Politics - Scottish independence
Earlier this year (2019), near the end of April, I met up in Glasgow with an old girlfriend (let's call her JT in case she wishes not to be identified in dispatches). We had been together for about fifteen years but had split up over twenty years ago. It was good to see JT again, although a couple of hours over a curry hardly provided sufficient time to do more than discuss all our changes in a very superficial way (we had kept in touch, if not often, by email and Christmas and birthday cards but had only met up once since then, not long after our split). It was clear, however, that JT was disappointed in my support of Scottish independence and my voting to leave the EU (but we'll leave that latter topic for another time). When we were together, JT was aware of my support for Scottish independence - and seemed neither for nor against. JT is English born (Newcastle upon Tyne) but, as said, didn't seem to object to my views on Scottish home rule. Later in our relationship she had relocated from Oxford to Aberdeen and after that I did start to notice her concerns regarding this subject. I presumed she had either been subject to some anti-English racism or had got to know some staunchly unionist folks in Aberdeen. Over our curry it was, however, clear that her feelings on this topic were now pretty strongly against Scottish independence. I later decided to email her and include a section which outlined why I still supported independence. It wasn't that I wanted to change her view to match mine - more that I wanted to explain my view and convince her that I had not become a right wing racist (as the people in most independence movements around the world often are). I eventually decided not to include this section in my email. It was, as you will see, too long and I felt I was kinda forcing (or at least asking) her to read what I had to say, and I didn't want to do that. I decided, instead, to start a blog in which I could put all my thoughts down in black and white (or ones and zeros) on this topic and on any others I felt the need to rant about. What follows, in this post, are my reasons for supporting Scottish independence and they are intended for JT and anyone else who fails to understand why so many living in Scotland now (or continue to) seek independence.
Note: this is a very long post and it might be best for anyone finding it, and unwise enough to try and read it, to do so in sections. I find it hard, myself, to read back through all of it in one go. It would, perhaps have been better to extensively edit what follows or, alternatively split what follows into separate posts. I decided, however, that keeping it all as one post was best and I also wanted to deal with this topic in full - get it done and dusted without having to return to the topic time and time again.
Before explaining my position I also want to say that, although some of what follows may seem anti-English, that that is not the case. I have nothing against English people. I disagree with those who vote Tory, UKIP or for the Brexit party but I disagree with Scots who vote that way just as much. My gripe is with the UK Establishment, Westminster and the UK parliament (or, as I see it, the English parliament).
So, why am I a supporter of Scottish independence? Firstly, it has nothing to do with the flag(s), tartan, bagpipes, kilts or Scotland’s glorious history (which it wasn’t) or any of the other badges of Scottish identity (of which there are many). These things are all very well and they provide a sense of belonging and help make international competitions more colourful - but they don't really matter all that much when it comes to day to day survival. The main reason is that I would like to live in a socialist country (at least left of centre) and I do not see that as likely while a part of the UK. Even if Corbyn gets elected I do not see him getting more than one term before he’s chucked out (possibly by his own party) and any gains made will be reversed. I’d be willing to look at the federal option he’s proposed but, even if a form of this, acceptable to everyone, could be found, making such a change to the UK constitution will take more than one parliamentary session (a bit like trying to reform The Lords) - so will never come to pass as the Tories, or the right wing of the Labour Party, will drop the whole idea before it’s achieved. I know there is no guarantee that an independent Scotland will always return a left wing government but there is a far better chance of this than there is of the UK doing so. Secondly, I see Scotland’s relationship with the UK as an abusive one. Not, clearly, abusive in a physical way but in a controlling way (financially, socially and emotionally). I would not advise a friend in an abusive relationship to stay in such a relationship so, in a similar way, I see no other option for Scotland, if it is to thrive, than to get out of it’s relationship with the UK as quickly as possible.
I do accept, however, that any independence movement will generate patriotism and that some of this will further develop into racism (anti-English racism in the case of Scottish independence). That is unfortunate but what is to be done? Ignore what you see as a wrong just to keep a minority quiet? That minority can be controlled and kept as quiet as possible (prosecuted and jailed when serious enough) while the justified (for me) aim is still pursued. I would also expect that, between five and ten years after independence, this racism would fade away as the English could no longer be blamed for any Scottish problems still not resolved (this, of course, only applying to the anti-English racists who see things in such a way to begin with). Since, in fact, those racists have always existed then the current struggle for independence has only brought them out of the closet - and, once out of the closet, they can be combated and discredited.
I see the UK as dysfunctional and badly in need of reform if it is to survive - but all indications are that such a reformation is very unlikely. Some might say it’s best to stay in the Union and to change it from within - but, for me, that’s no better than pissing into the wind. For example, back in 2015 the SNP won 56 out of the 59 Scottish Westminster seats available - but was still unable to prevent a Tory government (although it was able to mitigate some of the policies at Holyrood - but insufficiently so as the cuts in Scotland’s block grant made this impossible). This would still have been the case if the SNP had won all 59 seats. In effect, Scotland rarely gets the government it votes for unless England also votes that way. In other words, England almost always gets the government it votes for but that cannot be said for Scotland (or Wales or Northern Ireland). I accept that sometimes the Westminster arithmetic could produce a UK Labour government but only with the support Scottish seats (it has historically been rare for the Labour Party to win power in Westminster without the seats it won in both Wales and Scotland, while failing to win a majority of seats in England) - but that is not often (and don't try to tell me that Blair's New Labour was a case in point as that government was so right wing it was difficult to tell it apart from Thatcher's). As said before, Holyrood can mitigate for that but only to a small extent as the economy, and Scotland’s budget, is controlled by Westminster. At the same time, Scotland’s population is less than 10% of England’s so it would not be right for Scotland to force it’s view on the whole of the UK. Scotland, therefore, either has to put up with rarely getting what it wants, or it needs to strike out on it’s own. I choose the latter as I see that as the only way that Scotland’s problems can be positively dealt with. I also accept that many areas of England, Wales and Northern Ireland have suffered in the same was as Scotland, and I sympathise, but Scotland, as a country which helped form the Union, is in a far stronger position to now remove itself from a Union which no longer functions. One of the problems is that the UK is governed to suit the needs of England or, more accurately, the south east of England and London, but Scotland’s needs (and demographics) are very different and are, basically, not even considered to any great extent or at all. The same goes for the north of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That’s why I think that making the UK a federal state might work - but only if England was split up into at least three (maybe five) regions each with a parliament like Holyrood. That way those smaller regions (including Scotland) might actually get their way on some policies (and I’m looking, here, at UK federal votes being by proportion to the populations of each region - so as fair to everyone as possible). But; 1) England seems unwilling to be split up in such a way (although it would still be a country) and 2) getting Westminster, and the Establishment, to go along with this idea is very unlikely. That being the case I am convinced that the only way forward for Scotland is to leave the UK and start to deal with it’s problems by itself (or as a part of the EU as the SNP wants). I judge that the majority of rUK citizens, and especially English citizens, want the Union to be retained - but only on their terms. They are not, in other words, willing to even consider the changes to the UK constitution (federalism) which might satisfy Scottish aspirations - and keep us northern barbarians quiet.
