An Ugly Impasse

It is hard to think that the Offensive Behaviour at Football legislation has had anything but a negative impact on the attitudes and behaviours of those it was intended to manage, despite the Scottish Government’s bullish claims to the contrary.

Whilst the police argued that they required a greater range of powers in order to deal with the perceived escalation in sectarian hatred in connection with some aspects of Scottish football, many others were reluctant to entertain the idea that existing laws were inadequate.

One outcome of this is that the greater range of powers seems to be stretchable to match whichever interpretation of the occasion is deemed to suit, with the interpretation sometimes appearing to be influenced by the media, other times by an inability to understand political context and poor knowledge of historical fact.

As a result, a strong belief has emerged within certain groups, particularly the Green Brigade, that the manner in which they choose to support their team has been criminalised unnecessarily and that some of their members have been subject to police harassment, victimisation and disproportionate response.

Whether the controversial containment tactics used by Strathclyde Police in Glasgow on Saturday were appropriate to the situation has been challenged. Whatever the eventual outcome of that, it is clear that the march was unlawful in the sense that no permission was sought from the local authorities in advance. The police would have failed in their duty had they not intervened.

It is difficult not to acknowledge that the Green Brigade has become a powerful force with strong political views, a fact which may sit uncomfortably with some individuals within Celtic FC. But it is even more difficult to avoid the thought that extinguishing, rather than monitoring, a force of this nature is a primary objective of the police. It may draw into a long and complicated war of attrition. Neither side will back down. Neither side will win.

Whichever way you view it, the central issue remains that the Scottish Government caved into pressure to introduce a piece of poorly written and completely unnecessary legislation. In doing so it managed to create a context of confusion, mistrust and tension – perfectly illustrated by the now toxic relationship between the police and the Green Brigade – and we are still no closer to eradicating the problem of bigotry in Scotland.

Like most, I would be relieved to see the end of the type of bigotry that infects football here. As it happens, I would also prefer that political views were not expressed at football matches in a manner that risked creating the impression that such views were in some way reflective of an unwritten part of a club’s story.

Given the background causes, I am not convinced that either will transpire any time soon – but that neither justifies the Scottish Government’s poorly conceived legislative solution to the problem, nor does it excuse disproportionate police response to perceived episodes of non-compliance with that legislation.

We may have reached an ugly impasse. It is time for a re-think – without the media circus, without politicians positioning themselves to win favour, and this time with people who understand the true nature of the problem in this country.

‘Offensive Behaviour’, One Year Later

By the end of this week, the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act (Scotland) 2012 will have been in force for one year:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2012/1/contents/enacted

One year on, I don’t think we are any closer to fully understanding how to apply this legislation properly. It was a hastily written piece of work, popularly referred to in the media as the ‘anti-bigotry law’, or the ‘anti-sectarian law’.

It hinges on a definition of ‘offensive’ which seems to imply that certain forms of behaviour at football matches are illegal if they cause a certain type of response in others. It has largely been about singing certain songs, or versions of these songs, that provoke an angry reaction because of their inflammatory, racist or sectarian content.

When trying to decide whether a piece of behaviour is offensive, an obvious question to ask is, ‘offensive to whom?’ and the most likely answer is, ‘to any individual belonging to a religious, social or cultural group that feels annoyed, angered, upset or intimidated by that behaviour’.

But relying on a shared emotional response as the criterion by which we judge certain displays of behaviour as offensive is tricky. It not only renders our definition too subjective, it also puts too much weight on a bundle of loosely structured emotions whose inherent volatility ought to mark them out as unreliable markers of definitional consistency in the first place.

The problem is exacerbated by the recognition that the types of emotional response in question are typically learned – but in an entirely damaging sense through involuntary exposure to a negative form of breeding from a young age and into adult life. It is from that perspective that much of what is regarded as offensive tends to be judged by the man in the street.

I think there is a general consensus among many people that the Act was introduced as a desperate measure to deal with an ugly spike in activity within the context of an embarrassing and shameful socio-cultural problem in Scotland. This ugly spike was still too raw in the public consciousness when the Bill was originally shaped, and that was a mistake.

