What Kind of Union is Being Offered?

As the new year dawns we are now only one calendar year away from the big one - 2014. It’s easy to lose perspective with all that has happened since but it is little over eighteen months since the SNP romped to victory in 2011, elevating the referendum from wishlist material to reality. A long period of phony war finally broke towards the end of last year with the European issue – or the strange unionist contention that Scotland is not worthy of continued EU membership but the other successor state unquestionably is.

There is something oddly ironic about being told we will be unceremoniously kicked out of Europe by the very people who prop up a fading union led by those who are hell-bent on ensuring that all of us – all of Britain – leave the EU at the earliest possible inconvenience. It is peculiar at best to attack independence over European uncertainty when the leaders of the very union cherished by the unionist mind are about to autocratically and irrevocably change our relationship with Europe.

If there is a sincere case to be made for continued political union with southern Britain the No camp need to recognise there is an appetite for massive change in Scotland. Those who fail to embrace this fact risk finding themselves irrelevant (and in political terms, unelectable) once this change takes place. In light of this you would almost expect unionist politicians to make good on their threat of a ‘positive case for the union’ instead of the spurious, bitter assertions of negativity they churn out with monotonous regularity.

Any unionist party worth its salt would demand that the very best union possible is up for grabs. It could accept nothing less for the people it represents when a vast majority of the population want a significant bolstering of the powers devolved to Holyrood. The status quo is no longer on the table so the onus is on the No camp to define and defend the kind of union that we can choose to join in 2014. Their politicians need to recognise that they represent Scotland within an equal union with the RUK nations. They should not seek to represent the union against their own nation.

The ordinary people of Scotland never did ratify the 1707 political union with England. Had a referendum been held then it is likely Scotland would have remained an independent nation. This lends credence to the strand of thought that the union is an undemocratic mess foisted on an unwilling Scotland. Fortunately this historical caveat will no longer apply after 2014, regardless of the outcome. Democratically speaking a No vote would remove this ancient lack of Scottish consent. It would be taken as a thumbs up to London rule, a belated popular endorsement of the Act of Union. This is certainly how it would be viewed in Whitehall with Scotland slipping back to the very foot of the Tory’s priority list. There will be no jam delivered tomorrow, or the next day – all the more reason why no stone should be left unturned in securing a resounding YES in 2014.

Stop Kony, or Else!?

I must admit I have been moved by the Stop Kony meme currently circulating on what we used call the ‘information superhighway’. At first I was sceptical, fearing it might be some kind of lame hoax, but a quick background check, via the utterly infallible BBC, proved that Kony is indeed real, and a really bad bastard to boot. He deserves to be brought to justice along with a fair number of twisted criminal scum who have been operating around the world with functional impunity for far too long. If this campaign is successful and this vile person is legally caught and given the trial denied to his morally kindred spirit, Gaddafi, we will have witnessed the most significant event of Web 2.0.

For a long time I have thought that if all the cultural debris flowing around Facebook every day was focussed occasionally on matters of importance we could see a significant positive change in some aspects of the crazy world we all share. The internet offers education for all in a way that would have been unthinkable to most people of even twenty years ago. The flipside is that it is heftily crammed with more nonsense than any rational person can imagine even now, and curiously enough it is this side that has been embraced by big business and the main power blocks of the world.

The digital globalisation of the past decade has changed the way people interact. Not always for the better, but you would be hard pushed to find someone who doesn’t enjoy at least some of the benefits of this new connected age. We are probably living in what historians will one day think of a fancy name to describe as – the time when we had computers but didn’t connect our brains directly to them. A key historical moment in this period could be when people declare en masse that they are not prepared to put up with the same level of oppression and indifference that has gone before and demand something better. Some would point to the Arab Spring as proof that this is already underway, although this example also highlights some of the dangers of this approach.

If we are to see a brave new world of global facebook democracy we sure as hell better make sure we choose carefully whose trends we follow. We could face the real threat of Justin Bieber or Cheryl Cole being taken seriously; and no amount of social change could pay for that. More seriously, we would probably see the likes of Fred Goodwin hanged as well as de-knighted.

If this kind of easily led and totally righteous global lynch mob is to catch on then no one can guess where it could lead us. Unless of course you have read some popular history. Alternatively, and some would say more likely, it may trend for a few days before fizzling out as quickly as Rebecca Black. Still, I hope it succeeds and brings about a peaceful revolution of the mind, leading to a fairer, more even, more just and downright sexier human race.

But that’s something to ponder on another day. For now it is sufficient to say:

F*** Kony!!

Independence or Empire?

I always find it strange when people demand to know with absolute certainty every single thing that will happen in the future of an independent Scotland.

Will we still be in Europe? Yes.

How many warships will an independent Scotland have? Seven.

What colour will the sky be? Blue and grey.