I feel the need, however, to provide some examples about why I see Scotland's relationship with the UK as an abusive one. My first example is the naming of our current monarch as Elizabeth II (when her title should have been Elizabeth I of the UK - or, at least, Elizabeth I and II). This may seem petty (and I do remember Alan Davis, of QI fame, saying as much during one episode of the programme) but there is a serious aspect to this. Mr Davis mocked those who complained about this by indicating the pettiness of those concerned about a number - but the number was only a symptom of the issue. The cause of the complaint was that, in effect, the Establishment (English or UK) had ignored and discounted Scotland's history - and in doing so had also discounted all of Scotland, it's citizens and it's past as a contributing country of the UK. It would not, in some ways, have been so bad if this had been a deliberate snub of Scotland - but I don't believe it was. The issue was (and is) that the Establishment had not even considered Scotland. For them, Scotland did not exist separately from England - and never had. For them, UK history was English history - and the history of Scotland (Wales and Northern Ireland) was not something worthy of including in their deliberations and, in addition, did not even occur to them. This is something which continues to this day with many in England referring to England when they should, instead, be saying the UK. Indeed this has spread to those of other countries who refer to England when they should be saying the UK. If you ignore a whole country in such a way then you are discounting and belittling it and it's citizens - and if you do that then you are, in effect, subjugating them and destroying their self-belief and confidence. When I first joined the SNP I was active and often went round the doors with leaflets as well as knocking on those doors seeking support. What I heard in those days (mid to late sixties), time and time again, was "we're too poor to run our own country, son", or "we wouldn't be able to run our own country, son" or similar. The confidence of the Scottish people was at rock bottom: they had zero confidence that we were able to run or own country in the way other small countries did. As a result they felt the only option was to allow England, via the UK parliament, to manage our affairs for us. This has only, gradually, started to change following Scottish Devolution - something, I would argue, forced upon Labour by the start of the rise of the SNP and the independence movement. This started to correct the lack of the Scottish confidence problem and the SNP gaining control of Holyrood has accelerated this to the point that at least 50% of those living in Scotland now believe Scotland could manage it's own affairs as an independent country. There are now many unionists, who do not want to see the break up of the UK, who also accept this. The problem, however, still remains: England still sees England and the UK as one and the same thing. This, I would argue, is abusive. It is similar to, say, a husband, for example, ignoring his partner and discounting whatever it is she brings to the relationship.
A brief(ish) aside, here. During our chat JT was very clear that she thought Alex Salmond was an extreme (or total) racist. Now, I accept that Mr. Salmond can be accused of many things (arrogance and being smarmy, for example, - and maybe also a sexual predator, as the Scottish courts will soon examine) but I would argue that I don't believe he's a racist. This may be down to differing views on what "racist" means but I've never heard him say, or read anything he's written, that I'd say was racist. Alex Salmond is a Scottish patriot who champions everything Scottish - but that, for me, does not make him a racist. For me, a racist is someone who denigrates, puts down, insults, judges, mocks, persecutes, assaults (verbally or physically) or even kills others based on their ethnic background, skin colour, hair colour, gender, religion or if they like Marmite or not. As said, Mr. Salmond champions all things Scottish but I am simply unaware of him ever saying that he believes Scots are better than others simply because they are Scottish - or that others should be dealt with less favourably than born Scots. Although not solely down to him, Salmond's championing of Scotland (and the SNP government he led) has done much, over the past twenty years or so, to bring about the recovery of confidence in Scots about themselves and their potential to run their own affairs and take an equal place on the world stage - and, as far as I'm concerned, he did so solely by championing Scotland without, in any way, denigrating or persecuting others, including England or the English.
Another example of how the UK has abused Scotland has been in the whole Brexit process. Theresa May, in response to SNP complaints, frequently said that the whole UK voted as one - and voted to leave, which meant that Scotland had to leave, on the same terms as England, Wales and Norther Ireland. While that may be true in one sense there are many in Scotland who, at best, see that as only partly true. The UK parliament was set up to govern the whole of the UK - but it was supposed to look after the interests of both England and Scotland (and Wales and Ireland). With the EU vote, Scotland clearly didn't agree that leaving the EU was in it's best interests. Even at that early stage the Scottish government proposed that Scotland be allowed to stay closely aligned with the EU as regards the single market, the free movement of people and a customs union. The UK government said this was not possible and would not, basically, even be considered. But what do we have now? We have a Brexit deal on the table which basically allows Northern Ireland to get what Scotland asked for but was told was not possible. It is therefore quite clear that what Scotland asked for was possible, so Scotland, once again, has simply been ignored. Having those 'different arrangements' for Northern Ireland suddenly became possible - but only after that was the only way the UK government could achieve it's aim, while Scotland achieving it's aim was simply ignored (that is, it became possible when, and only when, it suited the UK government and what it sought to achieve for England). Perhaps if the UK had worked at (and achieved) Scotland getting what it wanted then the DUP would not have been so difficult to get on board with May's or Johnson's deals as, in that case, Northern Ireland would not have been getting treated differently from the rest of the UK (it would have been on a par with, at least, Scotland). I don't know about that, but I find the possibility amusing. The Brexit deal currently on the table has, in effect, thrown Northern Ireland under the bus as far as being an integral part of the UK is concerned (although there might well be some economic gains from what's proposed). Therein lies the problem with the UK: It is prepared to throw any part of the UK under the bus as long as what's achieved suits England - and that includes Scotland
