Separating - the book

It’s not every day that one’s home country decides to separate from the larger state which has been a crucial part of its identity for 300 years – so my readers (particularly in the US and Ukraine let alone in Bulgaria, Poland and Romania) will understand why I have chosen to focus my posts of the past week on what appears to be this imminent event.

One of the problems with a blog is that you are reading backwards – from the last post to the oldest. And you do lose what narrative there might be. So I’ve decided to collate them – unedited – starting with the oldest……
All I've added is a Preface and a final section for hose of you who want a reading list.

I’ve called the little book - Separating – home thoughts from abroad

It is simply a record of the reverbations of the debate which has reached someone who loves Scotland but who has been absent for 24 years.At the best of times, we hear what we want to hear; and, in my case, I am hearing the debate via the internet….with echoes from the memory chamber of the 1970s and 1980s.

Collating the posts I thought might be useful as a historical record –

- to give a sense of how a Scot expat had responded to the (growing) prospect of separation

- to list the readings which I had found helpful as I struggled both for myself and for my foreign readers to identify (and comment on) the key issues

- to link all this to the experience I have had since 1968 of leading and managing people involved in systems of government

In Praise of Doubt

Expect productivity in Scottish industry and commerce to decline dramatically in the next 10 days as those living and working in the country renew their arguments (in some cases with themselves!) about the precise nature of the “independent country” to which the ballot paper entices them on September 18^th. The arguments – after the latest poll – are now for real.

In March I sensed we were drifting apart 

As an ex-pat who has no vote (no residence) but who follows the various discussion threads, I am amazed at the self-confidence of all who take part. Where is the agnosticism and scepticism which such a portentous issue requires…..??Donald Rumsfeld is not normally someone I would quote, but his comment about “unknown unknowns” deserves respect and understanding.  In all the discussion, I have seen no serious attempt to try to set out the different political, fiscal and social scenarios for Scotland - let alone for England. Wales and Northern Ireland - which would follow from a “yes” outcome on 18 September.

It is obvious that a highly- developed country of 5 million people could operate as a nation state – there are about 40 members of the United Nations and a quarter of EU member states with smaller populations.The real questions are more on the following lines -·         How independence would affect the dynamics of trade, currency and investment (public and private) in Scotland - and in the residual (disunited) Kingdom
·         With different scenarios for relations with Europe and the Euro
·         What precise additional benefits will independence give - which the traditional and post 1999 measures of Devolution don’t
·         How these benefits measure against the risks suggested in the first two sets of questions….
·         And the distractions which negotiations (and the subsequent settlements with international organisations) will bring to those in charge of negotiations on the Scottish side  

 Outsiders with no obvious axe to grind have reduced all the academic analysis and political rhetoric to the following -

Where the nationalists are still on very boggy ground is convincingly describing what would happen the morning after Scotland woke up to find itself independent. The two sides have now shelled each other with so many rival claims about oil revenues, currency and borrowing that they have numbed each other and probably the electorate as well.

What should be telling is that the only tax cut that Salmond has promised is one which will be of most benefit to large companies: an independent Scotland would set its corporation tax rate at 3p in the pound less than George Osborne. On his Glasgow walkabout, the SNP leader was stalked by no campaigners baiting him with placards bearing the slogan: "Tax cuts for the rich!"

Whatever he says about job creation, making a priority of handing more money to multinationals sounds like a funny way of laying the foundations of a more egalitarian country. The big hole in the nationalist prospectus is that it promises Scots that they can have Scandinavian standards of public services with American levels of tax. 

The other disingenuous element of their case is about sovereignty itself. An independent Scotland would obviously be free to make more choices about its future: gone would be the Trident nuclear subs. But many of its choices would still be constricted within parameters set by major external forces. Those forces would include London, a city with more people and money than the whole of Scotland put together.

