I have deliberately let a day go by before reacting to Wendy's latest, fearful that my first reaction might be superficial.
In Quebec the independence referendum never goes away...why would it? Till the nationalists get the answer they want they will keep on asking the question. And so it will be in Scotland.
The question Wendy should be addressing right now is how to renew the appeal of the Labour Party. It certainly won't be achieved by allowing the SNP, new darlings of the media, to play on its own ground, to its own strengths - especially when, lying behind the stratagem is an apparently unspoken acknowledgement, that Labour is weakened and may only do worse in a General Election.
This is very risky territory: I, for one, am totally opposed to the idea of Scotland as a separate State. I am yet to be persuaded this tactic can maintain a United Kingdom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Madam,
With regards our political opinions, I am probably diametrically opposite you. I favour independence, indeed think it cannot come soon enough, and that only by removing the shambles known as Westminster from our political system and controlling our own destiny can Scotland grow as a nation, and eradicate things like our appalling record on child poverty, or the woeful state of public health (two things that Labour have failed to improve having had 8 years in Parliament to try).
This is, however, irrelevant at present. What is relevant is that the People of Scotland want a referendum. All the polls, all the think tanks, all the pundits concur that the people are overwhelmingly in favour of a referendum on independence, somewhere around the 90% mark it seems.
For an elected party to stand in the way of that is not democratic. We're talking about the future of Scotland, not what colour top should Wendy wear next Thursday, for goodness sake!
So Wendy's massive U-Turn is a good thing. She's brought Labour into the right side of the parliament, in giving the people a say in their future.
What's bad is why. She's not done this because Labour's suddenly realised that it's the right and fair democratic thing to do.
She's doing this to take flak away from London after the losses last week saw, and to up her own "profile" as leader of Labour in Holyrood. She's doing this because she fears (probably quite rightly) that if the SNP keep going as they are, the already tight independence opinion will start to swing further away from the Union towards Scottish freedom.
In short, she's doing it for cheap, petty party politics.
And that's bad. Very, very bad.
I would never dream of telling the Labour party it's buisness, but if I were one of the Labour MSP's, I'd be seriously thinking about giving her the boot.
From an SNP perspective, better that we table a bill, only to see it not carried, and then ask the People in the next election if they want a democratic say, than to get the referendum, most likely when we wanted it, but to only get that Bill because Labour were painted into a corner to vote for it so Wendy can keep her job.
It is not an honourable thing that she has done this week.
Needless to say I profoundly disagree with you regarding any alleged benefits from independence. Nationalism is by definition a self limiting philosophy precisely because it encourages poeple to define and represent themselves by an accident of birth i.e. where you are born. At root this is a philosophy that divides rather than unites; limits rather than embraces.
Scotland is not in thrall to some foreign domination - parliamentary democracy, civic representation and a whole host of other processes mean Scots are well represented on the bigger UK stage and international stage. It is vanity and self aggrandisement to imagine that a government could, just because it is Scottish, do it any better. Issues of child poverty, public health etc could always be done differently - whether they'd be any better is another issue altogether. And these issues are not unique to Scotland either - huge nations across the globe struggle with them too. It is fatuous to imagine a government, just because it is Scottish, could solve them where all else fail.
It was Labour who made the first referendum happen and who is not proposing to stand in the way of a second- so to infer Labour is anti democratic in these matters is absurd.
Why Wendy has performed a u-turn on a ballot on independence remains a mystery. She might genuinely believe it is the best way to resolve the issue once and for all: equally. she might be making a calculation that her position will get her,as you say, some headlines (if so, they're not quite the headlines she might have wanted) but really, I won't take a lecture on 'cheap, petty, party politics' from the SNP who made that particular mould then broke it.
Where I will agree with you is that this is far, far too important an issue to play party politics with. You say the future of Scotland. I say the future of the UK and arguably Western Europe (given the UK's enormous importance therein) - this isn't a whimsical issue and we need very serious minds to apply themslves to it. From what I've seen of the Scottish Parliament - including all our First Ministers bar one,and I do not refer to the incumbent, there are too few serious enough minds at work there.
Thank you for your reply. It is rare (on the internet at least) to see someone who will stand up and make a sensible, well-thought rational reply to a comment, rather than the sadly standard ad-hominem attack that we see all too often, both on the internet, and, sadly, in government.
If I may address your comments, I feel I have not have expressed myself very well previously (I'm a better orator than writer).
With regards your views on the philosophical nature of nationalism. To some extent they are self-limiting. But not to such an extent where that limitation becomes a problem. The human soul needs boundaries, both in children (we can see what the Tories "experiment" in the eighties with removing boundaries from both schools and society in general resulted in) and the larger adult world.
But nationalism is not some "accident of birth". It is a profound cultural and social difference between "us" and "everyone else". That doesn't make "us" any better than "everyone else", merely different. The difference lies in the culture the society and the history of the country.
Scotland is a different country to England; of that I doubt neither of us will argue. Despite the attempts of the "enlightenment" period to do otherwise, "North Britain" is still as separate and different a nation as it was in 1707. We have a separate language (for Scots is a different language to English), separate education and legal system. We have all the trappings of an independent nation.
I deny your suggestion that these facts lead us to divide rather than unite. We ARE divided because we are NOT English! The notion of the the surly lodger and the friendly neighbour is a very powerful one. We are not England. By this very fact, we are separate and divided from those who do self-identify as English.
But it does need to divide us, the British people. When I hear the word "British", I do not think of empires, and Union Jack's, nor of monarchies or Westminster. I think of the islands of Greater Britain; of Britannia as the Romans would have it.
