Having a Voice

I live in a middle class area near Glasgow and have family and friends in Edinburgh. In my experience it is easier for unionists to have a voice and speak their minds. Unionists feel they can say what they like, openly and freely, without fear of any repercussions. 

By contrast, I have supported an independent Scotland all my life, but I often feel I have to keep quiet or am looked on as an oddity. The middle classes are supposed to support the hierarchy establishment, in order of protect their own wealth. It matters not it seems, that Scotland has one of the most unequal land ownership, embarrassing levels of poverty and that tenant farmers have no rights. The tiny rich elite must be protected at all costs and this elite are determinedly against change of any kind. Who owns Scotland and why are they being subsidized?  I don’t want Scotland to be part of a centralized trickle-down economics from a London super state and under American vested interests. The Tories also want to enforce market-driven health care here. Many Indy supporters are threatened. How is this democratic?

One told me recently with regard to Scottish indy, that she didn’t want to get smaller. I have heard this concern before and it strikes me as a completely different way of viewing Scotland’s indy. I want Scotland to get bigger on the world stage and to be able to protect our national interests and resources - why not? Presently Scotland is side-lined, ignored and diminished as part of disunited UK and our resources are being squandered. We are led by arrogant, ignorant and lazy politicians at Westminster. 

I don’t want an indy Scotland building walls with its neighbours or with Europe. Indy is not about borders for me. We must speak with both national and international voices. Change can only happen in small places. Scottish indy is both inclusive and outward looking. At a talk at Edinburgh book festival, Gina Miller spoke of moving pivisions – and I agree – but moving past wealth divisions will not be so easy. The system needs changed through independence.

How are we best governed? What is best practice? Why is making decisions locally ‘being smaller’? In todays internet world we can live on remote islands and still remain connected to the outside world. Europe has moved on and rejected feudalism. America has not moved on, even while it has a Bill of Rights and a written constitution (unlike UK) – it continues to have protected elites and vested interests. I lived for ten years in America and it does have a federal system of government where each state controls its VAT and state taxes. But it also has great divides and inequalities. 

False tribalism and division must end for the sake of our country. But there are differences here. I believe difference and informed different views are essential to reach a realistic consensus. But artificial tribes, around old, ignorant hatreds have no place in a progressive democracy. It is a fallacy that ’Brexit’ is about any kind of independence – its really about leaving the world’s most successful trading block. 

This is not only about land – its about power and privilege – and this inequality affects all areas of Scottish life, the urban lowlands also. It’s a culture of divisiveness, rather than a culture of co-operation and equal life chances. We can’t all be the same, but we can have equal opportunities. 

Self-determination for Scotland, means making our own decisions in Scotland’s best interests and also being good neighbours and in a larger trading block. Self-determination means being connected with the democracies of Europe – rather than in the pocket of American wealthy elites. Scotland has centuries of cultural and trading links with Europe. 

I believe the size of Scotland is ideal in todays world, to be adaptable and progressive for the future. We can have a media that represents Scotland; we can protect our resources, protect our heritage and invest in local infrastructure. Scottish Indy is a fight to protect our civil rights and our stories and culture. Maybe if Scotland does this, other parts of England will follow. Recently I saw a map of who owns Scotland, and I was shocked by the tiny white sections of publicly owned land. Scotland has the most unequal land ownership in the world. This land was stolen from the church after the Reformation in 1560.  

Perhaps its time to give it back. Instead of a culture of false greed, we can have a culture of co-operation? I hope this isn’t all about money and that we can all have an equal voice. We have a choice now. We must act, and act soon to change all that.

Historian Tom Devine

“Scots suffer from “virtual universal historical illiteracy’ , says Tom Devine, “ perhaps that’s why they’ve struggled to engage with Referendum campaign.

Historian Tom Devine, Scotland's foremost academic and intellectual, once favoured a "devo-max" but he changed his mind for Scottish independence.
He believes that the purpose of the union on both sides have now crumbled. Scotland is now uniquely placed with top resources, top research and a more diverse economy.

He believes Scotland is competent and strong in a business and cultural sense with a more diverse business model.  Importantly Scotland has reserves of power. Scotland has four universities in the world’s top 200. In the 50s we were second rate but since then Scotland’s R & D has flourished.

Devine spoke of the ‘victimhood’ of Scots put forward in the best selling novels by Canadian John Prebble in the 1950s. Devine calls them works of 'faction’, making Scots feel downtrodden victims.

Do we have a shared myth and history with England?
There has been a gradual disintegration of confidence of Scotland in union. He believes the union once served a purpose, but has been in decline for many years now. That it is only through that a harmonious relationship between Scotland and England can be achieved.
"When you put all of these together, there's very little left in the union except sentiment, history and family."

**BOOKs by Tom Devine - Scottish Trilogy – a comprehensive study of Scottish modern history, which we didn’t have before 1780.  Also The Scottish Nation 1700 to 200. As well as some 36 other books.

Borders and Maps

Old Map of Europe with far fewer countries

The UN states – ‘peoples have the right to self-determination. There is no reason for a majority in a country to subjugate an unwilling minority. ‘The UN had 51 seats in 1945 and in 2017 now has 193. Change has been towards the smaller nation states.

The Kurds were divided up by Britain and France – as spoils of the Ottoman empire and the Provinces after WW1. This year both the Kurds and Catalonians were recently voting for their independence. Shockingly the Spanish government used brute force to try to prevent the Catalan vote. The BBC was not reporting on this either. The difference between a "made-up country" and an "authentic nation state" is that the real nation is like a centuries old tree with deep roots and many branches.  

A century ago a map of Europe in 1914 before WW1, there were far fewer countries in Europe – when three huge empires were shrunk in size - Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia. Germany had then included parts of Poland, France, Denmark, Belgium and Lithuania. 

