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!!!!!!"
It's now less than a month before the people of Scotland will vote YES or NO to independence. And some
Canadian newspapers have been running stories, mostly comparing the
campaign to the one during the last Quebec referendum. But after spending a couple of weeks in Scotland recently, I have to say that while there are some strong similarities. It's also very very different. Starting
with the fact that if you were a casual visitor to Scotland, and didn't
know a referendum campaign was raging, you might never know one was
going on, for there are almost no outward signs of the turmoil
beneath...
Those were
only one of a handful of posters I saw in people's windows in all my
time there, shuttling between Glasgow, Edinburgh, and my family's home
in the highlands. I saw no NO
signs, no billboards, no graffiti, no t-shirts. I heard no passionate
arguments in the streets. I could hardly even get members of my own
family to talk about it. " I turn the radio and the television off when it comes on," my mother said. "We don't talk about it. It's just too horrible." So
I remember how grateful I was when after trying to get a big tough
looking guy on a train to talk about the referendum, he finally rolled
up his sleeve to show me the blue YES band on his wrist. Only to venture the opinion that the whole thing was "fucked," and then lapse into taciturn silence in classic Scottish fashion. While I stared out of the window at the beautiful countryside rushing by, feeling strangely disappointed...
Where was all the excitement? How come I seemed more excited than they were? And where was my YES t-shirt ? Dammit !#@!!!! But of
course there is a passionate debate raging, in newspapers, on
television, in town hall meetings all over the country, especially on
social media that wasn't around during the Quebec referendum campaign.
And especially on Twitter sites like this one. And as you
can see, while the NO side is playing basically the same game it played
in the Quebec campaign, warning that separation could lead to economic
disaster. And no you can't keep the pound.
The YES side
is offering up the vision of a very different country. A progressive
country that rejects the Con values of the hideous Cameron government in
London, and seeks to preserve the social safety net that they
are destroying. One that
among other things rejects militarism, in favour of better services for
children and seniors, and wants to strengthen medicare instead of privatizing it. Which as Scotland's most distinguished historian pointed out the other day, is entirely consistent with that country's history. "The Scottish
parliament has demonstrated competent government and it represents a
Scottish people who are wedded to a social democratic agenda and the
kind of political values which sustained and were embedded in the
welfare state of the late 1940s and 1950s. "It is the
Scots who have succeeded most in preserving the British idea of fairness
and compassion in terms of state support and intervention. Ironically,
it is England, since the 1980s, which has embarked on a separate
journey." And as the YES side proclaims, is a one in a lifetime opportunity too good to miss.
We have one
opportunity 30 days from today – one opportunity to use our wealth to
build a better, fairer and more prosperous Scotland. A Yes vote is not a
magic wand – like any nation, Scotland faces its challenges and will
not always get things right. But when we
cast our Yes vote on September 18, we can do so with confidence. We
should have confidence that we are ready and well-equipped to be an
independent nation. We should have confidence in our ability to make
this talented and resourceful country a better place to live. What the referendum campaign isn't however, is an appeal to Scotland's history and its long history of resistance, a so-called Braveheart campaign. ‘Yes
Scotland’ champions have worked to distance themselves from tribalism,
England-bashing and appeals to historic enmity. They are not interested
in discussing Braveheart (described by the Times as one of “the 10 most
historically inaccurate movies” of all time). “Every time a
journalist brings up Braveheart—the minute they bring it up—I know they
have no idea what’s going on,” says Scottish National Party (SNP) MP
Angus Robertson. “You don’t win votes about the next 700 years by
talking about the last 700 years.” Which I have
to admit I believe is a mistake. Because while I think they are right
about focusing on the future, and I share the YES side vision of a
kinder, gentler Con free society. And I can hardly be tribal when my Mum is English eh? The struggle of the Scottish people to run their own affairs is a determining part of their history. As this excerpt from a BBC documentary demonstrates, that history of resistance goes back far longer than even 700 years...
Published on Feb 16, 2013
Full documentary about the Roman empire and Scotland (Caledonia).
And the
weight of that history still hangs over the country, like the monument
to Braveheart (the patriot William Wallace not the hideous Mel Gibson)
looms over the town of Stirling...
Which is not
far from the site of the Battle of Bannockburn where Robert the Bruce
beat the English nine years after they executed and dismembered Wallace.
And the Scots for a while at least, were finally able to rule
themselves. Which is why Robert the Bruce and William Wallace stand guard at the entrance to Edinburgh Castle...
Are their country's greatest heroes, speak to my rebel heart like few others. And why despite the narrowing but still unfavourable polls. A NEW YouGov
opinion poll for the Times has added to evidence that support for
independence has risen with one month to go before the vote.
