British Union has always been about amplifying England

Letter to the Editor
The Scotsman

11/02/2013

Dear Sir/Madam,

If the UK state is legally the same without the Scots in it as the British Government is now claiming then this proves that Britain (Britannia?) has always been a 'greater England' and not an equal union at all.

Jack Straw MP said in an interview with the BBC that "Historically, England called the shots to achieve a union because the union was seen as a way, among others things, of amplifying England's power worldwide." *

Not only has Scotland been effectively internationally invisible within the union we are now told that every action by the UK Government and every treaty organised by it had nothing to do with us at all!

What this means logically is that Scotland has never been part of any true union just a convenient fiction which has justified England claiming a larger international profile than it deserves.

Ending the union will mean for the first time that our flag will fly at the United Nations and the Olympic Games. I suspect the European Union will be desperate to keep us within it but if they do not want us then we could easily join EFTA and still have a trading relationship with Europe.

Why should we stay a part of Britain when Westminster officially says we are an irrelevance to its continuing status?

 Unionists say that Scotland and England are equal within the union but the reality is that we are no more equal than the UK would be if it was attached to a larger nation like China or Russia or the USA.

Scotland can do better. Independence is normality for almost every other nation and there is no country that has been unable to negotiate independence. Britain seems to officially imagine that Scotland is uniquely incapable of either ruling our own affairs or of negotiating independence.

Any Scot who supports such a dismal view of their own country should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

* full interview with Jack Straw is here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/5388078.stm

POLITICAL RALLIES NEED TO INCLUDE EVERYONE

As someone who has been involved in helping organise such events in the past (through Independence First) I very much hope that this new rally on Saturday organised by http://www.independenceforscotland.com/ is a success and leads to victory in the referendum in 2014.

Obviously the website is very professional and the organisers have made good use of social networking to publicise and advertise the rally. They have also apparently attracted wide support from across the political spectrum with some very famous faces lined up to speak at the rally including the First Minister himself.

Nonetheless banning the Scottish Republican Socialist Movement (SRSM) from events (based on the opinions of someone like Jim Murphy) is entirely counter productive. 

The story is here: http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scottish-independence-snp-under-fire-over-extremists-at-rally-1-2529585 and was also reported in the Glasgow Herald.

As a current member of the SNP and a former member of the SRSM I obviously have an interest in these developments.

Scottish republicanism is a legitimate political position to take which is supported by somewhere around 50% of the Scottish people. The British Queen has as much interest in Scotland as the Spanish King has to Catalonia and he made it clear where his loyalties lie this week. At the height of the devolution debate in the 70's 'our' Queen similarly distanced herself from Scotland and I'm sure would do the same again. Given the contemptuous title of England's Queen Elizabeth II it has always been clear where her personal loyalty has lay.

The British flag is a symbol of imperialism, racism and divide 'n' rule politics. Showing contempt for that flag by burning it is a legitimate political response and more honest than smiling wanly while it is thrust down our throats during sporting events where Scotland is excluded from participating as ourselves.

Brittania was the Roman name for England and Wales, not Scotland. Great Britain was always a device for expanding English power (a fact which was admitted by Jack Straw MP) at the expense of Scotland and Wales and it remains precisely that today.

All groups who support independence should have been made welcome at the rally. Past organisations (like IF) which organised events were deliberately set up on an entirely non-political basis so they could be made bullet-proof from divide 'n' rule style stirring by the British unionists and their allies in the press.

Radical elements are all part of what makes independence movements tick. The SNP is a broad church but it won't enthuse everyone by promoting a pro-European and pro-monarchist position or by watering down it's opposition to nuclear weapons. That radicalism needs to come from groups outside the SNP and the SRSM have always been 100% committed to Scottish independence and a republic in the tradition of John MacLean. He wasn't popular with the establishment either but his name lives on while most of his Brit loving supposed 'international socialist' contemporaries are deservedly gathering dust.
 