It produced a situation in which the immediate response in some quarters to almost any form of behaviour, even loosely perceived to have a connection with a certain type of religious outlook or ethnicity, has been one of anger and outrage. The upshot is that too many different forms of behaviour have been popularly tarred with the same brush through a distortion in our understanding of what ought to count as offensive.

And from time to time it would appear that even those in positions of authority on match days have done little to prevent the view that what counts as offensive hinges on the misconception that if certain types of behaviour cause upset or anger, simply because they contain references to a particular race, religion or a political agenda, then they must be illegal.

In fairness, the Act itself does appear to recognise that being offensive isn’t simply about individuals feeling upset or angered that the group they belong to has been challenged, parodied or criticised; the key seems to be that the challenge must be made in a form that expresses or arouses hatred and is likely to lead to public disorder.

But surely expressing or arousing hatred cannot be sufficient either, when it is so easy for one group of individuals to feel hatred towards another, just because they are there and making a noise about everything that is important to them? It is all too subjective.

Clearly, there has to be more to it than that. I think it must also come down to whether belonging to a particular group has been challenged or criticised in a way that is contrary to that group’s integrity, or contrary to historical fact.

This would never constitute a definition in its own right, of course, but it would help sharpen up our understanding of what is permissible and what isn’t in a more objective context, provided we can be historically accurate in our assessment!

And whilst this would legally permit certain forms of behaviour to continue, and certain types of song to be sung at football matches, the appropriateness of doing so must nonetheless be assessed against the wishes and expectations of the club they represent – that should always be a key consideration.

It is fairly obvious to me that not every song or action that arouses anger, hatred or annoyance in ill-informed minds is in fact offensive. It is too easy to blame the wrong people here. Not everyone will think the same way about this, but perhaps it is the irrational response that ought to be criminalised in these cases, rather than the initial behaviour.

History, Myths and Value Systems

An article in today’s Herald reports on the decision of the Scotland Office to temporarily block the publication of certain files relating to the Scottish devolution process, with Whitehall ministers having the final say on their release. SNP MSP Jamie Hepburn describes it as “cheating Scotland of its history”:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/westminster-blocks-moves-to-release-secret-devolution-files.19837622

It is unsurprising that this would happen, of course, given that the independence referendum is not that far away and there are likely to be vital pieces of information – which quiet deals were made, when and by whom, who gave away what and why – that could have an effect on how the people of Scotland vote in 2014.

One of the difficulties we have when trying to make sense of key political events today is that their causes, and reasons for occurring, may be inextricably linked to certain people and events in the past, the motives of whom, and the significance of which, are not always easy to understand.

The problem is not necessarily that we are poor at understanding occurrences in the past. Sometimes it is that we are simply unable to arrive at a true account of events because of inherent ambiguities and compelling alternative interpretations, with no means of corroborating any of the versions given.

Other times it is because the truth – as in the case cited above – has been deliberately withheld for political reasons, with lighter and more digestible accounts of events offered up to us in their place through carefully controlled press releases and media coverage.

All of which can make it difficult to fully understand why certain political decisions are being made today – or why some key ones were made in the recent past – and therefore deny us the opportunity to make informed judgements about our country’s future.

The sickening part is that it is perfectly legal for our ‘democratically elected’ Government to manage the truth in this manner on our behalf, and as a result, through the variety of institutions in which we are immersed, control the history we think we lived through in the past, and manipulate the present we believe we are experiencing today.

Almost on a daily basis we have representatives of the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments accusing each other of peddling dangerous myths about independence or otherwise and attempting to mislead the people of Scotland through their own particular slant on events.

Whilst the passage of time will help to loosen the grip of the political and economic myths we build our lives around today, we may never achieve complete transparency in these matters until it is too late for the truth to make a difference. That’s just how this country operates.

When we elect a Government, we are not simply authorising politicians to make decisions on our behalf; we are also gifting them the right to manage the truth behind those decisions. And when a Government appoints itself, as the case may be, we may find that the value systems they carve out from the truths they have been entrusted with begin to diverge from our own in drastic fashion.