If Scotland did somehow manage to retain the use of the pound, its interest rates would be set by a bank governor and a monetary policy committee appointed by a Westminster chancellor. If it was readmitted into the European Union – which, after some aggro, I expect it would be – an independent Scotland would have to negotiate many of its choices through Brussels.
The value of its oil and gas would be determined by decisions made in Riyadh, Tehran, Moscow and Beijing. The cost of its borrowing would be set by bond traders in New York and Frankfurt

And three weeks ago, one of Scotland’s most disputatious intellectuals (who favours independence) expressed things well with this piece on the power and absence of doubt in the nationalist case

I have never actually very sure about Gerry Hassan. His voice has been an engaging one in Scotland in the past decade and, at one stage, I thought he had something interesting to offer in the fight against neo-liberalism. But then I discovered that he was one of them! But his piece echoes some of my thoughts all of 6 months ago – and also reminds me of Brecht’s great poem – In Praise of Doubt which you can read as it is meant to be read in the link.....(the formatting is too complicated here)

Deafened by commends, examined For his fitness to fight by bearded doctors, inspected by resplendent creatures with golden insignia,admonished by solemn clerics who throw at him a book written by God Himself Instructed by impatient schoolmasters, stands the poor man and is told That the world is the best of worlds and that the hole In the roof of his hovel was planned by God in person Truly he finds it hard To doubt the world

There are the thoughtless who never doubt Their digestion is splendid, their judgement infallible They don’t believe in the facts, they believe only in themselves When it comes to the point The facts must go by the board. Their patience with themselves Is boundless. To arguments They listen with the ear of a police spy.
The thoughtless who never doubt Meet the thoughtful who never act They doubt, not in order to come to a decision but To avoid a decision. Their heads They use only for shaking. With anxious faces They warn the crews of sinking ships that water is dangerous....

You who are a leader of men,

do not forget

That you are that because you doubted other leaders

So allow the led

Their right to doubt

Clarity…..but Confusion

The reverbations resound loud and clear this Sunday morning the length and breadth of Britain – as people south of the border wake up to the realisation that, in little over a week, the Scots will have probably voted for independence.

The Yes or No choice on the ballot paper seemed clear – if you’re not with me, you’re against me. But things in real life are never that cut and dried – particularly in matters of national identity and statehood. As long as Yes seemed a simple protest option, what harm was there in going for it. Who indeed wouldn’t??

But some Scots will certainly this morning be reviewing the situation – and asking themselves what Yes actually means….

Earlier this year one of our constitutional lawyers gave us 11 reasons why a Yes vote left so much up in the air 

But in fact it was 13 months ago when the waters become really muddied – with Scotland’s First (ie Prime) Minister suggesting that we had six Unions only one of which would dramatically change in the event of a Yes vote.

This political union is only one of six unions that govern our lives today in Scotland – and the case for independence is fundamentally a democratic one."A vote for independence next year will address the democratic deficit which sees policies like the punitive Bedroom Tax, the renewal of Trident or Royal Mail privatisation imposed on Scotland against the wishes of Scotland’s democratically elected representatives."But that will still leave five other unions intact.  We will embrace those other unions while using the powers of independence to renew and improve them.

"We will remain members of the European Union – but with a seat of our own at the top table, and without the uncertainty of a referendum on membership, as proposed at Westminster.

"We will still be members of Nato – co-operating with our neighbours and friends in collective security. But we can still decide not to be a nuclear power – like 25 out of 28 current members of NATO.

"We will be part of a currency union with the rest of the UK – but we will finally have the full taxation powers we need to promote jobs and investment.

"And we will retain the monarchy – making the Queen the Head of State of 17 independent countries, rather than 16. However, we will adopt a new constitution, written and endorsed by the people, asserting rights as well as promoting liberties and enshrining the ancient Scottish principle that ultimate sovereignty rests with the people.

"The final union does not rely on the choices made by politicians and parliaments – the social union unites all the peoples of these islands. "People in England will still cheer Andy Murray, and people in Scotland will still support the Lions at rugby. People will still change jobs and move from Dundee to Dublin, or from Manchester to Glasgow. With independence, we will continue to share ties of language, culture, trade, family and friendship. The idea that these ties are dependent on a Parliament in London are and have always been totally nonsensical."

 Most Scottish political parties (except the Nationalists) now support Dev-Max – fiscal federalism. But these parties have lost all credibility with Scottish voters.

