BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG
We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
NORTON META TAG
10 April 2014
SCOTLAND DECIDES 2014, AN UPDATE 10APR14
MY mother's maiden name is Irvine, her clan is the Irvines of Drum. So we have a keen interest in the vote in Scotland this September. I hope the Scots vote for independence and rid themselves of English rule once and forever! When God had finished creating Scotland, He looked down on it with
great satisfaction. Finally he called the Archangel Gabriel to have a
look. "Just see," said God. "This is the best yet. Splendid mountains,
beautiful scenery, brave men, fine women, nice cool weather. And
I've given them beautiful music and a special drink called whisky.
Try some."
Gabriel took an appreciative sip. "Excellent,"
he said. "But haven't you perhaps been too kind to them? Won't they
be spoiled by all these things? Should there not be some
drawback?"
"Just wait till you see the neighbours they're getting," said God.
After 300 Years Of Marriage, Scotland Contemplates U.K. Divorce
Pro-independence campaigners attend a rally In Edinburgh, Scotland, in September.
Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images
Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom for more than 300
years. This fall, that could change. In mid-September, a referendum on
independence will determine whether Scotland breaks off from England,
Northern Ireland and Wales to become a sovereign nation.
Scotland's
largest city, Glasgow, is ground zero in this debate. The East End of
this city is poor and run down, with some of the worst health figures in
Europe. Men here are expected to live into only their mid-50s, some 30
years less than in wealthy areas.
"You can just look around and
see. Everybody's in the same boat. We're all broke!" Connie Hendry says
with a cackle. She's smoking a cigarette outside her mother-in-law's
greasy spoon cafe. Customers are scarce. Forty years ago, Hendry says,
the area was "packing. You couldn't have moved down here at one point.
But now it's dead."
She works in a part of town called the
Barras, an old market that sells low-cost items like knockoff DVDs and
used clothing. For the hawkers and their occasional customers, the key
question is whether an independent Scotland will improve their lives.
There is intense disagreement.
"Better with the devil you know!" cries Robert McKinnon from his stall where he sells socks.
His buddy Roger McKinnon couldn't disagree more, insisting, "London is sucking the life out of the rest of the United Kingdom!" Warnings From London
London
is about 300 miles away, and for independence supporters, London is the
villain in this drama. "Yes" voters see a conservative government that
doesn't represent Scotland's more liberal population.
Officials
in London have issued dire warnings that an independent Scotland would
lose the pound, the BBC and membership in the European Union. Big
business finds that scary.
Related NPR Stories
In a much tidier part of town, Stuart Patrick runs the Glasgow
Chamber of Commerce. His group has not yet taken a formal position on
the independence referendum, but Patrick says he gets lobbied every day.
"At
least the existing framework is well-known," he says, sitting at a
table in his office. "So in that respect, there is a degree of pressure
on the proponent of the change."
While business has a huge influence on politics in America, Patrick explains that it's a little different here.
"The
Scots are not necessarily people who are easily told how to vote," he
says. "And if you come out too vigorously saying, 'If you know what's
good for you, you'll do X or Y,' Scots have a tendency to say, 'Aye,
right. Nah, I'm not listening.' " The Cookie Vote
Outside
of a hotel downtown, a man in a kilt plays the bagpipes for a wedding. A
short walk away, the National Piping Centre sells waterproof bagpipe
cases. A few blocks in the other direction, shops make and sell custom
kilts.
Pro-independence supporters, seen here at a
September rally in Edinburgh, say many Scots still see the English as
colonial empire-builders.
Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images
This is not ironic kitsch. The Scots take their heritage very
seriously. In Glasgow, haggis is no joke. It's part of the hotel
breakfast buffet.
The people of Scotland have a strong sense of
national pride, history and identity. That sentiment informs many "yes"
votes, and it's manifest at the Riverhill Coffee Bar, a sliver of a
cafe with a vibrant blue facade where manager Kirstie Gilmore recently
decided to do a sort of experiment with a Scottish sandwich cookie
called an empire biscuit.