In 2014, Scotland’s choice is not simply about where the ultimate seat of political and economic decision making for this country should be. It is about choosing the values that best reflect Scottish interests and the needs of the people of Scotland.

It is about choosing Scottish priorities, such as free education and welfare policies to support social justice, over Westminster ones, such as dismantling the NHS, engaging in illegal wars and keeping Trident out of harm’s way of London.

But the problem is this: these values are easily lost in the mix of dangerous myths and historical inaccuracies we are asked to accept as fact; they are easily promoted by clever rhetoric as the root cause of our economic problems and the reasons behind many of our social ills.

When you manage the truth behind political decisions, you ultimately manage the country’s value systems. And when you manage that, you are a short step away, not only from ‘cheating a country of its history’, but also depriving it of a better future.

What’s So Anti-Scottish about Free Education?

A clear sign of Scottish Labour’s gradual drift towards Tory type thinking was posted yesterday in Johann Lamont’s speech to mark her first anniversary as leader of the party:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/lamont-calls-for-an-end-to-free-tuition-at-university.19706720

Her general point is the obvious one, which Cameron and Osborne have never tired of ramming home, that the policy of free universal services is unsustainable in the current economic climate.

Perhaps that is the case, but they always omit to say that the current economic climate includes horrendous sums of money wasted every year on unnecessary and illegal wars, and the vast amounts of revenue lost by turning a blind-eye to multinational organisations choosing not to pay their share in corporation tax. Not to mention the unforgivable betrayal of Scotland’s future that occurred when the decision was taken not to set up an Oil Fund.

Lamont develops her point by arguing that persisting with the unaffordable policy of free higher education has been made possible at the expense of significant cuts to the further education sector, which has in turn created huge inequalities between Colleges and Universities.

So whereas Lamont claims that the policy of free higher education in Scotland is being paid for by the college sector, others might feel justified in countering that claim with the reminder that there would have been no need to reduce spending on education at all, had successive Conservative and Labour governments in Westminster not chosen to squander substantial sums of money elsewhere.

The most troubling part of her position is the manner in which her argument progresses from the economic sustainability concern to an attack on the fairness of free education, when graduates are said to expect higher earnings over their lifetime compared to non-graduates. Free education is either fair or it isn’t, regardless how much money self-helping politicians have thrown to the wind.

And perhaps the most baffling part of her position is the contention that the Scottish Government’s policy of free education is anti-Scottish. It is difficult to understand exactly what this is supposed to mean. How can it be anti-Scottish to promote a principle that has been distinctively Scottish for generations?

In his St Andrew’s Day message, Alex Salmond commented:

“Scotland is proud of its history of invention and discovery. We actually invented quite a bit of the modern world, from the telephone, to television to penicillin to beta blockers. However, perhaps – actually certainly – our greatest invention of all, the one that made all of the others possible, was the invention of universal free education.”

Precariously Pinned Together

Whereas Alistair Darling previously threatened that voting for Scottish independence would be like buying a one-way ticket to a deeply uncertain place, Gordon Brown this week warned that it would signal the start of the race to the bottom.

For some people retaining the union is about having an emotional commitment to a tradition and a history. And that is absolutely to be acknowledged and respected, whether we feel the same commitment or not.

But the rhetoric of the likes of Darling and Brown, which unashamedly exploits this emotional commitment, clearly shows that what lies at the heart of the no campaign is neither decent political debate concerning the true interests of Scotland, nor sound economic argument relevant to the country’s financial standing before and after independence.

Rather it is about a deep rooted unwillingness to lose control over the critical variables – mainly the fiscal levers, as they have been occasionally described – that could potentially damage the wealth, privilege and position of certain elite groups of individuals, and undermine the competitiveness of certain other economic areas across the United Kingdom.

Ensuring that Scotland’s right to determine its own social, political and economic future is not granted is therefore their priority, rather than creating a progressive unionist strategy to improve the quality of life, educational opportunities and employment prospects across the whole of the United Kingdom as it currently stands.