No Way Back

For the first time this morning, the polls show a majority of voters in Scotland voting for independence and has Westminster politicians in panic mode - now apparently poised to offer a Constitutional Convention. 

But it was an article in yesterday’s paper which expressed things most clearly for me

The debate has intoxicated Scotland. Feeling involved in something BIG has intoxicated Scotland. People have seen the opportunity to seize power. It has become worthwhile to take an interest in political issues, achieve an understanding of them, discuss your own understanding with others, start formulating your own ideas…… The saddest thing is that what most Scots want – what I want – isn’t even on the ballot paper. I don’t want the UK to break up. It’s a unique institution in which four individual countries operate in concert, as a single state, in comradeship. It’s a beautiful thing. Or it should be.

But the democratic deficit across the UK is highly problematic, and likely to become more so. Supposedly apathetic voters often say during general election campaigns that “however you vote, you always get the government”. It didn’t occur to Westminster that this referendum could be the exception – that this vote might shatter the status quo

 It was the British Prime Minister apparently who removed a third option (“DevoMax”) from the ballot paper and who created the stark choice Scottish voters have faced during this 2 year campaign. At the moment he did that, the polls showed – as they had consistently for years – that only one third of voters actively wanted independence……..a referendum was therefore conceded in full confidence that the independence option would be rejected……

But the question on the ballot paper asks simply whether people “agree that Scotland should be an independent country”. That was what we Scots call a “No brainer” – who in his right mind would vote for “dependence”?? And no one has ever denied that Scotland is a country or, indeed, nation. Everyone considers themselves “independent”   

Hardly surprising that, during a conversation which has lasted at least 2 years (more like 4 – since the last General Election), a slow shift in opinion has taken place. Indeed what is surprising is that it is only now that “Yes” voters seem to have reached the majority.

 

But – and it is a very big but….. the Leader of the Scottish National Party has made it clear he wants to leave only one of the six unions Scotland apparently belongs to. He has been widely mocked for actually not wanting independence at all – but for wanting something the papers have called “independence-lite”

Things are now going to get very confusing….…..if this strongly-touted, last-minute concession of a constitutional convention is announced, the distance between the British and Scottish Governments will become very small…It will be the “Yes “ voters who may well be left behind.
If Salmond, the Scottish Leader, had argued for a clearer break – no pound, no European Union, no “social union” (whatever that meant) – then things would have been very clear. But he has fudged the issue very cleverly – way back in 2011 he talked about “fiscal autonomy within the UK” as his preferred option – what others have called “Devo-Max”. But this was ruled out. It is not on the ballot paper – although it has been the consistent line of Salmond’s talk during this campaign when his line has been that there would be no difficulties in keeping the pound and membership of the European Union. Big questions were raised about this – but in a manner I commented in February which would not satisfy the voter

My inclination this past year has been to vote yes - like the vast majority of Scots, I simply feel the political class in London is a different ideological race. And the tactics these past few weeks of the Westminster (and Brussels) "so-genannten" leaders certainly make me feel a bit “stroppy”. The suggestions of cretins such as the EC President (Barroso) and the UK Finance Minister that there could be no currency link between England and an independent Scotland ; or easy negotiation to EU membership  is pure shock tactics…..and so counterproductive.
These idiots don’t know my countrymen – who will simply come off the fence – and vote yes. The only reason the “No” vote (which a few months ago was so strong) is collapsing is because the UK is now ruled by neo-liberal feudalists who, for Scots, are aliens at 2 removes. 

Yesterday’s Guardian article continued

Yet something strange, even sinister, has come to light during the referendum debate. It’s that pro-unionist politicians are the ones who seem least willing to change the union in order to preserve it. They scoff at the idea of a shared currency, of a single market, of a shared membership of the EU. They say that they won’t co-operate with any of that. They want only the union they’ve got, not the union they have the opportunity to create, one held together by what they have in common, yet one in which members are able to go their own way, if and when they wish to.These people cling to this clapped-out, 300-year-old union, even though it’s clear that reform is long overdue.

Weird anomalies abound. Embarrassing anomalies. Only in the UK and Iran do religious prelates automatically take a seat in the legislature, with the established church, the Church of England, by default in effect the church of the UK. 

