A Personal View on Scottish Independence

At a Yes Scotland event I attended in Falkirk, a local SNP councillor emphasized the need for the pro-independence movement to appeal to people on a personal level. There is an unbridgeable gap, in many respects, between politicians and voters. Politicians peddle empty phrases for votes; but your friends and relatives actually do care about you, and so their arguments are driven by compassion and genuine belief. I agree with this, which is why I will now tell you a personal reason as to why you should support Scottish independence.

The Falkirk Wheel officially opened in 2002, after stumbling over the usual obstacle course laid in front of large projects like it - costs escalating, dates not met, and, in one case, an act of vandalism which set the entire building programme back a few months when it was almost complete. 

Although it does not sound very grand - more like a crap Ferris wheel intended to weakly ape the London Eye - the Wheel is in fact a triumph of engineering and ingenuity. It was built as part of the Millennium Project, linking the Union Canal (which runs from Edinburgh to Falkirk) and the Forth and Clyde Canal (which, as the name might suggest, links the Forth and Clyde Rivers (which supply Edinburgh and Glasgow respectively) and was probably intended to operate in a similar way to the Pamana Canal). This has reinvigorated an archaic form of transport, stopping the canals from lapsing into disrepair along with the industrial landscapes they used to supply. The Wheel itself is built in such a way that it can make a full rotation using the same amount of energy as it would take to boil a kettle. And, as the only rotating boat lift in the world, it is a huge tourist attraction, which is a further boost to the local area.

The opening of the Wheel was a Big Deal in Falkirk - so much so that the Queen herself was invited to the grand opening. It was the first time she had been to Falkirk since, I think, the seventies, and she did not return until last year, to attend the opening of Forth Valley Royal Infirmary in Larbert.

On the day the Queen visited (with the Duke of Edinburgh) I was forced to go. My gran is a staunch monarchist, but my grampa was busy on the day (he works for a charity which runs boat tours on the Wheel for school kids, residents of old peoples' homes, and people with disabilities, so when the Queen visited he was actually on the Wheel itself) and, as she cannot drive and does not like to get the bus, my mum had to take her. And I, being a child of school age who could not be trusted in the house on his own, had to go along.

Currently I am a republican - at the time, although I did not have a clear idea of politics, I probably felt much the same - if nothing else, just to be a contrarian.  So, I was less then pleased at having to spend to afternoon waiting for an old woman to flick a switch to pretend that she made the Wheel move. In reality, the Wheel had been operational for about a week beforehand, and, like C-list celebrities have at Christmas light switch-ons, the button she pressed was entirely for show.  

The Queen's car, surrounded by a fleet carrying her entourage and security, drove into the car park, edging towards the crowd, which numbered near one thousand. Security guards cleared a space, and they drove to a podium close to the switch laid out for the Queen. As she got out of the car, the crowd cheered, and her and Prince Philip waved. He smiled, and she did not, ensuring that she remained committed to the British stereotype of a 'stiff upper lip' and a complete suppression of emotion, something that probably goes some way to explaining her popularity in the UK. She said a few words (I cannot remembered what they are, as they were fairly unremarkable, and the sound system crackled only when it did not muffle her voice), pressed the switch, and the Wheel started to cheers and applause. The Queen again waved, and discussed something with the chief engineer who had oversaw the entire project.

The crowds were again parted so they could drive away, and me, my mum and my gran found ourselves lining the walls of this corridor - the Queen would be driving directly past us. As the car came, I made a decision - instead of waving or clapping, I turned around and stood with my back to her. It was a petty thing to do, but, as an 11 year old, there was little else I could do.

My mum or my gran never saw that I had turned around, so when the Queen's car drove by I was still standing with my back to her. In amongst the cheering, and the general positive commotion  I heard the car stop. As I turned around, the Queen was exiting the door of the car nearest to me. She walked up directly to me.

"What do you think you are doing?" 

I was too intimidated to reply.

"I will ask again - what do you think you are doing?" She sounded angrier the second time. She was leering over me, and I could smell her breath, even feel it warm my forehead slightly. A man behind me, probably oblivious to what was happening, shouted on me to shake her hand.

Then she slapped me. The force - the shock - of her gloved hand knocked me to the floor. I looked up at her, still angry.

"Get up, you insolent little boy." The crowd had been silenced, I could hear the way she enunciated every syllable with disgust. I slowly rose to my feet, only to be struck down by her again. This time it was more like a punch. She leaned down and grabbed the neck of my jacket, lifting me to my knees only to punch me again, several times, about the face and head. She let me drop to my knees. Inspecting her glove, she said:

"So first he turns his back to one, and now he ruins ones glove with blood and... mucus." The knuckles of her glove were spotted with a mixture of blood, snot and tears, which also coated my upper lip and part of my shirt.

Prince Philip's left hook took my by surprise. He had been lurking behind the car, watching with glee. He knew his place, and he knew when to get involved. He help my arms behind my back as the Queen worked my body, and them my face some more. He warned the people around not to interfere, or the same would happen to them. 

The Queen eventually stopped, spitting on my before getting back in the car. I was lying prostate on the floor, attempting to pull myself into the fetal position. As he walked away, Prince Philip aimed two kicks at me - once in my kidneys, then, after he stepped over me, turning to boot my front. I felt a blunt pain in abdomen - he had aimed for my genitalia. They got back in the car without a word, and drove off. Slowly the crowd dispersed. 

Now, that story about the Queen is not true. 

But I think it tells us all we need to know about our relationship with the monarchy.  

Republicanism: the only option for an independent Scotland

Something very exciting happened in Glasgow yesterday: the (first and hopefully annual) meeting of the Radical Independence Conference, (RIC) a meeting of pro-Scottish independence groups and individuals, aimed at out-lining the shape of a future Scotland, should the country vote 'yes' in 2014. Unfortunately I was unable to attend, but over 800 people did, along with speakers from a variety of backgrounds. Jean Urquhart, the MSP who quit the SNP over their pro-NATO policy, spoke, as did Patrick Harvie, of the Scottish Greens. There was representatives from around Europe as well, such as SYRIZA, the Greek left opposition, and Basque separatists from Spain. Overall, it was heartening to see not only a strong turnout, but one which had representation from across the left-wing spectrum, and which was happy to tackle a number of issues, economically and socially. A strong base of support from across a usually-divided political sphere is essential to ensuring a 'yes' vote in two years.

One of the comments that most made me pleased with the outcome of the RIC were those of Dennis Canavan, a former MP and MSP who has been one of the more recent political figureheads to join the pro-independence movement. He said:

The existing Scottish Parliament was based on the Claim of Right, which enshrined the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. That to me makes the principle irreconcilable with the sovereignty of a non-elected hereditary monarchy... If those who think that today’s monarchy has no or little relevance to the big picture in terms of building a fairer Scotland, let me remark that the Westminster parliament passed a bill to take a considerable amount of money from the Crown Estate and hand it back to the Royal Family. There was hardly a murmur of protest at the House of Commons. The Crown ­Estate should be the People’s Estate. And it should be the Scottish Parliament that decides.

The issue of the monarchy raises it's head again - Alex Salmond has put forward the terms of the split, and offered that, even in the event of a yes vote, the Queen would still be the head of the state of Scotland, essentially offering Scotland to be part of the Commonwealth, a system dedicated to keeping antiquated ideas of British Empire jingoism alive in the 21st century. It is part concession to the belief that Britain is better off with the monarchy, part acknowledgement that the Union of the Crowns pre-dates the 1707 Acts of Union by a little over a decade, meaning that Scotland, England and Wales were joined by a collective monarchy well before a collective parliamentary and economic system.

This view is ridiculous - republicanism is the only way forward for an independent Scotland.

Firstly, the view that Scotland, and Britain as a whole, is better off because of the monarchy is a fallacy. This is often seen in purely economic terms, that the tourism generated by the royal family offsets the amount spent on them. It's impossible to accurately measure these respective amounts, as tourism is not motivated solely by wanting to stand outside Buckingham Palace in the rain, and it is difficult to say how much tourism would be lost if the monarchy is abolished. The royal family ranks below Legoland on a list of tourists' reasons for visiting England, so perhaps not that much. In a Scottish context, how much of this money actually benefits the people of Scotland is also negligible. To argue it from a solely financial point of view is, in fact, quite depressing - it negates the role that democracy plays in the choice between monarchy and republic, of the simple self-respect of not having an unelected head of state in the 21st century. To entertain the idea that the monarchy is till suitable to modern life is ridiculous - this is all we will get from Britain, who still holds the Queen close to their chest; a blindfold to their weakened standing as a world power, and to a disintegrating empire.

Futhermore, if the goal of Scottish independence is to work towards a more egalitarian, progressive nation (and it certainly should be - this should be the goal of every country) then the monarchy is a blockade erected as a representative of the ruling class. Every act towards a more equal society is an act against the upper class - more rights and freedom leave them open to questioning, higher wages cut into their profits, more rights for workers make it harder for them to continue their exploitation. As a cornerstone of the ruling class, the monarchy is invaluble to them. It is inherantly British, and manifested in British pop culture to an extent that the vast control it has is largely unchallenged. The Queen still has the right to dissolve parliament, control the army, stop any legislation she desires.

The monarchy, as much as it pains me to say, is still popular in Britain, and in Scotland. People have become too used to it, unaware of the ridiculousness of the whole thing. In the run-up to the 2014 vote, pro-independence voters must not only try to convince people to vote yes, they should argue, as part of a yes vote, against the monarchy. Otherwise it may all have been a waste of time.

 

Considering patriotism in the context of anti-establishment politics

Two things happened to me this week that made me consider what it means to be patriotic.

First, I got hold of a copy of the new Titus Andronicus album Local Business. Titus Andronicus, especially on their last two albums, have a strong sense of patriotism and love (sometime begrudging) towards America.

A photo from the lyrics booklet of Local Business

Second, a few days after that, I attended a Yes Scotland meeting/debate in Falkirk, which aimed to continue the spread of grassroots activism which many people say will be the key to Scottish independence.

Throughout my life I have been uncomfortable with the concept of patriotism and, especially, nationalism. Not just uncomfortable, in that I felt these terms could never apply to me, but also struck with a sense that to pride yourself on what imagined community (to use Benedict Anderson’s phrase) you were randomly born in was absurd.

Similarly, although until recently my politics were ill-defined I’ve always desired to be ‘anti-establishment’ in some way. I’ve long idolised punk music and the protests of May ’68. I was enthralled by the anti-globalisation protests in Scotland against the G8 when I was younger, even though I had no real idea what they meant. Patriotism/nationalism – essentially, allegiance to ‘the state’ and its historical, usually conservative context – was against what I scratchily believed in.

Back to Titus Andronicus – one of the reasons I love them is that they are a proper punk-rock band, in ethic more so than aesthetic. They, like all punk should, eschew the mainstream, corporate music industry. And yet they, as I pointed out above, have a strong current of patriotism that runs through their music. Is this compatible? An excellent Stereogum article by Liz Pelly asks this question, framing the attempts of Titus Andronicus to bridge the void between punk and patriotism (a quest made explicit on several occasions by several members of the band, as Pelly notes) in a wider sense of where Americans, of their generation, also belong in this context. Pelly, like TA, believe it is possible to be both and patriotic. In fact, to be both can even be radical - the virtues of the Founding Fathers are so different from the current American values, yet actually similar to the values of punk. Therefore, embracing true' Americanism, and at the same time punk ethics, are a rebellion against contemporary neo-liberal, Christian right America. 