In his early years Salmond was a republican and part of the '79 group. Without the fire in his belly of those early experiences it is unlikely he could have risen to the position he holds today. The SNP should realise that it does not speak for everybody and welcome support from outside its ranks. Any group organising a rally needs to do the same thing otherwise it will ultimately be dictated to by a unionist lobby which ultimately includes low lifes like the BNP and the Orange Lodge (guess who organised the only jubilee street party in Glasgow!). Given the company they keep and the war mongering actions of the state they represent British unionists have no right to criticise any element of Scotland's independence movement.
 
If we want to gain the mass support recently demonstrated by activists in Catalonia then we need to widen our ranks to include every supporter of independence from the right to the left of political thought in Scotland. If we don't do that then we are very unlikely to win independence in 2014.

So why is he still in it?

Bob Thomson paints a truly terrible (and accurate) picture of the state of the Labour party in Scotland in this month's Scottish Left Review

Here's a sample:

Then I was at the Scottish Labour Party Conference in Dundee in March.
There were few MPs (perhaps not so surprising) but there were also few MSPs and indeed few ordinary party members present. If it hadn't been for Trade Union
delegates the conference could have been held in a side hall. In debate after
debate I was struck by the hypocrisy of front bench speakers attacking the SNP
for not implementing policies Labour failed to implement over eight years in
power such as teacher and police numbers and student debt. And since the party
isn't exactly bursting with front-bench talent they don't even do it well.

There was no serious analysis of why Labour lost the Scottish Parliament
election and why we were failing to make an impact in opposition. Most trade
unions act and think as Labour loyalists when in fact they were being New Labour
apologists. On PFI/PPP the platform, except the trade unionist Chairman,
continued to support this disastrous policy while rubbishing the SNP's only
slightly better Scottish Futures Trust alternative. The three UK Cabinet
Ministers who spoke did not address the Scottish dimension or provide any
Scottish solutions.

We lost because of the neo liberal economic and war policies of UK
Labour government. Scottish Labour failed - unlike the Welsh Labour Party - to
put 'clear red water' between them and New Labour. The people who inhabit the
Labour Party bureaucracy either don't know about devolution or more probably
arrogantly ignore it. I am constantly getting emails about policy initiatives
which only apply in England but fail to say this. When I point this out, I
receive no reply.

and from there it gets worse, Labour have no organisation, no ideas, no competent people... etc, etc, etc...!

Obviously this is highly amusing for any nationalist, and it is undoubtedly accurate. It begs the question though, if Labour are as bad as this, and you know it, why on earth would anyone still be a member?

I presume Mr Thomson thinks facing up to the truth might get Labour to buck up their ideas.

My own experience of politics is that 'shoot the messenger' is much more likely however. No political parties ever like hearing bad news even if it's based on obvious evidence.

Parties are only as good as their ideas. When their ideas fail they have failed their purpose and Labour are I think a dead party walking. With Blair as leader a bullet was put into the brain of the party or at least it's social conscience. The process had begun some time before that though.

Thomson writes perceptively:

The unions ought to have been helping Labour to realise its situation and find a
way out of the hole. They haven't. In fact, the main thing the unions have done
is to cover the party's backs while it just kept on digging. And in ten years
Labour has had almost nothing to do with all the other political movements in
Scotland (such as the anti-war movement) and so have just been written off by
most. The Party has no friends to have a quiet word in its ear.

Their real problem isn't the numerous arguments enumerated here though, that's the symptoms, but it's their unthinking support for a disastrous union which has ultimately killed their credibility.

As mediawatch pointed out today, Brian Wilson also attacked the party in the Sunday Times but my guess is that he saw Thomson's article and wanted to have his own spin on it. His article has some similar observations but according to him it's all Labour's own fault for creating a Scottish parliament. Yes the democratic demand never comes into it for Brian, the wasted years of Thatcherism, who cares? The Scots could have been ignored in his eyes.

