Why we need an independent Scotland

Why we need an independent Scotland
by Joe Middleton
 
There was much manufactured mirth in the press about Alex Salmond’s speech to the SNP Conference [2009] and particularly this passage:

"One of the things he [Mahatma Gandhi's grandson, Arun] told me is that his grandfather's philosophy is much misunderstood. His resistance was not passive, but active. His dedication to non-violence a strength, not a weakness. Sometimes, someone has to break the cycle of retribution with an act of compassion - that is what Kenny MacAskill did and we should be proud of him for doing it."

‘Wha’s like us, - Ghandi!’ exclaimed Tom Gordon in the Herald.

Others like Murdoch’s News of the World also lined up to claim that everyone was laughing about the SNP daring to compare one of its members to the great Ghandi. Yet there is a very real comparison which can be made with India and Scotland and India’s progress towards independence and Scotland’s.

One of Ghandi’s most famous quotes on independence is: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Well Scotland has been ignored and laughed at for years and the forces of the union are fighting to keep Scotland within it. They are not fighting through force of arms or beating us in the streets but they do use a biased media to belittle every achievement of the SNP Government.

Labour and the Conservatives would like people to believe that nationalism is a narrow backward force. That it is based on racism and hatred and xenophobia.

There is a type of nationalism which is all these things, British nationalism. Based on a dream of Empire British nationalism is based upon the idea that Britain is superior to other nations. Britain has a right to nuclear weapons but other nations do not.

The unionists like to hold their hands up in horror at the BNP but really the BNP is at the extreme end of a nationalism which they themselves subscribe to. We can also add into this group of comrades the ridiculous UK independence party (the UK is already independent!) and the Orange Lodge both of whom are firmly opposed to the idea of Scottish independence.

Ghandi’s nationalism was about the self determination of the people of India. It was about their right to rule themselves without being represented by the British crown.

Freedom type nationalism about the rights of a place and the people in it to represent themselves is a very different type of nationalism to the imperial type. Firstly it is not racist in nature, it is not based upon superiority but the idea of equality, that your country has a right to represent itself and that the people of that country have a right to be heard. 

The United Kingdom, Great Britain, none of these entities are a country at all!

England is a country, Scotland and Wales are but Britain or Brittania is really just a geographic name for that historic area that included England, Wales and Cornwall.

The ancient Britons (who ended up in Cornwall and Wales) had no connection with the state which was created in 1707. If Scotland had been the stronger partner in the union then perhaps Great Caledonia would be the world’s name for this island but it would not cancel out the modern existence of England anymore than renaming the English parliament cancelled out the existence of Scotland.

We know that there was an attempt to actually rename us as North Britain and Ireland as West Britain but those attempts failed. Scotland is still a country, it just isn’t an independent state.

Nonetheless in 2010 if the unionists agree then we will have a chance to vote ourselves into existence in international terms as a proper independent state. We will have our flag flying at the United Nations and we will have a full voice as a member state of the European Union.

We won’t have a larger voice than France or Germany or Luxembourg but we will have a equal voice with the other countries of the EU.

Ultimately the final decision on whether to stay in the EU or not will be up to the Scots after independence. Equally, after independence we will decide on the future of the monarchy.

Without independence however we can’t decide whether we want a monarchy or the EU and therefore independence must be the objective of all those who support Scotland’s rights whether they agree with each other or not on either of these points.

To my mind it would be very strange indeed if an independent Scotland decided to keep the Queen. The very existence of her position and her official title reminds us of the contempt in which we are held by Britain. Elizabeth II without an Elizabeth I of Britain reminds us that England is seen as more important than Scotland.

The Act of Settlement reminds us of a past where Scotland was divided on religious lines and it institutionalises anti-Catholic bigotry. Having a King or Queen to rule over subjects is as logical in the 21^st century as having a house of parliament where no-one is elected!

Residents of the House of Lords like Lord Forsyth, Lord Lang or the newest denizen, Baron Martin are all effectively political failures. Their views became irrelevant when they resigned their seat or got thumped in elections.

It is a disgrace that every member of the Scottish parliament is forced to take an oath of allegiance to the monarch. A much more suitable oath would be to swear to represent the people of Scotland to the best of their abilities. This is something that ever person in Scotland could subscribe to, without actively discriminating against opponents of the monarchy.

Scotland can do better. We can do better than Labour or Conservatives or the Liberal Undemocrats. The latest recruit to Labour is the Orange Lodge! Yes that army of bigots and fools who marched against independence before the last Scots elections have endorsed Scottish Labour as the best chance of saving the union.

