I’m not gay. Not that I’d think any less of myself if I was, although my fiance might be less than impressed by such a revelation.
Despite not being gay, I recall always being quite taken with Will from the excellent US comedy Will & Grace. Here was a man who was down-to-earth, calm, run-of-the-mill but doing well for himself and, for desperate want of a better word, normal. And gay.
Such was (and still is sadly), the lamentable portrayal of LGBT individuals on TV and the wider media that this character was terribly intriguing for those twin pedestrian reasons – gay and normal.
I daresay a comparison could be made to the mental image much of the public has (and certainly the media’s regular portrayal made of) those who intend to vote Yes in the referendum in 2014. How many minds have wondered, or mouths spoken out loud even, ”You support independence? You? But you’re normal’.
It’s easy to be pro-UK at the moment, expected even. The Olympics were a veritable slam dunk, the Queen has somehow conjured up some credible goodwill despite her constant crabbitness and London’s deep pockets have saved our wayward banks for which we are to be eternally grateful, or until after the referendum at least. It takes a strong nerve to say out loud and against expectation that you’d rather Scotland was its own country.
And yet, the more one looks at the polls and the more one considers the lay of the independence campaign’s lands, the clearer it is that more of the silent Yes voters are going to have to speak up to win the referendum. They don’t have to dress up like Braveheart, put on a funny voice or act in any way different to how they acted before, but, like gay Will, they do need to make their presence known. Come oot, if you will.
Margo MacDonald convinced me of this fact when she said yesterday “If a third of Scots believe in independence, then every one of us has two years to persuade another Scot, and we are home and dry” Well, we can’t be leaving it all to the tartan loonies, can we? And let’s be honest, there was a fair few on display streaming down the mound yesterday, mercifully outnumbered by families, refined couples and friends out having a good time and calmly making themselves known.
The problem in coming oot and getting people to join us in that regard (my Yes colours are pretty firmly labelled to the mast) is that there seems to be an irrationally deep-seated intransigence to even considering anything other than the status quo. I don’t mean genuine disagreement, which is to be very much welcomed. I mean a hard-headed ‘No!’ that carries no rhyme nor reason.
Take, for example, a very brief chat I had with a kilted worker in one of the Royal Mile’s finest kilt hire stores. Having noted that he was wearing Scots Nationalist tartan, I gambled with a bit of small talk, lost and was left thoroughly, thoroughly confused:
Me: ‘I see you’re wearing the Scots Nationalist tartan?’
He: ‘Aye’
Me: ‘You’ll be sad that you’re missing the rally then?’
He: *tut* ‘I don’t think so. If this country ever gets devolution, I’m leaving’
Now, where to begin. You work in a kilt shop, are clearly passionate about tartan, you’re wearing the Nationalist tartan infact, but if we ever get devolution independence, then you’re out of here? I never said anything of course, just gave a non-committal blank look and we parted ways. Sorry Margo, my ‘one’ will have to be somebody else.
We’ve heard similar rhetoric before of course, homeruleophobia I’m minded to call it.
Michelle Mone made the really quite ludicrous and pointedly public assertion that if Scotland were to be independent then she would take her Bravissimo bra company down south (effectively sacking on the spot those hundreds of workers who wouldn’t want to relocate from Glasgow).
I can understand any Scot being ardently pro- or anti- independence and I can equally understand any Scot being easy-oasy on the subject, but there seems to be a conditional patriotism at play whereby certain unionist Scots will only support and play a part in Scotland if they get their way, irrespective of what the democratic majority may decide. It’s not much of a team spirit if you ask me.
That conditional patriotism doesn’t seem to exist on the other side of the debate. Scots who have longed for independence have made do within the United Kingdom for 300 years with a quiet resolve and relatively little fuss, particularly if you look at other scarred and charred countries around the world. Or over the water, even.
I’m not even necessarily criticising those seemingly proud Scots who would nonetheless reject their nation if it were independent, I’m just striving to understand them. Conditional patriotism; it eludes me, but it’s out there.
Not that people stepping back should stop others from stepping forwards, and that was my take away from yesterday given a turnout that was high when set against expectations but low when set against an electorate. The enthusiasm of a relative few can go a very long way. One wonder how many would turn out for a Better Together No rally? I bet even the conditional patriots would stay at home.