"We actually done empire biscuits with yes and no, like a ballot," she explains.
At
first, the independence cookies outsold the unity ones. Then Gilmore
started to wonder whether customers were just choosing the blue "yes"
icing over the red "no" color.
"So we had to kind of mix it up with the second batch, so we did some red yeses and blue nos."
Even after the switch, the yes cakes won. But the chef, Kenny Harkin, is in the no camp.
"I just think standing alone isn't necessarily the way forward," he says. "I think unity is what we need."
Two of the baristas would've bought the yes cookies, largely for nationalistic rather than economic reasons.
"I'm not saying that English culture's negative, drinking tea and crumpets," barista Gerard Loughrey says dismissively.
His
co-worker Mikie Lee Dale describes the cultural difference in even
starker terms, explaining that many Scots still see the English as
colonial empire-builders, acting like "the masters who've conquered the
world and who therefore own that world."
Polls show that most Scots favor the Better Together campaign's unity position.
Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images
Polls Show Voters Favor Unity
The unity campaign is very aware of this perception. Communications director Rob Shorthouse is Scottish born and bred.
In
Scotland, "we don't talk about — I'm a citizen of the United Kingdom,
or I'm British," says Shorthouse. "No, we all identify ourselves as
Scots. And that's common across yes voters and no voters."
The
Better Together campaign staff are somewhat incongruously crammed into a
beautiful old building that used to house Glasgow's Society of Lady
Artists. There's an ornate ceiling and a fireplace as tall as a grown
man. There are also flimsy cubicle walls, laptops and energy drinks.
Shorthouse says his campaign has the majority of Scottish people on its side.
"We're
having this referendum not because of a large groundswell of public
demonstrations and opinion forcing this on the government," he says.
"The government [has] decided that this is what they want, because it's a
longstanding policy of theirs."
He means Scotland's
government. The Scottish National Party unexpectedly won the elections
here in 2011. That opened the door for this vote, fulfilling a
centuries-old dream of Scottish nationalists.
"Scotland has
never voted on whether or not it wishes to be part of the United
Kingdom," says Blair Jenkins, chief executive of the Yes Scotland
campaign for independence. "There's no doubt as a healthy democratic
process, just the opportunity of voting on this is huge."
Jenkins accuses his opponents of a roadblock strategy, calling Better Together "Project Fear."
"I
think the strategy of the people who want a 'no' vote is to say,
however attractive this road is, you can't go down that road because
here are all the obstacles," Jenkins says, referring to threats to take
away the pound, EU membership and more. "And I think the people resent
the notion that there seems to be an attempt to force them to vote in a
particular way.
If that resentment exists, it doesn't seem to
be reflected in the polls. The latest survey shows support for unity
well above 50 percent. Support for independence is in the low 30s, with
around 10 percent undecided.
Mark Shephard is a political
scientist at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. He has studied
other independence referendums around the world and says, "In the
majority of cases, as you approach the referendum date, people tend to
gravitate to the status quo — the 'better the devil you know' kind of
position."
So it's an uphill climb for the yes team. But
Shephard says even if they lose, and Scotland remains in the U.K., this
debate may dramatically reshape the dynamic within the United Kingdom.
That suggests September's vote will have major repercussions for
Scotland, no matter the outcome.
Scots will vote in September as to whether or not Scotland should separate from the UK.
Last updated: 04 Mar 2014 13:08
In just over six months, Scotland will vote on separating from the rest of Great Britain.
On Tuesday, Scotland’s first minister Alex Salmond will once again outline the pro-independence case.
An opinion poll in the last week suggested 61 per cent of people in England want Scotland to remain part of the UK.
Scotland will vote on the separation in September.
Al Jazeera's Nadim Baba reports from London.
Stand-alone Scotland
England and Scotland, two ageing spouses tolerating one another, but ultimately are they better together or apart?
Julie returns to Scotland to find no perceived anti-English sentiment like she had been expecting [Layla Neal]
In 2014, the people of Scotland will be asked whether
they want to become an independent sovereign state. It is not often
that a 300-year-old union is broken, so the vote will have ramifications
far beyond a land of five million people.
