Some Thoughts on Margaret Thatcher

I think it is too easy to forget that the set of policies and values that define what we often disparagingly refer to as ‘Thatcherism’, would have probably come to pass anyway, regardless of whether Margaret Thatcher herself had been their instigator. Global market forces would have ensured that.

For this reason, it is arguably the case that Margaret Thatcher ought to be accorded a certain amount of respect, given the incredible foresight she possessed and given her rigid determination to see the inevitable changes through in the face of fierce criticism and widespread condemnation.

Perhaps she ought to be credited with having instigated the uncomfortable changes that were long overdue and absolutely required in the country’s prevailing economic and political philosophy; perhaps she ought to be credited with recognising that if Britain hadn’t undergone dramatic change at that time, if the stranglehold of the unions hadn’t been broken, if the state hadn’t been shrunk back, we may have fallen too far behind in the global race to ever catch up again. She was probably right.

Be that as it may, Margaret Thatcher triggered a change in Britain – and in Scotland, particularly – that plunged many individuals, families and communities into unbearable poverty and despair. Her uncompromising neoliberal attitude that entailed that we all must learn to fend for ourselves and not blame society for our ills gave her the moral space she needed to rip the heart out of many communities, the effects of which still linger today.

To dismantle the heavy industries she did was to create the impetus for a positive change in direction; to dismantle them in the manner she did created horrendous hardship and misery. To affirm that the individual would just have to look after himself (because of her changes) was unforgiveable. She believed in obligation before entitlement, but created a framework in which fulfilling any sort of obligation for many became psychologically and economically impossible.

It has been mentioned already, but perhaps if Margaret Thatcher hadn’t been so determined to impose her stern policies across the key industries and communities that defined Scotland at the time, the Scottish psyche may not have come to harbour so many negative sentiments against the absolute sovereignty of Westminster.

Devolution may not have happened and an independence referendum may not have been in the offing. For that, we should be thankful. Had it not been for Thatcher, 18th September 2014 would just be another day in Scotland…

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.

Two Impermissible Consequences of Scottish Independence

Despite the daily nonsense uttered by the learned politicians fronting the Better Together campaign, I think it is actually becoming much clearer that the central premise in the vast majority of arguments against Scottish independence is this:

Scotland leaving the United Kingdom would not only pose a significant challenge to the economic and political ideals of Westminster; it would also represent a potential threat to the economic ambitions and foreign policy preferences of the United Kingdom’s key international partners and allies.

There are at least two impermissible consequences of Scottish independence that the United Kingdom Government needs to manage. The first concerns national defence and the second concerns economic standing, both of which have highly undesirable consequences for the United Kingdom and other countries outside of the United Kingdom.

Status Quo – the clear message of the Better Together campaigners – not only suits the United Kingdom’s centralist approach to Unionism and its total commitment to the supremacy of Westminster; it also suits others in the international community, with whom the United Kingdom Government needs to retain close and strong relations for reasons of economic expediency and matters of national defence.

The United Kingdom’s entire nuclear deterrent is based in Scotland. It has been noted that it could take up twenty years (or longer) and a gargantuan sum of money to develop a new facility capable of hosting nuclear weapons elsewhere, with the impermissible consequence of enforcing unilateral nuclear disarmament on the United Kingdom Government for an indeterminable period of time.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmscotaf/676/67602.htm

This would seriously weaken the United Kingdom’s ability to defend itself and would therefore also diminish the country’s standing as a key player in setting EU defence policy – which is not only vitally important to the security of the United Kingdom, but also to its ability to maintain an influential and authoritative role in international negotiations concerning these matters.

This takes us to the second impermissible consequence of Scottish independence. Post Scottish independence, there would be a distinct possibility that the United Kingdom would no longer be one of the big three economic states in the EU.

If the United Kingdom were to suffer a reduction in its influence with respect to EU policy making, not only in terms of defence, but also in terms of economics, it may find that its relationship with the USA in particular would be weakened; the United Kingdom would no longer be one of the USA’s principle levers for influencing European politics and that could affect inward investment and create an added degree of uncertainty across global markets.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/writev/643/m02.htm

Loss of territory, reduction in population, and fewer material resources, would all contribute to further, and much tighter, curbs on Government spending, having a particularly adverse effect on the economy for an unknown period of time. There is a possibility that the United Kingdom would no longer be operating from a position of strength in the global financial markets and that could have a damaging effect on its ability to influence EU policies and international thinking.

The United Kingdom Government’s refusal to accept these two impermissible consequences is often mixed with fear of losing an array of historical privileges granted by the Union and a fiercely protected, but totally outmoded, sense of British entitlement. Combined with an uncompromising belief in the supremacy of Westminster, the intentions of the Better Together campaign are not too difficult to work out.