So, there may be an immovable, implacable unionist object in the way, but that’s no reason why more and more Yes voters shouldn’t come out and help try to build an unstoppable force. And if that force is to be beaten, let’s hope that it was the mountain of counter-arguments that was insurmountable, rather than the limitations of our collective ambition and imagination. Or even just deep-seated prejudice against an imagined enemy, much like homosexuality, that has been battled and largely beaten before, with as much help from the quiet Wills of this world as the louder, colourful protests.
I couldn’t make yesterday’s march despite briefly walking against and alongside it on two different occasions. I’m already looking forward to next year’s though and standing proud, if not terribly loud, as a part of it.
#1 by Douglas McLellan on September 23, 2012 - 10:17 am
I think to a great extent the problem is fear. Fear of the unknown.
It is easy to be proudly Scottish within the established UK framework but what will being Scottish outside of the UK actually mean. Part of the failure of the SNP in the last year I think has been to try and address that fear, not by offering an inspiring vision of an independent Scotland but a weird hybrid that can only really be called “Same+”.
Keeping the monarchy, the currency, the Bank of England, staying in NATO etc are not inspiring people, nor informing people, to think about an Indy Scotland in a positive light. Proclamations that we would be like Scandinavia mean nothing to the average person on the street and it may be surprising to many outside the very small political bubble in Scotland but even issues like Trident on the Clyde are not in the top twenty concerns of the average Scot.
People threatening to leave is, again, an aspect of fear. Who will run Scotland and how? Will it be a high tax and spend country? When you hear cries at the rally for more welfare and social justice what does that mean to the uninformed person on the street? Will the average person pay more in tax for those who are perceived to not wanting to work. Its an unfortunate situation but social attitudes to welfare are hardening and despite the misplaced belief of many this includes attitudes in Scotland.
If a business owner, fearing the standard language of the left that hates business, thinks that Scotland will take an epic lurch to the left post Indy should they not say so. Should they not consider actions to preserve their business as they see fit?
For the indy movement to succeed it needs to offer more and offer a better vision for Scotland. I will be voting yes at the referendum but I was not at the march yesterday. The reason? I knew nobody would say anything that I would find exciting about an independent Scotland. And that’s why, if the arguments stay the same, the referendum will result in a no vote.
#2 by Jeff on September 23, 2012 - 11:09 am
I think you are correct that fear of the unknown is Yes Scotland’s biggest problem but I would wager that fears are most often overcome at the very last minute, hence a lack of movement in the polls not being of very much concern at the moment. I know of a few people that have changed their minds from No to wavering or from wavering to Yes, so I suspect the direction of travel is only one way at the moment, though glacial.
I guess, given your points and to pull the thread back to the point of the post, is your challenge not to speak up for your Yes vote and sell your own vision rather than wait, possibly in vain, for someone else to do it for you? Convince that one person that Margo has urged us to do? As opposed to almost write off a referendum as a No result two years before it takes place.
Just to touch on the Same+ strategy. It’s not really for the SNP to say what an independent Scotland would look like. I agree that significant change is required to make independence saleable but decisions on Royal Family/currency etc are for future elections referendums, not this one. So keeping as many people onside and focussed on that one choice, UK or independence (rather than spurious decisions such as Royal Family vs Republic or Pound vs Euro), makes sense to me.
#3 by Douglas McLellan on September 23, 2012 - 8:46 pm
The problem is that what I want from independence could be achieved in the UK and I am a member of organisations like the ERS and Republic which aim to achieve it. Certainly an indy yes vote could be quicker but there is no vision of what an indy Scotland will be shaped like post referendum so I can’t personally argue for it at the moment. I can’t say Scotland will be an indy republic because, if the SNP formulate what a Yes votes means then we still have the Queen.
I will respond to the indy white paper but where else can I go? I can’t join the SNP (or even the Greens probably) because I cannot sacrifice my other policy positions on the alter of indy.
The problem of the pragmatism of Same+ is that the more it is embraced is the less likely the need for independence will be accepted.
#4 by Indy on September 24, 2012 - 10:34 am
This is in some ways the key issue because we need to get people to understand that the advantage of independence over the status quo is quite simply that decision-making powers are moved to Edinburgh rather than London. That is the vision.