Another factor in my argument is how the Scottish government is funded - by the Block Grant. John McDonnell recently said (as I write this) that the English parliament could not, democratically, block IndyRef2 if the Scottish people wanted one. Shortly after this he corrected himself claiming a slip of the tongue - but the cat was out of the bag: Even the Labour party see the UK parliament as the English parliament. That, in effect, means that the English parliament doles out funds to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as it sees fit. This is like a parent, or an abusive partner, providing a child, or a subservient partner, with pocket money. Is Scotland getting more than it is due or is it paying in more than it gets? It is very difficult to say as the situation is very complicated and not easy to disentangle - but even if, right now, it's getting more than it contributes that does not mean that an independent Scotland would not be able to turn it's economy around over time. In other words, the current Scottish economic position, if not good, can be fixed - but only, I would argue, with independence. It is true that Scotland's balance of payments is very poor with more being spent than is generated by tax - but that is a very simplistic way of looking at things. Unionists claim that this is proof that Scotland would not be able to survive on it's own economically - but the other side of that argument is that the current situation only proves how badly Scotland has been run for many years (and Thatcher's destruction of Scotland's industrial base during the eighties is a major example of this). I find it ironic that those who have destroyed the Scottish economy now attempt to use that destruction as a reason why Scottish independence would be a disaster, when the real disaster is how the UK parliament caused this economic destruction in the first place! Denmark, for example, is of similar size by area and population but with a balance of payments situation far better than Scotland's - so if Denmark can manage it's economic affairs better why shouldn't Scotland be able to as well? True, Denmark is a totally different type of country without large areas of wilderness, and the cost of providing services to such areas. Scotland will always incur a greater cost in providing services to all it's people than Denmark does. But Scotland has many resources which, if managed properly, could cover these extra costs. One solution (for Scotland's economic ills) would be for a more progressive tax system which gathers in more in the way of tax receipts. Scotland has, in fact, (slightly) increased tax for the wealthy (compared to England) but the Scottish government is unable to do this to the extent it perhaps needs to as under current tax rules any wealthy Scot could, to reduce their tax bill, simply move their tax affairs to England. The latest report on the Scottish economy would seem to indicate that this is what is happening with Scotland's tax receipts falling well short of expectations (although other factors are also likely to blame for this). So, we have a left wing, devolved Scottish government trying to employ progressive policies to help improve Scotland's economy but this is obstructed by the right wing, Tory government in Westminster. This, even without independence, could be changed by changing the rules to prevent this happening - but the UK government refuses to make such a change and the Scottish government is afraid to increase taxes further in case doing so only results in reduced, not increased, tax income. Once again, Scotland is restricted by what the UK government wants. Under pressure from the Scottish (SNP) government several changes have been made to how Scotland's economy is funded: The ability, for example, to raise some taxation in Scotland and the ability to borrow (but only under severe restrictions). I find it ironic that Scottish Labour continually attack the SNP for not being more progressive with it's economic policies when, without the SNP, none of those powers would have been transferred in the first place (as the initial Scottish parliaments, under Scottish Labour, simply did what it's masters in London told it to do). Another irony: Unionists point to Scotland's economic position to argue against independence while at the same time preventing Scotland from following policies which would start to deal with this. This issue could be further changed if there was an English parliament (or several regional English parliaments) with the UK parliament providing all the home nations, including England, with funds - but this would require the federal solution outlined above and, as above, this appears to be something which the English don't want. As before, England seems to reject every solution which requires it to change to suit current circumstances - everyone else must change instead (or just shut-up and put-up with how things are). Even better would be a federal system which allowed each region to generate it's own wealth, deal with it's own issues and then contribute to the UK purse for shared expenditure - but that, as said, is an unlikely outcome. Scotland's economic situation could also be improved by encouraging more people to come and live in work in Scotland as that would increase the tax income. The SNP have called for at least a million more people to move here (from England, anywhere in the UK, Europe or anywhere in the world) but Brexit will only make that more difficult - especially under a UK Tory government. For those who assume a racist independence movement in Scotland I can only point to this as proof that this is not the case in Scotland. But that aside, Scotland's needs are once again being ignored. One of the major reasons why England voted LEAVE was because of the free movement of people and how this had resulted in increasing immigration which could not be controlled while an EU member. But Scotland needs more immigration to help deal with it's balance of payments problem. So, while England regains control of immigration to, one presumes, reduce it, Scotland will be forced to accept the same policy and, as a result, find it even more difficult to attract the million people it needs to come and work here if it is to close that balance of payments gap.
As for those who assume that the SNP is right wing (as most independent movements are) then all I can say is that they are unaware of SNP policies and what the SNP have achieved in Scotland. The SNP is clearly left of centre (although I would like it to be more to the left than it is). Indeed, the SNP government in Scotland has already brought in several progressive changes which Corbyn now advocates for England (and Wales). For example, the SNP abolished prescription charges many years ago, introduced free personal care, introduced free university education, removed parking charges at NHS hospitals (unless prevented from doing so by legally binding contracts), stepped in to prevent closure of several businesses that would have resulted in job losses and, in effect, reversed the bedroom tax in Scotland - and there are many other examples of the SNP not being a right wing party. Yes! Scotland, like the rest of the UK, does have many of racist views - anti-English as well the more general racism seen almost everywhere throughout the West. We also have a serious sectarian problem, which we share with Northern Ireland. These are not easily overcome but they are no worse, and probably not as bad, as they are in England (probably because we do not have the levels of immigration seen south of the border). Have the SNP been perfect? Clearly not - they have made mistakes and failed to achieve some of their aims - but they have, on the whole, attempted to fix problems and injustices in the pursuit of developing a fairer country and reducing social and economic ills.
Another example of Scotland's interests being ignored by the UK relates back to when the UK joined the EEC and, therefore, our participation in the CFP. The fishing industry was not a major plank of the UK economy - but it was a pretty important part of Scotland's economy. What happened? The UK traded away a huge share of our fishing rights to get a better deal in other areas. This didn't much matter to the UK (or England) but it mattered to Scotland and the many fishing communities around our coast. Scotland's interests were, once again, sacrificed and many fishing communities were devastated (including those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland).
