The Tragedy of the Scottish Referendum for Independence

The internet is hardly ever a good place for a calm and rational political debate.  Usually saying something very general and distinctively similar to a previous post on a Facebook thread will allow the slavish ‘likes’ to flow your way.  Sometimes you get some credit for an insightful post, often if it is well researched and doesn’t antagonise people in the discussion.  Doing the latter tends to bring out the most immature of people.  “You brainwashed tit” was the most memorable reply I got from a highbrow intellectual on one such debate after I pointed out the flaws in their argument.  But ever so now and then in the political discussion groups a cause reaches a fever pitch of support.  That cause at the moment is the ‘Yes’ campaign for Scottish independence.

Try as I might I cannot get excited at either the ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ campaigns.  The prospect of a new country, which is technically an old one entering the world stage is to a certain extent an exciting one.  How will this country stand our culturally?  What will it’s economy be like?  What will it’s foreign policy be like?  All of these are interesting questions which may soon be answered.  Certainly the Yes campaign has the positive element on its side.  But in order to quieten justified anxieties about the transition to independence truckloads more hope is thrown in by the Yes campaign.  I fear the Yes campaign may fall into what I call the Barack Obama trap; if you keep up raising peoples hopes you only make it more difficult when it is time to cash in, to turn dreams into reality.

The No campaign is a disappointment for other reasons.  Quite simply all it has to offer is a glorified version of the past, it can’t and won’t promise a bright and bold future.  The promise that things were good before and they will be again is a hard sell and not a very convincing one.  One of the points from the Yes campaign that seem to resonate with a lot of people is genuine dissatisfaction if not outright hatred with Westminster, or more specifically the House of Commons.  In a stunning display of obliviousness laced by vanity, the leaders of the three main UK parties have travelled to Scotland in a last ditch effort to prevent the breakup of the union.  This has led to charges being made at them that they simply “don’t get it.”  I am not certain that they ever did, or will for that matter.

So what is “it”?.  As far as I can tell “it” is a general feeling that we don’t have much more to look forward to in this allegedly glorious union.  If you follow this line of thinking to its ultimate conclusion you come to the idea of a clean break, a clean break to salvage at least a part of the union from a presumably unhappy future.  I am not going to lie, this is bleak thinking to say the least.  But for all the Yes campaign’s denouncement of the “Project Fear” tactics of their opposite numbers, they are seizing on this bleak trail of thought to scare people into ignoring the glossed over details in their argument.  In short, both campaigns are as bad as each other as treating their audience like they are morons. 

The idea of displaying the prospect of independence as cure for many (if not all) problems is not a new one.  The people of the newly founded United States of America were promised a government for the people and by the people in very idealistic terms, in stark contrast to the aristocratic ‘old world’.  Today’s reality is a seemingly insurmountable divisions between the rich and the poor and the governed and the governors.  Not to mention record numbers of firearm deaths, regressive social conservatism,  racial tensions and medical bankruptcies.  Ireland had to endure a civil war shortly after independence before it embraced its period of peace and relative prosperity.  The point is not that all independence causes are destined to fail because they aren’t.  The point is that the devils are in the details and independence in itself won’t cure all of the ills of Western countries.  For many years people in new and old countries have tried to make
their countries more equal societies.  Few can be said to have made any measure of progress towards this.

I am not a particularly nationalistic person.  I am constantly cynical and deriding when I talk about nationalism generally.  It is partly down to me not being in favour of promoting artificial concepts that divide people.  At the same time I am aware that nationalism be a useful rallying call and not always an unethical one.  I am not massively proud to be English, I see the English national flag as an unimaginative eyesore.  That said, I cannot help but feel wounded when I hear the Yes campaign talking about what or rather who the Scottish may be leaving behind.  The picture they paint of England is a place destined for continual apocalyptic regression almost to the point where Victorian era workhouses will reappear.  Then stark divisions will appear in society leading to social tensions, which will lead to societal conflict.  Then open war will follow leading to the fall of society.  After that we will end up in a post apocalyptic wasteland with appearances by anti semitic heroes fighting off raider gangs in some 1980s vision of the future world.  Then there will be random cameo appearances by Tina Turner.  Perhaps the SNP didn't go this far, but it would have been interesting if they did.

The point is there is an ugly undercurrent of ethno-nationalism with a hint of ethnic superiority underneath.  To be Celtic is to be more naturally inclined to equality.  To be English is to be doomed to ripping people off and perpetual arrogance. But the tragedy is some of the most progressive parties in the UK (which does not include any of the main three parties) have fallen for this rhetoric.  Campaigners who have previously called against policies that have divided people have promoted one of the biggest schisms of all.  When it is all said and done this is all a big distraction from the bigger questions.  I for one am not prepared to give up fighting for my country with or without Scotland.

We progressives should not be content to just lop Scotland off the supposedly doomed carcass of the union and work on it as a salvation project.  I refuse to believe that my home is doomed and I resent Alex Salmond for implying that is.  I know many people who share a political outlook similar to myself know that there is an uphill struggle in reforming England especially never mind the entire union, but that is no reason to quit.  The real tragedy of the Scottish referendum is that it is not answering long held questions about the future of our union, only humouring them.  With regards to the No campaign and it's discredited front men, if we don't like their uninspired vision of the union we must tell them and point out an alternative.  The House of Lords, the Electoral System, the division between rich and poor, local democracy and the Monarchy are all questions we must face sooner or later.  That is with or without Scotland.

So in answer to the question "how will you feel if Scotland goes independent?" I can honestly say I don't mind either way.  Besides I will be flying off on holiday on referendum day to a country that is at peace with its own destiny.  I do wonder when we will be at peace with ours.