People who expect the Yes movement to be able to produce a fully worked out model of what an independent Scotland would look like, a bit like a TV cook producing a cake and saying here’s one I baked earlier, are destined to be disappointed because no-one can do that.
But you can’t really do that with the UK either. It’s all inherently unpredictable.
#5 by Commenter on September 24, 2012 - 11:39 am
The problem of the pragmatism of Same+ is that the more it is embraced is the less likely the need for independence will be accepted.
I think the Yes campaign needs to find a way to sell Independence in a broad-based way that doesn’t package it up with a wish-list of radical stuff that some people want. Personally, I want independence to initially be a minimalist process that results in us having full sovereignty. It’ll be enough of an upheaval without tying it together with everything that gives the ‘activists’ the horn, including the kitchen sink. For me, the benefits of independence are sovereignty lying where I want it to be – with us.
#6 by Derick on September 23, 2012 - 10:24 am
Good article – agree with every word
#7 by Jeff on September 23, 2012 - 11:03 am
Thanks. That’s more than can be said for the aforementioned (non-Scottish) fiance who read through it and said “you can’t spell ‘out’ correctly”.
Obviously never read ‘Oor Wullie’ as a child…
#8 by Hythlodaeus on September 23, 2012 - 10:55 am
“Despite not being gay…”
Tad patronising language in this day and age.
#9 by Jeff on September 23, 2012 - 11:02 am
?
Hardly, given the rest of the sentence.
#10 by Hythlodaeus on September 23, 2012 - 11:24 am
By bringing up first your sexuality and then then sexuality of the character and what you perceive to be a target demographic (which you did with the Despite… line) for Will & Grace, the implication is that one has to be gay to identify with the gay lead character, yet despite having being a hetrosexual male you can transcend this.
You could have deleted the entirety of the first four needless paragraphs and had a better, more rounded article overall.
#11 by Jeff on September 23, 2012 - 11:30 am
I think you’re overanalysing it, but I at least now see what you’re trying to say.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest, even unwittingly, that people who are most likely to be “taken with” the character of Will are straight women and gay men.
Not that I foresaw, or want, comments to be about who should or shouldn’t like the characters in a show that was only mentioned as a useful springboard into the deep end of the post.
#12 by Doug Daniel on September 23, 2012 - 12:46 pm
It’s a strange phenomena and I’m glad someone else has noticed it. Despite being in favour of Scottish independence long before I even knew of such a concept, I still feel very guarded about it when the subject comes up in conversation. It still feels like you’re saying something ludicrous when you tell people you support independence. My office had our weekly pub lunch on Friday, and someone went round the table asking what everyone was doing at the weekend. I was sitting there waiting to be asked, and contemplating whether to admit I was going on the march. In the end it got dragged out of me, and this revelation was met with a predictable response of “oh god, you don’t support that do you? It’ll be a disaster if we become independent” and so on. You’d think I’d just stuck my finger up my bum and wiped it across everyone’s food.
So yeah, in some circles at least, its still very taboo to admit you support independence (especially when those circles are middle class folk in Aberdeen with a secure job and a pretty good salary, although I noted the same reactions when surrounded by the same types in Glasgow…) But that’s exactly why I went on the march, to reassure myself that I’m not some shortbread-eating, kilt-wearing, Braveheart-watching weirdo in disguise. We who support Scottish independence are many, and we mustn’t be afraid to speak out. The number of caricatures who were on the march were thankfully much lower than I feared, and I found myself surrounded by many “normal” people whose only tell-tale sign that they were on an independence march was their placard. We need those who are against independence purely because they’ve been conditioned to think it is a ridiculous concept to see that this is not the sole preserve of nutters going on about Wallace – it’s for normal, everyday people who just want something better from life.
So it’s the job of those of us who quietly believe in independence to start making our voices heard in the office, when amongst friends, and any other situation where once you would remain silent for fear of being singled out as the person who has watched Braveheart a few too many times. That’s why one of the speakers (probably Margo) said that this is for us, not the politicians. It’s up to all of us to win this debate, not the SNP, not Alex Salmond, but us normal folks. Political parties can argue their particular vision – be it the radical vision of the SSP and SGP or the softly-softly approach of the SNP – but it’s our job to do the real convincing.
