Tom Devine and Nationalism

The great Tom Devine (who this scribe has a great deal of time for) on the Guardian Politics Weekly podcast posted on Sep 19, 2014  reacting to the referendum result, summed up the result thus...

Alan Massie has made a fundamental error by referring to this dynamic as Nationalism .. I'm not a Nationalist. Many, many thousands of Scots who voted Yes are not Nationalists. This was a movement of the people for what they thought was the possibility of more control over their life...

Clearly that's how it seems to him. And he's an honest man. And yet if it looks like Nationalism ... and sounds like Nationalism..

Let's be honest, if we stumbled into a square in Poland or Lithuania and found huge crowds noisily brandishing their national flags, what would we think? Would we think... great .. this looks like the future? Clearly nothing to do with Nationalism? What if it was in Serbia or a Serbian populated area in Bosnia? Or a large French crowd in Paris? All good? Do we ever see crowds with UK Union flags? And if we did, what would our view be?

Nationalism may just be a bit invisible when you're inside it. It's just 'our' people. Isn't it?

In Bed with the Tories

Much anger has been directed at Labour post-referendum for being 'in bed with the Tories' during the referendum. Some facts. It seems that the Edinburgh Agreement .. yes .. stitched up between Salmond (SNP) and (gasp) that bloody Tory Cameron was quite clear...

PPERA (Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000) gives the Electoral Commission responsibility for:

• designating lead campaign organisations

That is, the referendum was to be run with two organisations .. a YES and a NO.

And how was that imposed? Through a series of lead campaign group benefits which are:

• A higher spending limit than other registered campaigners
• Free distribution of their information to electors
• Referendum campaign broadcasts
• Free use of certain public rooms

Free distribution of information and campaign broadcasts are hardly negligible benefits, are they?

So get this, The Electoral Commission officially designated the two main referendum groups Yes Scotland, which is fighting for a yes vote, and the pro-UK group Better Together as the official lead campaigns in the contest. Read it here if you've forgotten. 

Funny that! Now of course none of that should really be surprising apart from to members of the swivel eyed fraternity. Here's another shocker for them. Did they know that during the Second World War Atlee (yes, the Labour Leader) served under Churchill who was... yes.. a Tory!      

Voice of the People or Nut Job?

Honestly, what are sane people supposed to make of this from the Sunday Herald? 
Above is the Voice of the People (only some of them of course - let's not forget the majority) rally organised by Melissa Moore, a "full-time mum" from Midlothian with no background in politics.
Her whole face painted as a Saltire (that'll get the undecideds vote, eh?), organiser Moore said she believed the ballot was rigged, and the true result was a Yes, but added: "My message to everyone now is don't dwell on that. Look forward and let's get independence another way. We're not going to get a revote or recount."

She honestly believes the vote was rigged - but we've not to dwell on that?? What greater charge can there be against our democratic process? Why bother with a referendum if it's that easy to rig? How was it done? If she believes it was actually a yes vote (why?) then over 200,000 votes (at least) have been altered from Yes to No. No one noticed? Were the council employees recruited from the No ranks only? And sworn to secrecy, presumably. And we've not to dwell on it? I think the Sunday Herald's spotlight should be shone a bit more brightly into the dark recesses of the Nationalists' psyche. Barking. 

Bar the shouting

Yes, it's all over. The quiet No voters came out and sank the most brilliant and successful campaign ever. How could that have happened? The Yes campaign was streets ahead, wasn't it? It was inclusive and positive! It was, wasn't it? The National Collective! Women for Independence! Common Weal! The No campaign couldn't hold a candle to them.
Or are we maybe evaluating things wrongly? Is it possible that self-centred groups of shouty people with flags was actually counter-productive? And that they actually caused the defeat of Yes?
It's somewhat ironic that the losing camp are now taking pride in calling themselves the '45'. We all know of the original '45' - the crushing and final defeat of the Jacobites which directly led to the destruction of so much of the culture of the Highlands and Islands.