Another brief(ish) aside here as this was another topic that JT and I didn't see eye to eye on. One of the reasons I voted to leave the EU was so we (the UK and Scotland) could escape from both the CAP and the CFP and that by doing so we would regain control of the UK's fishing rights. JT disagreed with this saying that our fishing rights had already been sold and getting out of the CFP would not solve anything. I couldn't understand what JT was getting at here - but I know she is no dummy and would not have claimed this to be the case if there was not some sort of basis to what she said. This, therefore, was something I needed to investigate. So, after some research, I concluded that what she was talking about were the fishing licences that the UK had issued to manage it's agreed quotas - to make sure we were not taking more than we should be doing (under the CFP agreement) and to ensure that specific species were not being over fished. However, I would argue that licences are not the same as fishing rights. Licences (for anything) are normally issued for fixed periods - not in perpetuity - and I'm presuming that that is the case with the fishing licences the UK has issued. Even if that's not the case then escaping from the CFP would provide the UK (or an independent Scotland) with the ability to vastly increase the volume of fish caught (as we would regain the full rights to the fish caught in our territorial waters) - and new licences would be needed to provide for this. However, it was also clear (from my research) that the destruction of the local fishing communities was not just down to the CFP but also because the vast bulk (if not all) of those fishing licences were sold to the 'big boys' of the fishing industry (probably because more money could be generated by doing so). That need not have happened. Some EU countries did the same but others ensured that smaller operators could continue to fish. So, escaping the CPF will only fix this problem if new licences were issued such that our local fishing communities get the chance to win some of those licences so that they can get back into fishing in our waters. If outside the CFP then I suppose it would be even possible to get rid of fishing licences altogether - but since this is now a way for government to bring in money then I doubt that will happen - and I suppose they do help ensure that specific species are not over fished. Would a UK government, after leaving the EU, ensure a fairer share of those licences such that local fishing communities could once again prosper and survive? Maybe but maybe not - but you can be pretty certain the an independent Scotland would. Also, to be clear, I am not suggesting that the UK (or Scotland) keep all the fish available to be caught in our waters. It is reasonable that some degree of horse trading takes place - we'll give you this if you allow us that - but it should be possible to negotiate a vast increase in how much we can catch while still allowing other countries, including EU countries, reasonable access to our waters. It is also likely that our smaller fishing communities would be unable to immediately take advantage of any increased quota given how devastated those communities have become since joining the CFP. It's unlikely, for example, that there are dozens of sea worthy fishing boats sitting around in harbours waiting for things to change - and a whole generation of fishermen have, after all, been lost and many in those communities would need time, maybe years, to redevelop the skills needed.
I have one final example (although I could list many more) of why Scotland's relationship to the UK is similar to that of a victim in an abusive relationship. This one is very recent and has not actually come to pass - but, should it, it again demonstrates how Scotland is ignored within the UK. During the Tory leadership race Jeremy Hunt, up in Scotland seeking support for his campaign, stated that even if the SNP was to clearly win (only in Scotland, obviously) a clear majority in either a UK general election or a Scottish parliament election, then he would still not grant a section 30 order allowing IndyRef2 to go ahead. After winning the Tory leadership race, and becoming the UK's PM, Boris Johnson said the same thing (and only today, as I write this section, he has repeated this). I can only presume they fail to realise the irony of their stated positions. In their push to see Brexit through, both men stated, time and time again, that Brexit must be achieved to honour the democratic vote in the EU referendum. So, while democracy must work for England (or the UK as a whole) it can simply be ignored when it comes to Scotland?! It is possible, of course, that both men were simply posturing - Hunt seeking to secure Scottish Tory votes and Johnson to strengthen his position as a strong UK PM. It will be interesting to see what will happen should the Torys win the forthcoming general election, the SNP clearly win the Scottish vote and then the Scottish parliament requests a section 30 order to hold IndyRef2 (although I sincerely hope the Torys do not win this election).
What are the grounds to reject a new section 30 request? Well, those against IndyRef2 claim that Scotland voted to remain part of the UK in 2014 and that even the SNP said the 2014 vote was a once in a generation vote. What they choose to ignore is that the SNP also said that they would not stick to that should there be a major change to the UK that it believed could seriously damage Scotland's economic position (like Scotland being forced to leave the EU against it's will being specifically mentioned). What they also choose to ignore is that a major plank of the NO campaign was that Scotland would lose it's EU membership should it vote for independence and the only way to avoid this would be to vote to remain part of the UK. That has clearly turned out to have been a false claim and Scotland now stands to be removed from the EU simply because it did vote against independence. Not only has the constitutional position of the UK changed but the people of Scotland were mislead. Note that I do not say that the NO campaign lied to the Scottish people. This is because this was before the EU referendum was even called and I doubt that anyone in the NO campaign thought for even a minute that any EU referendum would lead to a LEAVE win. At the same time, the NO campaign did mislead the Scottish people who voted NO fearing independence would result in Scotland no longer being in the EU - and that is what is now on the cards because the UK, as a whole, but England in particular, voted to leave. To be clear, if the REMAIN campaign had won then the SNP would not be seeking to run another independence referendum. What if Brexit does not go ahead after all? Should the SNP drop demands for IndyRef2? I can see the argument for it being forced to do so - but, at the same, the past three years have clearly indicated that Scotland's views count for nothing and will simply be ignored when it suits Westminster to do so (which is often) - so holding IndyRef2 still makes sense and would allow all Scottish citizens to make their views clear.
Do I believe that all of Scotland's social and economic problems will be solved immediately after independence? NO! I do not. The first few years will be tough but Scotland has many resources. This includes oil of which there are still large volumes waiting to be tapped and discovered - and, no matter what the Greens say, oil will still be required for many years to come (we just need to find better ways to use it without adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and plastic to our oceans). This would allow borrowing to help cover the initial cost of independence. We have an abundance of wave and wind and tidal power to generate electricity. We could develop more hydro-electricity power stations. We have an abundance of water (which we could sell to England in times of drought). In addition to that we have all the other already known resources which will add to Scotland's economy. We could also save a large amount of money by not contributing to the rUK nuclear weapons programme and we could well have support from the EU (if at a cost). So, yes, the first few years will be difficult but the future is promising for an independent Scotland while it looks destined to stay pretty bleak if we stay part of the UK.
Opponents of the SNP accuse it of promoting the politics of grievance but, just as being paranoid does not mean 'they' are not out to get you, feeling aggrieved does not mean you don't have just cause to feel that way. Indeed, if it was only grievance that inspired the SNP then they'd only be seeking more money, more powers and perhaps a new arrangement, within the UK, to satisfy it. Instead it seeks total independence in order that it can own Scotland's problems and proceed to try and rectify them. That is more positive thinking rather than grievance.
