Month: September 2014
Scotland’s vote is not about Braveheart or kilts or tribal nationalism. It’s about democracy
The independence debate has unleashed an exhilarating democratic passion. The challenge is to sustain it
By Fintan O’Tool
By Fintan O’Tool
The Scottish independence referendum poses a very good question but suggests an inadequate answer. The question is: where does power lie? This is not a marginal problem to pose in a 21st century democracy. It cuts to the heart of a deep crisis in the relationship between people and politics. But the answer implied on the ballot paper is a geographical one: power lies in either London or Edinburgh. Most Scots – and most of the rest of us – know that while this choice is far from meaningless, it also rather misses the point.
Power lies only in part with elected governments, whether in London, Edinburgh or even Washington. It also lies with global corporations, with media monopolies, with unaccountable oligarchies, with mighty financial industries immune even to their own reckless follies. Hence the real question that Scots have to decide: will independence shift the balance of power away from oligarchy and towards democracy? If the answer is yes, independence is well worth having. If no, Scots should look to Ireland’s recent experiences: independence that does not give citizens some power against global forces is fragile and shallow – and, as Ireland learned in 2010, can be revoked by the financial markets.
It is striking that the referendum has turned out not to be about certain things: Braveheart, kilts, the saltire, hating Sassenachs, Rabbie Burns, Renton’s rant in Trainspotting about the Scots allowing themselves to be “colonised by wankers”. The language of tribal nationalism is starkly unspoken. For an issue of such moment, the debate has been remarkably civilised and thoughtful. If you’re Irish, you can only look on in admiration and envy: Scotland has the opportunity to acquire independence without murders, without civil wars, without partition, without a toxic bitterness being passed on through generations. There have been a few nasty incidents and there may be more but having an egg thrown at you or being abused on Twitter is not quite like being put against the wall and shot.
Even more startling, Scotland’s independence can be consensual. England and Wales, to their enormous credit, have already accepted Scottish sovereignty, and whatever happens in the referendum there is no going back on that decent and gracious decision. Scotland may or may not become an independent country but it is – already and without argument – a free country.
The debate’s civilised nature, however, tells us something important: there are no absolutes at stake here. There is no violence not because the Scots and English are nicer people than, say, the Irish and British were a century ago, when their conflict descended into blood, but because everyone knows that this whole thing is about nuances, complications, qualifications. There is no apocalypse on the horizon: a yes vote will not create a Scottish year zero in which everything is reinvented from scratch. Equally, a no vote will not be a triumph of the British state, a once-and-for-all vindication of the land of hope and glory.
For while it is the Scottish Question that is on the ballot paper, it is the British Question that is really on the table. Alongside the absence of nationalist sentimentality on one side of the argument, there is something equally remarkable on the other: the inability of the no campaign to articulate a coherent, passionate and convincing case for the existing United Kingdom seems, from the outside, quite staggering.
This state has existed for 307 years and has shown remarkable resilience in adapting to radical change, from the loss of empire to the loss of Ireland. But it now seems incapable of projecting to a large part of its population a positive sense of what it stands for. Even if the no side wins, it will have done so largely through fear on the one hand and, on the other, a belated recognition that in order to save Britain, its current configuration must be destroyed. If a Britain survives this moment, it will be a polity transformed by some kind of federalism.
Why has the British establishment so little to say for itself? Because Britishness was never really an ethnic identity. It was, after the empire, a set of institutional structures for contesting and distributing power: mass political parties, trade unions, churches, railways, a national health service, universities and so on. The “deep state” and the City of London continued to hold immense power, of course, but it was reasonable to believe that there was a democratic realm that could weigh in on the side of ordinary people, and convenient to call this realm Britain. The problem now is that almost all those democratic forces are hugely diminished. The no side in Scotland has found itself trying to defend a status quo that scarcely exists any more.
The Scottish referendum is in this sense a symptom of a much broader loss of faith in the ability of existing institutions of governance to protect people against unaccountable power. This is why the campaign is not particularly nationalistic: the loss of faith at its heart is Scottish and English and Irish and Welsh and European and American. The demand for independence just happens, for historical reasons, to be the form in which Scots are expressing a need that is felt around the developed world: the urgent necessity of a new politics of democratic accountability.
And as symptoms go, this has been a rather healthy one. It is impossible to have visited Scotland in recent days and not to have been exhilarated by the sheer vigour of democratic engagement. Scotland at the moment is what a democracy is supposed to be: a buzzing hive of argument and involvement, most of it civil, respectful and deeply intelligent. This energy has been unleashed not by atavistic tribal passions but by a simple realisation: for once, the people have some power.
The pleasure of witnessing this democracy in action is tempered by a nagging question: why is it not like this all the time? It is not, as the Scots have proved, because people are apathetic. It is because they don’t have, in day-to-day politics, a sense that they can control things. What really matters now is whether after the referendum, Scots return, like the rest of us, to a state of frustrated powerlessness, or can sustain the democratic energy that has been unleashed. If that’s to happen, neither a mini-Westminster in Edinburgh nor a lightly modified Britain will be much use. If the referendum is to be the start of something big, it must also be, for international democracy, the start of something new.