As for the downright perverse situation, in which Scottish MPs have the right to take part in votes that shape the future of England but are irrelevant to their own constituents, under devolution, what’s the plan on this glaring example of democratic deficit – to let it drift for ever? Scotland has become impatient. It wants the UK to start taking democracy seriously. If it won’t, then Scotland is perfectly capable of doing that for itself, alone.

England’s electorate is starting to see that a referendum it doesn’t have a vote in could change England for ever. This, it is generally considered, is not very fair. But the unfairness doesn’t emanate from Scotland. It emanates from a Westminster that assumes the political passivity of the UK and everyone in it. David Cameron wasn’t too bothered about giving Scotland a vote on the future of the UK. It was easy to ignore the fact that the rest of the UK was being excluded, simply because he didn’t think it was going to come to anything.

Even if Scotland doesn’t vote yes, and merely comes close, it will still have called Westminster’s bluff. Many politicians ask sneeringly what Scotland would gain from the“independence lite” that Alex Salmond is suggesting – an independence that does not break up the UK. They miss the point for a simple, awful reason. They are unused to thinking too much about the electorate, other than at election time, so they cannot see that the revolutionary change would be in how people felt about government, how much greater a stake in government the individual would perceive herself as having.

Members of the establishment see voters as giving them a mandate. They are not interested in sharing the mandate with the people who have granted it. 

The Better Together campaign says: “Leave it to the big boys. It’s all too complicated for you lot to understand. Get on with your work. Look after your kids. We know best.” The Yes Scotland campaign says: “Think about how government impacts on your own life. Understand it. Reflect it back. Don’t be intimidated. Get involved. Get your workmates involved. Get your kids involved. We can work out what’s best together.”

One campaign says: “Be quiet.” The other campaign says: “Speak.” Is it any wonder that yes has gained converts, while no has not?Scotland got its referendum because it asked for it. Westminster’s been “asking for it” for a long time. It underestimated the Scots, and it underestimates the rest of the people of Britain too. Everyone in the UK can seize the initiative, as Scotland has. Start thinking about possibilities, instead of accepting stasis. Start seeking conversation, instead of putting up with pontification. Start talking. Start hoping.

 So far, so good. But the article’s final paragraph had me a bit confused……

Developed and sophisticated democracy can thrive in our four countries, replacing a tired old adversarial system, built for days gone by and resting on its withered laurels. Join Scotland, people of the UK, and liberate yourselves. For that, paradoxically, is the only thing that can keep us together.

 But that’s no longer on the table.

Time for some culture

For almost 25 years I lived directly across from the American nuclear submarine missile base which was established on the River Clyde in the 1960s. I could see it from my bedroom window. At weekends, on my way to a caravan I had bought at Loch Eck, I would pass the huge obscene structure floating on a small loch which was actually called the Holy Loch! Although the Americans dismantled it in the early 90s, the British nuclear submarine (Trident) system has simply moved a mile further east and is one of most powerful and visible points in the independence case……

Hardly surprising that, as a political activist in the 70s, I got into the habit of reciting radical verse at the anti-nuclear demonstrations - Adrian Mitchell was the favourite, particularly with his Tell me Lies 

Tom Leonard’s The Six o’clock News didn’t quite seem to fit the crowd’s requirements in those days – but I’m sure has been heard in recent gatherings…

Apparently one poem – Vote Scotland – has gone viral in the cybersphere – but was unknown to me until a couple of days ago. Its tone gives a very good sense of how a lot of Scottish people feel these days -
I can only give the first part - since the formatting f***s up a bit....... 

People of Scotland, vote with your heart.

Vote with your love for the Queen who nurtured you, cradle to grave,W

ho protects you and cares, her most darling subjects,

to whom you gavethe glens she adores to roam freely through, the stags her children so dearly enjoy killing.

First into battle, loyal and true.  The enemy’s scared of you. 

That’s why we send you over the top with your och-aye-the-noo Mactivish there’s been a murrrderrr

jings! Crivvens! Deepfriedfuckinmarsbar wee wee dram of whisky hoots mon there’s a moose loose aboot this smackaddict

Vote, Jock.  Vote, Sweaty Sock.  Talk properly.