It might be a fair question to ask if I seek only to see the UK dissolved at any cost. Indeed, I see the UK as no longer fit for purpose but I would be quite happy to see it survive if some way to correct it's current organisational failures could be found. There is, after all, much all the peoples of these islands have in common. There is a loose, shared history going back to the first people who crossed Doggerland after the retreat of the ice sheets. There is a closer shared history since 1707. All we also have to do is look at how many of our surnames, which originated in one area, have spread throughout these islands - and I doubt that there is much in the way of DNA difference between one end of the land and the other (although there is some). It is always with sadness and regret when a relationship of long standing collapses - but when the relationship no longer satisfies the aspirations and needs of one partner then it is time to cut the ties that bind to allow all partners to go their own way and find a future that serves them and their aspirations best. My contention is that the UK no longer serves the best interests of Scotland and only Scottish independence can allow Scotland to seek it's own salvation and deal with it's own problems in the way it sees best. If, on the other hand, England was to recognise this and work with Scotland to secure a more balanced partnership then I would be reasonably happy to see if that works or not. The only way I can see that coming about is via a federal system which balances the desires and needs of all four home countries but still takes into account England's majority population. I do not see, at the moment, that England is even willing to consider such a solution.
Note: this is a very long post and it might be best for anyone finding it, and unwise enough to try and read it, to do so in sections. I find it hard, myself, to read back through all of it in one go. It would, perhaps have been better to extensively edit what follows or, alternatively split what follows into separate posts. I decided, however, that keeping it all as one post was best and I also wanted to deal with this topic in full - get it done and dusted without having to return to the topic time and time again.
Before explaining my position I also want to say that, although some of what follows may seem anti-English, that that is not the case. I have nothing against English people. I disagree with those who vote Tory, UKIP or for the Brexit party but I disagree with Scots who vote that way just as much. My gripe is with the UK Establishment, Westminster and the UK parliament (or, as I see it, the English parliament).
So, why am I a supporter of Scottish independence? Firstly, it has nothing to do with the flag(s), tartan, bagpipes, kilts or Scotland’s glorious history (which it wasn’t) or any of the other badges of Scottish identity (of which there are many). These things are all very well and they provide a sense of belonging and help make international competitions more colourful - but they don't really matter all that much when it comes to day to day survival. The main reason is that I would like to live in a socialist country (at least left of centre) and I do not see that as likely while a part of the UK. Even if Corbyn gets elected I do not see him getting more than one term before he’s chucked out (possibly by his own party) and any gains made will be reversed. I’d be willing to look at the federal option he’s proposed but, even if a form of this, acceptable to everyone, could be found, making such a change to the UK constitution will take more than one parliamentary session (a bit like trying to reform The Lords) - so will never come to pass as the Tories, or the right wing of the Labour Party, will drop the whole idea before it’s achieved. I know there is no guarantee that an independent Scotland will always return a left wing government but there is a far better chance of this than there is of the UK doing so. Secondly, I see Scotland’s relationship with the UK as an abusive one. Not, clearly, abusive in a physical way but in a controlling way (financially, socially and emotionally). I would not advise a friend in an abusive relationship to stay in such a relationship so, in a similar way, I see no other option for Scotland, if it is to thrive, than to get out of it’s relationship with the UK as quickly as possible.
I do accept, however, that any independence movement will generate patriotism and that some of this will further develop into racism (anti-English racism in the case of Scottish independence). That is unfortunate but what is to be done? Ignore what you see as a wrong just to keep a minority quiet? That minority can be controlled and kept as quiet as possible (prosecuted and jailed when serious enough) while the justified (for me) aim is still pursued. I would also expect that, between five and ten years after independence, this racism would fade away as the English could no longer be blamed for any Scottish problems still not resolved (this, of course, only applying to the anti-English racists who see things in such a way to begin with). Since, in fact, those racists have always existed then the current struggle for independence has only brought them out of the closet - and, once out of the closet, they can be combated and discredited.
I see the UK as dysfunctional and badly in need of reform if it is to survive - but all indications are that such a reformation is very unlikely. Some might say it’s best to stay in the Union and to change it from within - but, for me, that’s no better than pissing into the wind. For example, back in 2015 the SNP won 56 out of the 59 Scottish Westminster seats available - but was still unable to prevent a Tory government (although it was able to mitigate some of the policies at Holyrood - but insufficiently so as the cuts in Scotland’s block grant made this impossible). This would still have been the case if the SNP had won all 59 seats. In effect, Scotland rarely gets the government it votes for unless England also votes that way. In other words, England almost always gets the government it votes for but that cannot be said for Scotland (or Wales or Northern Ireland). I accept that sometimes the Westminster arithmetic could produce a UK Labour government but only with the support Scottish seats (it has historically been rare for the Labour Party to win power in Westminster without the seats it won in both Wales and Scotland, while failing to win a majority of seats in England) - but that is not often (and don't try to tell me that Blair's New Labour was a case in point as that government was so right wing it was difficult to tell it apart from Thatcher's). As said before, Holyrood can mitigate for that but only to a small extent as the economy, and Scotland’s budget, is controlled by Westminster. At the same time, Scotland’s population is less than 10% of England’s so it would not be right for Scotland to force it’s view on the whole of the UK. Scotland, therefore, either has to put up with rarely getting what it wants, or it needs to strike out on it’s own. I choose the latter as I see that as the only way that Scotland’s problems can be positively dealt with. I also accept that many areas of England, Wales and Northern Ireland have suffered in the same was as Scotland, and I sympathise, but Scotland, as a country which helped form the Union, is in a far stronger position to now remove itself from a Union which no longer functions. One of the problems is that the UK is governed to suit the needs of England or, more accurately, the south east of England and London, but Scotland’s needs (and demographics) are very different and are, basically, not even considered to any great extent or at all. The same goes for the north of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That’s why I think that making the UK a federal state might work - but only if England was split up into at least three (maybe five) regions each with a parliament like Holyrood. That way those smaller regions (including Scotland) might actually get their way on some policies (and I’m looking, here, at UK federal votes being by proportion to the populations of each region - so as fair to everyone as possible). But; 1) England seems unwilling to be split up in such a way (although it would still be a country) and 2) getting Westminster, and the Establishment, to go along with this idea is very unlikely. That being the case I am convinced that the only way forward for Scotland is to leave the UK and start to deal with it’s problems by itself (or as a part of the EU as the SNP wants). I judge that the majority of rUK citizens, and especially English citizens, want the Union to be retained - but only on their terms. They are not, in other words, willing to even consider the changes to the UK constitution (federalism) which might satisfy Scottish aspirations - and keep us northern barbarians quiet.