The poll recorded the highest level of backing for a Yes vote in its
polling on the referendum question, although No support maintained a
14-point lead.
Or the eventual referendum result.
I will always believe this:
So when I
attend the military tattoo in the courtyard of Edinburgh Castle, in the
shadow of those statues, my heart fills with pride at the history of the
Scottish people. At their achievements all over the world, including Canada, whose history they have also helped shape. And
I know they can do it, stand up to the Cons, and march confidently
towards the nationhood they deserve, and the better world they want...
In my next post on the struggle for Scottish independence, I'll look at how the old Scotland has engaged the new one...
And how the campaign has managed to mobilize the young like never before. Like I want to engage them here. For freedom knows no boundaries. Here's to a Con-free Canada, and a Con-free world. And of course Scotland FOREVER !!!!
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.
THE Olympic Games are supposed to be all about fostering sportsmanship and world peace. The London Olympic Committee has tarnished this goal in two ways. First, in the name of profitability they have allowed dow to be a corporate sponsor, taking dow's money while the company leaves the people of Bophal, India still struggling to overcome the environmental disaster dow unleashed on that community on 2-3DEZ1984 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster ). If dow has the money to sponsor the 2012 Summer Olympic Games in London they should have the money to continue the restoration and treatment of Bophal and it's families. Here are some pictures of dow's legacy in Bophal, keep them in mind when watching the opening ceremony and every time you see a commercial by dow during the Olympics.
The second action taken by the London Olympic Committee that exposed their hypocrisy of the ideals of the games was to allow the primary Russian arms dealer to the Syrian government of bashar al-assad, vladimir lisin, to attend the opening ceremony and the 2012 games. He is a merchant of mass murder, massacres, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and to allow him a presence at the games is nothing short of an endorsement of his actions. Below is an article from United Against Genocide objecting to victor lisin being allowed to attend the games, followed by coverage of the Syrian civil war from NPR.....
Terror Games: Syria, Russia and the Olympics
By Bama Athreya
Vladimir Lisin, Russian steel tycoon and vice president of the Russian Olympic Committee who has delivered arms to Syria.
This post originally appeared on OpEdNews.
Typically, the Olympic Games are an opportunity for the international
community to come together by promoting peace and preserving human
dignity through sport. But this year’s Games run the risk of being
tarnished by a Russian Olympic official who has been enabling the Syrian
regime.
Russia’s richest man, a steel tycoon named Vladimir Lisin, has been
helping supply Russian-made arms to the Syrian government responsible
for slaughtering thousands of its own people. According to news reports,
just one day after the Houla massacre, one of Lisin’s ships reached
Syria’s second largest port to offload an alleged shipment of weapons
from St. Petersburg.
The Russian government has rewarded Lisin’s loyalty with a top
position on their Olympic Committee. And as the families in Syria
continue to live in terror amid falling bombs and sniper fire, Lisin is
traveling to London to participate in the Olympic Opening Ceremonies.
Over 19,000 people have been killed in Syria and the violence
intensifies every day. A protracted civil war in Syria now seems
inevitable, which will undoubtedly lead to the loss of many more
civilian lives. In fact, the situation in Syria is now officially being
called a civil war by the International Red Cross.
Yet, Russia continues to support Assad’s murderous regime — recently
vetoing a United Nations Security Council resolution that would support
negotiations — and people like Lisin are profiting from it.
The multi-billion dollar arms trade between Russia and Syria has been
well exposed in recent months. In 2011, the Russian government provided
over $1 billion in weapons to the regime of Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad and over recent weeks attempted to ship attack helicopters and
munitions to the Syrian military.
The profits that Lisin has made are now tarnishing Russia’s gold at
the Olympics. The oligarch is offering $1 million as reward to every
Russian athlete who wins gold at the 2012 games. While the aim of prize
money is to inspire gold medal success, it will leave those achievements
with a bloody tarnish.
Keeping Lisin from attending the games will add to the much-needed
international pressure against Russia and the arms dealers enabling
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. We must insist that those who enable
Syria’s continued attacks on its own men, women and children pay a
price.
It should be made clear to the London Organizing Committee: There is
no room at this year’s Games for individuals who enable mass atrocities
for their own financial gain.