#13 by Gaz on September 23, 2012 - 1:33 pm
A great event. Lessons to be learned in terms of organisation / speakers / PR for next time but that is being picky.
There is always an argument about numbers. I would say it was over the 10,000 mark (I suspect that even a single file line of people the entire length of George IV Bridge would be greater than 5,000 never mind a several abreast parade which was still stretching back to Middle Meadow Walk when the head of the parade reached the Mound) but the absolute number or what proportion of the electorate that represents is not really that important.
This is a political movement and so you measure it in terms of its relative strength to other movements.
The number of activists who turned out yesterday was not a kick in the arse off the entire membership of the Labour Party in Scotland.
So on a given afternoon, an unofficial and shoestring organisation mobilised the equivalent of the entire membership of its largest opponent – that is not to be sniffed at under any circumstances.
Then consider that the same turnout represents less than 50% of the membership of its most popular ally; the SNP.
I suspect there are some worried people in the Better Together camp today. They completely failed to mobilise their own activists in any meaningful way for their national day of action a few weekends ago and are now facing up to the fact that a one man band (indomitable though Jeff Duncan is) has pulled together thousands of folk from all over Scotland.
#14 by Don Francisco on September 23, 2012 - 2:40 pm
Interesting comments. I think Douglas is right on the money with unionist opposition – it’s fear of the unknown. The SNP know this, so play the ‘softly softly’ card and try to underplay what little needs to be done to become ‘independent’, which results in a reaction of underwhelming indifference – if it won’t change much then why bother doing it?
Personally that’s where I feel the game is at the moment, and I’m not exactly sure how the SNP/Yes campaign can move it forward.
As for Better Together – each time they open their mouths they either say something negative or are accused of saying something negative (much the same in terms of public perception). If pro-unionism is ahead, its got nothing to do with Better Together.
Personally I have found arguments from family/friends for either side to be wholly unconvincing. Maybe it’s because only so much of how people feel about this issue is that – feel, and so very hard to put into rational argument.
#15 by Iain Menzies on September 23, 2012 - 5:52 pm
One of the problems that those of you in the yes camp have is that you just dont understand, in large part, what motivates large parts of the unionist population. I am patriotic….and yes that is a British patriotism, but it is also a Scottish patriotism. I do not, and will not, accept there is any contradiction in that.
Do you really want to get into the territory of saying that because someones patriotism doesnt agree with yours that they have some form of debased patriotism? Cos that is pretty much what you just did.
I also dont buy the idea that fear is all that is stopping people from supporting indy. I dont fear the break up of the UK on two grounds, one, and i think alot of people are with me on this, i dont think its going to happen. why would i fear what i dont think is going to happen?
Two, althought im sure my idea of what the first ten years of independence will look like will be much different (and rockier) than what those in the yes camp would admit to, i cant imagine i would find myself starving in the streets….and if it got to the point the only anglo-phone country where i dont have relatives that i could run to is australia (which is too hot for me anyway).
The wider problem with the yes message is that its not a very good message.
I am forever seeing nationalists saying that it is not for the SNP to decide x, or the scottish people will decide y, and that x will get sorted after
indy+1. So if we know by the end of 2014 if its a yes or no how many years (or decades) after that before we have some kind of settlement?
#16 by Jeff on September 23, 2012 - 6:48 pm
Spectacularly off target.
I don’t have a problem with brands of patriotism that are different to my own, but threatening to leave a country without further justification if that same nation democratically votes for something you disagree with isn’t even really patriotism in my book. Conditional patriotism is as generous as I can get.
#17 by Doug Daniel on September 24, 2012 - 1:02 am
The problem for Michelle Mone and her ilk is that we’ve heard the “if this happens I’m leaving the country” rubbish countless times before – I instantly think of Andrew Lloyd Webber, Jim Davidson and Paul Daniels claiming they’d leave the country if Labour won in 1997. None of them left (which was most unfortunate.)