The Orange order claims credit for the Glenrothes by-election and it intends to use its legions of bigotry to try and win Glasgow North East for Labour. The only thing more embarrassing would be Nick Griffin turning up to canvass for Labour. However Labour were even willing to grant him legitimacy by allowing Jack Straw to join him in the recent debate on the BBC’s Question Time.

When you have the likes of UKIP, BNP, Labour, Tories and Liberal Democrats all trying to deny Scotland a voice and a referendum on independence, it’s not too hard to realise who is on the right side of the argument.

If we become independent then what will happen? What policies are we likely to have in an independent Scotland? The only truthful answer to that question is that we don’t know.

However we do know that the SNP believe in the principle of free education. We do know that the SNP have said they will rid Scotland of the unusable Trident nuclear deterrent.

We do know that Labour have not only failed to close the gap between rich and poor in Britain, they have never really tried to do so!

When Labour got in they cut spending on the NHS. They doubled VAT. They removed tax breaks from pensions. They brought in a minimum wage, but at a very low level.

They refused to bring back housing benefit for students. They didn’t bring back the student grant. Instead they brought in tuition fees.

On economic policy they aped the Tories at every turn and rather than tax business they taxed the general public. Brown’s tax credits are an indication that wages are far too low.

The burden of paying a decent wage should be paid for by employers not the benefits system. Under Labour’s rules you get unemployment benefit for six months. It doesn’t matter if you were working for 10, 20 or 30 years. Six months is all you get before means testing and if your partner works more than 24 hours a week then you get nothing as an individual!

During those six months you are ineligible for Legal Aid. Yet if you want to take your employer to an industrial tribunal then that has to happen within three months!

No doubt Labour will claim they inherited this system, but why have they done nothing to change it? Why have they wasted their years in power? Why should Scotland keep supporting a party which has done nothing to help the ordinary workers and the unemployed? Why should we vote in Scotland for the Conservatives Mark II when the SNP offer a decent left alternative?

Labour have failed. They have failed to offer moral leadership. Under their watch racism has risen. They have failed to help Trade Unions. They kept every Thatcherite anti-Trade union law.

When Cameron gets in he will find a situation where nothing substantial has changed. Britain hasn’t moved to the left but Cameron will move it to the right.

Scotland can do better and Scotland should do better. We gave Labour a chance to change things for the better. They failed to do so and now we need to take matters into our own hands.

To escape Conservatism, we now urgently need independence. In the future the policies of Scotland will be decided by Scots for Scotland.

No longer will we be ruled as if our opinions don’t matter and don’t count. We don’t know what the political future of Scotland would be but we do know that the anti-Scottish Conservatives are irrelevant to Scotland.

Annabel Goldie let the truth out when she said that the SNP was completely irrelevant to a British general election. If Scotland’s biggest party is irrelevant then want does that make Scotland?

The fact is that Scotland is irrelevant in numeric terms to every British general election. With less than 10% of the combined population of the UK and less than 10% of the MPs our opinions don’t count and our votes don’t matter.

It is a convenient fiction to pretend we are in an equal union. It wasn’t equal 300 years ago and it’s not equal now. Would Britain see a union with Russia, China or even the USA as equal? Why not?

To be treated equally in Europe and the United Nations we need the normal powers of an independent state.

I remember that Morgan Tsvangirai was furious when Robert Mugabe offered him a share of power where defence and foreign affairs were kept by Mr Mugabve. “Only an idiot would accept that” he said.

Yet this is exactly the great deal that the unionists offer Scotland! We can pay for Trident which we don’t want while they keep our oil revenues and block us from a seat at the United Nations.

The reason the unionists don’t want a referendum is because when we were confronted with the full force of British scaremongering at the last election the public voted the SNP into power. Confronted with the same negative scaremongering tactics during a referendum campaign who really believes that the people will vote no to independence? Even with opinion polls apparently in their favour, the unionists don’t want to take any chance that the public might not believe them.

We have had one party in Scotland already who ignored the people’s voice. If Labour and the Liberal Democrats want to avoid the fate of the Scottish Conservatives, if they don’t want to be the new pariahs of Scots politics then they will need to support a referendum on independence.

If not then the SNP will continue to rise and will pass a referendum bill with a much stronger force within the Scots parliament.

We Scots are not fools and we will show it when we get a democratic choice on the future of this country. The unionists can delay a referendum but ultimately they cannot deny our right to decide our own constitutional future.

Whether it happens in 2010, or shortly after, we will have our say.

Note: This article was written a few years ago (25/10/2009)

LTE: Scotsman needs to report news not invent it

Letter to the Editor
The Scotsman

02/11/2009

Dear Sir,

Your correspondent David Maddox's article on Friday claimed that the SNP have ditched their referendum proposal. Nationalists 'give up' on 2010 referendum (31/10/2009). He has not one attributable quote in support of this but says 'senior figures' have revealed this to him. On the eve of a Liberal Democrats conference specifically to discuss the SNP's proposals is obviously the logical time for high up SNP members to express inner reservations about them! The Evening News recycled the same rubbish: SNP abandons hopes for independence poll (31/10/09).

