A
week, a British Prime Minister once famously said, is a long time in politics.
And
it’s been an extraordinary five days in British politics as the strong
possibility of a Scottish vote for independence this Thursday sank home at last
on an rUK public. Political leaders stopped what they were doing and rushed toScotland …….promises
were made……rabbits were pulled out of the hat - little of it convincing
The
Guardian blog has been giving an excellent running commentary on events for
weeks – and this is their latest
Those
wanting a more measured “take” on the battle should read the current issue of London Review of Books which has 15 short contributions from eminent UK writers. And also this
explanation of what the media mean by the confusing term DevoMax which has resurfaced.
One
thing is clear – David Cameron is in the firing line. It was he who rejected
what most Scots actually want – greater devolved powers for the Scottish Parliament; it was he who rejected
the option of having that as a third question on the ballot paper. If the vote
is “No” he will be expected to deliver on the vague promises which have come
from his camp in response to the latest polls – and whilst devolved powers to
English regions may be of interest to the chattering classes there, it is not,
at the moment, a vote winner.
But resentment is building in England at the idea
of concessions to Scotland. In any event, any concessions would be for the
wrong reason. It’s not cash the Scots want – its freedom from neo-liberal
greed. Unfortunately a “Yes” vote, ironically, would not achieve that. It’s not
gone unnoticed that Rupert Murdoch supports both independence (he was
tweetering about this copiously from Scottish pubs) and the Scottish leader – and
that both support lower taxes for business.
Nb Update; George Monbiot makes the point that -
Nb Update; George Monbiot makes the point that -
For a moment,
Rupert Murdoch appeared ready to offer one of his Faustian bargains to the
Scottish National party: my papers for your soul. That offer now seems to have been
withdrawn, as he
has decided that Salmond’s SNP is “not talking about independence, but
more welfarism, expensive greenery, etc and passing sovereignty to Brussels”
and that it“must change course to prosper if he wins”. It’s not an
observation, it’s a warning: if you win independence and pursue this
agenda, my newspapers will destroy you.
I’ve
tried to keep a neutral tone in the posts I’ve been making in the last month or
so. After all I don’t have a vote – and last lived in the country 24 years ago.
But I am a Scot – and a passionate one. But never a nationalist – nor, as I’ve tried to explain here,
are my countrymen.
Most
people consider that those favouring independence have the better arguments –
but I have not been convinced by that. I’ve been looking at two (small) books
from the left corner supporting the Yes case (which I referred to in my Sept 4
post) - Jim
Sillars’ In
Place of Fear II – a socialist programme for an independent Scotland and Yes
– the radical case for Scottish Independence and
find them very inadequate.
Articles such as this and this are much more persuasive.
Articles such as this and this are much more persuasive.
And
I’m finding an intolerance in the mood which seems to have swung behind the Yes
movement which reminds me of some of the reading I did on my Politics course in
the early 60s at Glasgow University – particularly Canetti’s Crowds and Power
(1960)
As
a politician myself from 1968-1990, I was never comfortable with the emotions
politics could arouse – and I sense a dangerous element in the present mood in
Scotland. Coincidentally I found myself last week reading Sebastian Haffner’s
amazing Defying Hitler which is an eye-witness account of a young man’s day-by-day experience of the Nazi
takeover in 1933. Apparently written in the late 1930s, it was published only
in 2000 after the famous journalist’s death.
Extensive
excerpts can be found on this website and I strongly urge people to read them.
No comments:
Post a Comment