He's a man who has sold his soul to unionism and nothing else will do.

What shocks me is that an honest (or at least straight talking) man like Thomson would share a party with the likes of Wilson. Surely he could do a damn sight better.

Why the British Union doesn't work

Since a British u is attacking my arithmetic here is my reply:

Total Number of British MP's at Westminster: 646

Scots MP's: 59

England on it's own has 529 MP's.

This means that English MP's heavily outweigh all the other countries in the British state and it means that the union is highly unequal as a result.

A majority of Scottish MP's voted against Trident but the British Government is pushing ahead anyway. If we were independent we would have our own direct voice in the EU and UN. We would have a seat in the Council of Ministers, we would have our own European commissioner and we would have more Euro MP's.

Most importantly our flag would fly at the United Nations and we would have our own seat there. We would control our own defence, foreign policy, benefits policy, broadcasting and pensions which are currently controlled by Westminster.

So if we voted against Trident it wouldn't happen and we wouldn't be wasting billions on an unusable deterrent which is intended to prop up the old fiction of Britain being a world power.

Scotland doesn't want to be a world power but we do need to have the same powers as every other country around the world and that can only happen with independence.

If the Scots in the cabinet worked in Scotland's interests that might be an advantage but it is obvious that they don't. Look at the HBOS takeover for a current obvious example.

Scotland would benefit if HBOS remained an independent bank based in Scotland. Brown wants it to be merged with Lloyds TSB which is likely to result in the HQ moving south and the loss of thousands of Scottish jobs.

To do this he is using Billions of borrowed pounds, much of which will be raised from future taxation on Scotland. So we're paying for the wrong decision to happen to our bank with the added rider that Mr Brown believes this indicates that Scotland is too poor to have independence and has the cheek to compare oil rich Scotland with tiny Iceland which was in part destabalised by the actions of the British Government! So much for the 'union dividend'.

----

I've printed the whole post below with my replies to each point:


Joe,

Good morning. It’s actually about 10:1 (587:59 MPs). But the exact ratio is largely irrelevant.
I don’t accept your notion that Scotland is “outvoted”. There’s no anti-Scottish bloc voting against our interests. Scots are no more “outvoted” than any other identifiable subgroup: elderly people, non-Caucasians or gay people, for example. Geography is only one distinguishing factor. But I’ll use inverted commas around the word “outvoted” and tackle you on your own terms.

Scotland is a country and represents the people who live in Scotland. Scottish MP's are recognised as a group within the British Parliament and they actually meet occasionally as a group (the Scottish Grand Committee).

Now obviously there are a variety of MP's from different parties, well two kinds actually, the Trident supporting right wing Brits ie Labour, Lib Dems and Tories and the SNP. The SNP are the only party which is based in Scotland and represents Scottish interests but nonetheless MP's elected in Scotland can fairly be described as Scottish MP's even when their first loyalty is not necessarily to Scotland.

Consider this: there being about 70,000 voters in the Glenrothes constituency, each individual is massively “outvoted” when it comes to electing the local MP.

Not really. everyone gets a vote and the winner wins. PR is fairer than FPTP as a system and we have that in the Scottish parliament and would likely have that in an independent Scottish Government but the voters of Fife have a democratic choice at the moment.

Even within the Kingdom of Fife, Glenrothes is only one of four Westminster constituencies, so could perhaps be said to be “outvoted” by a factor of 3:1.

Not really I think you will find that MP's in Fife are likely to work together, particularly when they are all Labour as they are currently.

And Fife itself is “outvoted” by a factor of 642:4 (about 160:1) in the UK parliament.

Fife is not a country. It is part of Scotland but the country of Scotland as a whole is indeed outvoted by a factor of 11-1 in the UK parliament.

Being “outvoted”, as you put it, is in the nature of representative democracy.

English MP's are not outvoted, the other countries are.