Together we will stop the deadly flow of arms into Syria by exposing unscrupulous weapons dealers like Vladimir Lisin. http://blog.endgenocide.org/blog/2012/07/27/terror-games-syria-russia-and-the-olympics/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=terror-games-syria-russia-and-the-olympics
REPORT AIR DATE: July 23, 2012
Forces Clash in Syria's Two Largest Cities
SUMMARY
President Bashar al-Assad's regime and
the Free Syrian Army battled for control over Syria's two largest
cities, Damascus and Aleppo. Independent Television News' John Irvine
and Alex Thomson report on the violence that continues between rebels
and government troops.
GWEN IFILL: Syria acknowledged for the first
time that it has chemical and biological weapons. But as fierce fighting
there continued, the Syrian foreign minister said the weapons wouldn't
be used to crush the rebels. President Obama said Syrian leader Bashar
al-Assad would be held accountable if his regime did use chemical
weapons.
We have two reports about the war in Syria from Independent
Television News, beginning with John Irvine on the shelling in the
country's second largest city, Aleppo. He filed his story from Beirut,
Lebanon.
JOHN IRVINE: A column of Syrian army
tanks used to be an irresistible force, but not anymore. This is a rebel
ambush in the streets of Aleppo. One tank, the rebels commandeer. At
least two others are destroyed. A burning hulk becomes the backdrop for a
triumphant group photograph.
As the war escalates, the Syrian armed forces are digging deeper into
their arsenal. Fast jets are now being used for bombing runs. The
regime has thrown almost everything it has against its own people, but
it apparently draws the line at chemical weapons. JIHAD MAKDISSI, Syrian Foreign Ministry: Any talks
of WMD or any unconventional weapon that the Syrian Arab Republic
possess would never, would never be used against civilian or against the
Syrian people during this crisis. JOHN IRVINE: What he said next amounted to a warning to the outside world not to get involved. JIHAD MAKDISSI: These weapons are meant to be used only and strictly in the event of external aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic. WILLIAM HAGUE, British foreign secretary: What is
actually happening is, their own people are rising up against a brutal
police state. It has nothing to do with any aggression from anywhere
else in the world. JOHN IRVINE: This conflict is 16 months old. But, still, both sides share an ability to live to fight another day. GWEN IFILL: Damascus has been the scene of pitched
battles between rebel and government troops since the bomb attack that
killed four of Assad's closest security officials last week. There have
been ongoing clashes in a neighborhood in the capital known as Midan.
Alex Thomson reports on the devastation there. ALEX THOMSON: The banality of normality, Damascene
traffic jams again a feature of life here. The gains claimed by the
rebels in the capital appear exaggerated.
The regime's boast that they have pushed the fighters out of some
districts altogether is ever more credible, but independent reporting is
near impossible. We're heading for Midan, where fighting has been
prolonged and intense in recent days. An army checkpoint seals off the
edge of the district. You film covertly and fast and move on in a game
of cat-and-mouse to try and get into the area.
And then, our guide, who would better stay anonymous, says, we're
here. Look around. He hardly needs to. Government forces turned
helicopter gunships, tanks, mortars, rockets, heavy machine guns on this
district for three days.
The government says, in two days' time, families can begin moving
back into Midan. But just take a look at what the family will find when
they move back to this house. People say, yes, of course, the rebel
fighters have been pushed out, but they will fight another day in
another way. And there is no chance that President Assad will win this
civil war.
A shopkeeper who fled the fighting comes back to find his business
has disintegrated. In theory, the government will pay, but all around
us, they're talking now off-camera of a massacre here. Finally, one man
will tell us anonymously everything he knows. MAN: Because this is the only family who stay in
their district during that time. They want to leave in a peaceful way.
And they couldn't right now. ALEX THOMSON: Channel 4 News spoke to seven residents independently of each other, who all either named the Ismailifamily as the victims or the figure of 16 being killed.
We were sent this video said to show the scene of the killings. The
details of a family shot through the head can't be shown. You do see the
poignant sight of an unfinished family meal. House after house trashed.
Everyone here said soldiers or the shabiha militias went on an orgy of
looting here. They know Syrians keep large amounts of cash at home.
This man said the militias stole 18,000 pounds from his place --
outside, the pathetic remains of rebel barricades, futile against
organized ground and air assault, the tank tracks of a departed
government army. Weirdly, the authorities have fastidiously painted over
most of the anti-Assad graffiti which covered the walls around here and
left their own: "The soldiers of God were here."
President Assad has won the battle for Damascus, and won it
convincingly, but everyone knows winning the battle is not the same as
winning the war. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec12/syria_07-23.html Video from Al Jazeera
REPORT AIR DATE: July 26, 2012
Syrian Rebels Brace for Government Advance; Aleppo Civilians Caught in Crossfire
SUMMARY
Syrian troops have positioned
themselves on the edge of Aleppo, preparing to retake the city from
rebel control. In response, rebels have reinforced their weapons
stockpiles for the expected assault. Meanwhile, Aleppo's three million
civilians are caught between the two forces. Independent Television
News' Alex Thomson reports.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Syrian battle groups bore down
on the country's commercial capital today. They targeted rebels in
Aleppo, where some three million people were already under air and
artillery attack.