Independence would not divide these islands. Far from it, I think we would become closer. Ireland would have a renewed interest in dealing with us, it's Celtic cousin now that any such dealings wouldn't have to go through London first.
England (particularly the surly middle-english) wouldn't look at Scotland as a "nation of subsidy-junkies, benefit-cheats and lecherous drunks" (to quote one English daily's editorial a while back). They would see us as an equal, and maybe even treat us as such.
When you state Scotland isn't under the thrall of some foreign power, I say, respectfully, it is.
Westminster does have Scottish MP's.
No-one denies that.
Westminster has 646 members. 59 of them are Scottish.
It thus follows that the opinion of the Scottish people, as manifested by the Scottish MP's they elect can always be overruled by English MP's.
An example of this was shown in the 1980's with the Thatcher government when there was virtually no representation in the Government for Scottish voters.
The Labour party's answer to that was Devolution; devolution would mean that even if the UK govt. had no scottish MP's then Scotland would still be governed by elected representatives.
What if the Tory Govt. decides to take the UK into (another) war, one that is perhaps popular in England, but not in Scotland?
The Scottish Parliament has no say on Defence.
What if the Tory Govt. decides to treble the tax on oil/petrol? Since Scotland produces most of the UK's oil, then most of that tax would be applied in Scotland; Scottish money.
Yet that money would go to London, and could well stay in London.
What if the Tory Govt. decided it wanted to send a message on drinking by raising duty and export taxes on spirits by 500%?
Scotland has no say on duty or export tax. Yet our largest export (to both the rest of the UK and the world) is whisky.
Pretty hypothetical I'm sure you'd counter.
What if the Tory govt. decided to hold some massive sporting event in London, and took the National Lottery Charities money to pay for part of it, then paid for the rest out of the UK Govts. funds. A massive public spending spree paid for, at least in part, by money taken from Scottish taxpayers and Scottish oil funds.
Yet Scotland would see few or none of the benefits of such spending.
I recognise that a Scottish Government would not and could not be the be-all and end-all I seem to suggest in my previous comments.
It would not make the blind see, the deaf hear, it would not make the lame walk again, nor provide loaves, fishes and wine to the good burghers of Edinburgh. It wouldn't overnight solve child-poverty or obesity, nor solve al crimes and social problems in the country.
I think, however, it would serve the People of Scotland better, because a Scottish parliament that has full-powers would serve only the people of Scotland. Westminster in theory serves the whole UK, but in practice, a lot of Westminster's actions serve the English first and foremost, more specifically the south-east and London. What's good for the 50 million people in England is not always good for the 5 million in Scotland.
In short, yes, I favour independence. Not because I want to wall Scotland off, guard the border and shut out all "sassenachs". But because I think the people of Scotland would be better served by 129 Scots in Holyrood than by 59 Scots and 529 English in Westminster.
With regards the "un-democratic" charge, I do think Labour in Holyrood has been un-democratic. Sure, they "supported" a 3-way referendum back in 1997. When independence showed little sign of being passed. Although I'd argue that since Labour in London held a massive majority if they really had supported it then it would have been on the ballot.
But they haven't supported such a referendum in recent years at all, saying they'd vote it down! It's only this massive u-turn by wendy that it's come out in favour again.
The other London parties are far more undemocratic I'd agree. They still claim they'd vote it down.
Unsurprising of the Tories who are often described as the Middle-England party, but particularly saddening of the liberal-"democrat" party.
To some up what is probably an overly long post (you've probably stopped reading by now, if not then allow me to apologise for my verbosity and praise you for your patience), independence is a major issue.
No one can claim it's not. Nor can any serious party claim to support democracy and then vote down a referendum on whether Scotland should be part of the UK, something no-one has ever asked the people. So it seems likely that there will be a referendum on it, which I think is a good thing; you're entitled to differ on that point.
I would hope, however, than when the time comes to vote on it, the campaign of the Labour party doesn't descend to the level of the Tories; to wit, "Independence will come and kill your first-borns, there will be riot, war, murder, and all of you will die miserable and poor". I hope the Labour party take the initiative in this, as they have so recently in coming out in favour of the poll itself, and run a mostly positive campaign on what the Union gives Scotland, not the negatives on what Labour think independence would take away.
Thanks for reading my overly long post...
Regards
Math Campbell
Yes - it was a long post!
And, I'm afraid, lots of anti-English sentiment, which I will take with a pinch (in the spirit of a good debate)
Yes I accept Scotland has cultural differences from England but I do not believe they are as substantial as you make out. In truth, I am pushed hard to describe any significant cultural differences (obviously various literary figures differ in importance across the 4 nations e.g. Burns, Shakespeare, Joyce etc) but we all know enough about each to understand the nuances.
History is another matter altogether and I do agree there needs to be rather more Scottish history in the curriculum so Scots understand their leading role in international affairs rather than a pop culture analysis that casts us the perennial victim. I am a confident Scot and want all my compatriots to feel the same - I want people to understand and celebrate the reasons for our distinctive legal, educational and religious systems - and why they co-exist harmoniously with other systems in the UK - precisely because our forefathers understood the economic need for scale on an international level and the need to preserve what gives us our distinctive individuality in an ever increasing gobal world.
[As an aside you mention Ireland as a role model: a nation only brought out its utter tribal division, isolation and poverty by the priorities both legal and political, and the money of the EU , so not a good example, I fear]
I suppose our difference is much about our view of the Scottish personality as anything - I think boundaries are to be challenged and explored, not to cower behind: I think we benefit from being exposed to the biggest and the best - we are challenged to grow and expand our view. I very much fear that a retreat to an 18th century position of Scotland as an independent nation is going back not forward.
Cheers
Post a Comment