Today Mr Maddox imagines that the SNP are considering a property based alternative to their local income tax 'E-mail hint of SNP's plans for property tax' (02/11/09).

His 'evidence' for this is that civil servants are currently comparing different types of local taxes. Naturally a desperate Labour spokesman, Iain Gray, their party leader in Scotland, is quick to hoover up this crumb of comfort declaring: "This is not only a sign of the SNP's hypocrisy and incompetence but a complete shambles."

The SNP Government itself explained the obvious: "The request made was for the purpose of assessing other parties' proposals, it is not a government proposal." They add: "There is no question of this government considering any reform to local taxation other than the introduction of a fairer local tax, based on the ability to pay."

In fact the SNP is still firmly in favour of both an independence referendum and a Local Income Tax. Even although the Scotsman has been campaigning for some time for the SNP to drop LIT, they have not actually done so.

Not one other paper is likely to pick up these 'stories' because they are not true news stories at all! The first 'story' on the referendum is pure invention, deliberately timed to undermine the SNP case and encourage the Liberal Democrats. The second is almost as silly and irrelevant as it contains not a shred of evidence that the SNP are actually planning any change whatsoever in their LIT policy.

There needs to be a clear distinction between reporting the news and inventing it. The Scotsman newspaper might have a legitimate difference of opinion with the SNP Government on many issues, obviously the paper has a right to indicate this and to campaign on these issues.

Nonetheless however the SNP are our elected Government and deserve some level of respect. The Scotsman newspaper has no right or remit to invent new Government policy and it should avoid pretending that an imminent political change by the SNP is in prospect without an attributable quote to that effect.

Labour have changed their policy position on an independence referendum on a number of occasions. The SNP however have been politically consistent in demanding a vote on independence. A change in that position would indeed be newsworthy but it hasn't actually happened.

We can hardly complain about a lack of trust in our politicians if newspapers are allowed to invent a new policy position for them ever week!

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

A new Desperation from Daily Mail?

While I have written a fair amount of letters to the Daily Mail over the
years I have rarely found myself in political agreement with their
editorials or their journalists. Of course in a democracy all honest
opinions are obviously welcome even if one deplores the ideas behind
them.

Nonetheless there is a fine line between fair comment and libel and the
article entitled 'a New Racism' (Daily Mail 19/04/2008) in which the
Mail's James Grant accused all nationalists of racism crossed that line.

Claiming there was some significance in the fact that the date of the
SNP's spring conference was the same as the 40th anniversary of Powell's
infamous remarks about rivers of Blood, Mr Grant went on to claim that
"Scottish nationalism like every other form of nationalism is dangerous
and has its roots in Xenophobia and racism."

His circular argument for this was that because Salmond said "As a
sovereign people the people of Scotland - and we alone have the right to
decide how we are governed", this was somehow racist to the other people
in the United Kingdom!

Let's be clear that all Alex Salmond was asserting was the right of the
people of Scotland to decide their own political destiny. When he says
"we Scots" he means all the people who live in Scotland. This right to
self determination through the sovereignty of the Scottish people was
enshrined in the Declaration of Arbroath and was much more recently
acknowledged by both the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties when they
endorsed the Claim of right for Scotland.

The Daily Mail and their correspondent must be fully aware that there
are two separate and distinctive forms of nationalism.

There is the imperial type where adherents believe in the superiority of
their country to others and attempt to assert their superiority by
conquering or exploiting other nations.

Historically both the British Empire and the Nazis fitted this form of
nationalism. There is also however the civic type where the people of a
country join together in a common democratic cause. Mr Grant admits this
when he remarks that "nationalism has often been a necessary step on the
road to democracy."

Scottish nationalism is clearly civic and is also clearly not imperial.
The SNP have no plans to invade anyone! Therefore Mr Grant's argument
has no justification whatsoever.

If unionism can only justify itself by making such deliberately false
assertions about its opponents then one can only conclude that the
arguments for the continuation of the union are not strong enough on
their own.

Independence is normality. Independence supporters run our Government
and the cause of independence has strong support across every political
party and at every level of Scottish society. If the Daily Mail wishes
to insult a possible majority of the Scottish population then they can
go ahead but they can also logically expect their readership figures to
drop like a stone.

If they continue in this vein then they should also expect to have their
day in court eventually at which point they would be expected to provide
actual proof of their allegations or pay the compensation required for
attempting to libel both the SNP and all other supporters of Scottish
independence.