This I find very interesting, mainly because listening to Titus actually makes me feel faintly patriotic for the US (to put this in context, I never been to America and, as befits my radical politics I talked about earlier, have long considered them 'the enemy'). I feel as if I can believe in the early disciplines of America, which were based on liberty and equality. Current America has twisted the 'American Dream' to mean that the only way to be truly free is economically, and this, to some extend, makes me sad. America could - should - be a great country. It is not. It may never be.

So how does this fit into Scottish patriotism? I could not consider myself an American patriot, as I am not American. Can I consider myself a Scottish patriot?

I do not love Scotland - at least, I do not love it unconditionally. There are things I love about Scotland, certainly. The country has a fantastic scientific and cultural legacy for it's size. Two of the greatest novels I've ever read, Alisdair Grey's Lanark and James Hogg's The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner are both particularly Scottish novels, in that they would lose their impact of separated from their national context. Both novels aim to say something about Scottish national identity - Lanark through politics, Confessions... through religious mortality (I'm aware this is a hugely simplistic explanation).

I love that in certain parts of Scotland (Glasgow, and the general Western Scotland area) it's acceptable to use the otherwise offensive word 'cunt' as a term of affection (e.g. "See that cunt over there?" "You're an alright cunt!"). I even love Scottish football, grudgingly. 

On the other hand, combined with a dislike for kilts and bagpipes, I still cannot feel comfortable with patriotism. Therefore, I could never love Scotland in the way that many of the people at the Yes Scotland meeting certainly did.   

In that case, why am I so devoted to the cause of Scottish independence? Other than a hatred for Britain as an entity and identity, I love what Scotland could be. I've written before about the strain of working class pride that is deeply ingrained in parts of Scotland, and that these would come to the forefront of Scottish politics were independence to be achieved. The Scottish Labour party, traditionally the main Scottish party (although heavily defeated by the SNP at the last general election here) are inexcusably tied to the reactionary British Labour party, which is still shrouded by New Labour and ashamed of it's working class, trade union roots. It is hopeless, and the Scottish Labour party is tainted by association*. People on Scotland (including myself, until recently) overwhelmingly voted for Labour as a way to combat the legions of Tories from across the border. We would no longer need to do that in an independent Scotland. At the Yes Scotland meeting, local author Alan Bisset laid out his vision for the future of Scottish politics. It goes:

• Under independence, the centrist SNP would become the party of the establishment
• The current largely pro-union, right of centre Labour party would disintegrate, being reborn as a smaller but left-wing Labour party, comprised of those MSPs who were pro-independence
• The Tories, entirely pro-union, would also wither away to even greater political insignificance than they already have**. The Lib Dems have already done so.
• The Green party, currently with two MSPs and numerous councillors around the country, would be resurgent, as would the SSP (or, even better, a Left Front-type group of the various small 'People's Front of Judea' parties of the Scottish left)
• Therefore, the shape of the Scottish parliament would be overwhelmingly left-leaning to openly left-wing.

This all brings me back to what we can justifiably be proud of - what we are working to. In this context, patriotism could be seen as something to earn. We must build a country to be proud of, not just settle with mild pride for what we have. Independence is just a facet of this. The problems in Scotland will not disappear overnight come a Yes vote in 2014. Years of hard work will follow. What differs from the rest of Britain (I could be a British patriot, but I am vehemently not) is that in Scotland this remains a faint possibility. The nature of Britain, with it's power structure concentrated in the hands of the rich and the privileged, a power solidified through time.

As Alisdair Grey said in my linked article above, "Work as if you live in the earlier days of a better nation". A nation that one day we could concievably be proud of. 


*A month or so ago two incidents concerning these two Labour parties almost motivated me to write a mocking obituary of the party. The first being Ed Miliband admitting in an interview with the Telegraph that he admired Thatcher. The second being Johann Lamont attempting to remove Scottish Labour's dedication to the welfare state. I never wrote it, but I meant it - the Labour party can no longer be seen as the party of social progress.

** I follow the situation of the Scottish Conservative party with some interest, and, given my hatred for all things Tory, a good deal of laughing. They exist in a strange nether-zone - big enough to have a good presence in the Scottish parliament, but not quite big enough to actually have any real impact on the goings-on. The Greens only have two MSPs, but they a fringe party, and so shouldn't be expected to have a huge number. The Tories also have such a toxic reputation in Scotland that no one dare work with them - there are certainly smaller parties with less supporters, but perhaps no major party endures the hatred that the Tories have in here. It's so bad that one of the contenders for the party leadership wanted to disband the entire party and re-brand it as something non-Tory, as to avoid the bad rep.


http://500revolutions.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/album-review-titus-andronicus-local.html

Alex Salmond's threat to the relevance of the Scottish independence referendum

As the Scottish parliament resumes after its summer break, Alex Salmond and his SNP party are setting out their legislative timetable for the next year. There are a number of big ideas, but, predictably, the one that generated the most discussion is the independence referendum.

 

The autumn of 2014, where the vote is estimated to take place, is the final life or death decision for Scottish independence. Defeats in referendums mean defeat for the policy in that generation at least. Nick Clegg attempted electoral reform two years ago and crashed out, signalling the end of any public debate on the issue, AV or not. If the SNP lose the debate, and Scotland remains part of Britain, then Scotland will remain part of Britain for the considerable future, irrespective of any future successes of the nationalist party.

[Just a side note here: I believe that the SNP could survive the failure of its independence referendum. For one, the party has moved beyond the confines of being a single issue party devoted only to the idea of independence. It now inhabits the centre-left position once dominated by Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Labour are the archaic party associated with Westminster, and, like in England, the Lib Dems have lost any reputation they once had a ‘protest vote’. The SNP’s success is not rooted in a desire for an independent Scotland– look at any poll and you can see that SNP support far outstrips that of independence. They may need time to heal their wounds, perhaps even replace Alex Salmond, but the SNP would remain a major component of Scottish politics.]  

The future of Scotland will be written in 2014. The debate on the place of the country in the UK will come to an end, which makes it all the worse that Salmond has declared his support for Independence-Lite. He wants to retain the Queen as a head of state, keeping Britain within the commonwealth. He wants Britain to remain part of NATO, the boy’s club designed to combat the threat of communism in Europe. And recently the SNP have started playing about with the idea that you can still be British even if you are not technically part of Britain.

So if the Scottish people decide to stick with the UK, the debate will end, but equally, if they choose independence, the debate will die off as well, leaving Scotland in its post-referendum situation for the foreseeable future.  The tame independence option (the rejection of the SNP of offering people a choice of a non-nuclear republic) would leave Scotland stuck in a purgatory – no desire to stay with Britain but no will to pull away. It is a frankly pointless situation to be in – independence in name only.

The Queen represents Britain and British power. A few square miles in London holds all the influence over the rest of the country. The devices for financial, political, social power, all constrained within the mechanism of the British state, all constrained within the hands of the few. This situation is so ingrained into the Britain that reform will not budge it - only a violent revolution in England could shift the balance of power. Yet, it is with this referendum that Scotland has a chance to remove itself from this influence, without having to undergo a hugely destabilising revolution or civil war. The British parliament is hundreds of years old, as are the other governmental forces. In Scotland, which constructed its parliament in the last decade, this deep-seated concentration of power does not exist.

Independence Lite, however, will allow it to continue to exist, and the end of the discourse will allow the state of purgatory will be colonized by the ruling classes.

The drive towards a Scottish republic has already begun, but the most important part comes, not in 2014, but this year. Alex Salmond can choose to pursue the current option he has been trialing, and ensure Scotland never truely becomes independent in his lifetime. Or he can choose to offer people a real change, a real break away.