Scots are a passionate, emotional bunch. I should know I'm one of
them. Even though I now live in the south of England, I'm proud to call
myself a Scot and excited by our national qualities of courage, warmth,
ingenuity and our warrior spirits.
That is not to say that I'm not proud of being British too - it's just the Scottish strands of my DNA shout loudest.
Come
the vote, how much will Scots consider the economic pros and cons of an
independent Scotland? I think they are more likely to vote on the
basis of frustration at being the poorest oil-bearing country in the
world and because, frankly, they consider the English to be a miserable,
snotty band of southerners.
Kilmacolm is a little village just outside Glasgow where I grew up
and discovered what it means to be Scottish - from the work ethic and
extreme friendliness I acquired at Pierry's cafe and deli to the
Scottish country dance I learned with friends. But does this identity
mean that I want to separate from my family and friends who live in the
south? Channelling Wallace
For thousands of years kings and queens of Scotland sent their people
to fight in the name of a free Scotland. That history is everywhere and
was brought to life by the film Braveheart, with its portrayal
of Scottish hero William Wallace. It may have been Hollywood's
interpretation of the story, but it pulled at my heartstrings
nonetheless.
The major thing about Indian
independence was Gandhi going on hunger strike to bring the British Raj
down. You can hardly see Alex Salmond going on hunger strike can you?
Vladimir McTavish, otherwise known as Paul Sneddon, Scottish comedian
A monument to Wallace near Stirling Bridge now serves as a permanent
reminder that 300 years ago England underestimated the Scots'
determination for sovereignty.
Will they now be brave enough to undertake the adventure of independence, I ask historian Tom Devine.
When I first came home, I expected to find a country focusing on myths and history, Braveheart
and Mel Gibson. But, actually, the debate seems to be more about a
desire to assert a new political identity than anti-English sentiment.
"You've
got to watch the term brave," he tells me. "This is about the future of
them and their families. You've got to think about this prudently. This
is not a melodrama, it's a political exercise."
Blair Jenkins, who heads the Yes Scotland campaign, tries to describe
the mood: "There's an appetite right around the country. People like me
who've no previous connection with any political campaign or any
political party but who do feel this is a once in a lifetime historical
opportunity to put Scotland on a different course ..."
"I think there's a huge strand in Scottish culture that people just
don't take themselves seriously and they don't take the country
seriously. I mean knowing how patriotic Scottish people are they really
have a huge sense of sending up their own culture."
Struggle and strife
But this hardly paints a picture of the kind of struggle and strife behind other independence movements.
"Other
countries have gone to extremes to find independence," says Scottish
comedian Paul Sneddon, who also goes by the stage name Vladimir
McTavish. "America had to fight a war, Ireland had to fight a war, one
of the major things about Indian independence was Gandhi going on hunger
strike to bring the British Raj down. You can hardly see Alex Salmond
[Scotland's first minister and the leader of the Scottish Nationalist
Party (SNP)] going on hunger strike can you?"
A healthy sense of the ridiculous is always good, but even if Scots
aren't engaged, the rest of the world is. And I hope Scots realise the
ramifications this vote could have for others, like the Catalans who
look to Scotland as a vision of what could be.
"It's a genuine beacon for others to say 'if Scotland can do it, why can't we do it'?" says socialist Rob McAlpine.
But there are some who believe independence is inevitable, McAlpine
built his eco-house outside Scotland's political capital, his views,
like his home, might be considered utopian.
"I think there's an awful lot of people looking on saying you know I
want change, and certainly the degree of interest I've had
internationally is enormous."He says: "I'm not worried about
[divisiveness]. In the Scottish context there is very, very little
element of ethnic nationalism. Head over heart
Although I am beginning to see the advantages of independence, if Scottish history tells me anything it is 'beware'.
Scottish culture such as dancing and traditional foods helped Julie form a clear Scottish identity [Layla Neal]
And, while there is no doubt that history will rub off on many a Scot
when it comes to the vote, I have personally always been head over
heart when it comes to decisions like this.
