip
James Dyson and the Dyson
The corkscrew
The magnifying glass
Sir Isaac Newton
The small pox vaccine
The first motion picture camera and projector
Stephen Hawking
Comics
Seth Lakeman
Black Sabbath (and Ozzy Osbourne)
Withnail and I
Watership Down and Richard Adams
The Rollling Stones
Richard Dawkins
Richard Attenburgh
Brian Cox
Jackie Morris
Stonehenge
The Swinging Sixties
The Word
Ready Steady Go!
Leicester
Shakespeare
All my English family and friends *hugs*
Stephen Fry
The Mighty Boosh
League of Gentlemen
Blackadder
York
Alastair Crowley
High -Tea and Sandwiches
Romantic Poets and Artists
Siegfried Sassoon
Lewis Carroll
FC Barcelona
And I could go on, but this is more than enough to start with! Thank you, England, I love all of these things you've given us, but I'm sorry but I still think I'm going to vote yes. Why? because you gave these things to the whole world, and I just want my wee northern nation to be part of that whole world. And, I'd like to see you become part of the whole world too, because I think you secretly want to be able to just call all these wonderful things English and be done with it, and I'm entirely behind you on that one.
Yes, I am Scottish and do not identify with the word British except as a geographical and historical concept. I certainly do not choose to conflate it with the word English. I find many connotations of the historical aspect of the word British abhorrent, in much the way I find the British National Party abhorrent. The jingoism and the superciliousness I associate with the BNP and the colonial British Empire are things I would not like other people to associate with me. I apologise if you personally associate with those words in a different way and my stance is offending you, it would be hypocritical of me not to. Can we choose to understand it as a dispute of linguistics, and not of personal Identity?
Yes, I have voted and will continue to vote for the SNP. Just because it is simple to switch an S for a B on paper does not make the two parties similar in pretty much anything else. Weren't the BNP recently forced to change their party membership rules because they were blatantly racist? By contrast, our Nationalist Party have a fundamentally inclusive philosophy in their politics. It's Nationalism isn't about birthright, it's about living in the country of Scotland. In fact, if you go have a look at this New Statesman article you will read that:
according to Professor James Mitchell of Strathclyde University, these attacks are odds with the reality of contemporary nationalism. In his recent study, The Scottish National Party: Transition to Power, Mitchell argues that the party's understanding of national identity is perfectly consistent with the standards of 21st Century liberalism. He writes,the SNP is civic in the sense that its policies are among the most liberal of any party in the United Kingdom on citizenship, emigration and multiculturalism. Additionally, very few of its members would define Scottishness in exclusive ethnic terms. The SNP membership accep! ts a plurality of ways (being Scottish)." In other words, for the majority of SNP members, Scottishness is something an individual chooses, rather than something he or she has foisted on them by birth or through the bloodline.Yes, I would be willing to call myself an SNP activist, or perhaps, worse still, a cybernat, but just as the good professor explains above, that doesn't actually have to make me anti-english at all! I do what I do because I can see their is an opportunity to be seized upon here, a chance to make things better for Scotland and the folk who live here simply by allowing ourselves the freedom to make all the decisions about Scottish affairs here in Scotland.
And finally, yes, I will be voting Yes in 2014. This has got nothing to do with wanting to cut Scotland adrift at Hadrian's Wall so we can physically isolate ourselves from the English. Actually, if that were possible and we could row Scotland to the Caribbean for better weather, then I'd want to take the English with us too, frankly. We're all a bit pasty and lacking in vitamin D here in the British Isles. Can someone give Ireland a tow too while we're at it?
Oh, wait, I've ticked all the anti-English boxes there, haven't I? I've said Yes, I'm Scottish, not British. Yes, I am an SNP voter. Yes, I am even an activist and I will vote Yes in the Referendum. I've made my Declaration of Scottishness and declared common ground with the anti-English party. You may now feel that you can now be at liberty to call me anti-English with impunity,but that really does offend me, because a fundamental part of what I believe in is an all-inclusive society. In fact, I want the charge of anti-Englishness put to bed now so we can get on to real reasons why we would want to go down this path.
There could be some vision in someone's head, doubtless, of an SNP conference gathering sounding like something out of Monty Python's Life of Brian, but in the negative. In this hypothetical head, the cry will be imagined "What have the English ever done for us?" to be followed by some horrendous list of charges of stealing all our oil, our industries and dumping their toxic waste on us. But that's not reality, sorry. For starters, nobody in Scotland truly lays the blame for these things at the feet of the English people, we know exactly who is responsible for them. It's the Government in Westminster at fault for these things, and I most certainly do not conflate the Westminster Government with the English people. England is a wonderful country actually, with a fascinating, parallel, history to our own, a long history too, with a deep culture and a wonderful language for expressing all of that in.
So, in honour of one great bastion of Englishness, the aformentioned Monty Python, here is my own little list of "Things the English have done for us." It's by no means comprehensive, and it's largely based on my own tastes, but I hope it proves my point!
Pink Floyd
The Beatles
The Sex Pistols
Association Football
Robin Hood
JRR Tolkien
Alan Turing
Tim Banners-Lee
The internal combustion engine
The Micro-chip
James Dyson and the Dyson
The corkscrew
The magnifying glass
Sir Isaac Newton
The small pox vaccine
The first motion picture camera and projector
Stephen Hawking
Comics
Seth Lakeman
Black Sabbath (and Ozzy Osbourne)
Withnail and I
Watership Down and Richard Adams
The Rollling Stones
Richard Dawkins
Richard Attenburgh
Brian Cox
Jackie Morris
Stonehenge
The Swinging Sixties
The Word
Ready Steady Go!
Leicester
Shakespeare
All my English family and friends *hugs*
Stephen Fry
The Mighty Boosh
League of Gentlemen
Blackadder
York
Alastair Crowley
High -Tea and Sandwiches
Romantic Poets and Artists
Siegfried Sassoon
Lewis Carroll
FC Barcelona
And I could go on, but this is more than enough to start with! Thank you, England, I love all of these things you've given us, but I'm sorry but I still think I'm going to vote yes. Why? because you gave these things to the whole world, and I just want my wee northern nation to be part of that whole world. And, I'd like to see you become part of the whole world too, because I think you secretly want to be able to just call all these wonderful things English and be done with it, and I'm entirely behind you on that one.
Tuesday 3 April 2012
Rigging the referendum consultation?
Pot calling kettle black?
There are numerous problems with this accusation. First, of course, there is the simple fact that all consultations in recent years have been run under very similar lines, like the consultation process for the Smoking Ban, run by the Labour/Lib-Dem coalition Scottish Executive. But there's a much bigger problem, if you ask me, and one that Labour seem to have conveniently forgotten.