I feel the need, however, to provide some examples about why I see Scotland's relationship with the UK as an abusive one. My first example is the naming of our current monarch as Elizabeth II (when her title should have been Elizabeth I of the UK - or, at least, Elizabeth I and II). This may seem petty (and I do remember Alan Davis, of QI fame, saying as much during one episode of the programme) but there is a serious aspect to this. Mr Davis mocked those who complained about this by indicating the pettiness of those concerned about a number - but the number was only a symptom of the issue. The cause of the complaint was that, in effect, the Establishment (English or UK) had ignored and discounted Scotland's history - and in doing so had also discounted all of Scotland, it's citizens and it's past as a contributing country of the UK. It would not, in some ways, have been so bad if this had been a deliberate snub of Scotland - but I don't believe it was. The issue was (and is) that the Establishment had not even considered Scotland. For them, Scotland did not exist separately from England - and never had. For them, UK history was English history - and the history of Scotland (Wales and Northern Ireland) was not something worthy of including in their deliberations and, in addition, did not even occur to them. This is something which continues to this day with many in England referring to England when they should, instead, be saying the UK. Indeed this has spread to those of other countries who refer to England when they should be saying the UK. If you ignore a whole country in such a way then you are discounting and belittling it and it's citizens - and if you do that then you are, in effect, subjugating them and destroying their self-belief and confidence. When I first joined the SNP I was active and often went round the doors with leaflets as well as knocking on those doors seeking support. What I heard in those days (mid to late sixties), time and time again, was "we're too poor to run our own country, son", or "we wouldn't be able to run our own country, son" or similar. The confidence of the Scottish people was at rock bottom: they had zero confidence that we were able to run or own country in the way other small countries did. As a result they felt the only option was to allow England, via the UK parliament, to manage our affairs for us. This has only, gradually, started to change following Scottish Devolution - something, I would argue, forced upon Labour by the start of the rise of the SNP and the independence movement. This started to correct the lack of the Scottish confidence problem and the SNP gaining control of Holyrood has accelerated this to the point that at least 50% of those living in Scotland now believe Scotland could manage it's own affairs as an independent country. There are now many unionists, who do not want to see the break up of the UK, who also accept this. The problem, however, still remains: England still sees England and the UK as one and the same thing. This, I would argue, is abusive. It is similar to, say, a husband, for example, ignoring his partner and discounting whatever it is she brings to the relationship.
A brief(ish) aside, here. During our chat JT was very clear that she thought Alex Salmond was an extreme (or total) racist. Now, I accept that Mr. Salmond can be accused of many things (arrogance and being smarmy, for example, - and maybe also a sexual predator, as the Scottish courts will soon examine) but I would argue that I don't believe he's a racist. This may be down to differing views on what "racist" means but I've never heard him say, or read anything he's written, that I'd say was racist. Alex Salmond is a Scottish patriot who champions everything Scottish - but that, for me, does not make him a racist. For me, a racist is someone who denigrates, puts down, insults, judges, mocks, persecutes, assaults (verbally or physically) or even kills others based on their ethnic background, skin colour, hair colour, gender, religion or if they like Marmite or not. As said, Mr. Salmond champions all things Scottish but I am simply unaware of him ever saying that he believes Scots are better than others simply because they are Scottish - or that others should be dealt with less favourably than born Scots. Although not solely down to him, Salmond's championing of Scotland (and the SNP government he led) has done much, over the past twenty years or so, to bring about the recovery of confidence in Scots about themselves and their potential to run their own affairs and take an equal place on the world stage - and, as far as I'm concerned, he did so solely by championing Scotland without, in any way, denigrating or persecuting others, including England or the English.
Another example of how the UK has abused Scotland has been in the whole Brexit process. Theresa May, in response to SNP complaints, frequently said that the whole UK voted as one - and voted to leave, which meant that Scotland had to leave, on the same terms as England, Wales and Norther Ireland. While that may be true in one sense there are many in Scotland who, at best, see that as only partly true. The UK parliament was set up to govern the whole of the UK - but it was supposed to look after the interests of both England and Scotland (and Wales and Ireland). With the EU vote, Scotland clearly didn't agree that leaving the EU was in it's best interests. Even at that early stage the Scottish government proposed that Scotland be allowed to stay closely aligned with the EU as regards the single market, the free movement of people and a customs union. The UK government said this was not possible and would not, basically, even be considered. But what do we have now? We have a Brexit deal on the table which basically allows Northern Ireland to get what Scotland asked for but was told was not possible. It is therefore quite clear that what Scotland asked for was possible, so Scotland, once again, has simply been ignored. Having those 'different arrangements' for Northern Ireland suddenly became possible - but only after that was the only way the UK government could achieve it's aim, while Scotland achieving it's aim was simply ignored (that is, it became possible when, and only when, it suited the UK government and what it sought to achieve for England). Perhaps if the UK had worked at (and achieved) Scotland getting what it wanted then the DUP would not have been so difficult to get on board with May's or Johnson's deals as, in that case, Northern Ireland would not have been getting treated differently from the rest of the UK (it would have been on a par with, at least, Scotland). I don't know about that, but I find the possibility amusing. The Brexit deal currently on the table has, in effect, thrown Northern Ireland under the bus as far as being an integral part of the UK is concerned (although there might well be some economic gains from what's proposed). Therein lies the problem with the UK: It is prepared to throw any part of the UK under the bus as long as what's achieved suits England - and that includes Scotland
Another factor in my argument is how the Scottish government is funded - by the Block Grant. John McDonnell recently said (as I write this) that the English parliament could not, democratically, block IndyRef2 if the Scottish people wanted one. Shortly after this he corrected himself claiming a slip of the tongue - but the cat was out of the bag: Even the Labour party see the UK parliament as the English parliament. That, in effect, means that the English parliament doles out funds to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as it sees fit. This is like a parent, or an abusive partner, providing a child, or a subservient partner, with pocket money. Is Scotland getting more than it is due or is it paying in more than it gets? It is very difficult to say as the situation is very complicated and not easy to disentangle - but even if, right now, it's getting more than it contributes that does not mean that an independent Scotland would not be able to turn it's economy around over time. In other words, the current Scottish economic position, if not good, can be fixed - but only, I would argue, with independence. It is true that Scotland's balance of payments is very poor with more being spent than is generated by tax - but that is a very simplistic way of looking at things. Unionists claim that this is proof that Scotland would not be able to survive on it's own economically - but the other side of that argument is that the current situation only proves how badly Scotland has been run for many years (and Thatcher's destruction of Scotland's industrial base during the eighties is a major example of this). I find it ironic that those who have destroyed the Scottish economy now attempt to use that destruction as a reason why Scottish independence would be a disaster, when the real disaster is how the UK parliament caused this economic destruction in the first place! Denmark, for example, is of similar size by area and population but with a balance of payments situation far better than Scotland's - so if Denmark can manage it's economic affairs better why shouldn't Scotland be able to as well? True, Denmark is a totally different type of country without large areas of wilderness, and the cost of providing services to such areas. Scotland will always incur a greater cost in providing services to all it's people than Denmark does. But Scotland has many resources which, if managed properly, could cover these extra costs. One solution (for Scotland's economic