Vote with those notes we scrutinise in our shops.(might be legal tender but looks dodgy to me)

Vote for the Highland Clearances. Baaaaaaaaaa.

Vote for nuclear submarines in your water.

Vote for the Olympic Games you didn’t vote for(but you’ll pay for it, you’ll pay for it).

Vote Conservative. Vote Lib Dem. Vote Libservative. Vote Condabour.

Vote with the chip on your shoulder.

Vote Labour.  New Labour. Old Labour. Scottish Labour.

(Get back in line, Scottish Labour, HQ in Solihull will issue their commands shortly,

Just keep the vote coming in from up there thanks goodbye,

Subsidy junkie).

The Sirens

I think I can now empathise with Ulysses’ problem, all these centuries ago, with the Sirens. Drip by drip, names I respect – Tariq Ali, George Monbiot, Joseph Stiglitz for example have come out (from their non-Scottish redoubts) in favour of Scottish independence. 

The latest name to give his endorsement is someone my radical friends really do need to be careful of…..  (Sir) Simon Jenkins has now kissed the ring.  For those who specialise in discourse analysis, this is a classic - which I have to let speak for itself - in full... 

I sit overlooking Cardiff Bay as seven warships, including the destroyer HMS Duncan, manoeuvre gingerly into position. They join an army of 10,000 assorted police and guards to lock down the city so that Nato can eat a banquet in Cardiff castle. ..From the castle walls, statesmen hurl empty threats at Russia and Islamic State, who are currently dismembering Ukraine and Iraq, two nations the west claimed only recently to have “liberated”.

No one notices that their host, the UK, also faces dismemberment. Nato’s response to a global revolt against over-centralised and insensitive states is to quaff champagne and gobble canapés.Whatever comes of Scotland’s impending independence referendum, Britain owes that country a vote of thanks.

For six months (note – it has actually been 2 years - Jenkins hasn't been paying attention!!) it has staged a festival of democracy, an Edinburgh tattoo of argument. Not a politician, not an airwave, not a town hall, not a wall, tree or road sign is free of the debate. If, as predicted, turnout tops 80%, that is a triumph in itself. Political participation is not dead when it matters. 

How would I vote? As a British citizen residing in London, I would vote no. I would be shocked at how England’s rulers have incurred the loathing and distrust first of most of Ireland and then of half of Scotland. This incompetence reached its climax in the no campaign itself, the jeering, patronising, money-obsessed “project fear” designed to warn the Scots to stay close to nurse. The assumption that independence is all about cash is bad enough. Worse have been the expatriate celebrity endorsements – why have they all left home? – and scares that Scotland will lose its monarch, its missiles, its brains and the BBC, getting only poverty and terrorists in return………………….The shock of the past year might warn the English establishment to embrace constitutional reform. It might put stuffing into David Cameron’s empty localism and avert the humiliation of a collapsed union. 

But as a Londoner I have no such vote. I have to go to Edinburgh and imagine myself a Scot. In that case there is no argument. I would vote yes.I am sure the outcome of the referendum, whichever way it goes, will be nothing like the alarms or promises made by both sides.

Pick apart the no vote’s “devo-max” and the yes vote’s “independence-lite”, and the practical differences are not great. Both will deliver a distinctive Scotland yet one still close to England. Whatever deal follows whatever vote, there will be joint citizens, open borders, a common currency, joint banking, arrangements on welfare, security, tax-gathering and broadcasting. Scotland may set its taxes differently, but the scope for drastic change will be limited. It can already raise or lower its income tax but has not dared to do so. 

As for money, the issues are fiercely contested and wildly out of line. But the consensus appears to be that the £10.5bn net transfer to Scotland could be roughly balanced by Scotland’s notional oil revenue. An independent Scotland would lose a billion a year in windfarm subsidies from English energy consumers and might have to carry over £100bn of debt. It would certainly be tough, but that is what independence is about. Poll evidence suggests that Scottish voters are unmoved by the no campaign’s economic alarmism, leaving money as a matter for politicians to sort out. 