The problem is that such a strategy has never been viewed as an integral component of the unionist campaign. It has simply been about blocking a movement for change, for selfish reasons, whereas it should have been about recognising that the motivations behind that movement are signs that the United Kingdom is predicated on a union that is not fit for purpose.

Grasp that simple fact and the unconvincing frontmen like Darling and Brown could have had a better chance of gaining credibility for their paymaster’s position, and perhaps significantly more support.

But those of an independent mind needn’t worry. That is never going to happen. It just doesn’t figure in the thinking of those who run the United Kingdom government that the fundamental political and economic structures precariously pinning the country together need to change.

So in the meantime we can happily let the better together campaigners continue their efforts to persuade the people of Scotland that it is in their interests to stop looking for change. That it is in their interests to stop seeking the right to make their own decisions, just so that the status quo continues to deliver its cosy benefits for a small pocket of people spread throughout the United Kingdom, including Scotland.

The Problem of Scotland’s Right to Self-Determination

In 1707 the Act of Union was passed into law as a political solution to the problem of Scotland.

The possibility of political union had already been raised a couple of times during the previous century, but rejected on each occasion by both sides. When King James VI of Scotland succeeded Elizabeth I to the crowns of England and Ireland in 1603, he strongly favoured a political union and attempted to bring it about.

However, Scottish nobility rejected the idea as they feared that Scottish interests would be secondary to English in a London based Parliament, whilst English feared that Scotland would be favoured because of their Scottish King.

The pivotal moment came when the Scottish Parliament passed the Act of Security in 1703 in response to the English Parliament’s 1701 Act of Settlement, which had been designed to guarantee a parliamentary system of Government and to determine that succession to the throne would settle on Princess Sophia of Hanover and her Protestant heirs.

Scotland’s response was to declare its right to choose its own successor to the then Monarch, Queen Anne; but England’s immediate concern was that if Scotland were to do this, the Scottish Crown may be passed back to the Roman Catholic Stuart line of succession, bringing with it a belief in the divine right of Kings.

This could have raised the possibility of Scotland forming closer allegiances with France, who openly supported the House of Stuart’s divine right to the throne, thereby threatening the security of England as they fought against France (indeed, Scotland had been a recruiting ground for the Duke of Marlborough’s armies). To avert this threat, a full incorporating Union with Scotland was deemed necessary and urgent. It was the only solution to the problem created by Scotland’s right to self-determination.

The Act of Union in 1707 therefore had the aim of ensuring that the Act of Settlement was enforced in Scotland, guaranteeing parliamentary authority, rather than monarchical absolutism, Protestant succession to the throne, and preventing any potential French alliance that could have destabilised England’s future security.

A combination of economic blackmail, in the form of the Alien Act in 1705, which blocked the import of core Scottish products into England, and financial inducements secretly distributed to key sections of Scottish nobility, was used to ensure that Union would be achieved.

The latter worked particularly well given that the Scottish Parliament was divided by too many different personal agendas and lacked strong leadership; furthermore the economy was struggling as a result of poor harvests on the back of massive financial losses sustained by the Company of Scotland in the Darien fiasco. The timing seemed right for the governing classes in England and Scotland, but for different reasons and with different levels of national support and dissent.

In return for agreeing to dissolve the Scottish Parliament, thereby adopting the Act of Settlement, Scotland was given access to England’s colonial trading markets. In the first instance, Scotland’s economy remained depressed, and suffered tax increases which many believed were used to support the English war effort and help repay English National Debt.

Eventually, however, the imperial rewards of the Union with England began to materialise, both in terms of the expansion of its core industries and development of new ones, but also in terms of overseas opportunities for Scottish middle class professionals and elite merchant traders. Despite the feeling that Scotland had been forced into giving up its independence, and despite widespread public outrage at the time, clear benefits slowly emerged in certain sections of Scottish society.