ills) would be for a more progressive tax system which gathers in more in the way of tax receipts. Scotland has, in fact, (slightly) increased tax for the wealthy (compared to England) but the Scottish government is unable to do this to the extent it perhaps needs to as under current tax rules any wealthy Scot could, to reduce their tax bill, simply move their tax affairs to England. The latest report on the Scottish economy would seem to indicate that this is what is happening with Scotland's tax receipts falling well short of expectations (although other factors are also likely to blame for this). So, we have a left wing, devolved Scottish government trying to employ progressive policies to help improve Scotland's economy but this is obstructed by the right wing, Tory government in Westminster. This, even without independence, could be changed by changing the rules to prevent this happening - but the UK government refuses to make such a change and the Scottish government is afraid to increase taxes further in case doing so only results in reduced, not increased, tax income. Once again, Scotland is restricted by what the UK government wants. Under pressure from the Scottish (SNP) government several changes have been made to how Scotland's economy is funded: The ability, for example, to raise some taxation in Scotland and the ability to borrow (but only under severe restrictions). I find it ironic that Scottish Labour continually attack the SNP for not being more progressive with it's economic policies when, without the SNP, none of those powers would have been transferred in the first place (as the initial Scottish parliaments, under Scottish Labour, simply did what it's masters in London told it to do). Another irony: Unionists point to Scotland's economic position to argue against independence while at the same time preventing Scotland from following policies which would start to deal with this. This issue could be further changed if there was an English parliament (or several regional English parliaments) with the UK parliament providing all the home nations, including England, with funds - but this would require the federal solution outlined above and, as above, this appears to be something which the English don't want. As before, England seems to reject every solution which requires it to change to suit current circumstances - everyone else must change instead (or just shut-up and put-up with how things are). Even better would be a federal system which allowed each region to generate it's own wealth, deal with it's own issues and then contribute to the UK purse for shared expenditure - but that, as said, is an unlikely outcome. Scotland's economic situation could also be improved by encouraging more people to come and live in work in Scotland as that would increase the tax income. The SNP have called for at least a million more people to move here (from England, anywhere in the UK, Europe or anywhere in the world) but Brexit will only make that more difficult - especially under a UK Tory government. For those who assume a racist independence movement in Scotland I can only point to this as proof that this is not the case in Scotland. But that aside, Scotland's needs are once again being ignored. One of the major reasons why England voted LEAVE was because of the free movement of people and how this had resulted in increasing immigration which could not be controlled while an EU member. But Scotland needs more immigration to help deal with it's balance of payments problem. So, while England regains control of immigration to, one presumes, reduce it, Scotland will be forced to accept the same policy and, as a result, find it even more difficult to attract the million people it needs to come and work here if it is to close that balance of payments gap.
As for those who assume that the SNP is right wing (as most independent movements are) then all I can say is that they are unaware of SNP policies and what the SNP have achieved in Scotland. The SNP is clearly left of centre (although I would like it to be more to the left than it is). Indeed, the SNP government in Scotland has already brought in several progressive changes which Corbyn now advocates for England (and Wales). For example, the SNP abolished prescription charges many years ago, introduced free personal care, introduced free university education, removed parking charges at NHS hospitals (unless prevented from doing so by legally binding contracts), stepped in to prevent closure of several businesses that would have resulted in job losses and, in effect, reversed the bedroom tax in Scotland - and there are many other examples of the SNP not being a right wing party. Yes! Scotland, like the rest of the UK, does have many of racist views - anti-English as well the more general racism seen almost everywhere throughout the West. We also have a serious sectarian problem, which we share with Northern Ireland. These are not easily overcome but they are no worse, and probably not as bad, as they are in England (probably because we do not have the levels of immigration seen south of the border). Have the SNP been perfect? Clearly not - they have made mistakes and failed to achieve some of their aims - but they have, on the whole, attempted to fix problems and injustices in the pursuit of developing a fairer country and reducing social and economic ills.
Another example of Scotland's interests being ignored by the UK relates back to when the UK joined the EEC and, therefore, our participation in the CFP. The fishing industry was not a major plank of the UK economy - but it was a pretty important part of Scotland's economy. What happened? The UK traded away a huge share of our fishing rights to get a better deal in other areas. This didn't much matter to the UK (or England) but it mattered to Scotland and the many fishing communities around our coast. Scotland's interests were, once again, sacrificed and many fishing communities were devastated (including those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland).
Another brief(ish) aside here as this was another topic that JT and I didn't see eye to eye on. One of the reasons I voted to leave the EU was so we (the UK and Scotland) could escape from both the CAP and the CFP and that by doing so we would regain control of the UK's fishing rights. JT disagreed with this saying that our fishing rights had already been sold and getting out of the CFP would not solve anything. I couldn't understand what JT was getting at here - but I know she is no dummy and would not have claimed this to be the case if there was not some sort of basis to what she said. This, therefore, was something I needed to investigate. So, after some research, I concluded that what she was talking about were the fishing licences that the UK had issued to manage it's agreed quotas - to make sure we were not taking more than we should be doing (under the CFP agreement) and to ensure that specific species were not being over fished. However, I would argue that licences are not the same as fishing rights. Licences (for anything) are normally issued for fixed periods - not in perpetuity - and I'm presuming that that is the case with the fishing licences the UK has issued. Even if that's not the case then escaping from the CFP would provide the UK (or an independent Scotland) with the ability to vastly increase the volume of fish caught (as we would regain the full rights to the fish caught in our territorial waters) - and new licences would be needed to provide for this. However, it was also clear (from my research) that the destruction of the local fishing communities was not just down to the CFP but also because the vast bulk (if not all) of those fishing licences were sold to the 'big boys' of the fishing industry (probably because more money could be generated by doing so). That need not have happened. Some EU countries did the same but others ensured that smaller operators could continue to fish. So, escaping the CPF will only fix this problem if new licences were issued such that our local fishing communities get the chance to win some of those licences so that they can get back into fishing in our waters. If outside the CFP then I suppose it would be even possible to get rid of fishing licences altogether - but since this is now a way for government to bring in money then I doubt that will happen - and I suppose they do help ensure that specific species are not over fished. Would a UK government, after leaving the EU, ensure a fairer share of those licences such that local fishing communities could once again prosper and survive? Maybe but maybe not - but you can be pretty certain the an independent Scotland would. Also, to be clear, I am not suggesting that the UK (or Scotland) keep all the fish available to be caught in our waters. It is reasonable that some degree of horse trading takes place - we'll give you this if you allow us that - but it should be possible to negotiate a vast increase in how much we can catch while still allowing other countries, including EU countries, reasonable access to our waters. It is also likely that our smaller fishing communities would be unable to immediately take advantage of any increased quota given how devastated those communities have become since joining the CFP. It's unlikely, for example, that there are dozens of sea worthy fishing boats sitting around in harbours waiting for things to change - and a whole generation of fishermen have, after all, been lost and many in those communities would need time, maybe years, to redevelop the skills needed.
