A quick guest post from Sarah Beattie-Smith, an activist with the Scottish Greens. Thanks Sarah! More post-indyref analysis to come.
I get it. I get why you might want to hold on to the fact that you weren’t alone in voting for independence. That 45% of the voters were with you. But I think it’s unhelpful. Here’s why;
1) Calling yourself part of the 45 harks back to Jacobites. They may have had super cool wigs and kilts and lived romantic (and short) lives fighting for Scottish freedom, but come on! It’s 2014 and we’ve just held the only democratic vote *ever* on independence for Scotland. We don’t need swords to fight for independence, we need an informed, engaged and pissed off electorate with the will and the means to change things democratically.
2) It’s divisive. A quarter of those voting no did so because they believed “the vow” that we would get more powers as part of the union. By focusing on being part of the 45% of folk who voted Yes, we cut off those people from being part of fighting to ensure we get as much power as we possibly can. A lot of them will be feeling pretty low right now. I know some No voters who really desperately wanted to vote with hope and optimism for Yes but just didn’t feel they could – whether because of attachment to an idea of shared struggle across the UK or distrust in the idea of an automatically better Scotland after a Yes vote. They need us as much as we need them if we’re going to build a better Scotland. Cutting ourselves off is just daft when we should all be reaching out – from both sides.
3) It makes us look like we’re wallowing in self pity. What do you notice about 45%? That it’s smaller than 55%. We lost. Let’s not do that awful Scottish thing of celebrating being the underdog and feeling contempt towards everyone else. If we’re ever going to win, we need to have a hell of a lot more people voting Yes and that means we need to look at why people voted no and help move them from No to Yes – just as we’ve done for the last 2 years. We did bloody well to get from 25% two years ago to 45% last week. Let’s not turn that number into a sad vainglorious symbol – it’s there to be built on, not to stand as a permanent memorial to the injustice of No.
For the record, I don’t think we need “reconciliation” – that’s what happens when both parties have done something wrong. But we do need to keep fighting for the Scotland that I believe the vast majority of people want to see – free of nuclear weapons, where poverty is a thing of the past and where we care for people and planet for now and into the future. The folk who want that are far more than 45% of the electorate. Now is the time to build that new Scotland, not to build a bunker.
#1 by Osbert Lancaster on September 22, 2014 - 8:37 pm
Sarah – thanks for this, spot on.
#2 by Mikewr on September 22, 2014 - 9:21 pm
Sarah, Some good points made. Especially the reconciliation part. Just removed my 45 from twitter pic. Hope we don’t spin our wheels debating names, symbols etc. Just vote for one of the yes partys at next election and get involved. Its as simple as that. And remember to join one these partys. I have.
#3 by Michael White on September 23, 2014 - 5:11 am
The 45 lasted a few hours, and was not really about what Sarah is writing here. Very quickly it has become a movement and urges any no voters who feel gulled to hop onboard. So 45 and rising is growing very rapidly. On Facebook nigh on 170,000 likes in 4 days. So much good is coming through already. Curiously by losing we may have really won. Westminster has promised things it cannot possibly deliver, and the world is watching. We will compare their pre-referendum pledges with their normal spin & lies. Cameron has 8 months left in power 🙂 Our dream remains the same, it just hasn’t happened yet. AYE
#4 by Edwin Moore on September 23, 2014 - 7:59 am
Excellent piece Sarah. It would be enormously helpful for us all if people sorted out the history in their heads from our real history – Cameron of Lochiel leading his clan to Glenfinnan is the image of the 45, the reality is Lochiel’s brother beating and tormenting the Lochiel tenants into giving up men to fight for their stupid cause.
#5 by Kevin Borthwick on September 23, 2014 - 9:04 am
Hi Sarah
I have read your piece with interest but cannot agree with some of the things you have written. I am one of those that you are referring to as the “45%” – but I hasten to add am expressing my own opinion and I do not represent any official or unofficial group.