“Conditional patriotism” is definitely generous for such people. “Moronic” is probably more accurate…
#18 by Doug Daniel on September 24, 2012 - 12:39 am
I would suggest both camps are guilty of failing to understand what motivates the other side’s stance – if I’m perfectly honest, I just can’t see why anyone wouldn’t want their country to be a proper sovereign country like everyone else, as it just seems so innately obvious that it’s the best way. But the language used by some unionists suggests they are just as guilty of misunderstanding, characterising pro-indy folk as being narrow-minded, parochial, insular, anti-English and whatever other nonsense they come out with. None of that has anything to do with the independence we seek.
For what it’s worth, your comment suggests to me that you’re perhaps not quite understanding what it is the Yes camp are trying to do to win this referendum. When we talk of fear being the only thing preventing people from voting for independence, we’re not talking about people such as yourself. It’s fairly obvious that you’re not going to be convinced of the case for independence, precisely because of the patriotism you feel towards the UK. That’s fair enough, you’re entitled to feel that way, and we all know there’s not going to be a 100% YES vote. There are going to be people such as yourself who simply don’t want independence, who like being in the UK, and who will have rational (but wrong :P) reasons for voting NO.
However, what we know from various sources (like that Scottish Attitudes Survey last year saying 65% would back independence if they would be £500 better off as a result) is that there are a large number of people who do not share your commitment to the UK, and who would vote for independence under certain circumstances. These are the people who say “we couldn’t afford it!” when you ask them why they won’t vote YES in 2014. Bearing in mind that all manner of unionist politicians (even the dark lord himself, George Osborne) have conceded that Scotland isn’t subsidised by England and could survive on its own, this “we couldn’t afford it!” response seems increasingly irrational, and usually when someone is being irrational, it is because they are scared of something. If these people can be shown there is nothing to be afraid of, then they are more likely to be drawn towards voting YES, and I suspect this is why BetterTogether persist with the negative scaremongering tactics, because if fear is the only thing stopping certain people from voting YES, then they need to do all they can to stop people losing that fear.
#19 by Indy on September 24, 2012 - 10:47 am
Two years. That’s when there would be a general election to decide the government of Scotland.
And it would be a government that would have many more powers available to it and therefore a better chance of making joined-up decisions which would have a wider and more successful impact.
That seems really obvious to me. It makes no sense at all that we have two separate governments making decisions about policy areas which are intrinsically linked in the real world. What is the advantage of having the UK Government control pensions while the Scottish Government controls other aspects of support for elderly people? What is the advantage of the Scottish Government making decisions about health and social care but not about the welfare system? What is the advantage in the Scottish Government making decisions about law and order internally but not about external defence? In what way does it make any sense for the Scottisn Government to have an enterprise policy but be unable to decide economic policy. What is the difference really? It’s all terribly random, it goes against common sense and it doesn’t produce good outcomes.
It would be far simpler to just have one national government which was responsible for most decision-making and took those decisions in a joined-up way. Not to have this rather random arrangement which is made even more ineffective by the fact that our two governments have very different ideologies and views of the future and therefore – inevitably – spend much of their time at loggerheads.
It would be far better just to have one government and that government should, as is normal in all other democratic countries, be led by the political party that won the election, not by a political party that lost it.
#20 by Craig Gallagher on September 23, 2012 - 6:00 pm
This is a spectacular return to form, Jeff, your best article in a while. I agree with every word, and anything I might add has been said by Doug. Despite the whole idea of independence being seriously normalised since 2007, and especially since last year, many people still look at you askance when you say you back it, as though you’ve got two heads or haven’t really thought it through.
Before I decanted to the States, I worked for HMRC in Glasgow, and my lovely female boss was the office PCS rep and a Labour lass going back to her university days. When we first met, she thought me some mentalist Nat who belonged in the student debating clubs, but over time, as I backed up my arguments and tried to be as reasonable with my positions as I could, we began to have very constructive conversations about it. I never quite convinced her (I still harry her on Facebook, though) but I think she realised there was more to nationalism than what she had encountered at uni.
Even though she doesn’t count as one of Margo’s one-eaches, that entire experience was still an eye-opener for me. In many respects, nationalists have to be twice as good just to get in the conversation, never mind actually change anybody’s mind.