A Proper Charlie

However, if we were to evaluate the 1745 Campaign according to the criteria of Yes Scotland, it was actually a stunning victory. What style! What panache! Can anyone remember any Hanoverian songs? Absolutely not. The songs of the Jacobites still raise the roof. And the battles! Prestonpans! Johnny Cope - how we still laugh and sneer at him, fleeing awa in the morning. And Charlie and his men made it all the way to Derby. A tremendous achievement.   

I was reminded of this whilst watching Scotland Tonight of 30 September - supposedly a discussion on why Scotland didn't vote Yes with some key activists. Let's leave the last word to Stephen Gethins, in reply to a point made by Carol Fox about the 'bottom up' nature of the campaign, he stated  "that was key to the success of Yes".

Pass me the smelling salts!

Now this IS funny!

This is probably one of the most wonderful pieces to have been written in the Guardian by a pro-independence activist.

Ms Moyes

I do believe that the exotically name Vonny Moyes is actually, "an arts journalist and social activist (whoah!). She is comedy editor for The Skinny Magazine and columnist for National Collective and Bella Caledonia"

Now read on! What does Ms Moyes have to say. So much comedy potential... where to start?

"Capitalism is guilty of fostering the attitude that if we throw enough money at it, a problem will magically disappear. "

Get that one, Karl! You missed that theory, didn't you? Now read on....

"That’s not to say the economy is unimportant. Let’s not kid ourselves: without it we’d be stuffed. "

This is insightful stuff! But, but... I'm waiting to find out what difference that new Scottish Passport will make.

"We’re living in a first-world country where policy causes toxic structural poverty – where people rob houses for food, and families are punted from their modest homes over a tax. "

Lumme. This is clearly not good! Does the Scottish Government know about this? What can we do about it all, dear Vonny??? I'm beginning to worry that a new passport won't be enough!

"We need the freedom to dismantle the system completely."

Yes! Yes!! That'll work!! I can't wait to vote YES nooo!! When can we start??

In Praise of Edinburgh and Labour

Let us go back to early 1980s Edinburgh - a bit of a sleepy small 'c' conservative place, despite the festival. And yet, not long after the first Labour administration was elected in 1984, things changed for the better, transforming the City and its economy into the International City that we have before us today.
And where better to start that with Terry Farrell and his plans for the new financial district at the West End which commenced in 1989.

Of course, that wasn't all that was happening - the South Gyle was opened up to massive new investment in the City.

And now.... all of this is at risk. Does anyone believe that Tesco Bank, Sainsbury's Bank, Virgin Money and the Green Bank amongst others would have located HO Operations in Edinburgh if Scotland had become a foreign country to those organisations' customers? At the first whiff of a yes vote even our 'indigenous' Banks are preparing to be off (and where HO goes, the rest will follow without doubt).

Real people, real jobs. And yet if you were to spell this out to the Nats what would their reaction be? They're simply not interested. 

It's been a while

Yes, your scribe has been off to foreign parts (I'm not including England in that just yet), and on returning the polls have narrowed and the atmosphere has grown even more febrile and poisonous. Sorry! I mean peaceful and joyous, of course.

One of the things which is skated over in this debate is the obvious outcome of a yes vote - we'll live in a small country rather than a medium sized country. Are there no implications to that at all? Maybe it's simply too prosaic for people to comment on... and yet....
Let us be that simple commentator. Compare Lanark and Edinburgh. Edinburgh has a couple of arthouse cinemas. Lanark has no such things. Not because there is no one in Lanark interested in watching the latest release from Iran, but simply because there aren't enough people who are. It's a small town.
And you can carry that analogy into Scotland vs the UK. As part of the UK we can share in a community which is much larger than Scotland. Will there be room for a Radio 6 Music in Scotland? What about the New Statesman magazine? What's its Scottish readership?
How many people in Scotland take part in activities which are organised UK wide because only then can the numbers reach critical mass? You may of course say that there is nothing to stop them still taking part, post independence. But then again, you've just built a border and created a foreign country... to what end?