Back in 1997 I had
the opportunity to vote for a Scottish parliament. I was working as a
trainee journalist at the time and kept meeting politicians who seemed,
to me, like a boorish and backward lot. I voted against but, fortunately
for them, my vote didn't affect the outcome and on May 12, 1999, the
Scottish parliament was reconvened.
Donald Dewar became Scotland’s first minister, and the Scottish
parliament had power over education, healthcare and economic
development. And there was more - guaranteed funding from Westminster,
based on the formula devised by their top financial adviser, Lord
Barnett. Last year Scotland’s share was a massive $54bn.
Some Scots feel their nation benefits from the Barnett formula,
pointing to the oft-cited $2,900 a year more everyone in Scotland
receives from the British government for public services. But, much like
the Loch Ness monster, this is a myth. Scotland does not, in fact,
receive a net subsidy, although this one misleading belief is regularly
used to support the union by those who fear Scotland will be unable to
stay in the black without the UK.
Alex Salmond has no such worries, which may have a little something
to do with future North Sea oil revenues currently estimated at $2.4
trillion.
He tells me: "We’ve never claimed there’ll be free taps on whiskey,
oil and water, but what we do claim is this is a country with immense
human and natural resources which can be a highly successful country and
a much fairer society. The best and most successful countries are the
most just socially."
Glasgow is Scotland’s economic power house, but with pockets of
deprivation so severe the life expectancy is actually better in parts of
Iraq or the Gaza Strip, more people here are out of work than in the
rest of the UK and more people die here prematurely of heart disease
than anywhere else in the world.
Julie Macdonald, Al Jazeera correspondent
But after spending a morning with the first minister, I'm still not
convinced. Their economic policies seem a bit half-baked to me.
And
in Glasgow, where the massive gap between Scotland's rich and poor is
at its worst, this concerns me. Like successive British governments, it
is a problem the Scottish government has been unable to crack.
Glasgow is Scotland's economic power house, but it has pockets of
depravation so severe that life expectancy is actually better in parts
of Iraq or the Gaza Strip. More Glaswegians are out of work than
anywhere else in the UK, and more die prematurely of heart disease than
anywhere else in the world.
Patrick Harvie from the Scottish Green Party is convinced
independence offers an opportunity to put things right.Glasgow's
problems are Scotland's problems, so how do you govern a country that
has such disparity in wealth?
"If what you'd see when you look out of your window is society more
or less as you'd like it, if you're comfortable with the level of
poverty and inequality, you'll probably vote for the status quo," he
says. "But ... Scotland's got the opportunity to be the model of a
small, independent, peaceful, democratic society like many others in
northern Europe and I think that's a far more inspiring future for our
society than the status quo from Westminster."
When I listen to him, this vision of a stand-alone Scotland seems not
just possible but preferable. Still it is money worries that plague me.
And, travelling to the coastal town of Peterhead, I realise that every
Scottish industry has become a pawn in this political game.
John Stephen, a skipper on a fishing trawler, shares some of my
fears. "My personal view of independence is it's going to be a disaster
for the fishing industry because the SNP has said it's going to take us
to Europe," he says. "Now ... the Tories have already stated that if
they win the UK election they'll give us the vote to come out of Europe.
I think it would be better for Scotland to remain in the UK and part of
Britain. It would be better for the fishing industry." Black gold
But the real money coming out of the North Sea is in the form of oil.
It is Scotland's black gold and is right at the heart of nationalist
optimism.
An independent Scotland's financial future depends on the vast reserves of North Sea oil [Layla Neal]
An independent Scotland's financial future depends on the vast reserves of North Sea oil keeping it in the black.
Aberdeen is Scotland's oil boom town. The European Union buys 60
percent of its oil from this part of Scotland, and it is where I spent
my university years, being taught by Scotland's leading oil expert,
Alexander Kemp. He has his concerns about the volatility of oil revenues
and says: "In terms of a governments budget it would be wise not to be
very reliant on oil revenues for normal budget purposes."