Will it fall on our heads? Not initially.

Even familiar things seem to scare them, like keeping the pound. Apparently maintaining our own currency that we have used for centuries is even more offensive to these people than the threat of ‘seperation’ from their benevolent London benefactors. The same people never think to question what things will be like in a future of continued union.

Proponents of the Union seem to think that voting no in 2014 will see us restored to some kind of wartime paradise, complete with spitfires guarding the sky and shared British values paraded with bunting at every street corner, a perpetual cavalcade of Royal Wedding fervour. People with this attitude fail to take in to account the reality of what Britain has become in the seven decades since the last great war.

Consider that in 2008 the longest period of continuous economic growth in modern history came to an end. You might think we would have been well placed to ride out a few years of slow growth, after all we had ‘never had it so good’.  On the contrary, successive Westminster governments of all colours have seen to it that four years in to this slump we have only started to witness the most savage cuts ever inflicted upon our society. It makes you wonder who benefited from the decade of tremendous growth. It certainly wasn’t the man, or woman, on the street.

Its just assumed that life within the Union will soldier on with some kind of unforseen prosperity taking us back to the glory days of Empire. Perhaps with all the recent bombing raids and assaults on sovereign nations we British should feel entitled to some of the spoils of war. In 21st century reality, however, colonialism is not in vogue .

There is no payback for the expeditionary wars we have been fighting for years. Labour and Tory alike have been seduced by the fantasy of a post-colonial Britain as international bobby on the beat, with the power and moral authority, to attack and invade any country deemed a common criminal by the chief constable of the world - America. All of this has cost a great deal of money, taken without mandate from the British taxpayer.

One has to wonder what our economy would be like had the billions wasted on murdering foreigners been invested in the hospitals, schools and universities that our country needs to succeed. This is no leftist argument; free enterprise would have benefited tremendously from the stable economic conditions this kind of inward investment would have fostered. Imagine how different our approach to the global downturn could have been had New Labour banked some of the booty from the supposed boom years instead of squandering it on illegal and unwanted weapons and wars.

Those worrying about the future direction an independent Scotland might take should give some thought to how the UK has been faring and ask themselves what optimism they can reasonably hold for the status quo.

Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? – Ach, why no?

It’s a hell of a time in old Caledonia with farcical scare stories sprouting like mushrooms in the night, a fresh batch eerily appearing only to be dispelled each morning by a smidgen of reason. To mention just some of the more plausible recent cringing unionist lies we’ve been told: it is ‘illegal’ for us to decide our own future like a ‘real’ country; our beloved pandas will be on overnight rendition flights south following independence; anyone on a Spanish holiday at the stroke of midnight on independence day will be forcibly deported, or more likely shot; and my own personal favourite – we will have to pay the removal costs for WMDs that were unlawfully sited in our country against our will. 

Today the big news was Salmond having the cheek to use Edinburgh Castle for an event of great national and, going by the large assembly of foreign press, international significance.  Apparently an iconic building that predates the union by centuries is not a suitable place to discuss Scottish democracy.  Despite this the dastardly Salmond announced that it is the Scottish Government’s intention to hold a referendum on whether Scotland should regain its status as an independent nation. 

The cat is out the bag.  The unionists did not see that one coming.  Perhaps that is why they have not been able to come up with a clear or cohesive argument in defence of their cherished union, or propose with any sincerity their vision of how the current constitutional situation can be improved, short of independence. 

The SNP have announced quite clearly that they wish to see a one question, Yes/No referendum asking the following question: 'Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"  Seems straightforward enough though even this may well be branded ‘too ambiguous’ by the brand of unionist who deliberately fails to grasp the concept of independence, even though they understand it perfectly when applied to any other country.

If opinion polls are to be believed there does seem to be a growing interest in full fiscal autonomy, or some form of ‘devo max’ yet curiously no party is offering this.  I am mildly surprised that this is not causing more of an outcry than it seems to be.  The SNP are sticking to independence, which as their raison d’etre is forgivable, and they have significant electoral support for this stance. 

Support for the status quo is less yet we have three parties representing that antiquated model when only one would suffice and none of them acknowledging what the people actually want.  The party that comes up with a credible implementation of fiscal autonomy may well win the day yet the unionists are too busy currying for London favour to care even for their own political survival.  The electorate do not reward such stale indecision – just ask the remaining lib dems, assuming you can find one.  If majority opinion wants ‘devo max’ then that is precisely what we should get.  Its time someone thought about offering it. 

Be careful what you vote for however.  Thrilling as devo max may sound for a lot of people it carries some big drawbacks that independence simply does not.  We would still be in a situation where London decides what is best for London and imposes it unilaterally on us in key matters such as defence and foreign policy.  Essentially, we would send a Barnet-style block grant to Westminster to fund Tory wars and pay for William Hague’s whisky-free excursions to promote the RUKs interests.  That would be a curious settlement indeed but still far less ludicrous than our current arrangements. 