So why are you seemingly unconcerned about Fife being in such a position, but telling anyone who will listen that Scotland is “outvoted by a factor of 11-1” within Britain?

Because it's the truth.

I would suggest that your nationalism, rather than any argument about democratic representation, is at the root of your thinking. You see Scots (not Fifers) as separate, are outraged that we aren’t, and so that nationalistic tail wags your political dog.

After all, Scots – unlike Fifers – form a “nation without a state”, not unlike the Sioux, Bretons, Tamils, Sardinians and many others. Can you see yet where your argument breaks down? Should they all be independent? Should the USA, France, Sri Lanka, Italy and other nations cease to exist in their current forms as a result? But I digress.

You're not getting anywhere with your misleading arguments. Brittany has a right to independence and France and Spain as ex-imperial states could be further broken down. The Basque and Catalan countries are obvious examples and are moving towards independence. Sardinia also has an independence movement. The USA is large but it is obviously seen as a distinct country and at this point there is no serious movement to break it up.

The Sioux are a conquered people unfortunately, but their original ownership of America (with the rest of the native Americans) is a historical fact which should not be ignored.

In your terms, Britain is similarly “outvoted” in the European Parliament – by a factor of 9:1 (in fact 707:78). But do you see me fretting about that? Of course not, because I’m a Unionist!

That is a problem, which has led to the creation of UKIP. The UK is already independent actually, but UKIP are British unionists (nationalists) like yourself. Scotland would be outvoted in the EU but no one country is large enough to dominate the whole EU which makes a difference.

Not a British nationalist. I’ll leave that to those on the fringes: to the likes of UKIP.

It's the same thing. Britain as currently constituted is a nation so the supporters of British nationhood are nationalists and (some are imperialists as well such as the BNP). If you fly the Union Jack then you are a British nationalist by definition.

But a conviction Unionist. So I’m Pro-Scotland, pro-Britain and pro-Europe.

But you are less pro Scotland than I am because you are happy to see our interests subverted to Britain's, I'm not.

That means I’m at ease with the idea of distributed sovereignty. I’ll consider what powers might best be exercised at Scottish, British or European levels not just on the basis of uncritical subsidiarity, or what’s thought to be best only for “us” (however defined).

Yes we Scots can do that as well and that is the problem, Britain stops us from making these decisions for ourselves. Post independence we might choose to work together with England on certain things but that would be our democratic choice.

Rather, the Unionist ideal is to pool resources, to come together whenever, on balance, it serves our common good. And if at times that cuts across narrow ideas of “our” versus “their” interests, then so be it – even for your hobbyhorse issues of defence and foreign affairs.

Yes, well unfortunately what actually happens is that Scotland's voice is entirely ignored altogether and Britain's voice is the only one that is heard. On Trident we don't want it, Britain does, so we get it.

Anyway, we already cede some such powers to the EU, NATO and UN (and even to the US) and while you and I could probably bicker all day about the appropriateness of the current distribution, the internationalist principle is an important one which nationalist doctrines inevitably undermine.

Yes the US controls the missiles which makes them rather pointless.

And that’s why, as David Cameron rightly said, unionists will win this battle of ideas. Your rhetoric may be pithier, but our vision is far more forward-looking, generous and inclusive.

But of course, in our relations with the rest of the world, Scotland’s and Britain’s interests are our primary focus, and there’s no contradiction between that statement and the foregoing. The distribution of sovereignty, rather like the decision-making dynamic within a healthy marriage, must work to all its parties’ net advantage, if not to each individual partner’s in every respect.

And on that score your argument falls apart completely. An independent Scotland would be “outvoted” in the European Parliament probably by 771:14 (roughly 55:1).

So again I’ll ask: why doesn’t that vex you? Where’s your consistency? Why is being “outvoted” 10:1 in Britain such a concern, but being “outvoted” 55:1 in Europe such a welcome prospect?

It's pretty obvious. Within Britain if there is a conflict of interest between what suits England and what suits Scotland and Wales then it's pretty obvious whose argument will win within the London parliament. The numbers are clear to see.