I believe that most of the opinions that are being expressed, especially on social media, stem from anger and frustration and a sense of injustice. When the dust settles, those emotions will ebb and with clear heads those very same emotions will be turned to something far more powerful – a drive for unity across this country. We all know that to seek another mandate for a future referendum we must have the will of the people behind it. I will welcome anyone with open arms that wishes to pursue that goal. So I would urge caution for those, like you, that feel you need to make these comments with comparisons to the Jacobite rebellion, etc and that people are wallowing in self pity so soon after the referendum where, as you have acknowledged, emotions are running high. This in itself is divisive.
At this particular moment, I believe people are simply looking for their voice to be heard where previously it was silent. The level of engagement is at an all time high and we must continue to encourage this dialogue and involvement wherever it springs up. The people using social media to express their views are not trying to build a “bunker” behind a name like the 45%, I believe they are looking for a place to express their views and let their voice be heard. The “We are the 45%” Facebook page, for example, has over 167,000 likes, #the45 is trending on Twitter and it has also had press coverage. Many of the people using the aforementioned Facebook page have already expressed doubt about the name but bear in mind that the organiser of the page only set it up as a “digital meeting place for grieving Yes voters.” The dialogue is flowing freely and the vast majority of it is positive and it is already moving away from its original purpose. Let’s wait and see where we are when the dust settles in the coming weeks but above all else we must let the people speak or they may be forever silenced.
#6 by Ian G on September 23, 2014 - 5:29 pm
I think you make some good points, Sarah. I can only speak for myself and my reasons for voting ‘No’ but I know a lot of friends and family share my viewpoint.
The big challenge facing you is convincing a ‘No’ voter like me that an independent Scottish Government would actually deliver it’s promises any better than the existing set up does. If anyone is interested I’ll explain some of the reasons I voted ‘No’. I’m deeply unhappy with what the Scottish Government (I’m no fan of Westminster either) has delivered so far, the education and exam system is in meltdown, my son has not had a dedicated English teacher for 2 years, is Mike Russell interested? Has anyone even seen Mike Russell recently? Much of the ‘Yes’ campaign focussed on our future and out children’s future whilst giving Education a complete body swerve in the debate.
All the nonsense about privatising the NHS got right up my nose, I worked for for the NHS in senior management an I know that there’s as much privatisation going on in Scotland as there is elsewhere in the UK. So there’s 2 areas that The Scottish Government have devolved powers over and they’ve screwed up one and lie about the other.
Oh, and free prescriptions, I was always happy to pay for mine because I could afford to and I just don’t get how spending million’s of £’s giving a benefit to the better off in our society should be a priority.
I thought the ‘Better Together’ campaign was a joke and said so many times, if anyone was influenced by it then I despair. That having been said I found much of the ‘Yes’ campaign annoying and sometimes offensive too. The general tone seemed to be ‘You must be a bit stupid if you don’t wan’t to vote ‘Yes'” and the Trotskyite zeal of many activists was just an irritation particularly when they resorted to shouting slogans at me if they couldn’t answer a question. You won’t win many folk over by trying to wear them down with diktats.
The BBC bias claims were tiresome too, Radio 4 gave pretty decent and balanced coverage throughout, the criticism they got was undeserved and came across as petulant whining and the treatment of Nick Robinson was shameful, Salmond did lie about Corporation Tax, a quick look at the HMRC website establishes that.
Finally, the reaction to the outcome, I understand that people were disappointed but there can be no excuse for the name calling, threats, accusations of vote rigging etc that have littered FB these last few days. It’s a democracy, I don’t see how you can claim on one hand you want a fairer society and then refuse to accept the majority vote, thats not very fair, is it? I’m not ideologically opposed to independence I just found the arguments in favour at this time to be thoroughly unconvincing.
#7 by EyeEdinburgh on September 23, 2014 - 8:02 pm
Agree entirely. Every time I see someone refer to “the forty-five” (including that awfully silly ‘forty-five plus'” I think: “Right, you’re making clear that this is a group exclusively and only for people who either voted Yes on 18th September or who wish they had.”