#21 by Jeff on September 23, 2012 - 6:53 pm
Thanks Craig. It helps when you’ve not got anything better to do at 6am but blog. Though it’s practically my only post in a while so maybe it wins by default 😉
I don’t have many similar experiences as your own as I tend to keep schtum over the issue away from t’blog but after this weekend I’m definitely keen to speak up more and verbalise some fairly well chiselled arguments. Muscular nationalism to coin a phrase.
Good luck winning your ex-boss round.
#22 by Commenter on September 23, 2012 - 7:59 pm
I felt like it was worth going on the march, to make up the numbers, and also to reduce the proportion of kilted bams. Although, I was kinda amused by the how kilted bam contingent handled the masked, trousers-round-arse ned provocateurs with the union jacks. A big Yasss to them. 🙂
Some of the arguments made by the speakers don’t really resonate with me – I’m not a ‘not a nationalist’ and don’t see an independent Scotland being an emotionless means to an end, that end being a socialist paradise. Cant be bothered with the illegal war pish either. That seems to be the dominating narrative of the Yes campaign so far.
Problem is, I’m not a persuader so can’t picture being able to locate and convert my victim as directed by Margo.
Anyway, I’ll definitely be going to the next one too, because it was y’know – an alright experience. Plenty of pretty normal people attended so it wasn’t too cringey.
#23 by Arbroath 1320 on September 23, 2012 - 9:19 pm
Sorry Jeff, I could NEVER have left that kilt shop WITHOUT having the last word with that kilted employee.
Me: ‘I see you’re wearing the Scots Nationalist tartan?’
He: ‘Aye’
Me: ‘You’ll be sad that you’re missing the rally then?’
He: *tut* ‘I don’t think so. If this country ever gets devolution, I’m leaving’
Me: But your wearing tartan.
Not just any old tartan either but the NATIONALIST tartan.
Why on earth would you chose to wear the Nationalist tartan if you did NOT believe in Independence?
Me: Another thing. If you did NOT believe in Independence WHY are you working in a kilt shop?
Me: I guess as a result of what you’ve said so far you hasve already booked your tickets to leave. 😀
I would have then left. Always remember to leave them with a smile on your face, that confuses the hell out if them.
Come to think about it Jeff, perhaps it was better you met the kilted wonder instead of me after all. 😆
Pingback: March for Indy |
#24 by Chris on September 24, 2012 - 11:35 am
I think citing fear of the unknown is both patronising to a sophisticated electorate and simultaneously points to the failures of the independence movement to unravel these unknowns. The story of the Yes campaign so far seems to be increasing the level of unknowns including the very, very basic questions of currency, defence and the EU.
Whilst decisions like Nato and Trident can be left to an independent parliament to decide there is a rather immediate concern over which currency we will have and whether we would be in the EU or not. Or the conditions required to be in the EU. Hiding the legal advice is awful behaviour: it would be much better in the long run to resolve this unknown even if it was bad news for the Yes campaign.
#25 by Commenter on September 24, 2012 - 4:10 pm
I’m not a politician running for office and have no need to fawn over voters and stroke their egos, so I am going to smirk a little at the ‘sophisticated electorate’ thing. Please, nobody take this as an opportunity to harumph at my awfulness.
Anyway, I agree that it is the job of the Yes campaign to allay peoples’ fears. We as Scots are a fearful, unconfident bunch and are apparently prone to believing some really ludicrous scare stories.
Currency – personally I think we should start off doing what Ireland did for decades – use Sterling. It’s the sensible option, I reckon. Of course we would no longer be able to dictate UK monetary policy so it’s in Scotland’s interests, as we do now (guffaw).
EU – I’m an EU citizen living in EU territory. I can’t see why I would stop being an EU citizen if Scotland became independent. No amount of Ruth Davidson and Alastair Darling making “woo” scary ghost noises is going to get me scared about this particular issue. Having said that, the EU is nice but hardly essential to prevent an apocalypse. Norway does okay outside the EU. Who knows – perhaps the EU feels so confident at the moment that it reckons it can happily chuck out EU citizens. Seems unlikely.
#26 by Gaz on September 24, 2012 - 9:42 pm
As far as I can see, there are two governments that have not revealed their legal advice or whether legal advice has been taken. If the No camp are so clear that Scotland wouldn’t be part of the EU why don’t they just publish their advice?