Three hundred years later, there is a growing sense that the political, economic and social future of Scotland would be better served by undoing the Union of 1707, in order that Scotland may once again exercise its right to self-determination. Although the benefits of independence are not universally supported, a clear message has been sent to Westminster that there is a very strong feeling that the United Kingdom Government does not serve Scotland in a manner that enables it to maximise its resources and its opportunities.

An independent Scotland would once again be a problem. Not only in terms of weakening the United Kingdom economy by removing significant natural assets and revenue generators from the equation, such as the Oil & Gas industry, and the developing renewable energy industry, with Scotland enjoying an estimated 25% of Europe’s wind and wave potential, and 10% of its tidal potential.

It would also pose a threat to the economies of the remaining countries in the United Kingdom if it were to offer commercial incentives and lucrative tax concessions to attract new inward investment into Scotland, rather than elsewhere in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. In addition, the cost of dismantling the United Kingdom is likely to add significantly to the national debt of all concerned.

The problem of Scotland today is that the transition to independence would have a destabilising economic effect on the rest of the United Kingdom and would likely cost hundreds of billions of pounds to manage. Just as in 1707, when the Union was a political solution to safeguard England’s national security, and perpetuate the Act of Settlement, saving the Union today would be a political solution to avoid economic damage and safeguard international clout and position.

Whilst there would be upheaval on both sides, and there would definitely be no economic miracle forthcoming, it is quite disingenuous of politicians to romantically promote the idea that we would be much better off staying together, when their true underlying motives are driven by lazy convenience, maintenance of position and retention of power.

At root, the problem of Scotland is, and has always been, that its right to self-determination is just too inconvenient, and too much of a threat, to the personal interests and corrupt agendas of certain sections of the social, business and political elite, from BOTH sides of the border, who are firmly in control of our wealth, and who would have far too much to lose on an individual basis.

Some More Thoughts on ‘Better Together’

When Alistair Darling urged us to believe in the dictum that we are ‘better together’, I think there is probably a very strong sense in which he genuinely believes that to be the case (but I also think, quite cynically, that he is using a very clever tactic here, which may turn out to be a master stroke).

In fairness to Darling, and those behind the ‘no campaign’, the arguments given in favour of maintaining the political status quo, whilst weak, probably still reflect a deeply held conviction, that the best future for Scotland will be one which is secured through an unaltered position within the United Kingdom.

But rather than simply rhyme off the benefits we apparently enjoy as part of the United Kingdom, and remind us of the impending uncertainty that independence would bring, it might help the case somewhat to promote a positive vision for the future.

My view is that the key problems with the unionist strategy are that it fails to offer one single reason why Scotland should not want to regain full responsibility for its own affairs; and it fails to take cognisance of the growing conviction in many quarters that some form of structural change would need to occur in the United Kingdom if the ‘better together’ promise were ever to be fulfilled.

Even if we were better together in the sense promoted by the ‘no campaign’ – the senses in which we are supposed to benefit, such as having a stronger voice in Europe, or a stronger defence arrangement, for example, are all areas in which the current devolution agreement prevents Scotland from autonomously participating and building any strength in the first place – there would still be an urgent need to address the fundamental flaws in the United Kingdom’s corrupt political, economic and sociocultural frameworks.

It might be possible to muster a little sympathy for the ‘better together’ campaigners themselves – because, after all, we are talking about some people’s deeply held beliefs, which ought to be given due consideration and respect – if what they believed in really did have a promising message to deliver for Scotland. But as far as I can see, it doesn’t; and as far as the spin has gone so far, there is little prospect of a positive message being delivered any time soon.

However, here is a cautionary note to finish with: it is one thing to recognise that our current constitutional arrangement is not perfect, and that there are serious problems that need to be addressed in the United Kingdom as it stands; every day the news greets us with another one, piled up on top of another one.

But until the ‘yes campaign’ is in a position to present a detailed and unambiguous vision of what an independent Scotland would look like, and how it would positively improve the personal circumstances of the people of Scotland, doubts will remain in the minds of those waiting to be convinced that a yes vote would be in their best interests.