Our Next Move
I know it has been a long time since I have last posted here, perhaps I can have enough new things to talk about for a while. Husband has joined me and will be posting his own thoughts and ideas as well as mine.
We are moving closer to husband’s work not only to save money in transportation, but also in travel time. As it stands now, he is taking both a bus and a train and we wanted to reduce it down to just the train if possible. That meant most likely Paisley or any of the small towns on the train line.
Paisley would certainly be a smart choice as it is very active, filled with shopping opportunities and even a few things to do. But the closer we got to work, the least amount of travel time, so we pushed for around Gourock, Port Glasgow and hopefully not Greenock. The smaller the town, the less likely a flat would come available.
Two were available in Port Glasgow. The agent discouraged us from viewing too early, which was odd, but we waited 2 more weeks and asked to see them. In our situation, we must be able to give notice on October 1, so it was best to have the details settled in September.
I had not been on a train since we arrived in London nearly three years ago, so this was a fun trip to Port Glasgow. The day was absolutely lovely and that certainly was an added treat to the adventure.
The train station in Paisley.
The train station in Port Glasgow.
It was but a 5 minute walk to the first flat, where we were to meet the Agent for viewing. We had arrived early and had a chance to look around the immediate neighbourhood and to get a feel for the ambiance. It seemed very quiet, not a heavy traffic street by any means. Few cars, mostly pedestrians.
The walk up from the train station, the flat was just to the right of the house on the right. Marvellous for husband to be that close to the station!
At each end of the block of flats there are access tunnels under the train bridge to the other side which is where all the shops are. On this one, it leads directly to the largest Tesco (as the agent claims) in western Scotland. On the side closest to the train station is access to the town centre shops. It is a most perfect location all around for our needs. Both flats are two bedrooms and on the same street.
The first flat was older, still retaining it’s charm, with the lounge with the bay window as in the flat we are now in. The downside was an incredibly small and narrow kitchen. The back garden was extremely well kept, lawn mowed and flowers everywhere. Even a rose bush!
The second was a bit more modern, with a better kitchen and bathroom but lacked charm. No bay window in the lounge area, but a bigger kitchen. Downside to this flat, the landlord wanted double deposit plus first month’s rent and he did not provide white goods (washer and refrigerator). That meant of course that we would then have to invest in those items, plus all the household items we do not have but were provided for by our current landlord, like ironing boards, hoovers and the like. While our first impression was to take the one in better condition, after mulling over it, we both agreed that it was too much investment for a 4 year stay.
So, the first flat it was.
The lounge. The shelving is intact, in our current flat, we have just the indent. Also noted, that in the side panels to the window on the left, the knob was still there, this was also a standard cupboard in these type of flats. I was excited to see it, although it has been painted shut.
The closet to the back, is the original bedstead. These were built in beds. In our current flat, it was remade into a kitchen, here it is now a walk in size closet. (The second flat did not have but one small closet in one of the bedrooms).
One bedroom has a fireplace, another closet and a of all things, the door to the kitchen. Odd placement, but then that is part of the charm. This window looks to the back garden. I need to have a sewing room again, so this one will be what it is used for. Where to put the dining table under this window as it is close to the kitchen, I am not sure yet. Otherwise it is a trip to the lounge with plates of food.
At the time of viewing, they were repairing something, but here is the door to the kitchen.
Here is the extraordinarily plain kitchen. Nothing could be more lacking in charm than this. And to be sure, this is the whole width of it too. Absolutely only one person can move sideways down the length of it at a time.
But it as a window and I see a perfect place for my little white glass herbal greenhouse!
It’s almost cute to be so narrow. I am sure I will be complaining about it at some point. Good points, all the cabinets are solid and new, the white goods new and we have both a freezer and fridge. No more cooking smells in the lounge, nor the cooker gas deposits all over everything, this has an electric stove. I prefer cooking with gas, but electric is cleaner. There is also a door on the kitchen to close it off. I like that.
The bathroom is about the size of the one we have now, but the tub is wider. It has a folding glass door (not sure how that will work) and nothing much to go on about, it is standard for these types of flats. At least it has a floor rather than the horrid carpet we have now.
The bathroom also had a glass panel door, which made me smile, as it brought back memories of the one in Ved Volden.
The other bedroom is plain but a good size. These photo’s show a more golden hue, but the carpet is brand new and more of a neutral tweed tone, not as brown as it appears here.
That’s it. Most of the other photo’s I took were too blurry or of minute details. I have used a few of the website photo’s because they were a bit clearer than the ones I took.
At this point, we are approved for the flat, it is the paperwork that need finishing. Then finding a removal service (movers in USA) and off we go!