We begin with Alex Thomson of Independent Television News reporting from Damascus.
ALEX THOMSON: Damascus one week into
the battle for the city and video broadcast by Syrian state television
shows sustained firefights yesterday in the city's outskirts.
But it is Aleppo, Syria's biggest city, where the latest major
assault is likely. Pounded again by the regime's forces from both the
north and the south, helicopters move overhead as troops on the ground
prepare for a major assault.
Activist groups in Syria claim that the government troops are being
redeployed for a coming operation. Such claims are impossible to verify,
but several sources now report two Syrian army convoys, the first
heading from Hama Military Airport, apparently about 170 vehicles,
including tanks, and these are massing at al-Zarba, south of the city.
Another column is heading to Aleppo from Idlib province. With the
rebel counterattacks under way, here, what's claimed to be the wreckage
of one small part of the Idlib convoy, and nearby a captured government
tank.
The rebel attacks continue elsewhere. Here in Latakia,
it's claimed they attacked two army bases. In Homs, shelling by
government forces has scarcely ceased for more than three months, but
they still don't control the entire city. The capital quieter today,
though still some occasional shell fire on the outskirts.
But if the rebels cannot win in the major cities, they certainly
appear to be gaining ground in the propaganda war by being willing to
invite along cameras.
Yet, here in Damascus, all our requests to film with the Syrian army
have been refused point-blank. Could we speak to a government minister?
Impossible. What about a government spokesman even? No chance. The
regime apparently thinks this will still do, inside, the endless
pictures of the great leader and his dad, the same video of military
antics played on TV over and over again everyday, and outside, the
pristine flags, the murals, the devices of a regime strangely lost in
personality politics of the Cold War.
Some small opposition parties are tolerated here, so long as they're
powerless. Incredibly, it's actually easier to interview one of their
leaders than it is to speak to anybody from the government.
Hassan Abdullah Azim is chief of the opposition Nasseri (ph) party
and a lawyer in Damascus. He's been beaten and tortured by the regime in
the past, but he's still not afraid to call it even now. HASSAN ABDULLAH AZIM, opposition leader (through
translator): President Assad should step down and hand over power to the
people. We should move forward and organize new free elections for the
people to choose the government they want. ALEX THOMSON: For now, all that sounds like a distant dream. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec12/syria1_07-26.html
ANALYSIS AIR DATE: July 26, 2012
On Syrian-Turkish Border, 'Underdog' Rebels Have Carved Out a Buffer Zone
SUMMARY
Pockets of Syria have fallen under the
control of rebel fighters, the anti-Assad opposition forces known as the
Syrian Free Army. Judy Woodruff speaks to NPR's Kelly McEvers about her
recent trip to five towns along the Turkish border in rural Syria.
JUDY WOODRUFF: For a first-hand look into
events on the ground in Syria, I'm joined now by NPR's Kelly McEvers.
She has just completed a weeklong reporting trip to northwestern Syria,
near the Turkish border, where she visited a number of towns currently
under rebel control.
Kelly McEvers, welcome.
And how did you decide where you were going inside Syria? We have a map, I think, we are going to be able to show people. KELLY MCEVERS, NPR: The rebels have basically carved
out their own sort of unofficial buffer zone there in northern Syria.
It's right next to the Turkish border.
For them, the benefit is that they're able to get their wounded out
into Turkey a lot more easily than they could before, and that they can
basically get weapons and money into Syria from that -- from the Turkish
area. So, for us, it made a lot of sense to sort of -- to get a sense
of who the rebels are to spend time in the region that they control,
instead of trying to sort of cower and hide and go with them undercover
from place to place, to be in this kind of swathe of towns and villages
that they actually control. JUDY WOODRUFF: Where they are relatively safe, free from government assault on a regular basis or...
KELLY MCEVERS: At this time. JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes. KELLY MCEVERS: If you were to try to look at the map
and say where exactly do the rebels control, every day, it changes a
little bit. It morphs and changes. On the edges of the area they
control, the government might take a town back.
There was one town when we were there that switched hands between the
government and the rebels four times. Why? Because the government
realizes that this border area is important to the rebels. They realize
that it is this buffer zone. And so they are trying to sort of regain
control.