We live in a society where most people have simply given up on politicians and have little or no interest in the details of our constitutional arrangement. If the ‘yes campaign’ focuses exclusively on the need to change the latter, without clearly justifying it in terms of improved personal circumstances, it may lose some ground.

For many people, the decision will simply come down to what is better for their own individual circumstances, what is left in their pocket after tax, rather than what is better for Scotland as a nation. And that is exactly what Alistair Darling and company are playing on when they talk about being ‘better together’. It is an attempt to make us feel more secure by not changing anything. I hope it doesn’t turn out to be a master stroke for the ‘no campaign’.

The Independence Debate & The Politics of Rogues

Various questionable arguments have been thrown into the debate about Scottish Independence in recent months; so much so that it is now becoming amusing to see predictions of economic ruin sitting right next to forecasts of previously unachievable wealth and prosperity.

It is almost as if we are being told, ‘don’t listen to the other side’s nonsense, it will lead you in the wrong direction; now, here are the facts, on which you need to make your decision’. In this respect, both are as bad as each other.

Encouraging others to adopt a course action by exaggerating benefits and making grand promises that may never be fulfilled, looks remarkably similar to some of the unscrupulous sales tactics adopted by individuals operating at the gutter end of the market.

Whilst encouraging others against that same course of action by instilling disproportionate fear in their minds, reveals much more about the psychology, and personal circumstances, of the scare mongering individuals than it does about the reality of the situation.

It makes you want to ask the question, what do the latter really think they are going to lose by acknowledging that it would be better for Scotland to make its own decisions, and why do they really want the rest of us to feel the fear of that loss too, in the way that they pretend to?

And it makes you want to ask of the former, why do they feel the need to spin a fabulous, sometimes confusingly mixed, story around a couple of facts and stats, immediately casting their credibility in doubt and raising questions about whether they are indeed the people to take this country forward in the right direction?

Perhaps the only reality we can work with in entering this debate is that being an independent country is simply about taking full responsibility for your own affairs, and nothing less than that.
Everything else we have been told, and will be told countless times over, about how damaging independence would be for Scotland’s position in the world, or how wonderful it would be for our economy, is imaginative conjecture.

It is an attempt to manipulate our emotions by individuals who know that they have too much to lose.

Both campaigns recognise that they have, in fact, too much to lose; not just from a political point of view, but also from a personal, selfish point of view. Their obsession with winning this game at all costs is beginning to ruin what should otherwise have been the build-up to a momentous event in our country’s history.

In fact the event itself – regaining independence or reinforcing the union – is beginning to look like it will be spoiled. Either way, it is beginning to look like it will turn into a reflection of the politics of self-interested rogues, than a reflection of the best interests of the ordinary people of Scotland.

‘Better Together’?

The irrefutable strength of the Scottish Independence campaign is that it is built on the fundamental right of self-determination. All nations have the right to choose their own sovereignty and political status, without external interference, and that is essentially what the independence of Scotland would secure.

It is insisted that independence is therefore the natural condition of a nation such as Scotland, and that the people of Scotland are best placed to determine its economic, political and social future. I completely agree with this.

In my view, the only argument that would ever convince me that we were ‘better together’ is one that would demonstrate, first of all, that Scotland’s claim to nationhood was ill conceived, and hence that we had no right to self-determination; and secondly, that the people of Scotland were simply incapable of taking full responsibility for the future of their own country.

It would take a very powerful argument to convince me that it is better for Scotland to have its economic, political and social future controlled and determined by a Government that sits outside of Scotland; a Government that the people of Scotland can rarely influence, if at all.

When Alistair Darling launched his ‘Better Together’ campaign to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom, I was hoping that he, as the former Chancellor of the United Kingdom Government, would offer some sound economic and political arguments why Scotland would indeed be better off remaining in the union.

I genuinely wanted him to challenge my thinking on this matter. I genuinely wanted to feel that Alex Salmond would now need to come back with some strong rebuttals. Perhaps then he would need to begin filling in some of the gaps in his own vision. But no need – there were no strong arguments forthcoming, just a watery statement about how we should embrace and celebrate our cultural diversity and our great social union.