I would vote yes because the no campaign has offered merely stasis. Its leader Alistair Darling’s vision is of union as sole guarantor of prosperity. Yet this paternalism has trapped Scotland in dependency and lack of enterprise for half a century. Nor is it clear what his offer of devo max really means. If Scotland were able to raise more of its own taxes, the risk is that the Treasury would offset them with cuts in the subvention. Scotland might see a more adventurous future, but it would remain in political shackles. 

Alex Salmond’s vision is equally flawed. His socialist heaven of tax and spend, floating on a lake of oil, must be rubbish. He offers voters an extra £1,000 a head after independence, when the reality must be public sector belt tightening. Scotland’s budget would lose Treasury underpinning. Its borrowing would be at risk. Its ministers would be on their mettle. Financial crisis would lead to Greek-style austerity, whereupon voters would chuck Salmond out. The Tories might even revive as the party of discipline and offshore capitalism. 

I would vote yes because, though I disbelieve both Darling and Salmond,Salmond’s lies would precipitate a crisis that would have to lead to a leaner, meaner Scotland, one bolstered by the well-known advantages of newborn states and more intimate governments. Scotland’s whingeing and blaming of London would stop. It would be driven towards true self-sufficiency, capable of resembling Denmark, Norway, Ireland or Slovakia as a haven for fleet-footed entrepreneurs. 

I have lost count of the referendum debates I have attended. They are dominated by expatriate Scots who have no intention of returning home but who enjoy telling Scotland its business from the fleshpots of London. They see union much as their grandparents saw empire, as a historical inevitability to be defended against all argument. Many are blind to the hypocrisy of deploring Britain’s subservience to Brussels yet insisting on Scotland’s subservience to London. 

The United Kingdom really ended with the departure of Ireland in 1922. In the past half-century the drift to self-determination has been remorseless. In the 1970s, 40% of Scots saw themselves as “British”; now only 23% do. To them, arguments about currencies, subsidies and oil are not the issue. They have been debating the essence of democracy – by whom should they be ruled? They are arguing constitutions, not spreadsheets. 

Most Scots know that independence could only be partial, but half-wish to negotiate it as between sovereign peoples. This craving for ever greater regional autonomy is rampant across Europe, from Spain to the Russian border. It slides into partition only when, as in Yugoslavia, central government is deaf to its demands. Whether or not Scotland votes for independence, it will have made its own decision in its own way. To that extent, it is a sovereign state in embryo.

Methinks the man has a point!!

Separating

I had a colleague who could always be relied upon to calm a crisis – “we are where we are” he would say philosophically. It reminded me of a favourite phrase of mine - “man ist was man isst” – apparently “we are what we are” but the Germans are actually saying “we are what we eat”.

What is it about “ists”….? Feminists, individualists, socialists, atheists, royalists….fascists… You can literally hear the spit of disapproval if not outright abuse….The words are insults – hurled at people who are seen to be ….extrem…ists…advocating an extreme position.

When the referendum campaign about Scottish independence began – all of 2 years ago – the discourse was civilised – the terms “separatist” and “unionist” were avoided. A “unionist” for us in Scotland was a “royalist” – someone who saluted the flag…living out the last of his years in a bungalow in the south of England or in Northern Ireland.

About 6 months ago, on one of the rare occasions when I joined a discussion thread, I was roundly ticked off for using the term “separatist”. The rebuke was well deserved…..the millions of Scots who have in the past few decades become so disillusioned with the behaviour of British Governments are not extremists. Rather they have been given a rare opportunity by the referendum to take part in the sort of “Conversation” (and search for a new public philosophy) recommended in the tantalising conclusion of David Marquand’s recent book “Mammon’s Kingdom – an Essay on Britain, Now . And they are taking full advantage of that opportunity…..

Having said that, let us not be caught up in political correctness. What Scotland faces is “separation”. There’s nothing unusual about such a process – it happens to millions of people and quite a few countries. It’s usually painful – but many who have undergone the process of separation will testify that they feel so much better…..So why beat about the bush? 