But, obviously, the government's army is stretched and sees that its priorities are elsewhere, namely Damascus and Aleppo. JUDY WOODRUFF: Tell us about the rebels you met. And you talked to a number of them. Who are they? What are they like? KELLY MCEVERS: It's a really good question and it's one I think a lot of people want to answer right now.
They call themselves the Free Syrian Army, but that's about as far as
sort of the unification goes. They don't necessarily answer to a single
leader. They're a bunch of disparate groups spread out across the
country, some say up to 1,000 of them. One unit might only be eight
guys, mostly civilians.
I think the image is that these guys are mostly defected soldiers,
people who leave the army and then join the rebels. A lot of those guys
actually go to these refugee camps in Turkey, for fear of what would
happen to their family after they defect. So a lot of the guys we have
met are civilians, workers, farmers, people who decided to take up arms
and sort of defend this uprising, this revolution against the president. JUDY WOODRUFF: And relatively lightly armed, in contrast to what the government has. KELLY MCEVERS: Exactly. They are so outgunned right
now. They're basically operating with rifles and rocket-propelled
grenades and homemade bombs.
That's another key component to their sort of arsenal right now. That's how they deal with regime tanks.
But when you talk about a fully equipped army with tanks, artillery,
mortars, helicopters, and now we have seen jets being employed in this
fight by the regime's army, you can see that the rebels are definitely
the underdogs here. JUDY WOODRUFF: Kelly McEvers, what about the
civilians you talked to? And what are they saying about al this? Are
they caught in the middle? Are they hoping it's all going to be over?
Are they lining up with one side or another? KELLY MCEVERS: I was in just this very small pocket
of Syria, so it's important to say that I can only speak for the people
that I was with at that particular time.
By and large, in these villages, they see the rebels as their only
hope. They say, look, 16, 17 months ago, we went into the streets to
protest against our president. We said we wanted to bring down the
president. The regime shot at us, detained us, and tortured us. And no
one came to our aid except these guys. These guys picked up guns. And
maybe some of them are my cousins and uncles and brothers. They picked
up guns. They came here to defend us and we welcome them.
This, they say despite the fact that the rebels' presence in their
town sometimes brings the ire of the government. It might mean that
civilian homes get shelled, that people die. They say, we don't care.
We're willing to take that risk because these are the only people here
to protect us. So the rebels definitely have hearts and minds in these
towns. JUDY WOODRUFF: The morale overall, though, was what? What did you find? KELLY MCEVERS: Again, people were pretty willing to
stay on message, especially when talking to a Western journalist. Again,
we support these rebels, we support the cause. It's just any day now
that we're going to take down the regime.
While I was inside Syria, there was this high-level attack inside
Damascus that killed four high-ranking officials in the Syrian
government. So, I think that was a real morale boost. And a few days
after that, you saw a lot of units going to Aleppo. I was very close to
Aleppo, Syria's largest city in the north.
And you saw a lot of rebel units going there, sort of going to take
up the fight, and going all the way to Damascus as well. It looks like
the government has regained control in Damascus and may soon do the same
in Aleppo. So, that morale may turn around pretty quickly. JUDY WOODRUFF: You had some interesting
conversations with people, rebels and citizens, about why the United
States isn't doing more. Explain a little about that. KELLY MCEVERS: Yes, I think there's a lot of anger. I
think people look at the case of Libya and they look at the case of
other places where the U.S. or at least international community has done
more to intervene on the diplomatic level, on the military level.
Look, I think Syrians are smart enough to know that they don't want
an Iraq situation. I think most people would say, we don't want anyone
to come in and invade and occupy our country. I think they're OK with
that. And they're also smart enough to know that the Libya scenario
probably doesn't make sense for NATO or the United States. A no-fly
zone... JUDY WOODRUFF: The no-fly zone. KELLY MCEVERS: ... would be much more complicated in Syria. They get that.
But they say, look, how about some coordination? How about some help?
How about some training? There's a lot of things that you could do. You
could fly airplanes over our country and tell us, hey, there's some
tanks moving this way and there's no tanks on this road, reconnaissance,
intelligence, those sorts of things that frankly Western militaries are
good at.
And they see that that's not happening. And they say that it's not
much longer that they're going to be willing to accept this help. I
think, at some point, they are going to refuse it at any cost and it
might be too late for any intervention. JUDY WOODRUFF: Kelly McEvers, NPR, an extraordinary trip. Thank you very much. KELLY MCEVERS: You're welcome. JUDY WOODRUFF: And online, you can find links to four of Kelly's reports for NPR this week from the Turkish-Syrian border. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec12/syria2_07-26.html