Over the first few months of the year the Scottish Office at Westminster has also been running their own consultation. They are very keen to tell us that the vast majority of respondents want the referendum brought forward to 2013, for example. That's very interesting, I'm sure, but considering that the Scottish Labour website not only gave you a form for your email address and name, they very kindly filled out the rest of the form for you with this suggested response.
The referendum on Scotland’s constitutional future is hugely important, and I want to have my say on how the referendum is run. I want it to be legal, fair, and decisive.LegalI do not want the referendum to be subject to legal challenge or dragged through the courts. Clarity on which parliament has the legal responsibility to call the referendum must be sorted out.FairI want the referendum to be supervised by the Electoral Commission, and I am opposed to any attempt to water down their role. They must have the legal power to rule on the wording of the question.DecisiveThere should only be one question in order to give a definitive answer on whether or not Scotland remains part of the UK. I do not support attempts to muddy the water with further questions on other matters. I want the referendum sooner rather than later and do not see the need to wait almost three years.Please take my views into account.
They also suggested a subject for you too, since, possibly, being Scottish makes this all too difficult for you. Just in case you were in any doubt this is their idea of how to respond to a consultation, to the right of the form there was a little message, "Sending the message on the left means you will send an email response to the Scottish Government consultation." There were 3000 responses to this consultation, which is now closed. The claim that 70% of respondents did not want to wait to 2014 rather uncannily echoes the wording of the above suggested response. I've been unable to find a breakdown of how many of the 3000 responses came through the Scottish Labour website. I made my own through it, but of course I deleted the suggested response. I've also made my own, non-anonymous response to the Scottish Government consultation.
Last night on Newsnight Scotland Kezia Dugdale seems to categorically accept Jim Eadie's contention that 1500 of the responses each from both the Scottish Government and the UK Government consultations came through the Labour website as above. 1500 amounts to half of all the responses received for the UK Government consultation altogether? Who's rigging it? At around 6.46 Kezia Dugdale makes her admission.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B04p9uf5bKs&feature=player_embedded#!
I'd like to suggest to Scottish Labour that they look to their own arguable rigged referendum consultation before criticising the Scottish Government's one. Unfortunately, the problem isn't just in the Scottish Labour Party. Our own dear Scottish Secretary seems to see nothing wrong with calling the Scottish Government's Referendum consultation rigged even while telling us all quite clearly the extent of the jiggery-pokery going on with his.
On Good Morning Scotland this morning, Scottish Secretary Michael Moore said that of the 3000 or so responses to The Referendum on Separation for Scotland consultation, the UK Government "had 740 that are the text of which was the same as the Labour party text on their website".
He claimed that this didn't concern him, "because that was consistent with a number of others from across Scotland who are also in favour of a single question and wanting to have this sooner rather than later".
So in other words, more than 25% of their responses consisted of Identical Text, and Michael Moore doesn't believe his consultation needs independent verification.
He also claimed that this UK Government consultatiation, "confirms support for the Government's approach to the referendum, that we need to have a legal, fair and decisive referendum", without out even a hint of irony!
Now I took myself off to the Scottish Government Referendum Consultation website because Michael Moore told us in the same interview that the Scottish Government had put a similar automatic response to their question on The Question, but I didn't find that there at all. In fact every box below every question on the on-line form is left blank for your very own response, as if we Scots do indeed have brains enough to answer these important questions for ourselves.
Saturday 31 March 2012
The case for the vulnerable in Scottish Society
My partner and I home educate our son, who is a sufferer of Asperger's Syndrome and Cortical Visual Impairment. Among my closest friends I count sufferers of Mental Health disorders and among many of my close acquaintances I have several who are recovering addicts. I myself have suffered from Mental Health issues in the past. I believe the current term for all of us is Service Users. There is a great deal of stigma attached to these issues, but also a great deal to be overcome with the professions that we have to deal with on a regular basis.
Many of my friends, who are in delicate states of mind for all of their various reasons, have to go through the trauma of proving to the system that they genuinely need it's help, not just once, to their own GP for example, but to the benefit authorities, to social services, to schools and to charities and other grants giving bodies. This puts an immense strain on the claimant, their families and their carers. Changes that have already been implemented to the benefits system have left many vulnerable people being forced into work or go through a lengthy and stressful appeals system. These are changes happening now, not the awful changes currently making their way through Westminster just now, but the changes already implemented.
I am not going to speak for any of my friends here, but I am going to cite the case of the treatment our family received from our local LEA. Our son was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome when he was eight years old. We had already withdrawn him from our local school after Primary 1 because he was having clear difficulties that the school were putting down to bad behaviour. If I were to be truly honest, we were left feeling that we were to blame for his poor behaviour as being bad parents. Before I go on, I feel I must mention in their most recent HMIE report they were given a rating of good at meeting learning needs and good for Learners's experiences.
When he came to Secondary age we all decided to give the School a second chance, as my son is very keen on Science and we lack a laboratory. We took the long approach and contacted the LEA an entire year in advance of his joining S1, and tried to use that opportunity to describe his needs to the School so they could be able to deal with him sensibly.
Here I have to explain a little bit about Cortical Visual Impairment. At the start of this process, we did not have this diagnosis for some of our son's issues, but we began a re-diagnosis period to make sure the School could get access to all of the relevant material about him. This involved regular sessions on anxiety therapy, a lengthy re-assessment of his Asperger's, an occupational therapy report, a language therapist's report, visits to the Neurologist and eye tests. Already that's at least six people we had to take our son to so that he could prove he had extra needs in a school environment, without including out local GP's who have both seen him for his issues.
We then spoke to our first Educational psychologist, who was very open to our thinking and supportive. Unfortunately, she was standing in for her regular colleague and we did not get to deal with her again. We began to go to the local school for meetings with the head master and staff, working to arrange a period of orientation for our son into the school. We explained that he becomes highly anxious in unfamiliar places and about crowded places. We asked for a flex-schooling approach, as he has low levels of energy and would need a good deal of time to adjust to formal Schooling. We asked for support for him through classes so that he could have the extra help he needs with many tasks. We asked for him not to attend classes like PE and Technical Design because of the noise levels and high number of potential triggers for our son's anxiety problems. We asked for him to have a laptop for lessons because he suffers from a tremor that makes handwriting difficult. Handwriting is also an issue for sufferer's CVI, we subsequently learned.
These might seem to the casual observer as quite a long list of demands, but we had at that point been dealing with our son's difficulties full-time for ten years. We understood ad recognised his problems, and had gone to the trouble to make sure we had the medical advice to back us up.
The very first hurdle was over induction and orientation time. The school already ran a series of induction days for all upcoming primary sevens from our area and our son was invited to these. No extra orientation time at all was offered, even though we repeatedly requested it. Next our son had to undertake a series of tests with the (new) Educational Psychologist, to prove once again that there were areas in which he both had difficulty with and others were he excelled. Then there were more meetings, and the school was still not prepared to meet the things we had asked for. Our son attended some of the induction days. We had more meetings, complaints had to be made about the conduct of the staff at some of these meetings as things were beginning to become highly stressful for us with the schools continuing intransigence.