I find myself engaging in this semantic musing simply because I’m now trying to give a title to the little E-book I’m producing from my 40 odd blogposts on the Scottish debate. At first I thought of “The Scottish Debate – home thoughts from abroad” but, as I drafted the “Preface”, I found myself writing this sentence 

“The booklet is simply a record of the reverbations of the debate which has reached someone who loves Scotland but who has been absent for 24 years.At the best of times, we hear what we want to hear; and, in my case, I am hearing the debate via the internet….with echoes from the memory chamber of the 1970s and 1980s”.

So I tried out “Reverbations” as a title – but it doesn’t make much sense.

But, as I was  waking up this morning, the word “Separating” came to me….Not a noun – an adjective. Not a term of abuse but a description of a fact….

So sorry, I think we’ve reached the stage we need to call a spade a spade…..

   

I googled the phrase and came across a couple of other essays on the issue – what is separatism? and in praise of separatism 

Also a discussion between two Scots 

How Late it Was, How Late.....

“Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully”. This famous quotation of Samuel Johnson has been traced, interestingly, to September 19th (albeit 1777)

As the clock ticks relentlessly toward 18 September, the quality of the writing on the internet  reaches impressive heights and I suspect that I will have many sleepless nights in the 2 weeks to come…

AdamTomkins’ blog (from Glasgow) is a “must-read” for any serious person – but yesterday’s blogposts also quoted from two other quite excellent blogs which had escaped me - Malcolm Henry (in the remoteness of Skye) and Jim Fairlie (in the fatlands ofCrieff, Tayside)

An hour later I found a piece entitled The day of the torn souls may be appearing from the inestimable Scottish Review who looked at the issue I mentioned in an aside yesterday – that the Scottish cultural elite has gone heavily for independence -

the media – particularly the media outside of Scotland – have turned to non-politicians to find ways of interesting their audiences in the independence issue. On Saturday 19 July, having invited contributions from 10 Scottish writers, the Guardian devoted several pages to the topic of Scottish independence. Inevitably the most striking thing about this exercise was that only one of the 10 – Allan Massie – seemed at all likely to vote No. Concerned about balance and fair-mindedness, the paper's editors will surely have tried to come up with a more even line-up. But they were never in with a chance…….

Friends at home and abroad often ask me to explain this degree of unanimity among the Scottish literati. From now on I shall point them to the July article by the actor Bill Paterson in the Scottish Review which reveals brilliantly all the pressures that make it so difficult for a Scottish artist/celebrity to come out in favour of the No side in the campaign. In the future, when the dust has settled and the referendum has become the subject of scholarly analysis, this article I'm sure will gain classic status in this particular context.

Another piece in the same journal is written by a previous adviser to the First Minister asserting that private polls in the nationalist camp suggest that the actual Yes vote on 18 September will be 55% - comparing with a consistent deficit of 3% in the public polls.

A lot of column inches are wasted on the great unknowns – how the newly enfranchised (16-18 year olds) or the undecided will actually vote. I’m surprised that more commentators don’t focus on the psychology of actually making the cross on the ballot paper.

I can never forget that I campaigned strongly in 1979 against a Scottish Parliament. I shared a platform with people like Tam Dalyell (coiner of the famous West Lothian question) who warned about the slippery slope to independence. Despite this, when it came to the privacy of the voting booth and I had the ballot paper in my hands, I actually voted “Yes” to the Parliament.

My suspicion is that there will be quite a few people who will tempted to change their intentions in 2 weeks – positive about independence because it is so difficult to withstand the peer pressure which has built up but paying attention to a warning inner voice…..

Most of my left-wing friends in Scotland have also gone for independence – alienated by the way New Labour betrayed its ideals, many of them started in 2007 reluctantly to cast their vote for the party which still attached its colours to the social democratic banner – the SNP. In 2011 that switch in support gave the “National” party the opportunity to seek a referendum it never imagined it could win. 

The combination of the referendum and the disenchantment with Labour has created a heartening recrudescence of left-wing thought in Scotland – evidenced in such sites as -

- Thoughtland– big ideas from a Small Nation 
- National Collective (artists for a creative Scotland)

- Common Weal

- Scottish Left Review

- The Red Paper Collective 

Although Class, Nation and Socialism – the red paper on Scotland 2014 is on my bookshelves, I have to confess that I have not so far read it. This is quite reprehensible as it does appear to be the one book which matches my sympathies – leftist but sceptical…..