I voted No on 18th September and it was the right thing to do to avoid currency union. I don’t wish I’d voted Yes, and I am extremely relieved No got the majority.
I’m on board with plans for a better more democratic fairer Scotland, building on the incredible 84% turnout – best turnout since 1950, anywhere in the UK – but why would I ever join a movement that labels itself “the 45”?
#8 by Drew Campbell on September 23, 2014 - 11:07 pm
My feelings put with great eloquence, Sarah.
Plenty of the “45” were late recruits who could be just as easily be lost to the Independence “cause” – and politics in general – if we excahnge the warmth, energy and confidence of Yes for an arid party political approach. As a fellow Green I remember how Patrick Harvie’s principled stand against the top-down SNP command structure intended for ‘Yes Scotland’ became a catalyst for its transformation into the incredible grassroots movement. From late 2012 to March 2013 I spent a lot of time trying to persuade SNP activists to share information and begin fund-raising for our own local Yes group. They wrote to Yes Scotland for permission (!) to set up a bank account. It took them two months to reply by which time we’d already done it.
With this incredible surge in SNP membership there is a real danger of the Independence Movement being dragooned into one great monolithic party, and many who identify as the “45” seem very keen to go along with that. Most seem to want a ‘Route One’ approach via a majority of SNP MPs after the 2015 UK General Election. “Get independence then we can split into different parties!” they tell me. One huge overbearing party will turn people off, I say. Minority voices must be heard and counted.
I want independence, but not at any cost. Co-operation within the Independence Movement will require respect, honesty and a genuine commitment to democratic structures. Some say the Scottish Greens are now numerically the second-largest party in Scotland. I’m greatly encouraged by this but know it will be a job just to hang on to them past the first year and that that enthusiasm will need to find an outlet in dynamic campaigning that encompasses work within a movement towards independence.
Co-operation is a two-way street, at the very least. A 50,000-strong SNP may wish to call all the shots in a new Independence Movement, but if they have learned anything from this wonderful campaign they’d be wiser to allow local autonomy to generate strong organic growth of grassroots.
Much as I now count many ordinary SNP members as friends and have great respect for (almost) all of the SNP leadership, I am also conscious of a tendency to centralise control. This may be born of an understandable paranoia about Labour’s embedded network through Scottish life but manifests in many policies, with added tendency towards quite authoritarian action – Kenny Macaskill’s sudden arming of police officers, anyone? That, I’d say, is contrary not just to Green instincts but to the richly diverse Yes activists and the public mood.
The Yes Movement grew from Green shoots. Let it grow.
#9 by Drew Campbell on September 23, 2014 - 11:10 pm
Didn’t mean that post to be so long – apologies!
#10 by James on September 23, 2014 - 11:50 pm
We have no size limit on comments!
#11 by James Cowey on September 24, 2014 - 1:51 pm
Thanks Sarah! A number of good points. The minute I heard about 45 my mind flicked to 1745. Association with a romantic badly organised lost cause is not what we need. My own thoughts are still not clear as to how we should organise ourselves. Quick off the cuff remark. I like Yes Dunblane new logo of Yes2 (written as Yes squared). Yes lost and is acknowledged. Yes keeps the positive message and multiplies it by itself. I think it looks cool.
#12 by Matthew C on September 25, 2014 - 12:10 am
Both Sarah and Ian G are spot on. I voted No for the reasons that Ian has said; quite simply I saw no reason to believe that the changes wanted would be significantly improved by independence and was very fearful of some serious pitfalls which could set back the progressive cause. And also because I think a narrow majority would have taken Scotland into negotiations in a very weak position – 70% would be OK! It is astonishing to me that many Greens and socialists have started to give independence in a central place. They seem to have forgotten that to get social justice and sustainability we have to take on powerful international forces. So the sooner we register that, although the 45% did express desire for change, it is part of history, the better. Let’s get on with the tasks before that – and they won’t include creating a separate state in Scotland for some time yet