Even if oil prices were stable there's still the question of how much
North Sea oil an independent Scotland would control. An agreement would
have to be reached with the rest of the UK, but there could still be
another midge in the ointment - the Shetland Isles.
It takes a twelve-and-a-half hour boat trip to reach Scotland’s
remotest corner. The 22,000 residents of the Shetland Isles have a very
different sense of community and identity. They look towards the east
and Scandinavia for a sense of belonging, and that gives the islanders a
very unique perspective on the question of independence - and they
claim that a quarter of Scotland's oil is theirs.
The East Shetland oil basin is one of Europe's largest oil fields and
one of the big questions will be: who owns it? Tavish Scott, the
Shetland Isle's member of parliament, tells me: "If you're a Shetlander,
your argument is we're part of this, we're part of this debate and we
want an interest in it because our interest in the petro-economy is very
much not just about now but over the next 40 years .... Alex Salmond
makes the argument [that] people best served to make decisions about
Scotland are the people who live in Scotland. Well the same argument
absolutely applies to Shetland."
Negotiating oil revenues with Shetland will not be the only economic
challenge awaiting an independent Scotland. It will also have to
accommodate a rise in some of its most significant financial outlays.
One of those will be how Scotland defends itself, and that is a
particularly thorny issue in Faslane, which is home to several nuclear
submarines armed with Trident missiles. Although based in Scotland, the
nuclear deterrent is vitally important to the defence of Britain.
But, if the nationalists get their way, this rural corner of Scotland
will be nuclear free. And defence expert Phillips O'Brien foresees
difficulties.
"There's a bit of a myth about independence that independence gives
you authority and power," he says. "Actually what independence gives you
is responsibility. You can't as an independent country decide to do
whatever you want. No country, not even the United States, can do
whatever it decides to do at any time. Those warheads are extremely
vital, not just for Scotland or the UK, they're important within world
politics, they’re important in European Union politics." Scotland the Brave?
Polls indicate that most Scots either don't want independence or are
unsure. I feel that Scots' hearts just aren't in this vision of a
stand-alone Scotland. For me it's not a question of could Scotland go it
alone. Absolutely it could, but should it? If you ask me, my answer
would be, not right now.
More power for Scotland without absolute divorce makes the most sense
to me and that is something David Cameron, the British prime minister,
has hinted could be on the cards. But that's not the question being
asked.
So should Scotland be an independent nation? That question is academic because socially it already is.
This is not the Scotland of my birth. It is a country more sure of itself than ever.
But is it ready to be Scotland the Brave? If not next September, it
is a question that will be asked again because, like 300 years of
history, it refuses to be swept away.
Scotland's quiet revolution
As Scotland braces for its independence referendum, Julie MacDonald asks if a 300-year-old union is at breaking point.
Will next year's referendum on Scottish independence signal the end of a 300-year-old marriage? [GALLO/GETTY]
As I wrote my pitch for an episode of Al Jazeera Correspondent about
the bid for Scottish independence, the Arab Spring was unfolding.
Revolutions were taking place before our eyes in the most bloody and
terrifying of ways. In Syria more than 60,000 people had lost their
lives in the battle for change; in Egypt, a democratically-elected
government would be thrust aside and many would risk their lives on
Cairo's streets to have their say in the struggle for power.
I found myself drawn to the story of my own nation and its search for
a new identity. But in Scotland, there are no violent protests, no
thousand-strong marches on parliament.
There are, however,
jubilant parades full of Scottish flags and faces painted blue and
white. There are thousands of volunteers knocking on doors asking people
to vote 'yes' in order to give Scotland a once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity to choose a different path to its neighbours. They may not
be lining up outside the Scottish parliament, at the risk of getting
shot, but for those who believe in a stand-alone Scotland, this is a
profound moment in the country's story and they see themselves very much
as 'fighting for change'.
But the opposition is fierce, and,
according to polls, most people want to stay in the union, while there
are many more again who are indifferent to the question or undecided.