Few of us are fooled by the suggestion that it is about Scotland’s interests and that it is about securing the best future for our nation. The Better Together campaign is not based on the premise that ‘remaining in the United Kingdom is better for Scotland’. It is not about Scotland at all. It never has been. It is about the United Kingdom’s interests first and foremost – driven by the London centric politics of Westminster – and retaining its long standing and prestigious stature within the global community.

Don’t get me wrong. There would be a number of difficult challenges to be faced by an independent Scotland and many mistakes will be made along the way. Problems will be encountered here, there and everywhere. Clarity would need to be sought over a number of important legacy issues. The process will be horrendously complex and expensive.

But it is disingenuous of unionist politicians of both parliaments to push the propaganda that Scotland’s interests would be better served within the Union, when Scotland’s interests have rarely been served well within a Union that has been built on the backbone of Westminster supremacy.

On the SNP and NATO

Historically, the SNP has always been opposed to NATO membership.

There now appears to be a shift in their thinking, which many people consider to be contradictory.

Some have seized on the fact that an independent Scotland would intend to remove nuclear deterrents from its waters, whilst remaining a member of NATO, as an opportunity to argue that the SNP’s independence ambitions are inconsistent with its defence policy.

Former General Secretary of NATO, Lord Robertson, believes that if an independent Scotland were to separate from the United Kingdom, currently one of the three strategic partners of NATO that host nuclear deterrents, it would effectively hold the contradictory position of wanting to be part of a nuclear alliance whilst ridding itself of its nuclear weapons through independence. He has got a point.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/lord-robertson-brands-snps-policy-on-nato-flawed.19184982

For my part, I am not entirely sure why the SNP would want to shift its historical opposition to NATO membership other than to garner popular support for its independence ambitions – many people still consider it to be a crucial component of a credible defence policy.

However the problem I have with the likes of Lord Robertson is that, whilst his central point is valid, he goes on to reveal the true motive behind his criticisms of the SNP in the claim that it doesn’t make sense that Scotland would want to remain in NATO, yet secede from one of its most strategic partners, when it is that partnership that gives Scotland a level of international influence, protection and safety, that would be impossible for other small European countries to achieve.

There appears to be a growing tendency among Unionist supporters, such as Lord Robertson, to mask their own fears about the consequences of Scottish independence for the rest of the United Kingdom, in the form of apparent benefits for the people of Scotland if they remained within it, benefits that would be lost in independence.

This is a typical example. The article referred to above claims that experts estimate that it would take around twenty years for England to build the right type of facilities to house nuclear weapons. Or in other words the denuclearisation of Scotland would lead to the denuclearisation of the rest of the United Kingdom.

That scenario would force the United Kingdom to drastically alter its defence strategy. It would also deal a devastating blow to its international standing. Few Westminster based politicians, including distinguished Labour Peers, and other key defence industry stake holders, are likely to allow that to happen without a fierce fight. It is not about looking after Scotland’s interests. It is about individual and institutional self-preservation. And that just muddies the water.

But to return to the question of the SNP and NATO – I firmly believe that an independent Scotland should not play host to nuclear weapons. It is not the type of Scotland I want to see after 2014. But as Lord Robertson correctly points out, it is difficult to reconcile this with the apparent readiness to inherit NATO membership, given that NATO is a nuclear alliance and agreeing to its rules means agreeing that other countries could, in theory, be called upon to use nuclear weapons on your behalf.

There is a contradiction here, no doubt about it. It would appear that the SNP’s shift in thinking is towards the idea that it is ok to be part of an alliance predicated on the use of nuclear weapons, but not ok to be a host country for these weapons.

The SNP’s problem is that Scotland already is a host country for these weapons. Other members of NATO not hosting nuclear weapons simply do not have to confront this uncomfortable contradiction. It will be interesting to see what kind of political rhetoric and linguistic trickery the SNP are going to use to reconcile it in the run up to the referendum.

Scotland’s Unfinished Business

I have just finished reading Henry McLeish’s interesting new book, ‘Scotland the Growing Divide’.

In it he develops a strong argument in favour of Scotland remaining within the United Kingdom.

But unlike the majority of fear mongering politicians who are firmly entrenched in the ‘Better Together campaign’, McLeish does not feel the need to question Scotland’s economic worth as a stand-alone nation, nor belittle its potential value to the international community.

Despite the fact that McLeish describes Westminster’s relationship with Scotland in less than positive terms, he nonetheless argues that the best future for Scotland is one in which it remains within the United Kingdom – however, not under the present constitutional arrangement.