A Peculiarly British Riot?

We Brits love a good riot.  Or do we?  As it stands this dangerous new craze has not caught on in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland.  I sincerely hope that remains the case for if it were to spread north of Hadrian’s Wall, even the mildest dose of civil disobedience would be viewed as a far graver crime than the horrendous scenes we have witnessed in London.

Imagine if similar riots were taking place in the geographically British cities of Glasgow and Dundee instead of London and Birmingham.  Sky News and Paxman would go out their way to find talking heads to pontificate on how these disturbances were the inevitable outcome of our sectarian, Old Firm loving, and generally backward ways whilst congratulating themselves for living in such a modern, inclusive, and quite riot-proof, metropolis. 

I cannot imagine the London media referring to this as anything other than ‘Scottish Riots’ – with those pesky benefit-hoarding Jocks conspiring to bring down what is left of this glorious Empire and ruin life for everyone in the Home Counties.  They would absolutely not be called ‘UK Riots’. 

Yet that is precisely how these peculiarly English riots have been referred to in every media outlet since this regrettable situation ignited across London a few nights ago.  No one could reasonably describe these occurrences as ‘European Riots’ until they had spread to at least one other country so why is it that our media see fit to consistently refer to them as ‘UK Riots’ when they are confined to only one constituent part?

You can forgive this kind of wilfully ignorant imprecision when it applies only to sporting matters.  It is more amusing than destructive when Andy Murray is ‘British’ in victory but decidedly ‘Scottish’ upon defeat.  However, it can be rather damaging to our economy – as the First Minister ‘controversially’ pointed out – when English riots are beamed globally, portraying the United Kingdom as a nation of looters and arsonists. 

Not since the blitz has there been such widespread criminal vandalism in the capital of the British state.  Interestingly, the media has been surprisingly muted in apportioning blame, lacking the scaremongering one might expect if, say, Al-Qaeda were responsible.  Perhaps it is a simple failure to accept the social circumstances and gross inequalities that have given rise to such a widespread rejection of our shared British values by so many of Her Majesty’s subjects. 

A Matter of Life and Death. Or is it More Important?

I sometimes wonder how different the 20^th century might have been had there been a British Football Association established in Victorian times, instead of four national bodies.  Would this have eroded our sense of nationhood and quelled any rise in nationalism?  Imagine if ‘we’ truly had won the World Cup in 1966.  Would we all gleefully wave our Union Jacks, even now, in tribute to the winning goals from Bobby Charlton and Denis Law?  Or would our national heritage and sense of independence have manifested itself in another, more mature, way?

It seems we are about to get a taste of what it would be like to have a British football team, whether we like it or not.  If such a team were successful there would, with some justification, be calls from around the world for a permanent British international team.  If somewhere like the USA wanted four teams we might think that were ridiculous.  What if they wanted Fifty?  You could reasonably say they are entitled to that many if we Brits are allowed four teams.  Otherwise, you might think one team per sovereign state is sufficient. 

This together with the regular lame speculation of the Old Firm joining the English League is something that, if it ever came to fruition, may gradually harm our national cultural fabric.

Of the four ‘British’ associations only one of them wants to proceed with this so,  democratically speaking, they are voted down 3-1 and there should be no Team GB.  That is the only fair outcome as there never has been a structure in place to represent the state of Britain in international football.  To artificially create a Great British team, under the auspices of the English FA, for a one off sporting event is irresponsible and unwarranted.  There could have been sensible and equitable discussion of alternative arrangements. 

A Home Nations tournament could have taken place, like the recent Carling Cup, where everyone except England enjoyed a friendly rivalry.  The winner could have gone on to represent all of Britain on merit.  Instead having an all-English team taking to the field as 'Britain' perpetuates the absurd notion – both home and abroad – that England and Britain are coterminous.  They are not and we should not allow it to appear so, even in sport. 

Football in itself is a matter of some triviality.  Cases like this, however, reflect perfectly the structural inadequacies that exist in this ‘United Kingdom’ we all live under.  The Supreme Court debacle has shown that at present, our courts can be overruled by London.  In the same way our football association can be overruled by its English counterpart. 

There is another parallel between our football and our law.  Both are entirely separate and independent entities with sovereignty in their own spheres – one trivial, the other essential.  To see both our legal and footballing systems being ridden over rough shod should be enough to anger even the sternest unionist.  Surely even if one were to believe wholeheartedly in the value of union, it would be prudent to want a fair deal for your own nation within that union.  The Act of Union enshrined the irrevocably independent status of our religion and law.  Had it taken place more recently, footballing independence would undoubtedly have been added to that list, maybe even supplanting the Kirk in importance.