Nor, to my shame, have I even bought the two books written from a left-wing perspective which support independence – Jim Sillars’ In Place of Fear II – a socialist programme for an independent Scotland or Yes – the radical case for Scottish Independence

However, as I speak, both books are winging their way to me (as well as a few Histories). I will, in the meantime, read the 2014 Red Paper very closely.

But first let me share a couple of reviews of Yes – the Radical Case for Scotland – the first from LSE blogs

In the final chapter, “Scotland vs the Twenty-first Century”, they give an outline for the type of policies they want an independent Scotland to adopt: nationalisation of infrastructure and North Sea oil, a Scottish currency, more progressive taxation, a maximum working week, more open immigration, extended trade union rights, and so on. But nowhere do Foley and Ramand put across a convincing argument for why a Yes vote in September will make any of these reforms more likely to happen; the best they seem to manage is that independence ‘throws the status quo into doubt’ and ‘opens opportunities’ (pp.2-3).Indeed their introduction has a passage that could easily be lifted from a book entitled No rather than Yes:By itself, voting Yes offers no guarantees of a better, more progressive future, never mind a radical redistribution of wealth and power. Scotland would face creating a new state under hostile circumstances… If Scottish rulers, politicians and managers conform to consensus assumptions about national welfare, and if Scotland’s people do not resist them, we could reproduce many of Britain’s current problems. With minimal rights, and low wages, we could enter a ‘race to the bottom’ with peripheral European economies. (pp.2-3)
Such honesty from independence campaigners is welcome. Unfortunately, the book fails to address the challenge the authors set themselves.

The second review strikes a similar note -

The unresolved problem becomes acute in the final chapter, ‘Scotland vs. the 21st century: towards a radical-needs agenda’ (pp.90-117). The authors present an attractive range of policies for post-independence economic, social, and political reform. They would be resisted by the banks, the corporations, and the neoliberal political elite. The attempt to implement them would therefore require the mobilisation of mass forces to confront and defeat these vested interests. And this, if successful, would in turn pose the question of power in society and thus, potentially, generate a revolutionary crisis.Or so it seems to me. For I do not believe that there is a Keynesian/left-reformist solution to the crisis of neoliberal capitalism. I doubt the authors do either, yet they make reference to other, more successful, ‘small-nation’ capitalist economies like Sweden, and to anti-neoliberal regimes which have rejected market models and implemented social-reform programmes in Latin America.Is the radical-needs agenda a left-Keynesian programme for turning Scotland into a niche ‘Celtic Tiger’ economy with strong public services and social protection? Or is it a set of ‘transitional demands’ capable of mobilising the mass of ordinary Scots in a struggle for change that will culminate in the overthrow of finance capital?This question is not posed, let alone answered.....this is what we get instead - "What Scots can unite upon is the unsustainable direction of British capitalism. If we vote no, we all but guarantee more decades of austerity, privatisation, and warfare.
We will miss our chance to contribute a working model of environmental sustainability. We will assume, with utmost complacency, that Labour governments are capable of reforming Westminster, despite all evidence to the contrary. Let us not repeat our mistakes of 1979, and resign ourselves to more Thatcher decades. Our vote counts. By our actions we can restore hope, assert co-operation and tolerance, and deliver a message: that Scotland will never again submit to the administration of mindless cruelty"pp.123-4).

The problem here is that voting yes will not end ‘austerity, privatisation, and warfare’, nor will it deliver ‘environmental sustainability’. These things are not achievable in the context of a capitalist Scotland. Yes: the radical case for Scottish independence provides an excellent critique of the British nation-state and a compelling case for voting yes to break it up. It also offers an inspiring list of social reforms that would, if implemented, transform Scotland. What it fails to do is to spell out clearly what would be involved in making that second transition – from independence to socialism.

The title of this post is taken from the title of one of Scottish writer James Kelman's most famous novels. The New Yorker magazine (of all journals) had a great article about him last week.