In terms of the EU yes there is also a problem there because we would be outvoted by a large factor. However no one country dominates the EU and therefore it is possible to work together on a common agenda. Also, if we are independent and we don't like the direction of the EU we would have the power to leave it, we don't have that at the moment.

Fiscal Autonomy vs Unionism vs Independence

If Labour had ever wanted to introduce fiscal autonomy they would have done it already. In fact without oil 'fiscal autonomy' would be worthless and would probably be less advantageous than Barnett (even though it is actually designed to squeeze our expenditure not increase it).

If you have Oil then it's independence. FA is a useful tool whereby you pretend you want more powers but in fact you would be happy to see Scotland get less money (while being swindled out of our rights to the Oil and Gas revenues). Wendy was in that camp, her own recent paper acknowledged it.

The fact is as well that Labour and not going to win the next GE so we would be reliant on the Tories to give us a fair financial settlement. This will not happen because the Conservatives support is in England and as such they don't care particularly how they are seen in Scotland (when in Government that is, as we saw last time). They are always more pleasant out than they ever are when they are in, prior to Thatcher they pretended they wanted 'stronger devolution' than Labour but they showed their true unionist colours eventually.

Their comments in Glasgow East were revealing, if you are poor it's your own fault. This from a public school boy who went to Eton and Oxbridge! Don't trust anything a unionist says and you will never go wrong.

Independence is normality so logical arguments against it are few and far between. All are flawed.

We would lose our seat in the UN security council.

We might but since it doesn't represent Scotland in any shape or form who cares? Rump England would remain a nuclear power if they had somewhere to put the weapons so they might remain part of the bullies council, but it doesn't matter to us. Scotland needs an ordinary seat in the UN with our flag flying at it. Until we have that we have nothing else.

Scotland would have a lesser voice in Europe.

Same as above we have no voice at the moment so independent membership, a seat in the Council of Ministers and improved representationin the parliament would be a significant step up.

The EU doesn't want you.

The EU wants everyone else (if they are democracies) and given the amount of natural resources like fish and Oil we have they would be daft to try and pull anything. In fact the EU is a mixed blessing anyway so this argument is losing it's teeth. (The EU are trying to make a mediterranean union btw behind the scenes which will infuriate the arab world, Libya is right on this). There's hasn't been a word about it in Scotland, so the truth is we are out of the loop in a lot of areas.

We would be out the G8.

Britain would yes (because it relies on the GDP of Scotland to make it one of the 8 richest nations) but apart from a fancy dinner Britain doesn't get much out of it anyway. Russia and China have poor human rights records so the body will never do anything significant anyway.
Scotland would however be eligible for membership of OPEC along with Norway which is the powerful group the G8 was set up to imitate!

We would also be members of numerous other world bodies, we would have consular representatives in all the nations in the world we wanted them. At the moment we have no influence world wide because on every maor issue the British Government represents their interests and it's not the same as ours.

Scotland could have an effect in a number of areas. We could increase the percentage of GDP we give to third world countries. We could reach free trade agreements which help open markets (but without strings attached) we could help towards world conflict resolution.

As for we're too poor/daft/incompetent to rule ourselves, if anyone believes that they should consult a psychiatrist because they have a colonised midset through reading too many biased British newpapers!

Others are simply disinterested/demotivated and say 'I'm not interested in politics, they are all the same' or 'why bother with change it's too much hassle let's settle for what we've got'. Why bother living at all then? Everything in life worth getting is worth risking something and if the only risk is having faith in your fellow Scots it shouldn't be that hard.

We have plenty of opportunity but we have to be able to see them and as the ex SNP MSP Cambell Martin said "for the unionists to see clearly they have to first get up off their knees."
Some people like it down there though they have their wee bit money and their big hoose and they don't give a damn about their fellow Scots.

Unconvincing arguments against Scottish independence