Scotland and the Independence referendum
A yes vote in Scotland would unleash the most dangerous thing of all – hope
Independence would carry the potential to galvanise progressive movements across the rest of the UK
Of all the bad arguments urging the Scots to vote no – and there are plenty – perhaps the worst is the demand that Scotland should remain in the union to save England from itself. Responses to my column last week suggest this wretched apron-strings argument has some traction among people who claim to belong to the left.
Consider what it entails: it asks a nation of 5.3 million to forgo independence to exempt a nation of 54 million from having to fight its own battles. In return for this self-denial, the five million must remain yoked to the dismal politics of cowardice and triangulation that cause the problems from which we ask them to save us.
“A UK without Scotland would be much less likely to elect any government of a progressive hue,” former Labour minister Brian Wilson claimed in the Guardian last week. We must combine against the “forces of privilege and reaction” (as he lines up with the Conservatives, Ukip, the Lib Dems, the banks, the corporations, almost all the right-wing columnists in Britain, and every UK newspaper except the Sunday Herald) – in the cause of “solidarity”.
There’s another New Labour weasel word to add to its lexicon (other examples include reform, which now means privatisation; and partnership, which means selling out to big business). Once solidarity meant making common cause with the exploited, the underpaid, the excluded. Now, to these cyborgs in suits, it means keeping faith with the banks, the corporate press, cuts, a tollbooth economy and market fundamentalism.
Here, to Wilson and his fellow flinchers, is what solidarity meant while they were in office. It meant voting for the Iraq war, for Trident, for identity cards, for 3,500 new criminal offences, including the criminalisation of most forms of peaceful protest. It meant being drafted in as political mercenaries to impose on the English policies to which the Scots were not subject, such as university top-up fees and foundation hospitals. It meant supporting every destructive and unjust proposition advanced by their leaders: the brood parasites who hatched in the Labour nest then flicked its dearest principles over the edge. It’s no surprise that the more the Scots see of their former Labour ministers, the more inclined they are to vote for independence.
So now Better Together has brought in Gordon Brown, scattering bribes in a desperate, last-ditch effort at containment. They must hope the Scots have forgotten that he boasted of setting “the lowest rate in the history of British corporation tax, the lowest rate of any major country in Europe and the lowest rate of any major industrialised country anywhere”. That he pledged to the City of London “in budget after budget, I want us to do even more to encourage the risk takers”. That, after 13 years of Labour government, the UK had higher levels of inequality than after 18 years of Tory government. That his government colluded in kidnapping and torture. That he helped cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands through his support for the illegal war on Iraq.
He roams through Scotland, still badged with blood, promising what he never delivered when he had the chance, this man who helped unravel the social safety net his predecessors wove; who marketised and dismembered public services; who enriched the wealthy and shafted the poor; who pledged money for Trident but failed to reverse the loss of social housing; whose private finance initiative planted a series of time bombs now exploding throughout the NHS and other public services; who greased and wheedled and slavered his way into the company of bankers and oligarchs while trampling over the working people he was elected to represent. This is the progressive Prester John who will ride to the rescue of the no campaign?
Where, in Scotland’s Labour party, are the Keir Hardies and Jimmy Reids of our time? Where is the vision, the inspiration, the hope? The shuffling, spineless little men who replaced these titans offer nothing but fear. Through fear, they seek to shove Scotland back into its box, as its people rebel against the dreary, closed future mapped out for them – and the rest of us – by the three main Westminster parties.
Sure, if Scotland becomes independent, all else being equal, Labour would lose 41 seats at Westminster and Tory majorities would become more likely. But all else need not be equal. Scottish independence can galvanise progressive movements across the rest of the UK. We’ll watch as the Scots engage in the transformative process of writing a constitution. We’ll see that a nation of these islands can live and – I hope – flourish with a fully elected legislature (no House of Lords), with a fair electoral system (proportional representation), and with a parliament in which only representatives of that nation can vote (no cross-border mercenaries).
Already, the myth of political apathy has been scotched by the tumultuous movement north of the border. As soon as something is worth voting for, people will queue into the night to add their names to the register. The low voter turnouts in Westminster elections reflect not an absence of interest but an absence of hope.
If Scotland becomes independent, it will be despite the efforts of almost the entire UK establishment. It will be because social media has defeated the corporate media. It will be a victory for citizens over the Westminster machine, for shoes over helicopters. It will show that a sufficiently inspiring idea can cut through bribes and blackmail, through threats and fear-mongering. That hope, marginalised at first, can spread across a nation, defying all attempts to suppress it. That you can be hated by the Daily Mail and still have a chance of winning.
If Labour has any political nous, any remaining flicker of courage, it will understand what this moment means. Instead of suppressing the forces of hope and inspiration, it would mobilise them. It would, for instance, pledge, in its manifesto, a referendum on drafting a written constitution for the rest of the UK.
It would understand that hope is the most dangerous of all political reagents. It can transform what appears to be a fixed polity, a fixed outcome, into something entirely different. It can summon up passion and purpose we never knew we possessed. If Scotland becomes independent, England – if only the potential were recognised – could also be transformed.
The Viking 