Better Together, for who?

by Joe Middleton

The British unionist campaign in the Scottish independence referendum is called Better Together but the question needs to be asked Better Together for who? There are clear advantages for England in retaining the Union and it does not surprise me when English people in Scotland like J K Rowling or Emma Thomson argue in favour of its retention.

If you see the Union Jack as equivalent to the English flag and given the dominance of the St George's Cross in the centre, who couldn't, then the flag could credibly represent England.
 

Given that ancient England was named Britannia by the Romans then Britain is also quite acceptable and indeed it backs up the English preferred view of Wales ie that it doesn't exist.

Therefore if you are English then you can be quite comfortable with either of these symbols in the knowledge that they really actually mean England.

Similarly Queen Elizabeth II of England has a certain ring to it and celebrating bashing those rebellious Scots who England regularly fought with over hundreds of years doesn't really present a problem. Similarly singing about Brittania ruling the waves doesn't really reflect on any other country apart from England a fact made quite evident by the British naval flag.

Since England has approximately 90% of Britain's MP's Westminster could legitimately be claimed to be as good as and in fact a lot better than any devolved English parliament.

Britain means retention of the Scottish Oil Fields under English political control and the use of that money in capital projects like the London Olympics, or duelling the A1 or indeed the Channel Tunnel. It also keeps the pound as a credible currency and magnifies British importance in Europe much like the Scottish fishing grounds.

The Bank of England is effectively Britain's central bank. The inclusion of Scotland and Wales's GDP keeps Britain in the G8 and these additions mean that not only does Britain have a seat in the UN they also get the added boost of being a member of the security council. Both of these places which England relies on would be at risk after Scottish independence.

All in all England gets every advantage from the Union and zero disadvantages. So a piddling amount of Scottish or Welsh MP's might vote in a different way to the English but in reality any party who gets into power in Westminster has to have huge support in England by definition.

The Trident Nuclear Deterrent means England can boss other countries around and interfere in their domestic policy while sonorously declaring that no-one else should have nuclear weapons. They are unpopular in Scotland of course but it's handy to keep them somewhere.

Retaining Britain means that England also retain control of little outposts like the Falklands or tax havens like the Channel Islands which means that the filthy rich can still work in Britain while avoiding paying any nasty tax there.

Do we want or need these? David Cameron certainly sees them as important.

Unfortunately all these additional benefits for England come at a cost. Wales and Scotland have to pretend we don't exist internationally. David Mundell (Scotland's lone Tory MP) doesn't have a problem with that but Better Together can't count him as very representative of the general viewpoint!

The truth is 'independence' for England would mean an actual reduction in power not an increase and England would have to accept that their imperial dream was finally over.

This is something that no English MP will ever countenance voluntarily (though they will be forced under international law to do so after any democratic vote for independence) which is why every London based party is 100% against Scottish independence. It is not in their national interest.

Can Alistair Darling whose ultimate loyalty to London has never been in doubt really convince the Scots who live in Scotland (and don't flip their mortgages) that they actually benefit from English control of everything?

I don't think so.

WEDDING OF THE YEAR - DOUGIE & TRACEY

Congratulations to my good pal Dougie Blackie on his wedding to Tracey Ballantyne on 5th July 2008. It was a great day and many of my fellow Scots nationalists were there to see Dougie get hitched.

Dougie is a great guy and his new wife is a lovely lass. His wee lad James was running about at some speed as well! Congratulations mate. All the best Dougie. JOE

SAOR ALBA!

A progressive nationalism for England?

Billy Bragg makes an excellent contribution to the debate here:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/billy_bragg/2008/04/a_different_strand_of_socialism.html

The SNP has managed to unashamedly be both proud of their country and progressive. Their 2007 manifesto for the Scottish election was available in Polish, Urdu and Cantonese, yet they are a nationalist party.

Their patriotism has driven them to ensure that old people get free care, students don't have to pay tuition fees and prescriptions get cheaper in Scotland, even as they become more expensive in England. This is nationalism as a positive social force, uniting people around the implementation of progressive policies in the name of Scottish self-determination.

Yet the same sense of pride that the Scots have used to move their national agenda to the left of New Labour, we in England are only too eager to surrender to the far-right. Unable or unwilling to distinguish between xenophobia and progressive patriotism, some on the left are destined to fight old wars in which class is the single defining characteristic. In the post-ideological period in which we live, national identity has become more significant than class or religion. For the English, this process has been exacerbated by a programme of devolution that many believe has treated them unfairly.

During the next election, there is a strong possibility that the issue of England will be a prominent feature on the agenda, if only because the Tories hope to use it to embarass our Scottish prime minister. If a Conservative government hostile to Scotland's social spending is elected, the momentum for Scottish independence will increase. Should the Scots decide to break with the union, there is every likelihood that the English will suddenly find themselves independent too.

Interview with Novi Reporter - Srpska

"Novi Reporter" (New Reporter) from Banjaluka, capital of Republic of Srpska. Republic of Srpska is Serb predominant entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

I was interviewed for the above magazine, here's the questions and answers.