Perhaps this attack on the sovereignty of our national game may illustrate the inequality of the UK at present, even to those who are indifferent to the emasculation of our legal system.

Trident and Me: A reflection on our strategic nuclear deterrent

As a young lad in the early 90s I was taken to the coast one brisk autumnal afternoon and had the privilege of catching a glimpse of the most technically advanced ship in the Royal Navy’s fleet.  HMS Vanguard made an impressive sight as she silently glided through the Firth of Clyde, orbited by a flotilla of smaller craft containing machine gun toting guards.  I confess a certain amount of pride went through my pre-adolescent mind that Britain still had the wealth and status to build such a thing; the ultimate expression of – my dad’s got a better car than yours.  I can forgive my youthful delight that my country still ruled the waves, driven by the James Bond fantasy of a Britain not completely devoid of power.  Although I was aware even as a child that the use of such a weapon would always be morally wrong, I felt then that it was necessary as a deterrent.  If we did not have it then those countries who did would invariably tell us what to do and ultimately invade or annihilate us.  Tragically, proponents of Trident still use that exact argument without any greater attempt at sophistication, despite the massive shift in the global political landscape.

As a Cold War deterrent these submarines may have had their place.  Perhaps it was a worthwhile investment of the nation’s wealth, showing those pesky Reds that good old Blighty would never surrender the waves to their morally inferior economic system by letting them nuke us unanswered.  The current Trident system, commissioned in those days but delivered after the wall came down, could be viewed, sympathetically, as an unfortunate anachronism.  Designed to last for a few decades, you could say we simply have to let them die a natural death and be consigned to history, a relic of 20^th century stupidity.  With no viable nuclear power being hostile to Britain you would expect our wise Westminster superiors to protect our borders with a well equipped conventional armed force, and dare I say it – sensible foreign policy.

However, last week (was there really no decision taken prior to May 5?), the coalition Minister of Defence announced the replacement of this crazy outdated system with a crazier still, even more outdated, and yet more expensive system.  At a time of unprecedented cuts to all segments of civil society we are going to create another Cold War system for use in the 21^st century.  Against who exactly?  Who is the enemy now?  Against which sovereign nation, and under what circumstances, is the ‘United Kingdom’ prepared to launch an attack of such criminal ferocity that the US atrocity over Hiroshima would seem like a bonfire in comparison?

I would hope that no government could come to power on this island that would ever be foolish enough to consider a nuclear attack on another nation but that cannot be guaranteed.  Sadly a new generation of Trident is to be built whether we like it or not.  Our leaders at Westminster say we need them – just in case.  In case of what exactly?  They offer no protection against terrorism, supposedly the greatest threat since the Cold War.  The most heavily armed nuclear power in the world was attacked ten years ago by an enemy who were apparently undaunted by the threat of nuclear retaliation. 

Supporters of such destructive power argue they must be built to ensure our safety.  The most sensible among them say we should not use them except in an emergency.  Forgive my bluntness but that exact same argument could be used to suggest we should build Auschwitz-style extermination camps – just in case certain segments of society get out of hand.  We may at some point have a government that wants to gas civilians so why not?  We have Trident in case a future government wants to immolate foreign civilians so why stop there?  In what way is it morally acceptable to build machines capable of destroying millions of lives in an instant but not to design smaller, more targeted, atrocity mechanisms? 

Genocide is genocide.  There is no such thing as genocide lite.  There is no point in commemorating history if we are not prepared to learn from the atrocities of the past.  Some may think it reeks of sensationalism or even poor taste to compare our nation’s choice of genocide machinery with that of the historical Third Reich.  They may argue that bullets have proven just as effective a tool of genocide as a gas chamber.  Well the efficient German engineers of the day felt otherwise.  The stark truth is to ruling Germans of that era; human life was less valuable than the preservation of bullets.  In purely financial terms it made sense for them to commit their genocide in the most cost-effective way.  Nuclear weapons are the ultimate extension of that disgusting logic.  Despite their enormous economic cost, there exists currently no cheaper way to annihilate millions of people in a short period of time than the deployment of nuclear weapons.  To that end they are simply a refinement of genocidal technology; descendents of the Vernichtungslager.

What is most appalling is how little the Great British people seem to care about this.  The media interest has been minimal and aside from a few principled souls, who maintain a constant vigil at Faslane, the majority of the populace seem to have bigger things on their mind.  Perhaps for the majority of them Trident is simply out of sight and, therefore, mind.  They have the ‘cuts’ to worry about and where do multi-billion pound nuclear submarines fit in to that?  My moral stance on this would not be altered if these genocide machines were based on the Thames though would it seem less immediate were I not within 20 miles of the most horrific instruments of death ever conceived by Mankind?


Originally published at Newsnet Scotland on Tuesday, 24 May 2011.