I have one final example (although I could list many more) of why Scotland's relationship to the UK is similar to that of a victim in an abusive relationship. This one is very recent and has not actually come to pass - but, should it, it again demonstrates how Scotland is ignored within the UK. During the Tory leadership race Jeremy Hunt, up in Scotland seeking support for his campaign, stated that even if the SNP was to clearly win (only in Scotland, obviously) a clear majority in either a UK general election or a Scottish parliament election, then he would still not grant a section 30 order allowing IndyRef2 to go ahead. After winning the Tory leadership race, and becoming the UK's PM, Boris Johnson said the same thing (and only today, as I write this section, he has repeated this). I can only presume they fail to realise the irony of their stated positions. In their push to see Brexit through, both men stated, time and time again, that Brexit must be achieved to honour the democratic vote in the EU referendum. So, while democracy must work for England (or the UK as a whole) it can simply be ignored when it comes to Scotland?! It is possible, of course, that both men were simply posturing - Hunt seeking to secure Scottish Tory votes and Johnson to strengthen his position as a strong UK PM. It will be interesting to see what will happen should the Torys win the forthcoming general election, the SNP clearly win the Scottish vote and then the Scottish parliament requests a section 30 order to hold IndyRef2 (although I sincerely hope the Torys do not win this election).
What are the grounds to reject a new section 30 request? Well, those against IndyRef2 claim that Scotland voted to remain part of the UK in 2014 and that even the SNP said the 2014 vote was a once in a generation vote. What they choose to ignore is that the SNP also said that they would not stick to that should there be a major change to the UK that it believed could seriously damage Scotland's economic position (like Scotland being forced to leave the EU against it's will being specifically mentioned). What they also choose to ignore is that a major plank of the NO campaign was that Scotland would lose it's EU membership should it vote for independence and the only way to avoid this would be to vote to remain part of the UK. That has clearly turned out to have been a false claim and Scotland now stands to be removed from the EU simply because it did vote against independence. Not only has the constitutional position of the UK changed but the people of Scotland were mislead. Note that I do not say that the NO campaign lied to the Scottish people. This is because this was before the EU referendum was even called and I doubt that anyone in the NO campaign thought for even a minute that any EU referendum would lead to a LEAVE win. At the same time, the NO campaign did mislead the Scottish people who voted NO fearing independence would result in Scotland no longer being in the EU - and that is what is now on the cards because the UK, as a whole, but England in particular, voted to leave. To be clear, if the REMAIN campaign had won then the SNP would not be seeking to run another independence referendum. What if Brexit does not go ahead after all? Should the SNP drop demands for IndyRef2? I can see the argument for it being forced to do so - but, at the same, the past three years have clearly indicated that Scotland's views count for nothing and will simply be ignored when it suits Westminster to do so (which is often) - so holding IndyRef2 still makes sense and would allow all Scottish citizens to make their views clear.
Do I believe that all of Scotland's social and economic problems will be solved immediately after independence? NO! I do not. The first few years will be tough but Scotland has many resources. This includes oil of which there are still large volumes waiting to be tapped and discovered - and, no matter what the Greens say, oil will still be required for many years to come (we just need to find better ways to use it without adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and plastic to our oceans). This would allow borrowing to help cover the initial cost of independence. We have an abundance of wave and wind and tidal power to generate electricity. We could develop more hydro-electricity power stations. We have an abundance of water (which we could sell to England in times of drought). In addition to that we have all the other already known resources which will add to Scotland's economy. We could also save a large amount of money by not contributing to the rUK nuclear weapons programme and we could well have support from the EU (if at a cost). So, yes, the first few years will be difficult but the future is promising for an independent Scotland while it looks destined to stay pretty bleak if we stay part of the UK.
Opponents of the SNP accuse it of promoting the politics of grievance but, just as being paranoid does not mean 'they' are not out to get you, feeling aggrieved does not mean you don't have just cause to feel that way. Indeed, if it was only grievance that inspired the SNP then they'd only be seeking more money, more powers and perhaps a new arrangement, within the UK, to satisfy it. Instead it seeks total independence in order that it can own Scotland's problems and proceed to try and rectify them. That is more positive thinking rather than grievance.
It might be a fair question to ask if I seek only to see the UK dissolved at any cost. Indeed, I see the UK as no longer fit for purpose but I would be quite happy to see it survive if some way to correct it's current organisational failures could be found. There is, after all, much all the peoples of these islands have in common. There is a loose, shared history going back to the first people who crossed Doggerland after the retreat of the ice sheets. There is a closer shared history since 1707. All we also have to do is look at how many of our surnames, which originated in one area, have spread throughout these islands - and I doubt that there is much in the way of DNA difference between one end of the land and the other (although there is some). It is always with sadness and regret when a relationship of long standing collapses - but when the relationship no longer satisfies the aspirations and needs of one partner then it is time to cut the ties that bind to allow all partners to go their own way and find a future that serves them and their aspirations best. My contention is that the UK no longer serves the best interests of Scotland and only Scottish independence can allow Scotland to seek it's own salvation and deal with it's own problems in the way it sees best. If, on the other hand, England was to recognise this and work with Scotland to secure a more balanced partnership then I would be reasonably happy to see if that works or not. The only way I can see that coming about is via a federal system which balances the desires and needs of all four home countries but still takes into account England's majority population. I do not see, at the moment, that England is even willing to consider such a solution.
Comments
Post a Comment