McLeish believes that status quo Unionism and Independence are divisive scenarios. He believes that they are not the only options open to the people of Scotland and that we should start thinking immediately about exploring a ‘third way’.

His position is that he truly believes in the United Kingdom, whilst at the same time he acknowledges that the current constitutional arrangement is not fit for purpose and must adapt if it is to survive.

McLeish believes that more a federal style of government would better serve the nations that make up the United Kingdom. Rather than repeal the Treaty of Union, he would rather see it reformed in a manner that goes beyond devolution into an arrangement of shared power, taking Scotland towards ‘a more radical form of home rule’.

It is a very interesting and worthwhile argument. It is a suggestion to the people of Scotland that independence in the traditional sense promoted by the SNP isn’t the only option if we want to be much more fully responsible for our own future, whilst preserving some of the real benefits of being part of the United Kingdom.

But at the same time it is also a warning to the rigid unionist thinkers that their unwillingness to countenance any challenge to Westminster’s absolute sovereignty could be the very thing that destroys the United Kingdom in the longer term.

It is difficult to argue with this line of argument. It presents a compelling alternative to the two options on the table at the moment. It makes sense, but it describes a state of affairs that would be unlikely to gather sufficient support within the context of our current political thinking.

There is no denying that the Union will have to adapt if it is to survive. There is no denying that old style British politics and the absolute sovereignty of Westminster are out of date and causing more problems than they are solving. And there is no denying that the current constitutional arrangement no longer works for Scotland.

The majority of unionist thinkers are simply burying their heads in the sand about it; whereas the ones who are fully aware of it are trying hard to convince us that the status quo is in our best interests. They don’t want to adapt. Their ‘better together’ campaign underlines that fact with gusto.

I genuinely cannot see ‘the third way’ materialising. Politics is too much of a game; politicians and their party sponsors have too much to lose on a personal level if things change in a manner that doesn’t suit their private agendas. There is just not enough honesty in British politics, nor enough progressive thinking, to make it happen.

The idea of sharing sovereignty is not compatible with Westminster’s reason for being, and I doubt it ever will be without the type of wholesale and radical reform of British politics that would shock the entire country into a new way of thinking and working – and that is precisely what we need, according to McLeish.

For my part, I would still prefer to pursue complete independence in the traditional sense, even if the United Kingdom did manage to shock itself out of its constitutional slumber and McLeish’s third way became a real option (attractive as it may be for many people not yet convinced about the benefits of independence, yet struggling with the thought of remaining part of a rigid union that has failed Scotland for generations).

Devolution was described by John Smith as Scotland’s unfinished business.

That can mean different things to different people. To me it is simple. It means we have had a standing commitment since the 1997 Referendum to ensure that Scotland’s progression to independence would be achieved within our life time.

2014 is our opportunity to finish that business. For the future of our country.

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.

Britain Delivered (Carefully Positioned Straws)

In his typically patronising and condescending style, David Cameron has declared today that the moral of the Olympic Games is that if you want to achieve great things, you have to work really hard to get them.

He is absolutely correct, of course. In the majority of cases working hard does lead to achievement. But it was a heck of a lot of money to spend just to discover one of the facts of life you learn in working class primary schools.

Cameron’s folly lies in the ridiculous way he tries to spin shaky economic justifications for conservative party politics out of the least likely threads.

Together with his daft pals he is hell bent on pursuing an ideological agenda that just does not fit with our current reality, regardless of the fake conviction with which he tries to sell it as the only economic option.

It is even more surprising that Cameron feels the need to use the Olympics as an argument in support of the Union. He sold the flag waving, trumpet blowing monarchical indulgence of the Jubilee as a perfect celebration of what it means to be British, despite many of us just not getting it.

And now he is suggesting that the Olympic Games have brought the four nations of the United Kingdom even closer together than before. Perhaps they did, but I would think that the coming together was on a purely sporting level, given the lack of independent alternatives, and for a limited period of time only.

When a Glaswegian feels naturally drawn to the sporting excellence of Jessica Ennis, or a Londoner feels an affinity with Chris Hoy, there is no political motivation or intent.

To try to construct one out of it is wholly inappropriate and is to admit that you are clutching at another one of your carefully positioned straws.

The incoherent, and at times inscrutable, closing ceremony hammered home the point to me that there are chunks of the United Kingdom that are utterly alien to each other.

It is a social union that looks and feels culturally fragmented, a political union that is based on the removal of autonomy, and an economic union that is so completely lop sided that it is only a matter of time before it topples over.

Britain delivered a great sporting event, according to Cameron. And I completely agree; but I would hesitate to believe in the economic and political fairy tales that he is trying to spin out of it.

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.