Any legal advice is utterly unimportant as it will be provided without the context of the realpolitik that will exist when such advice would be pertinent.
This is not a matter of criminal law and about ensuring ‘justice is done’. It is about treaties and their inherited (or not) rights and obligations. The starting point will always be what is the desired outcome for all parties – which will be that the EU will want to retain Scotland and rUK as members and that both Scotland and rUK will want to remain members. Pretty simple really. Does anyone really think that any of these parties is going to raise some legal objection to prevent everyone getting what they want? It is an absolutely ridiculous notion.
Reality – there is no mechanism for a member or part of a member state to be excluded. Reality – the EU is instinctively inclusive. Reality – if it had to choose, the rest of the EU would far rather Scotland remained part of the EU than rUK. Reality – the No campaign needs to hide behind an abstract legal argument because it knows all this.
I think the question of whether or not we remain in the EU is really one that should be directed towards the No campaign because a UK Tory Government that is wagged by its right wing tail seems to be a far more realistic threat to Scotland leaving the EU. And, as ever, in such a scenario Scotland will not have voted for it.
#27 by Doug Daniel on September 25, 2012 - 12:07 pm
I find it incredible to see Tories saying Scotland might have to leave the EU and talking of all the damage such an event would cause Scotland. They might want to get their own house in order first, and do something about all those Tory MPs who would love to take Scotland (and the rest of the UK) out of the EU and inflict all this damage they talk of.
It’s almost as if they want the satisfaction of being the ones to inflict damage upon Scotland, rather than doing it ourselves…
#28 by KBW on September 24, 2012 - 5:16 pm
“He: *tut* ‘I don’t think so. If this country ever gets devolution, I’m leaving”
Given the level of political awareness in the statement from the kilted assistant it is a safe bet that he is challenged on Scotland’s current affairs, or just challenged, and is wearing the kilt to keep a job. Devolution has come and gone a long time ago. It was your duty to educate the poor fellow.
“I daresay a comparison could be made to the mental image much of the public has (and certainly the media’s regular portrayal made of) those who intend to vote Yes in the referendum in 2014.”
These images are perpetuated by a biased and hostile unionist MSM. Ruth Wishart has broken the mould and now perhaps the 90 minute nationalists will become life long. “Much of the public” you say, a very bold statement, and I puzzle at what forms such opinion given that you will certainly not have consulted “much of the public.”
“How many minds have wondered, or mouths spoken out loud even, ”You support independence? You? But you’re normal’……..” Well, we can’t be leaving it all to the tartan loonies, can we? And let’s be honest, there was a fair few on display streaming down the mound yesterday,”
What a load of utter tripe. People who go on marches dress up as it is a carnival fun occasion, they want to celebrate and feel happy and make their statement. To label the marchers on Saturday as you just have, indicates a certain level of inverted snobbery on your part. As if you are not normal unless you are in a family group. I wore a T shirt that said “choose freedom in 2014” and wore tartan on my hat, I also carried a Saltire on a stick, I was not in a family group but a group who were similarly dressed. I can only imagine that your friends are all deeply conservative snobs if they would suggest that you are not normal for voting YES in 2014.
“there seems to be an irrationally deep-seated intransigence to even considering anything other than the status quo. I don’t mean genuine disagreement, which is to be very much welcomed. I mean a hard-headed ‘No!’ that carries no rhyme nor reason.”
Yes there are a group of people like that. I know them as people with vested interests in the Union. For example Scottish MPs and all their families and friends. These people have a lot to loose. Conservatives. And of course the deeply entrenched Loyalists, the sectarians and associated apparatchiks. Not for nothing has Matheson in Glasgow sidled up to the Orange Order. Then there are the intellectual snobs who seem to see them selves as superior beings who think on a higher plane to the rest of us plebs and who would poop poop at any change that rattled their misty eyed view of Scotland, their Victorian theme park. You will find them arguing that Scotland in particular the Highlands must be preserved in aspic for the likes of them to gaze fondly at every August. These desolate Highlands whose desolation is a Union dividend. However given all that, the strength of the independence message is now so strong and credible that we will win the day.