I am with Darling in recognising that cultural diversity is a good thing. It is a fact of life in an interesting, prosperous and thriving nation. It is what Scotland was built on. It is absolutely to be embraced. I am with Darling in acknowledging that loving Scotland does not mean having to leave the United Kingdom behind. But it does mean exactly that if your love for Scotland means that you want to take responsibility for your own affairs.

The poverty of Darling’s argument has not gone unnoticed. And it is not because he failed to come up with hard facts and figures demonstrating that Scotland could not survive on its own – in fact, he acknowledged that it probably could, given its oil wealth – but because he failed to put forward one single convincing reason why a nation such as Scotland should not want to determine its own future.

In some respects we may well be better off together. In some respects, there will be strengths to be gained from being part of a union that you cannot have on your own. That much is obvious. But it does not preclude the fact that there may also be many other respects in which you are not better off together. That much is obvious too.

I believe that it would be significantly better for Scotland as a nation to create and nurture its own opportunities, and to maximise its own resources, than have its future determined by a Government that believes that independence should be avoided because it is unsettling, inherently risky and unjustified; and fronted by a scare mongering individual who tries to spook us by insisting that independence ‘would send our children to a deeply uncertain destination’.

Sorry Darling, poor effort; I, like many others, remain unspooked.

Your Pocket Money Is Getting Cut

Today is the 8th of May, 2015.

It’s a cold morning, with a cruel nip in the air. It doesn’t feel like spring at all.

Something doesn’t feel right. But that’s Scotland for you.

We have just woken up to the news that David Cameron has secured a second consecutive term as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. This time the Tories didn’t need to create an unelected coalition; the Liberal Democrats lost all credibility last time around, and Labour persisted with Miliband. Enough said.

Yet somehow, despite the fact that the UK economy continued to trundle along with almost zero growth, dipping in and out of recession; despite the fact that the public sector was decimated; and despite the fact that they promised us another five years of austerity, the Tories managed to return to Government, full of bluster, nonsense and spin.

And sadly, with a once in a lifetime opportunity to change things, the people of Scotland stood back and let it all happen. Despite having an opportunity to change its future for the better, to take responsibility for its own affairs, Scotland decided to retain the status quo.

It was too afraid to do otherwise.

Meanwhile, Scotland’s Oil and Gas industry has continued to churn out significant tax revenues for the UK Government. It has been vital to its highly prized AAA credit rating. It has funded a couple of wars and helped pay for large UK infrastructure projects.

Projections are still looking good for the coming thirty years and beyond.

Our Renewable Energy industry has continued to develop and is now starting to show signs of making a substantial economic impact, whilst securing our energy supplies for future generations, long after our oil and gas supplies have been fully exploited.

Our Food and Drinks industry has continued to make significant returns in overseas markets and our Life Sciences industry is working towards its 2020 targets of doubling its output from its 2010 levels.

Excellent.

But the penny has now dropped.

It has become glaringly obvious that Scotland never was a nation that survived thanks to a generous subsidy from the UK Government. That was a cleverly constructed myth. You can get statistics to tell you anything. That’s why politicians love them. And we are easily duped by them. That’s why politicians love us.

It has become glaringly obvious that our incredible natural resources, our academic rigour and our entrepreneurial spirit were all more than capable of helping us build a successful, prosperous and independent country.

We just had to believe it.

But at least we have got the Trident nuclear deterrent programme to protect us and bring much needed employment to Scotland. At least we have got a strong military to take us into illegal wars, whether we want it or not. It’s a dirty game, but hey, it keeps us in business.

At least we have got another country making our most important decisions for us, so that we will never have to think too hard about anything ever again; particularly all the things that are just too big for us to cope with on our own.

Now that we’ve turned our back on change, we can sleep-walk into the future. Like dutiful little children who will never grow up, because we don’t have to. But at least we can say, unlike three hundred years ago, this is what we voted for in 2014. So what happens next?

Independence? Forget it.

What about Devo-Max then? Don’t make me laugh. That was never on the cards.

Oh and by the way, kiddies, your pocket money is getting cut.