gibberish


Oh my. It seems women have “the vote” nowadays.

How could womens’ tiny minds cope with deciding the future of our nation in between all that child rearing, ironing and tea-making?  Gosh, it must be tremendously difficult don’t you think?

I mean, they only have two minutes in a day to consider difficult things like the self determination of their nationhood, the economic viability of Scotland’s oilfields, the sustainability of the NHS, the economic pros and cons of a fiscal union.

Better Together has captured this moment of cranial machination in the beautifully titled Referendum Broadcast “The woman who made up her mind”.  Yes.  That really is what it’s called.

My, my.  There is one then – a (the) woman who can make her mind up and decide something as difficult as how to vote in the referendum.  (Without “her Paul” making her mind up for her that is.)  

What a clever old clogs she is .  (“Hey, enough of the old”.  Ed.)

“There’s one thing I do know (that’s great hen, well done) I’m not going to gamble with my children’s future.” says she triumphantly having worked it all out.

So, that’s the key behavioural lever that Better Together has identified in its research groups. It doesn’t really matter what you think because actually it’s all a massive gamble.  It’s your kids that are the stake and gambling is inherently risky (no-one ever won a bet did they) and therefore evil and so you’d be evil to gamble with your children’s future (not like you can change your mind in 4 years time is it.)

Put all this it in the mouth of a typical Scottish housewife and the logic is unarguable.  

The trouble is it’s all a lot of patronising shit.  

Better Together says there are no answers, no facts and it’s not worth the risk/gamble because you don’t know what lies ahead.

I didn’t know what lay ahead when I backed Germany to win the World Cup, but they did.

No-one knows what lies ahead in this instance but we can make our own informed choices by listening to “that man on the telly”  or reading around the subject (if only we had the time).

But, most importantly, we can consider the fact that right now we get back less than we put in to our economy, the decisions that affect our fundamental standing in this world are made 400 miles away in a hotbed of right wing policy making by three parties that don’t remember where they came from or know where they are going and are only interested in one city.  London.

Stick that in your fruit scone and eat it hen – while you think (for two minutes) about what “your Paul” might think.



This is an important read for anyone interested in creativity and Scottish Independence.

IMG_0080

Unstated.  Writers on Scottish Independence.

Creative Scotland is to be congratulated for supporting the publication of this collection of 27 essays on the issues surrounding Scottish Independence and self determination, published by Word Power Books in 2012 and edited by Scott Hames.

All 27  writers are based in Scotland, but not all are Scottish.  In the process some take swipes at Creative Scotland (in fairness the book was written during their dark times) but the body has chosen to publish with these criticisms intact.  I respect that.

It includes mighty voices like Jo Clifford, Janice Galloway, James Kelman, Alasdair Gray, and Christopher Whyte.

It could not be described in any way as a light read and not all views concur, in fact far from it.  But one thing shines brightly throughout.  The value of self determination and the importance of uncensored artistic views go hand in hand.

It also supports my view then, but one that is rapidly diminishing, that the quality of the debate is poor.  This was most certainly the case in 2012 but I believe the quality has significantly increased.  Not on the front lines in our national media that mostly support Better Together and base their slanging matches on factual dispute, but in the online community most notably in the pages of BellaCaledonia that is represented here by Mike Small.

One passage in his essay says much.  He derides the negative campaigning of Better Together…

“Whilst the will may be there for a positive case for the Union, it remains elusive.  It oscillates from the banal to the ridiculous…Would you move house in a Hurricane? asked one dark tweet…The very institutions that could hold Britain together as an idea have been picked apart, privatised, sold off or dismantled by two decades of neo-liberal politicians who can hardly now appeal to the NHS, The Post Office or a common media voice as indicators of a common future, never mind a shared past.  The lesson for the No campaign team: if you place so little value in these institutions then don’t rely on them to tell your political story…A fractured, discredited print media, a London government that appears like a throwback to the Edwardian era and the catastrophic failure of the Labour party to create a political narrative are combining.”

Magi Gibson uses a, possibly obvious, but brilliant nonetheless, metaphor of a woman in an unloving marriage with a husband she doesn’t love or respect to illustrate the argument.

Janice Galloway harks back to the recent root of our discontent…

“The awful nineties ‘greed is good’ years when the North in general became the Conservative Party’s petri dish were a caustic reminder of our increasing inconsequentiality to just about any Westminster-based party.”

Margaret Elphinsone concludes her contribution by saying “It [post Independence Scotland] needs to know itself, which means being honest, and being ready to listen to all its different voices.  And I think it needs to be psychologically independent, or it won’t be able to anything for itself at all.”

Jo Clifford’s scathing summation is this.  “Can we really not find just a tiny bit of courage?  Does it really make sense to stay attached to England?  To a  failing state governed in the interest of the City of London with its tiny coterie of obscenely wealthy bullies, thieves and robbers?  A state hopelessly stuck in dreams of past glory, forever trying to ‘punch above its weight’, humiliatingly stuck in a self-deluding ‘special relationship’ with its colonial master, incapable of creating any positive vision of its future?”

Sure, it’s leftward leaning, but an articulate, open-eyed, intelligent left.

But then, you show me an artist that leans right and you’ll have to take me to London.

Scotland can become an open-eyed, articulate, intelligent left wing country if we vote Yes and then govern with responsibility under a likely Labour leadership.



Self-determination. It’s a very big word.

Screen Shot 2014-04-03 at 20.44.14

Noun: The process by which a person controls their own life.

The power or ability to make a decision for oneself without influence from outside.

Freedom to live as one chooses, or to act or decide without consulting others.

Essentially, it’s how a person behaves, decides, how to live.

Or a nation.

Self-determination. It sounds so much grander, so much more, hell, romantic, than independence.  It is, of course the very embodiment, the very DNA of independence, and it nurtures a positive philosophy.

Adventure rather than escape.

Whereas “Independence” suggests conflict, separatism, divorce.  All bad.  It riles many of the undecided.  It doesn’t bring them with us.

Yet, independence, in Scotland’s current constitutional debate, is the given word for self-determination.

And it’s easy to see why.

It’s jingoistic, it’s a short cut to a rational end game, but self-determination is actually what this is all about.

Self-determination doesn’t shriek “Fuck you, English rulers and bastards.”  It says instead “With due respect, we’d like to go our own way, make our own mistakes, take care of our own laundry, find new friends, keep old ones.”

But it’s a bloody mouthful.

All the same I say this.

“Vote Yes for Scottish self-determination.”

And, as for my patronising headline?

Well, I can’t let an opportunity for a wonderful English band to explain it.  (Not that it does it just makes me think of the lyric of Blind Youth every time I hear the word).

(@50 seconds)



She had a dream

Margaret Thatcher loathed the benfit driven leeches that she perceived Scotland to be.

But, we never elected her, just like we never elected David Cameron and his cronies.

Cameron is too scared to even debate independence with Alex Salmond because he realises AS OUR LEADER he a) has no mandate b) we loathe him c)In his own admissions he is too posh.

It’s interesting then, that in between the 70’s and teenies Independence pushes, Thatcher was an unwitting advocate of the outcome of independence.

By paraphrasing the quote below she was saying “We don’t want this lot.  We want to break them.  We want rid of them.”

Well, let’s grant her her wish posthumously; shall we?

I am indebted to James Mclaughlin for the inspiration for this poster idea, but please forgive the shocking art direction and general cobbled togetherness.

It’s the thought that counts.

t1



Scotland’s White paper on Independence

Screen Shot 2013-11-26 at 11.21.54

It’s not difficult folks.  Here’s the argument in a nutshell.

(Taken from Salmond’s opening remarks in the White Paper published this morning.)

“At its heart independence is not about this Government or any political party. (THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL AND VERY IMPORTANT POINT) It is about a fundamental democratic choice for the people of Scotland. It is about the power to choose who we should be governed by and the power to build a country that reflects our priorities as a society and our values as a people.

I believe in independence because I believe it will be better for all of us if decisions about Scotland are taken by the people who care most about Scotland – the people who live and work here. It is my absolute conviction that Scotland’s future should be in Scotland’s hands.”  (Alex Salmond)

Read it here.

Please.

And before you get all angsty about the SNP, consider this.

Post Independence it’s perfectly conceivable that there won’t even BE an SNP.  They may become, let’s say, the Social Democrats.  Right of Labour (which would be a good thing in my view.  ie Proper Liberals)



Why I feel I’m now prepared to vote for an independent Scotland.

-1

At no point in my adult life have I ever felt the compulsion to break free from the union of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England.  My naive view has always been “what isn’t broken doesn’t need fixed”.

Even when the SNP smashed their way through an electoral voting system that was designed to favour coalitions over overall majorities (with my support – but check out the alternatives, both at the time and now, if you like) I was not even remotely interested in an independence vote.

Since their announcement that an independence referendum would be held at around the time that nationalism could be at an all time modern high (Commonwealth Games and Ryder Cup in close succession) I’ve failed, until recently, to have my fire ignited.

The reason for this disinterest, apathy actually, has been the quality of debate.  I’d heard little in the way of compulsive argument in the mainstream media and little more than rhetoric and, frankly, slightly xenophobic, pro support and ill-informed anti- counter-arguments.

The whole thing has been slightly embarrassing if I’m honest.  “Aye”  “Naw” “Aye” “Naw” has more or less summed up the discourse.

However, bubbling under the surface has been a steady stream of well thought out pro- arguments, mainly from the arts community to which I am close.  Again I largely ignored these because my gut feeling was that artists are by their very nature often anti-establishment and more in touch with the cultural DNA of a community than the average man or woman.  Their creativity can be inspired by an almost preternatural attachment to the environment in which they live rather than a rational assessment of the facts

The ‘No’ vote (Better Together) is well funded and has the massive advantage of being able to prey on the human instinct that eschews change and is fundamentally risk averse (If you don’t believe me do some reading on behavioural economics and, in particular, enjoy reading the seminal book on the subject Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness’ by Thaler and Sunstein). 

Nudge-cover

In comparison the ‘Yes’ vote seems slow, maybe deliberately so, in getting out of the blocks.  And when I say slow, I mean glacier-like.

And so, I’ve been unmoved by the whole sorry process; until recently.

What caused me to change my view was actually a deep-seated nervousness that this whole, potentially life changing, chapter in my life and my nation’s history was in danger of passing me by.  That I, like most of my family, friends and colleagues, would assume a position (most of us anti-Independence) based on gut feel.  “We’re part of the UK; a nation that punches way, way above its weight, so we must be OK.”  That I, like most of my family, friends and colleagues would vote no because I’d heard nothing substantive to reinform my media-addled opinion.  For “Aye” “Naw” “Aye” “Naw” read “Whatever”.  And like most of us my default position (risk averse) would be “Naw”.

I felt deeply uncomfortable about this.

So I set out to have an opinion.

First stop.  The ‘No’ vote.

What interesting pro-union essays, manifestos or informed publications should I read?  Well, you tell me, I haven’t found one yet.

I have heard interesting sound bites in the news, such as we’d have to switch our mobile phones to roaming if we crossed the English border (following border checks of course) post independence.  Now that’s not helpful.  It’s not true, it’s not credible and it’s silly.

Last week Theresa May dropped an unsubtle and purely scaremongering threat that Scotland would be dropped from the protective embrace of the big 5 English speaking nations and the intelligence pooling .  Oh come on.

And so to the ‘Yes’ vote.

I’m not a Nationalist, never have been. But as I said earlier I’d voted for the SNP at the last election because the quality of political argument from the alternatives (50 shades of Iain Gray) was so bad it actually made me wince.  Salmond, love the cheeky wee monkey or hate him, kicked arse so hard that the entire field of opposition leaders resigned post election, only to be replaced with slightly less inept Westminster stooges.

So, you might argue that I was already subconsciously nudging my way towards the Yes box.  Not that I thought so.

I am now though and the reason for this is that I read the recently departed Stephen Maxwell’s astounding extended essay on the what’s, whys and wherefore’s of Independence.  Warts and all called Arguing for Independence: Evidence, Risks and the Wicked Issues.

61ucBZrIjvL._SY445_

Stephen Maxwell is a lifelong SNP voter so you’d expect him to be pro independence (although actually he would argue strongly for Devo Max too) and so it transpires.  But it’s the quality of his argument that makes this book essential reading.  And by argument I mean just that.  This is no Malcolm X style hustings sermon, it’s an all things considered, and shared, evaluation of the pro’s and con’s of crossing the ‘Yes’ box – and the Rubicon as a result.

It draws on precedence widely (Ireland, Iceland, Scandinavia in particular – because these are the economies that most readily reflect the Scottish ecology) and considers the many, many what if scenarios that could change Scotland, post-independence, for better or worse.

What if;

  • We run out of oil? (quicker than expected)
  • There’s war?
  • Europe rejects us (the Spanish hold pretty strong fishing gripes)?
  • The banks collapse (again)?
  • Alex Salmond pisses everyone off (again)?

I hear these arguments regularly from the “aye but” No camp.  No, actually all I hear from the ‘official’ no camp is uncompromising stonewalling.  Not debate, no weighed up arguments.

Just no.

Oh, and that Alex Salmond pisses them off.

images

And sadly, most of what I hear from  the ‘official’ yes camp is the same.  (Apart from the Alex Salmond bit of course.)

But I digress, back to Maxwell.  He rightly tempers his argument with these negative ‘what ifs’ because these need aired and intelligently valued so that the more positive ‘what ifs’ can be reasonably contextualized.

You can read it yourself for the detail but I’d summarise them, without referring to notes, thus;

  • Would you rather your country was run from your country or from another country by a coalition you didn’t vote for and that even the majority of the rest of its own country didn’t vote for. (I won’t go into the demographics of this mob as Maxwell does it better than I can – but I’m sure you can work it out for yourselves.)
  • The recent history of Westminster interventions on exclusively Scottish issues (in particular) fisheries policy has been, at best, indifferent, or worse, inept.
  • The economic balancing act of tax raising/distribution has long favoured Westminster; Barnett Formula or no Barnett Formula – yes, yes I am referring to our oil.

And speaking of our oil;

  • If, like Norway, we’d have set up an oil fund in the late 1960’s we too might have a £300bn war chest – not to mention widespread investment in de-risking the Klondyke.  It’s not too late.
  • It’s only half exhausted (and that’s before we explore deeper waters)
  • It can fund R&D into renewable energy technologies which, if proven (and yes risky), will put Scotland on the front foot across Europe – like Norway.

But back to the argument;

  • If you, like me, favour a Social Democracy you ain’t gonna find it any time soon in Westminster.  But consider the SNP’s track record in this area.
  • If you were planning a nuclear attack where exactly in the UK would you aim your sights – London and Faslane I’d argue.
  • Trident costs Scotland £1bn a year.  Few of us want it.
  • HS2 anyone?  Doesn’t come to Scotland.  But we’d be paying for it.
  • Would an independent Scotland have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq (and all that it cost).  That’s a big fat no!
  • The quality of our politicians would rise (the brain drain [sic] reversing).

Yes there are risks.  The oil price might fall (do you think?), renewable energy may prove economically unviable, large corporates may walk (they did in the Irish case –in their droves INTO Ireland), we’d save money on Trident but we’d lose thousands of defence jobs at both Faslane and Rosyth (but we’d get our army back),

I am not a zealous pro-independent now.  I recognise the risks but I do feel I am now better informed and that I at least have an opinion that I can now shape over the coming year.

Hand on heart; do you?



Earthquake in Scotland

Gor blimey. What's gonna go wrang next?

Gor blimey. What's gonna go wrang next?

So, as predicted, Alex Salmond has delivered a further body blow to what is appearing to be an increasingly inept Brown government. But it’s hardly a surprise is it. After all Alex was crawling all over Glasgow East on a regular basis wooing the electorate whilst Brown just shuffled about apologetically in an unapologetic way.

OK, it’s a protest vote and not likely to be repeated in a general election, but you cannot argue with Salmond and his very able deputies (Swinney in a role he is far better suited to than leading the party) and Nicola Sturgeon, an articulate and likeable deputy to Salmond.

At this rate he could actually convince the country to vote for independence.