I saw one or two people who waited at the University campus coffee shop for us, and then joined the march there. I won’t name names but some famous faces. It seemed to me that they had taken a strategic decision so that if it was only one man and his dog they could just sit and snigger in to their lattes. But if it was a resounding success as it was, they would just start marching, well done to them anyway. Other people, I know are now expressing regret they never went, siting a lack of publicity as the excuse.
Get out there next year and get the tartan on and fly the saltire shout and bawl if you like but be there.
#29 by KBW on September 24, 2012 - 5:20 pm
“He: *tut* ‘I don’t think so. If this country ever gets devolution, I’m leaving”
Given the level of political awareness in the statement from the kilted assistant it is a safe bet that he is challenged on Scotland’s current affairs, or just challenged, and is wearing the kilt to keep a job. Devolution has come and gone a long time ago. It was your duty to educate the poor fellow.
“I daresay a comparison could be made to the mental image much of the public has (and certainly the media’s regular portrayal made of) those who intend to vote Yes in the referendum in 2014.”
These images are perpetuated by a biased and hostile unionist MSM. Ruth Wishart has broken the mould and now perhaps the 90 minute nationalists will become life long. “Much of the public” you say, a very bold statement, and I puzzle at what forms such opinion given that you will certainly not have consulted “much of the public.”
“How many minds have wondered, or mouths spoken out loud even, ”You support independence? You? But you’re normal’……..” Well, we can’t be leaving it all to the tartan loonies, can we? And let’s be honest, there was a fair few on display streaming down the mound yesterday,”
What a load of utter tripe. People who go on marches dress up as it is a carnival fun occasion, they want to celebrate and feel happy and make their statement. To label the marchers on Saturday as you just have, indicates a certain level of inverted snobbery on your part. As if you are not normal unless you are in a family group. I wore a T shirt that said “choose freedom in 2014” and wore tartan on my hat, I also carried a Saltire on a stick, I was not in a family group but a group who were similarly dressed. I can only imagine that your friends are all deeply conservative snobs if they would suggest that you are not normal for voting YES in 2014.
“there seems to be an irrationally deep-seated intransigence to even considering anything other than the status quo. I don’t mean genuine disagreement, which is to be very much welcomed. I mean a hard-headed ‘No!’ that carries no rhyme nor reason.”
Yes there are a group of people like that. I know them as people with vested interests in the Union. For example Scottish MPs and all their families and friends. These people have a lot to loose. Conservatives. And of course the deeply entrenched Loyalists, the sectarians and associated apparatchiks. Not for nothing has Matheson in Glasgow sidled up to the Orange Order. Then there are the intellectual snobs who seem to see them selves as superior beings who think on a higher plane to the rest of us plebs and who would poop poop at any change that rattled their misty eyed view of Scotland, their Victorian theme park. You will find them arguing that Scotland in particular the Highlands must be preserved in aspic for the likes of them to gaze fondly at every August. These desolate Highlands whose desolation is a Union dividend. However given all that, the strength of the independence message is now so strong and credible that we will win the day.
I saw one or two people who waited at the University campus coffee shop for us, and then joined the march there. I won’t name names but some famous faces. It seemed to me that they had taken a strategic decision so that if it was only one man and his dog they could just sit and snigger in to their lattes. But if it was a resounding success as it was, they would just start marching, well done to them anyway. Other people, I know are now expressing regret they never went, citing a lack of publicity as the excuse.
Get out there next year and get the tartan on and fly the Saltire shout and bawl if you like but be there.
#30 by Wayne Brown on September 25, 2012 - 12:18 am
Independence is about control, about being able to make our own decisions.
It isn’t necessary to say in which direction we will exert that control but simply that WE will have control via our elected representatives in a Scottish Parliament.
At present this control – in the big areas of tax, defence, foreign affairs, broadcasting etc – is exercised by a parliament where there are 59 Scottish representatives out of 650 – not a lot of Scottish control there.
The 533 representatives of the largest of the four countries know power/control lies with them – and they intend to keep it that way.
So, strictly speaking, who you want to have control is the only argument in town – those of you struggling for a definitive reason for independence may feel free to use it.
You will, of course, still be presented with futuristic arguments about how control will be exerted, and limitation type arguments – we don’t live in isolation etc – but all of these can be drawn back to the basic argument – we will make the decisions.