The 'no' campaign has been accused of dumping scare stories in the press
suggesting that life will become more expensive and the economy will
suffer. But, just as the hopes of those who want independence are real,
so, too, are the fears of those who do not want change.
For my
friends and colleagues from Egypt, Libya and Syria, the bid for
independence is perplexing. They ask me why it is such a quiet
revolution and why Scots do not fight for what they want.
But what do Scots want?
Well, this is where it gets tricky.
The
Scottish National Party (SNP) won by a landslide in the last election.
But a vote for the SNP is not a vote for independence.
Alex
Salmond, Scotland's first minister, explained to me that his party's
recent success can be attributed to it focusing on being the party of
good governance. Many of the Scots who voted for them wanted good
governance, not an independent nation.
Nonetheless, the first
minister made a promise that he would raise the question of independence
and now, whether Scots like it or not, they will have to nail their
colours to the mast. A marriage of convenience
If Scotland gains independence, new legislation will have to pass to state who owns the North Sea oil [GALLO/GETTY]
Scotland and England have been locked in a marriage of convenience
for more than 300 years. It is, in the words of historian Tom Devine, a
mutable "stretch to fit" union. Over the years it has moulded
and changed according to the needs of each nation.
But, as I
embarked upon my journey across the land where I was born, I wanted to
know if that union had now reached breaking point and, if so, why?
At
the start of this process I was unsure where I stood on the matter. But
as I heard from all sides of the debate, it became clear just how many
challenges breaking up a nation poses. There are the not inconsiderable
matters of arming the country, divvying up the national debt, choosing a
currency and, of course, building a thriving economy.
This is a debate that cannot be summed up in sound bites. There is no guidebook to conducting a national divorce.
If Scotland does choose to go its own way, there will undoubtedly be a
mass of practicalities to handle. Just deciding how to divide the
licensing of the North Sea oil could require the invention of a whole
new strand of law. Are the politicians who could be responsible for
shaping a brave new Scotland really up to the task?
Well Scotland has been here before, like in 1979 when Scots voted in
favour of having a devolved government only for Westminster to deny them
their wish by declaring that at least 40 percent of the total
electorate had to vote in favour for it to pass. And with the uncast
votes of the deceased who had not been removed from the electoral roll
and others unable to vote counted as a 'no', political trickery had its
way.
Then in 1997, another referendum beckoned Scots to the polls. I was a
trainee journalist at the time and, unimpressed by the seemingly
boorish bunch of Scottish politicians I was interviewing, voted no.
Luckily for Scotland, my vote was in the minority and a Scottish
parliament was born - in charge at last of healthcare, economic
development and education.
Consequently, as I discovered while travelling home this summer, a
much more self-confident nation has emerged. With it, one Scottish
politician in particular has put the question of independence firmly
back on the table.
Depending on who you talk to, Alex Salmond is either the villain or
hero in Scotland's current political narrative. He made a promise to the
Scottish people when they elected his SNP to power that he would bring
about a referendum. And he has, albeit with one major glitch: the SNP
was forced to agree to a straight 'yes-no' question on the ballot paper,
ruling out a third, and to many more preferable, option on increased
powers for Edinburgh.
Depending on your political affiliation, Salmond has either set
himself and the quest for a 'new Scotland' up for a humiliating defeat
next September or is playing a political long game that will ultimately
deliver independence. As with all things political, the truth is
probably somewhere in between.
Those who support him paint a
picture of an astute politician. They say that by demanding an option he
knew would be unacceptable to the Unionists, he has painted Scottish
Labour, his only real Scottish rivals, as anti-devolution. And, having
spent a morning with him back in July, I would be inclined to agree.
This is, after all, a man who lost a good few elections before he hit on
the Scottish sweet spot - that the best people to make decisions for
Scotland are the people who live there. This one simple phrase changed
the direction of the SNP and its fortunes. Realising that they could
never reach the average Scot with talk of independence alone, the SNP
sought to show the broader electorate that it could deliver good
governance. Independence could come later. They think it's all over ...