Dutch tycoon Freddy Heineken in 1990 wrote of a ‘Eurotopia’ of small countries of between 10m and 5m.

In todays Internet world of fast media and connections and improved communications (radio, tv) and fast travel – and we don’t need centralized control anymore.

Do we need empires anymore? The direction of travel today is towards the smaller nation states in a bigger trading block and away from `empire building. 

Europe today with far more nation states

Excellent letter in the National - saying the difference in Catalonia is that they have control of their media, a truly devolved region unlike Scotland. Compared to the problem here in the '2014 Scottish Referendum' - when Westminster controlled all the media, all th print  press here and all the unionist parties too. What hope had we? I remember my son saying, how could we have self determination without any media? I met a Norwegian film maker in Edinburgh, and I was explaining to him that Scotland, unlike Norway, has no oil fund. He asked where did the money go - he may well ask!? I told him Shetland has an oil fund though...

http://www.maps-of-europe.net/old-maps-of-europe/

PS 

Is 'take back control' really about - take back control to Westminster from the devolved governments

Gerry Hassan and Michael Keating (Professor of politics Aberdeen) at EIBF 2017

Gerry Hassan and Michael Keating (Professor of politics Aberdeen) - 'THE EVOLUTION OF DEVOLUTION'
They discussed debates on how to build bridges, with many questions over frictionless borders and if this is possible to preserve communities. They felt that there was too much noise and not enough silence or consideration. Hassan criticised the SNP timidity in government, and claimed that there are no leading thinkers who identify with social democracy and its values are not nurtured. I wasn't sure I understood this comment because I read many informed and educated journalists in both the Herald and National newspapers who believe in social democracy.

They asked, how can we nurture non-party spaces? A future Scotland cannot be about certainty, or the conditional politics of independence or unionism. How do we move on from the entrenched divides, and that we require more 'open mindedness'. The voices of middle Scotland have many 'close-minded warriors' who don't want to have a debate between independence or union. There are important questions over what kind of self government is required for our economic and social project? How to find a shared destination and how do we get there?

They said there was an absence of a think tank not made up of political parties, for a new national project. They spoke of the evolution of Scottish devolution and that London’s shadow over the UK (with 40% of the UKs GDP) was similar only to Moscow’s over Russia. Other issues raised included - taxes for a fairer Scotland.; welfare powers; childcare are ways of tackling poverty; and social inclusion. 

The Westminster parliament was an empty vessel and they spoke of the hope for more self-government within an EU framework. Bulgaria has a huge amount of power and socially more equal than Scotland. Is there a contradiction between social growth and equality? Smaller countries are often more socially equal.

The constitutional questions have several levels – the nature of the state and federalism and devolution as positive forces.

The Smith commission was a political compromise. Political society asks the right questions – but the parties don’t listen - they only fight and not hearing the bigger issues. There has not been enough post mortem since Indy Ref, too much silence.

Then there was the 'British nationalism' and the talk of borderlands, such as by Rory Stewart. – perhaps we only disagree on the framework? Borders are both entrances and exit and there is the innovation of open borders and frictionless borders. They wondered about the peace process in Northern Ireland and the border there. National is both good and bad.  However Brexit has thrown all of this out of the water.

The hope to address what kind of society are we going to look like? There was far too much short termism and they felt that politics was too emotional. Politicians not offering more self government and in fact it is far from certain what they are offering? How is independence formulated are and not what people want – the question are more about the kind of self government. They felt that many have not understood what Independence means or the degree of sovereignty.

Then there is the decline in unionist Scotland – society and power changing with catalysts for further change. Political parties in pockets of money. The economy is unbalanced and the economic model is not working and the banks have not been reformed. The redistribution of money is only slightly more under Labour, Corbyn offers managed capitalism with fixed exchange rate. 

They argued for opening up politics and not having professional politicians and for Scotland cultural change and a second revolution. Civic Scotland is engaged in this debate. There was no discussion over the lack of any Scottish media. Is Scotland going to stay in Europe? The SNP have to change with the times and with the rate of change they suggested. What is the differences between Devo Max and independence  anyway – the difference is miniscule.

**Edinburgh Enlightenment

For centuries Scotland had kept close and political links to Europe and continued.  

Frances Hutcheson, David Hume and Adam Fergusson were part of the community of European scholars – connected to Diderot, Goethe, Montesquieu and Voltaire. In Scotland the most literate nation in Europe in 1750.

Voltaire said, “We look to Scotland” – does Scotland still have this clout? 

Voices against slavery. Scotland owned a third of Jamaica in the 18^th century.

The Advocates Library – production of genius and learning, enabled her sons to make distinguished figures.

Adam Smith supported the fight for independence in American colonies and saw slavery as uneconomic and immoral. He questioned the meaning of freedom in society.

David Hume saw slavery as ‘cruel and oppressive.’ The dominant statue on the Royal mile is of David Hume (1711 – 1766) Philosopher and historian; Scot and European. Man of the Enlightenment. He rented his home James Court to James Boswell, critic, writer and biographer of Samuel Johnson.

  

Hugh Blair (St Giles 1758 – 1777) supported Burns and the Ossian poems. Burns’s The Slaves Lament.

William Robertson preached against and sent his sermons to William Wilberforce 1788.

William Creech – Bookseller, Publisher, councillor and secretary of chamber of commerce.

He petitioned Parliament to ban slavery.

 (The Skating minister – Scottish National galleries)

Henry Raeburn’s painting of his friend the Reverend Robert Walker skating on a hard winter’s day more than two centuries ago is one of a select number of paintings, like Leonardo’s Mona Lisa or Munch’s The Scream, which is immediately recognisable.