Summer came and went, and a full year into the process of trying to get our son into school with suitable provisions, he did not finally begin until September, when at last the school made concessions over flexi-schooling and laptop provision. They insisted all along that their teachers would be well informed and had been trained to deal with problems of our son's nature.
Pause for a second here and consider Aspergers Syndrome. Asperger's is a condition on the Autism spectrum. It is considered to be 'high-functioning' meaning that those with the syndrome are usually highly intelligent, often obsessive, verbally communicative and capable of a reasonable degree of independence in many areas. They can also suffer from a severe dislike of sudden change and any uncertainty, and they are often very awkward socially. They can be very comforted by ritual and routine. But, and this is an important but, these are only general symptoms and some sufferer's can be very different or not have some of those symptoms. A lack of imagination is often a symptom, but one thing our son does not lack is imagination, he is a keen story writer and also an expert at creating scenarios that make him panic when faced with unfamiliar or sudden events.
The year he was in S1 contained so many disasters that to list them here would be both tedious, draining and, frankly, personally upsetting. Our son was repeatedly accused of bad behaviour and the school repeatedly blame us for imposing "preferential" treatment for him. We went as far as to get take out an FOI on his records, place formal complaints, take those complaints to the council's Corporate Complaints dept., get sick line's from the doctor because our son was becoming increasingly anxious with every day at school and to attend mediated meetings where nothing constructive ever took place. It ended with an ultimatum from the school that we either send our son Full-time, part-time to their timetable or to withdraw him from school again. By this point we were going through the process of talking to a child psychologist and a neurologist about our son and they both agreed that the classroom environment was an unhealthy one for our son. They recommended we went back to home education, which is exactly what we did.
This was not the end of the process, as we now had to deal with the de-registration process, which was a trial in itself this time. Last time we did it we withdrew Alex over the course of one summer and it was actually painless. This time we had to meet a social worker and an officer from the LEA to approve our request.
The number of people we have had to explain our son to has been phenomenal, but worse still is the number of so-called professionals that have failed to listen to our advice about our son has been nothing short of criminal.
We are not alone, we are not unique. The heavy weight of the hand of the state on it's vulnerable members is not currently a source for good at all, but a source for great stress and worsening of many problems. If you take the case for not extraditing Gary McKinnon, a large part of it hinges on the possibility of the likliehood of introducing psychosis to Gary because sufferer's of Asperger's and ASD are much more prone to such things while under stress than other people.
The UK Government wants to make this harder for vulnerable people. They will want to put my son into a work placement when he is older, and we cannot trust them not to send him somewhere where his problems will be exacerbated. The UK Governement wants to decide whether terminally ill people should be assessed to see if they are fit for work. The UK Government plans to introduce big changes to DLA for children. The UK Government plans all in a timeline that runs all the way through the referendum campaign up until 2016. These benefit changes are utterly unwelcome and frankly cruel, and we can avoid them by gaining our Independence from such toxic Westminster policies. The economic argument is familiar but the social democratic argument is becoming clearer. We need to have Scotland's future in Scotland's hands to redress the awful damage the current system does to our vulnerable people. We have to opportunity to bring some sanity and unity to the process of helping our vulnerable people. That's good enough for me to vote yes.
Many of my friends, who are in delicate states of mind for all of their various reasons, have to go through the trauma of proving to the system that they genuinely need it's help, not just once, to their own GP for example, but to the benefit authorities, to social services, to schools and to charities and other grants giving bodies. This puts an immense strain on the claimant, their families and their carers. Changes that have already been implemented to the benefits system have left many vulnerable people being forced into work or go through a lengthy and stressful appeals system. These are changes happening now, not the awful changes currently making their way through Westminster just now, but the changes already implemented.
I am not going to speak for any of my friends here, but I am going to cite the case of the treatment our family received from our local LEA. Our son was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome when he was eight years old. We had already withdrawn him from our local school after Primary 1 because he was having clear difficulties that the school were putting down to bad behaviour. If I were to be truly honest, we were left feeling that we were to blame for his poor behaviour as being bad parents. Before I go on, I feel I must mention in their most recent HMIE report they were given a rating of good at meeting learning needs and good for Learners's experiences.
When he came to Secondary age we all decided to give the School a second chance, as my son is very keen on Science and we lack a laboratory. We took the long approach and contacted the LEA an entire year in advance of his joining S1, and tried to use that opportunity to describe his needs to the School so they could be able to deal with him sensibly.
Here I have to explain a little bit about Cortical Visual Impairment. At the start of this process, we did not have this diagnosis for some of our son's issues, but we began a re-diagnosis period to make sure the School could get access to all of the relevant material about him. This involved regular sessions on anxiety therapy, a lengthy re-assessment of his Asperger's, an occupational therapy report, a language therapist's report, visits to the Neurologist and eye tests. Already that's at least six people we had to take our son to so that he could prove he had extra needs in a school environment, without including out local GP's who have both seen him for his issues.
We then spoke to our first Educational psychologist, who was very open to our thinking and supportive. Unfortunately, she was standing in for her regular colleague and we did not get to deal with her again. We began to go to the local school for meetings with the head master and staff, working to arrange a period of orientation for our son into the school. We explained that he becomes highly anxious in unfamiliar places and about crowded places. We asked for a flex-schooling approach, as he has low levels of energy and would need a good deal of time to adjust to formal Schooling. We asked for support for him through classes so that he could have the extra help he needs with many tasks. We asked for him not to attend classes like PE and Technical Design because of the noise levels and high number of potential triggers for our son's anxiety problems. We asked for him to have a laptop for lessons because he suffers from a tremor that makes handwriting difficult. Handwriting is also an issue for sufferer's CVI, we subsequently learned.
These might seem to the casual observer as quite a long list of demands, but we had at that point been dealing with our son's difficulties full-time for ten years. We understood ad recognised his problems, and had gone to the trouble to make sure we had the medical advice to back us up.
The very first hurdle was over induction and orientation time. The school already ran a series of induction days for all upcoming primary sevens from our area and our son was invited to these. No extra orientation time at all was offered, even though we repeatedly requested it. Next our son had to undertake a series of tests with the (new) Educational Psychologist, to prove once again that there were areas in which he both had difficulty with and others were he excelled. Then there were more meetings, and the school was still not prepared to meet the things we had asked for. Our son attended some of the induction days. We had more meetings, complaints had to be made about the conduct of the staff at some of these meetings as things were beginning to become highly stressful for us with the schools continuing intransigence.
Summer came and went, and a full year into the process of trying to get our son into school with suitable provisions, he did not finally begin until September, when at last the school made concessions over flexi-schooling and laptop provision. They insisted all along that their teachers would be well informed and had been trained to deal with problems of our son's nature.
Pause for a second here and consider Aspergers Syndrome. Asperger's is a condition on the Autism spectrum. It is considered to be 'high-functioning' meaning that those with the syndrome are usually highly intelligent, often obsessive, verbally communicative and capable of a reasonable degree of independence in many areas. They can also suffer from a severe dislike of sudden change and any uncertainty, and they are often very awkward socially. They can be very comforted by ritual and routine. But, and this is an important but, these are only general symptoms and some sufferer's can be very different or not have some of those symptoms. A lack of imagination is often a symptom, but one thing our son does not lack is imagination, he is a keen story writer and also an expert at creating scenarios that make him panic when faced with unfamiliar or sudden events.
The year he was in S1 contained so many disasters that to list them here would be both tedious, draining and, frankly, personally upsetting. Our son was repeatedly accused of bad behaviour and the school repeatedly blame us for imposing "preferential" treatment for him. We went as far as to get take out an FOI on his records, place formal complaints, take those complaints to the council's Corporate Complaints dept., get sick line's from the doctor because our son was becoming increasingly anxious with every day at school and to attend mediated meetings where nothing constructive ever took place. It ended with an ultimatum from the school that we either send our son Full-time, part-time to their timetable or to withdraw him from school again. By this point we were going through the process of talking to a child psychologist and a neurologist about our son and they both agreed that the classroom environment was an unhealthy one for our son. They recommended we went back to home education, which is exactly what we did.
This was not the end of the process, as we now had to deal with the de-registration process, which was a trial in itself this time. Last time we did it we withdrew Alex over the course of one summer and it was actually painless. This time we had to meet a social worker and an officer from the LEA to approve our request.
The number of people we have had to explain our son to has been phenomenal, but worse still is the number of so-called professionals that have failed to listen to our advice about our son has been nothing short of criminal.
We are not alone, we are not unique. The heavy weight of the hand of the state on it's vulnerable members is not currently a source for good at all, but a source for great stress and worsening of many problems. If you take the case for not extraditing Gary McKinnon, a large part of it hinges on the possibility of the likliehood of introducing psychosis to Gary because sufferer's of Asperger's and ASD are much more prone to such things while under stress than other people.
The UK Government wants to make this harder for vulnerable people. They will want to put my son into a work placement when he is older, and we cannot trust them not to send him somewhere where his problems will be exacerbated. The UK Governement wants to decide whether terminally ill people should be assessed to see if they are fit for work. The UK Government plans to introduce big changes to DLA for children. The UK Government plans all in a timeline that runs all the way through the referendum campaign up until 2016. These benefit changes are utterly unwelcome and frankly cruel, and we can avoid them by gaining our Independence from such toxic Westminster policies. The economic argument is familiar but the social democratic argument is becoming clearer. We need to have Scotland's future in Scotland's hands to redress the awful damage the current system does to our vulnerable people. We have to opportunity to bring some sanity and unity to the process of helping our vulnerable people. That's good enough for me to vote yes.
Wednesday 28 March 2012
In a week when Michael Forsyth and Ian Paisley made sense.
I can't decide which quote this week amazes me more. Is it the Reverend Ian Paisley's magnanimous statement :
or is it Michael Forsyth's basic admission that Government Ministers know more about the south of France than Scotland :
Does this sound like, with two years left to go, that the Unionists are giving up? Much as I'd like to say yes, I doubt it. When the balance sheet of the UK becomes more closely examined in the run up to 2014, then we'll see real panic set in. I've seen a lot of commentators say that the Unionists are already panicking, and while this may well be true of Scottish Labour seeing as they have so much to lose come May this year, I don't think either the Tories or the Lib Dems are quite at that point. The Lib Dems have been in gentle decline for almost a century, and this taste of power that Cameron offered them has turned so sour that the gentle decline is turning into a head long plunge to oblivion. The Tories have only one MP in Scotland and don't really care much for the devolved party in Scotland. They just don't care enough from a political stand point. Currently, we're not worth the trouble we're causing.
No, the Lib Dems and the Tories aren't panicking, they are being condescending. The scare stories being circulated by them are truly what they think will bring us back into line. There's no co-ordination between any of the parties, simply because it's not being given enough credit yet for true cross-party action, and with Labour tail-spinning north of the wall, because they are on the brink of losing their northern fiefdom long before the referendum, they can't risk co-ordinating with the other parties because of their obvious toxicity. Do you think Johann Lamont was truly grateful for Ed Milliband's token public statement of support for the Co-alition line on Scotland, knowing full well how toxic the Tory brand is in Scotland? Of course she has to play the faithful underling, but she deals with the day to day politics of Scotland and has in the past tried to link the SNP to the Tories to try and gain from that same toxicity.
Michael Forsyth is right though, they aren't getting their act together at all, and Scotland is already well engaged in the debate about her future. Meanwhile, Westminster just keeps throwing occasional glances our way to see if we're still too scared by their stories to vote yes. The polls still look that way. Anyway, we can see the gradual upward trend towards yes from poll to poll anyway, so we know that with time on our side, we are going to win.
But here's the point, and here Ian Paisley has the right of it too, some point within the next two they will realise that we are a canny lot, that the pro-independence arguments have been well thought out and are being positively put to us, while they have been busy engaging most of their attention elsewhere and occasionally throwing their laughably negative nonsense our way to keep in the debate. Remember how confident Iain Gray was this time last year? Remember their campaign? The Unionists haven't given up, but for the most part they are kidding themselves. Labour has a clue about what's going on, but doesn't have a clue about what to do about it. The Tories and the Lib Dems are too caught up in Europe, the banking crisis and Westminster politics to really have a clue at all.
We have momentum now, but we musn't take it for granted that the current state of affairs is going to remain. Michael Forsyth's words may well lead to the beginning of a waking up to what this Referendum really means for the whole of the UK, or maybe it will be someone else further down the line, but eventually there will be a co-ordinated and well funded No campaign and we will have to start the fight for real. We are holding pretty much all of the cards now, but we've got to watch out for our opponents bluffing us!
The Scottish people are a canny lot, I should know, my mother was Scottish! I fail to see what all the angst is concerning the question to be put in the upcoming referendum. The Scots know exactly what they want, know how to get it, and probably would greatly appreciate it if we left them alone to make their own decision.
or is it Michael Forsyth's basic admission that Government Ministers know more about the south of France than Scotland :
"I think that's probably true. What alarms me is that when I got into the House of Commons in 1983 almost every Tory supported the Union and was committed to it. Now I find Conservative MPs saying in increasing numbers 'Why do we need Scotland?' and abandoning the unionist position."
Does this sound like, with two years left to go, that the Unionists are giving up? Much as I'd like to say yes, I doubt it. When the balance sheet of the UK becomes more closely examined in the run up to 2014, then we'll see real panic set in. I've seen a lot of commentators say that the Unionists are already panicking, and while this may well be true of Scottish Labour seeing as they have so much to lose come May this year, I don't think either the Tories or the Lib Dems are quite at that point. The Lib Dems have been in gentle decline for almost a century, and this taste of power that Cameron offered them has turned so sour that the gentle decline is turning into a head long plunge to oblivion. The Tories have only one MP in Scotland and don't really care much for the devolved party in Scotland. They just don't care enough from a political stand point. Currently, we're not worth the trouble we're causing.
No, the Lib Dems and the Tories aren't panicking, they are being condescending. The scare stories being circulated by them are truly what they think will bring us back into line. There's no co-ordination between any of the parties, simply because it's not being given enough credit yet for true cross-party action, and with Labour tail-spinning north of the wall, because they are on the brink of losing their northern fiefdom long before the referendum, they can't risk co-ordinating with the other parties because of their obvious toxicity. Do you think Johann Lamont was truly grateful for Ed Milliband's token public statement of support for the Co-alition line on Scotland, knowing full well how toxic the Tory brand is in Scotland? Of course she has to play the faithful underling, but she deals with the day to day politics of Scotland and has in the past tried to link the SNP to the Tories to try and gain from that same toxicity.
Michael Forsyth is right though, they aren't getting their act together at all, and Scotland is already well engaged in the debate about her future. Meanwhile, Westminster just keeps throwing occasional glances our way to see if we're still too scared by their stories to vote yes. The polls still look that way. Anyway, we can see the gradual upward trend towards yes from poll to poll anyway, so we know that with time on our side, we are going to win.
But here's the point, and here Ian Paisley has the right of it too, some point within the next two they will realise that we are a canny lot, that the pro-independence arguments have been well thought out and are being positively put to us, while they have been busy engaging most of their attention elsewhere and occasionally throwing their laughably negative nonsense our way to keep in the debate. Remember how confident Iain Gray was this time last year? Remember their campaign? The Unionists haven't given up, but for the most part they are kidding themselves. Labour has a clue about what's going on, but doesn't have a clue about what to do about it. The Tories and the Lib Dems are too caught up in Europe, the banking crisis and Westminster politics to really have a clue at all.
We have momentum now, but we musn't take it for granted that the current state of affairs is going to remain. Michael Forsyth's words may well lead to the beginning of a waking up to what this Referendum really means for the whole of the UK, or maybe it will be someone else further down the line, but eventually there will be a co-ordinated and well funded No campaign and we will have to start the fight for real. We are holding pretty much all of the cards now, but we've got to watch out for our opponents bluffing us!
Monday 26 March 2012
Russell Brown MP, a case study in Scottish MP's in Westminster
My local MP is Russell Brown of the Labour party. He became my MP due to boundary changes that created Galloway and West Dumfries incorporating my old constituency of Galloway and Upper Nithsdale. Galloway and Upper Nithsdale had been in a state of regular change from Tory to SNP for many years, with negligible Labour support, so to suddenly find myself in a Labour constituency in such a way felt a little undemocratic to me.
Now I have a very strong feeling of the wrongness in Scottish MP's voting on matters of English interest only, so I decided to have a look at Mr Brown's voting record. It's pretty depressing reading, to be honest.
Russel Brown voted moderately for University Tuition fees, for the hunting ban (a matter which is reserved to Holyrood for Scotland, personally I agree with the Hunting Ban), for greater autonomy for English Schools, voted for the English smoking ban, for the introduction of Foundation Hospitals in the English and Welsh NHS, for the anti-terrorism laws and he never rebels against his party in Parliament.
Other things that Mr Brown has voted for which were Reserved matters, in spite of strong opposition in Scotland are for the introduction of ID cards, against a wholly elected House of Lords, for the Iraq war, against investigation into the Iraq War and for replacing Trident.
Yes, Russell Brown is the fairly elected representative of Galloway and West Dumfries, but in all of the above things I can't see him adequately representing Scottish interests in Westminster, and am disgusted by his record of voting for controversial legislation in Westminster that does not affect Scotland and would not pass into law in Scotland.
I believe that we should all be challenging our Unionist MP's on their voting record in Westminster as a part of our argument for Scottish Independence. It's as equally valid an argument to say that they have no mandate on English affairs as it is to say that the Coalition Governement of Westminster has no mandate to dictate on Scottish affairs like the Referendum. This is a double standard that can be eradicated by Independence, as we well know.
Go have a look at your local Unionist MPs voting record here, and you just might feel motivated to write to them and express your feelings about their voting on English matters that have nothing to do with them.
We so-called cybernats are often accused of being anti-english, but looking at the record above I almost feel that Russell Brown is anti-english as he is having a hand in dismantling Free Education in England and England's NHS, two cornerstones of what Unionists believe make Britain a fair and equal society.
As we move towards the Referendum, it is important to inform ourselves just about how our Scottish MP's are representing us in the Westminster Parliament. I personally do not want to be represented in a way which allows English people to rightly complain that they are helping to take away such vital things from English public life. I want the English to have the same level of care in health and education as we Scots enjoy, but it's not for us to dictate that to them. I also want the Americans to have those same cornerstones of a fair society, but I wouldn't dream of sending Scottish congressmen to America to vote either way on these matters.
Independence is a very simple premise, in the end. It is the the right for the people of a country to determine their own government and services. English Independence from Scotland is just as important to me as Scottish Independence from England, because that is going to be the only way we will achieve fair democracy in these islands. So long as MP's like Russel Brown continue to be sent south to intervene on the behalf of their party in English politics, that just isn't going to be achieved.
Now I have a very strong feeling of the wrongness in Scottish MP's voting on matters of English interest only, so I decided to have a look at Mr Brown's voting record. It's pretty depressing reading, to be honest.
Russel Brown voted moderately for University Tuition fees, for the hunting ban (a matter which is reserved to Holyrood for Scotland, personally I agree with the Hunting Ban), for greater autonomy for English Schools, voted for the English smoking ban, for the introduction of Foundation Hospitals in the English and Welsh NHS, for the anti-terrorism laws and he never rebels against his party in Parliament.
Other things that Mr Brown has voted for which were Reserved matters, in spite of strong opposition in Scotland are for the introduction of ID cards, against a wholly elected House of Lords, for the Iraq war, against investigation into the Iraq War and for replacing Trident.
Yes, Russell Brown is the fairly elected representative of Galloway and West Dumfries, but in all of the above things I can't see him adequately representing Scottish interests in Westminster, and am disgusted by his record of voting for controversial legislation in Westminster that does not affect Scotland and would not pass into law in Scotland.