The SNP's Alex Salmond has form in making the impossible happen, but can he do the same in next year's referendum? [EPA]
So, if the vote matters so much, why aren't Scots engaged?
The
newspapers say it matters, and the British and international media is
fascinated. But as we travelled the length and breadth of Scotland, the
word 'independence' was met with a collective groan.
Partly it is
because breaking up a union, although not unprecedented, is
complicated, and many Scots have put their hands firmly over their ears.
They are sceptical about the political grandstanding or are searching
for simpler answers to these big questions.
For some, though,
Scotland, which has grown in confidence culturally and politically over
the past 30 years, is already a separate nation, and they don't see the
need for more power and responsibility. I came to understand that the
question of whether Scotland should be an independent nation is largely
academic - it already is.
Socially and culturally it has always
been separate from the rest of the UK. And, quietly and consistently
since the Scottish parliament was re-convened in 1999, it has grown
apart from its neighbours. So at the heart of this vote is a search for a
new political direction, one that more closely matches the beliefs of
the Scottish people. Even if Scots vote 'no', the centre-right approach
of the politicians in Westminster will continue to force Scots to
question their marriage with the UK.
Whether or not we like it, Scotland is growing out of the Union, and
it would be dangerous for politicians north or south of the border not
to give considerable thought to an eventual break-up. But, worryingly,
this is a shift the Unionists seem not to have grasped as they
prematurely congratulate themselves on a victory in next year's
referendum.
Unionist confidence has been shored up by US
statistician and election forecaster Nate Silver, who is famed for
correctly predicting the results of past US elections and told an
audience in Edinburgh that the 'yes' vote could not win. But even before
his speech, Unionist malaise was evident as we tried to track down
members of the 'no' campaign to participate in our film. Many of them
simply told us 'no' - it was too inconvenient, they were on holiday, the
party line had not been firmed up; the excuses came thick and fast.
Eventually, Alastair Darling, the former chancellor of the exchequer,
agreed to a 10 minute interview on the lawn of the Scottish parliament.
When I asked him why the 'no' campaign were so difficult to get hold
of, while the 'yes' campaign fell over themselves to participate in the
film, he mused "they've got more work to do perhaps".
But those who do not want independence are worried by the minimal
visibility of the 'no' campaign in comparison with that of the 'yes',
who have been canvassing and door knocking with enthusiasm, holding
rallies full of flag-waving supporters and have even opened a
walk-in office on the purposefully chosen Hope Street.
The 'no' campaign would be wise not to underestimate their opponents,
and here's why: In 2011, at this point in the parliamentary elections,
the SNP was more than 10 points behind. But Salmond went on to win by a
landslide. He, and his party, have form in making the impossible happen.
An Independent Scotland would be good for the world
A year from today, Scotland will be in a position to become the master of its destiny, potentially gaining independence.
Humza
Yousaf has served as the Scottish National Party Member of the Scottish
Parliament for Glasgow since 2011, he is currently the Minister for
External Affairs and International Development.
"Independence is an opportunity for
Scotland to show leadership, helping to bring closer to reality the
peaceful world," writes Humza Yousaf [Reuters]
Today (18 September), people in Scotland are exactly one year away from the all important day when our citizens will vote
on the future direction of their country. Gaining control of how
Scotland will engage with the wider world is an important consequence of
that vote. For me,
an independent Scotland is not - and never will be - an end in itself.
It is about Scots gaining the powers that all independent nations
throughout the world take for granted: powers which will enable the
creation of jobs, encourage sustainable economic growth, secure social
justice, tackle inequality and promote fairness at home and abroad. Independence
will mean Scotland being able to develop policies that are determined
by the people of Scotland, which reflect our values. It will mean being
able to take a different approach to the UK, where this is the right
decision for Scotland. Scotland has much to offer as an active global
citizen.