Question:

In February this year Albanian leaders in Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia. That decision, by this time, approved about 30 countries. United States of America and some countries from European Union claim that Kosovo is isolated case and can not become a blueprint for similar situations in other countries. What is your opinion about these claims?

Answer:

I think that since Kosovo was supported by the UN as a semi-seperate state from Serbia it was inevitable that it would declare independence. I also believe all declarations of independence should be respected as this is the primary basis of international law. Kosovo's independence appears to have been objected to by a coalition of the guilty, Russia who are blocking Chechnya's independence, China who have militarily occupied and effectively annexed Tibet and Spain who are busily outlawing every left/radical organisation or independence supporting party in the Basque country. With friends like these, Serbia does not want for enemies! I think Kosovo is an unusual case and I don't think it is particularly relevant to other countries.

Q. Serbian part of Bosnia and Herzegovina - Republic of Srpska, but also some areas in Bosnia with Croatian majority, shows intention to split from the country where Muslim population is in majority. Independence First insists on the right to self-determination in the issues between Scotland and England. Is it possible to apply same right in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

A. It depends if a majority of the population in these areas are determined to support independence. Yugoslavia was a false state and the remnants of it are still trying to come to terms with their proper boundaries. We certainly support the right of self determination in all cases but nonetheless there should be some historical justification and clear territorial boundary involved. Independence is about the best interests of the people living in a specific country. If an ethnic form of nationality is pushed it can obviously have racist connotations.

Q. How would you explain to the people outside of Scotland and England the differences between Scottish and English national identity? And also explain a need for Scotland to decide by itself, independently from London about his destiny?

A. Scotland is a historic country which has a recorded history stretching back well over one thousand years. We have our own culture, two indigenous languages seperate from English (though English now predominates for obvious reasons) our own law and education system and we now have our own devolved Government led by the independence supporting SNP. While it took a lot of campaigning to get a devolved parliament, this is not sufficient for us as most major decisions are stull taken in the Westminster parliament where our MP's are outvoted 10-1. Scotland needs our own seat at the UN and independent representation in Europe as well as full control over broadcasting, taxation, foreign affairs and defence.

Q. In the media with the global influence, often we can read and watch that majority in Scotland do not support independence from the Great Britain. Is this truth?

A. Polls on this tend to be very mixed. Just before the last election a number of polls showed the largest percentage of support was for independence however the polls are now saying that figure has dropped. I would say there is probably around 35-40% strong support for independence with perhaps 30% support for the union and 30% undecided. It's somewhere around there. Recent polls have indicated that for instance if the UK Government deliberately cuts the Scottish Governments finances a lot more people will support independence. Most people certainly support more powers for the Scottish parliament and a referendum on independence. Independence is the logical end of the home rule journey and we believe that if the positive argument is made for independence in a referendum campaign against the usual scaremongering against it by the unionist parties the positive case will win.

Q. How much you did so far in achieving your political goals? Regarding that, what are political differences between Independence First and the Scottish National Party?

A. Independence First is a campaign purely for an independence referendum and as such it has no political policies. We have a number of SNP members in our ranks as well as members of the Greens, SSP and many others from no party. We are of course supportive of the SNP Government's plans to hold a referendum in 2010. With regard to our own actions we have organised two political rallies for a referendum here in Edinburgh, we have ran a petition through the Scottish parliament for a referendum and we have managed to get detailed answers from the British Government which suggest they are ignorant of the concept of the sovereignty of the Scottish people.

Q. Can we talk about increase of secessionism in England? And about possibility that we, in near future see a politician, south from the Hadrian Wall who will be ready to talk with Scotland about your independence?

A. This is still quite far off I think though it might theoretically be advantagous to the British Conservatives to lose a country where they tend to get heavily defeated on a regular basis at the ballot box. There is a growing movement towards self determination for England but it is rather young and politically immature at this point, tending to be led by perceived grievance rather than genuine political principle.

Q. Is it possible that religion differences in Scotland (Protestants and Catholics), slow down your road to independence? Regarding that, what is your opinion about long chronology of conflict in Northern Ireland, where factor of religion plays important role?

A. There is a sectarian problem in Scotland though it is nowhere near as bad as Northern Ireland. It tends to be inflamed by football rivalry (Glasgow Celtic is a traditionally Irish team and in reaction their Rangers rivals wrap themselves in the colours of the British Union Jack). Also the anti-Catholic Orange Order while small and mostly irrelevant still appears to have some support in some towns in the West of Scotland. These people do oppose Scottish independence as well as Irish independence and have now started marching against independence for Scotland specifically. However such bigots represent a tiny minority of the population. Most people in Scotland are not particularly religious at all and most practising Protestants and Catholics have no conflict of interest whatsoever, in fact both religions enjoy a good relationship at local level.

I expect Scottish independence to bring Irish unity closer as I think the Unionists have more attachment to the idea of Britain rather than England and with independence for Scotland the British state would come to an effective end. At the moment the unionists are working together with Irish nationalists at Stormont and they may see their future as being more appropriately tied to Dublin than London eventually. At the end of the day though that is a decision for the people of Northern Ireland not the people of Scotland.

All the best,

Joe Middleton (Press Officer, Independence First).