I believe that we should all be challenging our Unionist MP's on their voting record in Westminster as a part of our argument for Scottish Independence. It's as equally valid an argument to say that they have no mandate on English affairs as it is to say that the Coalition Governement of Westminster has no mandate to dictate on Scottish affairs like the Referendum. This is a double standard that can be eradicated by Independence, as we well know.
Go have a look at your local Unionist MPs voting record here, and you just might feel motivated to write to them and express your feelings about their voting on English matters that have nothing to do with them.
We so-called cybernats are often accused of being anti-english, but looking at the record above I almost feel that Russell Brown is anti-english as he is having a hand in dismantling Free Education in England and England's NHS, two cornerstones of what Unionists believe make Britain a fair and equal society.
As we move towards the Referendum, it is important to inform ourselves just about how our Scottish MP's are representing us in the Westminster Parliament. I personally do not want to be represented in a way which allows English people to rightly complain that they are helping to take away such vital things from English public life. I want the English to have the same level of care in health and education as we Scots enjoy, but it's not for us to dictate that to them. I also want the Americans to have those same cornerstones of a fair society, but I wouldn't dream of sending Scottish congressmen to America to vote either way on these matters.
Independence is a very simple premise, in the end. It is the the right for the people of a country to determine their own government and services. English Independence from Scotland is just as important to me as Scottish Independence from England, because that is going to be the only way we will achieve fair democracy in these islands. So long as MP's like Russel Brown continue to be sent south to intervene on the behalf of their party in English politics, that just isn't going to be achieved.
Tuesday 20 March 2012
Votes at 16
I'm going to begin this article by explaining why this issue is particularly close to my heart. My son, who is current;y 13 and a half will be 16 years old in the summer before the Referendum. We've discussed this with him, as we often discuss politics in our house, and he is very keen to be able to vote on Scotland's future. It will be his Scotland after all, at least he'll have a part share of Scotland with all of our young people.
When I was at the Spring Conference I attended a fringe meeting on Votes at Sixteen and was highly impressed with the young speakers on the panel, in particular Grant Costello MYSP and David Linden were passionate and articulate speakers who we should be watching out for in the future.
The gist of the meeting was a very simple, at 16 young people can get married, get a job, join the armed forces and most crucially, pay taxes. The very notion that someone who contributes to the state with a portion of their hard earned money has no say in what the make-up of the elected government is actually a complete contravention of democratic principals. In her maiden address to Parliament, Winnie Ewing backed the contemporary bill passing to reduce the voting age from 21 to 18, but also suggested that it should be dropped to 16 rather than 18. The policy of votes at 16 is not a new one for the SNP, and was backed by a party motion at conference in the 1980's. The idea that the SNP want to bring forward this issue now because they believe that 16 and 17 year olds are more likely to vote for Independence is a poorly constructed argument by the opposition parties. Just like any voter at any age, they can determine which way they choose to vote for themselves, and it's certainly presumptuous of the anti-independence camp to say that they believe this age group will support Independence.
A study recently found that it is vitally important to establish voting patterns early in a voters career. People who begin early and are engaged on an important issue are much more likely to become repeat voters than people who do not start early. The upcoming referendum represents an ideal chance to start a healthy pattern of high voter turnout in an Independent Scotland. Current voter apathy means that large swathes of the country are going without representation, because they are not being engaged on issues that they feel affect them and they don't believe that politics improves their lives. If we can engage the young through the referendum, then we can create a generation of people who are engaged in politics and do believe that it can make a difference to their lives.
We must work fast to get the franchise for 16 and 17 year olds to give them the chance to vote in the referendum, as it will take time to get the legislation through Westminster. The first step is to get the 100,000 signatories to the e-petition on the Government website. Sign it here and help a future generation have a say on the biggest question to ever be put to the Scottish people as a whole.
When I was at the Spring Conference I attended a fringe meeting on Votes at Sixteen and was highly impressed with the young speakers on the panel, in particular Grant Costello MYSP and David Linden were passionate and articulate speakers who we should be watching out for in the future.
The gist of the meeting was a very simple, at 16 young people can get married, get a job, join the armed forces and most crucially, pay taxes. The very notion that someone who contributes to the state with a portion of their hard earned money has no say in what the make-up of the elected government is actually a complete contravention of democratic principals. In her maiden address to Parliament, Winnie Ewing backed the contemporary bill passing to reduce the voting age from 21 to 18, but also suggested that it should be dropped to 16 rather than 18. The policy of votes at 16 is not a new one for the SNP, and was backed by a party motion at conference in the 1980's. The idea that the SNP want to bring forward this issue now because they believe that 16 and 17 year olds are more likely to vote for Independence is a poorly constructed argument by the opposition parties. Just like any voter at any age, they can determine which way they choose to vote for themselves, and it's certainly presumptuous of the anti-independence camp to say that they believe this age group will support Independence.
A study recently found that it is vitally important to establish voting patterns early in a voters career. People who begin early and are engaged on an important issue are much more likely to become repeat voters than people who do not start early. The upcoming referendum represents an ideal chance to start a healthy pattern of high voter turnout in an Independent Scotland. Current voter apathy means that large swathes of the country are going without representation, because they are not being engaged on issues that they feel affect them and they don't believe that politics improves their lives. If we can engage the young through the referendum, then we can create a generation of people who are engaged in politics and do believe that it can make a difference to their lives.
We must work fast to get the franchise for 16 and 17 year olds to give them the chance to vote in the referendum, as it will take time to get the legislation through Westminster. The first step is to get the 100,000 signatories to the e-petition on the Government website. Sign it here and help a future generation have a say on the biggest question to ever be put to the Scottish people as a whole.
Sunday 18 March 2012
A week with Unionists
This week I've had a few very interesting debates with unionists regarding Scottish Independence.
One of my neighbours, a very amenable chap whom I've known for about 20 years, engaged me in discussion about Independence after discussing the mooted STV series about William Wallace (Fingers crossed for Gerard Butler as Wallace!). We both had a few snide comments to make about the historical accuracy of Mel Gibson's effort, but that brought us round to the oft mooted opinion of Unionists that much of Scottish Nationalism is about looking back into the far past and being caught up in a foolishly romantic idea that it was somehow better then than it is now. Not true, ladies and gentlemen, would you swap the wonders of the internet, electricity and indoor toilets for the hard fought Independence of the 1300s? I wouldn't, I'd quite like to have a modern Independent Scotland thank you very much.
He made a point about nationalism that I'm sure many people are familiar with, that all nationalism is bad as it implies that somehow we as a people who believe in our nation do so from the vantage point of looking down on all other nations. He even used the Hitler argument, which is a hard one to take while keeping a smile on your face! I told him that our nationalism isn't about being better than others, it's just about being better placed to deal with Scotland's unique problems.
So of course, he switched tacks to say that without England, Scotland couldn't pay it's way. I mentioned our pay our of tax, he asked me how much we get back so we agreed to go away and check those figures exactly. Alex Massie answered the question for me, we pay out 9.4% of UK tax and receive 9.3% of expenditure, figures which are taken from the GERS report. My neighbour has written to our local MSP for the same figures, who just happens to be Alex Fergusson, so I'm already a little curious as to what kind of reply he'll get!
By comparison to the other discussion I had, where my opponent quoted Nigel Farrage at me, this was a very civilised and pleasant debate, in spite of the use of the H-word. Throughout all though, I kept smiling and trying to put my point across with figures and facts. We have two long years ahead of us where these arguments are going to become more common and we, as supporters of Independence, are going to become incredibly practised with our arguments. It could get unpleasant for some of us. My neighbour did tell me he feared that anti-english attacks would increase towards the referendum, but this is something I certainly don't agree with. My advise is this - Keep Calm and Keep Debating. Let's not rise to the inflammatory language and engage only with those arguments that are based in rationality and not plain prejudice. This debate will get hot, but don't let it be the pro-independence believers that lose their tempers and resort to negative or pejorative language.
One of my neighbours, a very amenable chap whom I've known for about 20 years, engaged me in discussion about Independence after discussing the mooted STV series about William Wallace (Fingers crossed for Gerard Butler as Wallace!). We both had a few snide comments to make about the historical accuracy of Mel Gibson's effort, but that brought us round to the oft mooted opinion of Unionists that much of Scottish Nationalism is about looking back into the far past and being caught up in a foolishly romantic idea that it was somehow better then than it is now. Not true, ladies and gentlemen, would you swap the wonders of the internet, electricity and indoor toilets for the hard fought Independence of the 1300s? I wouldn't, I'd quite like to have a modern Independent Scotland thank you very much.
He made a point about nationalism that I'm sure many people are familiar with, that all nationalism is bad as it implies that somehow we as a people who believe in our nation do so from the vantage point of looking down on all other nations. He even used the Hitler argument, which is a hard one to take while keeping a smile on your face! I told him that our nationalism isn't about being better than others, it's just about being better placed to deal with Scotland's unique problems.
So of course, he switched tacks to say that without England, Scotland couldn't pay it's way. I mentioned our pay our of tax, he asked me how much we get back so we agreed to go away and check those figures exactly. Alex Massie answered the question for me, we pay out 9.4% of UK tax and receive 9.3% of expenditure, figures which are taken from the GERS report. My neighbour has written to our local MSP for the same figures, who just happens to be Alex Fergusson, so I'm already a little curious as to what kind of reply he'll get!
By comparison to the other discussion I had, where my opponent quoted Nigel Farrage at me, this was a very civilised and pleasant debate, in spite of the use of the H-word. Throughout all though, I kept smiling and trying to put my point across with figures and facts. We have two long years ahead of us where these arguments are going to become more common and we, as supporters of Independence, are going to become incredibly practised with our arguments. It could get unpleasant for some of us. My neighbour did tell me he feared that anti-english attacks would increase towards the referendum, but this is something I certainly don't agree with. My advise is this - Keep Calm and Keep Debating. Let's not rise to the inflammatory language and engage only with those arguments that are based in rationality and not plain prejudice. This debate will get hot, but don't let it be the pro-independence believers that lose their tempers and resort to negative or pejorative language.
Thursday 15 March 2012
Minimum Pricing, Prohibition and Portugal
I have yet to be convinced that Minimum pricing of Alcohol will be the solution to Scotland's crisis relationship with this legal drug. If we look across the North Sea, as we are frequently advised to do because of the many great successes of Social Democracy to be seen there, we can also see an anomaly in the Minimum Pricing argument. Yes, Scotland is set to be the first country in the world to legislate a minimum price per unit of alcohol, but in Scandanavian countries Alcohol is taxed heavily, thus driving the price up anyway. Alcohol is a serious problem in these countries, as the following map, taken from the Economist, clearly shows:
British consumption of alcohol does outstrip that of Norway and Sweden, but not of Denmark or Finland. Taxation of alcohol in Finland and Denmark is higher than in the UK, as can be seen in the map below, taken from the WHO Global Status Report on Health and alcohol in 2011.
So you can clearly see that although higher taxation can be effective, there are obviously other factors in play with dangerously high alcohol consumption. The cultural argument is well known both here and in Scandinavian countries, spirits are enjoyed liberally and are considered a part of our respective national identities. Other factors, such as low levels of daylight in winter and vitamin D deficiency could certainly be considered to be common contributing factors, but while we cannot change these factors, we can change our cultural perspective on alcohol, and, by extension other drugs.
Let's now consider that Scotland doesn't simply have an alcohol problem but a drug problem in general. Last year the Global Commission on Drug policy effectively declared the War on Drugs as a failure and produced a report calling for a change in attitude from prohibition and criminalisation of Drugs to treating drugs as a health issue and focusing on education and rehabilitation. In fact, the opening paragraph of the report was :
The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President Nixon launched the US government’s war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed.Which brings me now to Portugal. In 2001, the focus of drug policy in Portugal was switched from the criminalisation of drug users to the rehabilitation of drug users. A full summary can be found here on Wikipedia, but the important factor for me is this. When someone is found in possession of a personal amount of a drug, or being dangerously out of control under the influence of drugs, instead of being sent to court (unless of course someone else has come to harm in which case they will go to court for that part of their behaviour) they are asked to attend an expert panel not unlike the Children's panel we have here in Scotland for dealing with most youth crime. The panel will make recommendations to help the person change their behaviour, including attending rehabilitation centres or taking courses of substitutes like Methadone.
I don't really see the point of the dividing line of legality we have between alcohol and other drugs in Scotland. I believe that all people with drug issues would benefit greatly from a system like that in place in Portugal. Instead of spending the night in the cells and then being charged with being in Breach of the Peace, a person with an alcohol problem should be attending a panel of experts who can help them find a course of dealing with their problem. If a similar thing happens with a heroin, cocaine or amphetamine addict, they should be going in front of exactly the same panel to help them deal with their problem. Only in the case of other criminal law being broken by someone under the influence should that person end up in a criminal court for their behaviour. Drugs, including alcohol, are a health issue first and foremost and should be treated as such. Glassing someone in the pub because you are drunk and out of order is both a health and a criminal issue and should also be treated accordingly.
If all drugs in Scotland were treated equally, with allowances for reasonable use and a system in place to help abusers before they become a criminal problem, then perhaps we could finally deal with our long established problem with drugs. EU law does not allow for the legalisation of prohibited drugs, but it does leave room for decriminalisation. Let's take the problem of supply away from the hands of criminals, as we can see that this does indeed work with Alcohol and Tobacco, and take the problem of the social consequences out of police cells and prisons and allow the police and criminal justice system more time to deal with the violent crime, theft and other genuinely dangerous issues and people.
Of course, this can only really be achieved with Independence, and this is a debate I would like to see become part of the constitutional process after the Yes vote in 2014.
Tuesday 13 March 2012
Spring Conference
I broke my conference duck at the weekend, and it proved to be a truly valuable experience. I'm still mulling things over, there was an awful lot to take in after all, but I wanted to write a short post about the experience.
The first thing that really hit me was just how busy it was. I've been to the SECC plenty of times, I've been involved with exhibitions there and been to events there before, but the constant tide of the yellow ribboned conference pass brigade was impressive.
I started my day queuing for my pass behind Angus Robertson, and quickly found myself engaged in lively debate with all the people around me. This theme of friendliness, excitement and openness was one that continued throughout the weekend.
There was no contention in the passing of the morning's motions, but that was hardly surprising as there is a definite sense of togetherness and purpose in the party at the moment, which was evident throughout the weekend. In contrast to the Lib Dem spring conference that's just gone where Nick Clegg was defeated on two motions, it shows where the momentum in British Politics is heading. I say British because the cause of Scottish Nationalism is still a British issue, whether we like that or not. Those British Politics are heading for the skip though, while we will walk away with our Scottish Politics intact and refurbished, ready for the challenges the world is facing now.
The actual business of the conference is already well documented. Go watch Angus Robertson and Derek MacKay's speeches on the Independence Roadshow touring the branches currently on youtube, as they were both excellent and worthwhile.
I skipped the first round of fringe meetings to go to lunch with a relative, sorry! But I paid for that by having to be in one of the four overspill rooms for Alex Salmond's speech. Even in the overspill room, the atmosphere was bright and optimistic, fuelled by the First Minister's words and passion as well as our collective enthusiasm for this immense task we are now heading into.
And it is immense. We still have a lot of persuading to do, but it is not a task we are not equal to. We have time on our side, and we have positivity on our side. We will soon be riding the wave of successes in the upcoming council elections, purely because the other parties are showing their tiredness and this is reflected by their slump in the polls across the board. This is all much to the advantage of our cause, because the other parties simply can't match the energy and enthusiasm that was gathered in the SECC at the weekend.
Returning on Sunday it seemed as if people were more and not less energised after the hectic day before. At lunchtime I attended an excellent debate on Votes at 16, which is an issue that needs to be tackled quickly if 16 year olds are going to get the chance to vote in 2014. I can't really see any viable counter to the proposal either, it's as simple as the cause of American Independence. No taxation without representation!
This time I was quick off the mark so that I could grab a seat in the main hall for Nicola Sturgeon's speech. Alex Salmond passed comment on her favourite tv show being Borgen as he introduced her to the hall, but joking aside, I am looking forward to a time when we can call her Prime Minister of Scotland. I've always admired her, but the reasons for that were brought home to me as she spoke to the conference. Tellingly, the largest round of acclaim came for her assertion that "as a priority, rid this country, once and for all, of the obscenity of Trident nuclear weapons on the river Clyde." No version of Devo-max, lite, plus or even 2.0 can deliver on this massively important issue, nor can it deliver on preventing our soldiers being sent to die or risk themselves in illegal wars. This, to me, is a stronger argument than anything economic, because while Britain trumpets it's influence in the world by piggybacking on Trident and the "Special Relationship", Scotland could be creating it's own influence in the world as a Nuclear free and peaceable nation. I know which I prefer.
All in all, my first conference was a highly enjoyable and envigorating experience which has galvanised my desire to get involved in making sure we have a yes vote in 2014!
The first thing that really hit me was just how busy it was. I've been to the SECC plenty of times, I've been involved with exhibitions there and been to events there before, but the constant tide of the yellow ribboned conference pass brigade was impressive.
I started my day queuing for my pass behind Angus Robertson, and quickly found myself engaged in lively debate with all the people around me. This theme of friendliness, excitement and openness was one that continued throughout the weekend.
There was no contention in the passing of the morning's motions, but that was hardly surprising as there is a definite sense of togetherness and purpose in the party at the moment, which was evident throughout the weekend. In contrast to the Lib Dem spring conference that's just gone where Nick Clegg was defeated on two motions, it shows where the momentum in British Politics is heading. I say British because the cause of Scottish Nationalism is still a British issue, whether we like that or not. Those British Politics are heading for the skip though, while we will walk away with our Scottish Politics intact and refurbished, ready for the challenges the world is facing now.
The actual business of the conference is already well documented. Go watch Angus Robertson and Derek MacKay's speeches on the Independence Roadshow touring the branches currently on youtube, as they were both excellent and worthwhile.
I skipped the first round of fringe meetings to go to lunch with a relative, sorry! But I paid for that by having to be in one of the four overspill rooms for Alex Salmond's speech. Even in the overspill room, the atmosphere was bright and optimistic, fuelled by the First Minister's words and passion as well as our collective enthusiasm for this immense task we are now heading into.
And it is immense. We still have a lot of persuading to do, but it is not a task we are not equal to. We have time on our side, and we have positivity on our side. We will soon be riding the wave of successes in the upcoming council elections, purely because the other parties are showing their tiredness and this is reflected by their slump in the polls across the board. This is all much to the advantage of our cause, because the other parties simply can't match the energy and enthusiasm that was gathered in the SECC at the weekend.
Returning on Sunday it seemed as if people were more and not less energised after the hectic day before. At lunchtime I attended an excellent debate on Votes at 16, which is an issue that needs to be tackled quickly if 16 year olds are going to get the chance to vote in 2014. I can't really see any viable counter to the proposal either, it's as simple as the cause of American Independence. No taxation without representation!
This time I was quick off the mark so that I could grab a seat in the main hall for Nicola Sturgeon's speech. Alex Salmond passed comment on her favourite tv show being Borgen as he introduced her to the hall, but joking aside, I am looking forward to a time when we can call her Prime Minister of Scotland. I've always admired her, but the reasons for that were brought home to me as she spoke to the conference. Tellingly, the largest round of acclaim came for her assertion that "as a priority, rid this country, once and for all, of the obscenity of Trident nuclear weapons on the river Clyde." No version of Devo-max, lite, plus or even 2.0 can deliver on this massively important issue, nor can it deliver on preventing our soldiers being sent to die or risk themselves in illegal wars. This, to me, is a stronger argument than anything economic, because while Britain trumpets it's influence in the world by piggybacking on Trident and the "Special Relationship", Scotland could be creating it's own influence in the world as a Nuclear free and peaceable nation. I know which I prefer.
All in all, my first conference was a highly enjoyable and envigorating experience which has galvanised my desire to get involved in making sure we have a yes vote in 2014!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)