An independent Scotland should include specific provisions on how and
when our armed forces would be able to take part in military
interventions, in line with international law. After the calamitous and
destructive invasion of Iraq, never again should Scottish soldiers be
sent to a war
Independence will enable Scotland to add a
progressive voice to global issues promoting peace, equality and
fairness. Upon independence, we will make clear that Scotland is a
country that is committed to international law, respects and promotes
human rights, democratic values, equality and good governance. Meaning of the independence
That is why
we have already suggested that the written constitution we envisage for
an independent Scotland should include specific provisions on how and
when our armed forces would be able to take part in military
interventions, in line with international law. After the calamitous and
destructive invasion of Iraq, never again should Scottish soldiers be
sent to a war we do not agree with as a nation and which does not carry a
legal mandate. Independence is an opportunity
for Scotland to become the type of country its population knows it can
be. It is also an opportunity for Scotland to show leadership, helping
to bring closer to reality the peaceful world we all want to see. From civic society,
including Churches, faith groups and peace activists, right through to
your ordinary man and woman, the opposition to nuclear weapons in
Scotland is overwhelming. However, despite this opposition, weapons of
mass destruction continue to be imposed upon Scotland by the UK
Government – only twenty miles from our largest population centre in
Glasgow. From day one after a successful vote for independence, we will begin negotiations with the UK Government
to safely and securely remove nuclear weapons from our soil as soon as
possible. Furthermore, we have committed to enshrine within our nation’s
written constitution our fundamental opposition to Scotland ever having
nuclear weapons in the future. By doing so, we will play our part
towards a safer and more peaceful global society by showing leadership
to others so we can realise the dream of a nuclear weapons free world. Giving to the world
Scotland has contributed much to the world over the
centuries through some very notable figures. From the father of modern
economics Adam Smith to the great philosopher of the Scottish and European Enlightenment David Hume, all the way through to famous explorers and humanitarians such as Dr David Livingston, to inventors such as Alexander Graham Bell and John Logie Baird – we have cast an important footprint on the world. However, Scotland’s rich tradition of innovation
and invention is not consigned to the pages of history. We continue to
lead the world in many fields and with independence would look to share
our expertise in a way that benefits the world’s poorest and most
vulnerable. For example, in international development, Scotland is the
first country in the world to have initiated a Climate Justice Fund.
This fund recognises that the developed world contributes the most to
the effects of climate change yet it is those in the developing world
who suffer the most. We further recognise that this is not a matter of
aid or charity but justice and therefore seeks to redress this imbalance
through expertise Scotland has in fields such as water sanitisation. An independent Scotland would have a unique
proposition to offer the world in relation to climate change and energy;
and we would innovate through our approach to international development
and international aid. With full control over international development
through independence we will also ensure that Scotland plays her part as
a good global citizen that fulfils her international obligations. The UK has delayed – for over 40 years –
achievement of the UN target that developed countries spend 0.7 per cent
of Gross National Income (GNI) on official development assistance.
This has long been met by Northern European countries such as Sweden,
Norway and Denmark, which continue to lead the way. In an independent
Scotland we will right that wrong and have committed to enshrine this
target in law, with an aspiration to move to one per cent of GNI over
time. In a world that is often riddled with instability
having another stable, progressive voice committed to international law
and consensus will only help advance the cause of peace in the global
arena. All of this achieved through a democratic,
peaceful means without a single drop of blood being spilled and engaging
with all the diverse communities that make up our rich tapestry in
Scotland. Engraved on the mace of the Scottish Parliament
are the values of compassion, wisdom, justice and integrity, as an
independent nation those values will also guide us in the choices we
make - the choice not to get involved in illegal wars, the choice to
tackle climate change, the choice to tackle global poverty, the choice
to rid our shores of nuclear weapons forever. This is an exciting time for Scotland; I hope the
rest of the world will watch with interest as our story unfolds over
this coming year and join with us as we build a better Scotland, a
nation that values our enduring alliances and friendships around the
world in the spirit of peace, progress and equality. Humza Yousaf has served as
the Scottish National Party Member of the Scottish
Parliament for Glasgow since 2011, he is currently the Minister for External Affairs and International Development.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment