Since the historic election which gave the SNP a majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament, the constitutional future of Scotland has been brought to the fore. Scottish voters have demonstrated their determination to set out their own future and construct their own agenda for the first time, in the face of the vastly unpopular ConDem government in Westminster. Few issues in Scotland (indeed across the UK) have divided opinion as bitterly as this issue. However, now more than ever, Scots are increasingly questioning the ‘too poor, too stupid, too small’ mantra which proponents of the Union repeat with little evidence.
Indeed, the idea that Scotland’s oil has peaked appears to be inaccurate. As PricewaterhouseCoopers' study reporting that Scotland’s potential revenue from oil and gas could be around £375 billion over the next 40 years, it stands to reason that, if invested in a similar manner to the Oil Fund of Norway, this resource could provide a solid base on which Scotland’s economy would be secured. BP is investing an additional £4.5 billion in the North Sea, so clearly the potential is there for Scotland to reap significant gains were it to become independent. Between 2008 and 2009, nearly £13 billion in revenue was accrued from oil: the single biggest take in a single year since North Sea oil production began. Evidently, this will fluctuate over time. However, with oil prices in a perpetual upwards trend over the last three decades, the argument for Scotland to utilise this resource properly is stronger than ever.
It would be absurd to claim that an independent Scotland should only rely on a finite resource to sustain its economy, and this is why the nation has an eye to the future, with renewable energy production being actively championed. With the most ambitious carbon reduction targets in Europe aiming to have a minimum of 40% of energy generation coming from renewable sources by 2020 (with 100% being the desired goal), the investment to achieve these ambitions shows a clear vision for the future. A recent report from Citigroup suggested that over £4 billion of subsidies would be required for Scotland to achieve its goals if independent; it also claimed that investors would be unwilling to finance an independent Scotland. This was attacked by the Director General of the Institute of Directors, Simon Walker, who claimed that investment and jobs would be created regardless of Scotland being in or out of the union. “I think it is alarmist and overstating the problems to say don’t invest in renewable or any other area because of future constitutional possibilities,” he said. Furthermore, the report hinged on claims that England would not import energy from Scotland were it independent. Given that Scotland currently exports 20% of its total energy production to England, it seems that such a move would be highly unlikely.
However, regardless of where one stands on Scotland’s constitutional future, the behaviour of Michael Moore MP and the Scotland Office as a whole must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. In its own words, the very purpose of the Scotland Office is to represent Scotland's interests. It is therefore appalling that it should move to warn off investment in Scotland’s renewable energy sectors, particularly in light of the weak economic climate that hangs over the whole of the UK. To discourage investment in an emerging sector that will prove to be crucial in the coming years makes no sense and shows an unfortunate determination to keep Scotland in the Union at all costs.
This comes on the back of the Scottish Secretary claiming again that Scotland was too poor to fund itself and appearing to political point score by attempting to blame uncertainty over Scotland’s future as the cause of poor growth and economic uncertainty. Indeed, in releasing a press briefing headed ‘Scottish Government must explain £41 billion oil deficit’, Mr Moore conveniently ignored his own department’s figures that showed Scotland’s percentage of national debt (based on population) would be £60 billion pounds. Perhaps a press briefing from Mr Moore explaining why Scotland benefits from being a part of the United Kingdom when it is saddled with an additional £19 billion worth of debt is imminent?
The future of Scotland in or out of the Union must be debated in the coming years, but it must be done so in an honest and positive manner. The political point scoring and alarmist approach is unhelpful, misleading and non-constructive. The economic case for Scotland as an independent nation is sound and should not be undermined by those seeking to keep the Union together at all costs. If there is a positive case for staying within the union let that be the focus of the campaign, and not the politics of selling Scotland short.
Written by Owen Miller, EUSNA's Organiser and Director of Publicity
Monday 27 February 2012
Thursday 16 February 2012
Scottish Independence: The Economic Case
When the question is asked, which it frequently will over the next couple of years, “Could Scotland afford to become independent?”, there’s a much more important question to be answered: can Scotland afford to remain within the Union?
Within the U.K., Scotland is peripheral – it is geographically isolated from the centre of economic and political power, and can speak only with a minority voice. That makes the Union tremendously unequal. There are practical repercussions to this when it comes to economic policy. As Britain has become increasingly dependent on the financial sector to work as a growth engine, it was natural that the economic policy of successive governments reflected this, choosing to focus on the wealthy South rather than the rest of Britain. And what was the result of this? Communities across Scotland, and elsewhere, lost their traditional industries, replaced only by service jobs in supermarkets and call centres. This is Westminster’s legacy.
There are inherent advantages to running an economy the size of Scotland. The economy is likely to be more integrated, without the gaping regional differences that emerge in a country the size of Britain. Control of the economy is executed at a level closer to the people, with the government able to move with more haste and flexibility than would be possible on a larger scale.
Look at the current constitutional situation in Scotland. We are politically independent in most areas, yet are tied to another, much larger nation, with vastly different ambitions. We control our own healthcare system, our own police and judicial system, and our own education system, but are denied the ability to set our economic policy.
Let’s take the on-going economic difficulties as a case in point. The Scots have overwhelmingly rejected the austerity agenda of the Conservative party, both at Westminster and Holyrood elections, and chose instead to elect a social-democratic Scottish Government, who clearly have a desire to stimulate the Scottish economy. To the extent that they can do, the Government have brought forward capital spending on infrastructure – one of the surest ways to improve an economy, providing employment in the short-term and leaving the country better positioned to grow in the long-term.
Yet spending power will have only limited effect in isolation, and Scotland are denied the economic powers available to any other nation. We have two layers of government here: one layer able but unwilling to intervene in the economy, another layer willing but unable to. The Westminster coalition operates in Scotland without any political mandate – and so where is the wisdom in allowing them control of our economy?
If you want your government to be able to be able to make coherent policies, how can you separate its powers in the way we have done with devolution? How can one government control benefits while another controls healthcare, when they are so clearly linked? The same goes for taxes and spending – what sense does it make to separate these? In Scotland, we’re used to hearing the common refrain of ‘subsidy junkies’, to the extent that this has become conventional wisdom. It is believed, without any need for evidence, that Scotland can only pay the bills at the generosity of our English neighbours. The reality is very different.
Scotland has 8.4% of the U.K. population. Scotland pays 9.4% of the U.K.’s taxes.
Repeat those figures in your head until they are imprinted on your brain.
It is true that we Scots have a higher level of public spending per head than the English. But when this is raised, what’s never pointed out is that this is because we want this to be the case. We value the N.H.S. and our education system. We choose to have free prescriptions and free higher education. Westminster chooses to have nuclear weapons and to involve itself in wars like Iraq. This has never been a question of affordability – it’s about priorities. Which society do you want to live in? One in which the welfare state is valued, and access to education is provided based on ability and willingness to learn? Or one based upon the Thatcherite vision of the world, where individualism replaces community, the welfare state is slowly dismantled, and our purse strings are controlled by a government in London?
When we talk about the need for Scots to determine their own future, it’s more than just an abstract idea. It is a fundamental question which shapes every aspect of our government and our society. Which Scotland do you want?
Dan Paris is a member of Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association, who are colleagues and friends of EUSNA in the Dear Green Place. This article first appeared on National Collective.
Within the U.K., Scotland is peripheral – it is geographically isolated from the centre of economic and political power, and can speak only with a minority voice. That makes the Union tremendously unequal. There are practical repercussions to this when it comes to economic policy. As Britain has become increasingly dependent on the financial sector to work as a growth engine, it was natural that the economic policy of successive governments reflected this, choosing to focus on the wealthy South rather than the rest of Britain. And what was the result of this? Communities across Scotland, and elsewhere, lost their traditional industries, replaced only by service jobs in supermarkets and call centres. This is Westminster’s legacy.
There are inherent advantages to running an economy the size of Scotland. The economy is likely to be more integrated, without the gaping regional differences that emerge in a country the size of Britain. Control of the economy is executed at a level closer to the people, with the government able to move with more haste and flexibility than would be possible on a larger scale.
Look at the current constitutional situation in Scotland. We are politically independent in most areas, yet are tied to another, much larger nation, with vastly different ambitions. We control our own healthcare system, our own police and judicial system, and our own education system, but are denied the ability to set our economic policy.
Let’s take the on-going economic difficulties as a case in point. The Scots have overwhelmingly rejected the austerity agenda of the Conservative party, both at Westminster and Holyrood elections, and chose instead to elect a social-democratic Scottish Government, who clearly have a desire to stimulate the Scottish economy. To the extent that they can do, the Government have brought forward capital spending on infrastructure – one of the surest ways to improve an economy, providing employment in the short-term and leaving the country better positioned to grow in the long-term.
Yet spending power will have only limited effect in isolation, and Scotland are denied the economic powers available to any other nation. We have two layers of government here: one layer able but unwilling to intervene in the economy, another layer willing but unable to. The Westminster coalition operates in Scotland without any political mandate – and so where is the wisdom in allowing them control of our economy?
If you want your government to be able to be able to make coherent policies, how can you separate its powers in the way we have done with devolution? How can one government control benefits while another controls healthcare, when they are so clearly linked? The same goes for taxes and spending – what sense does it make to separate these? In Scotland, we’re used to hearing the common refrain of ‘subsidy junkies’, to the extent that this has become conventional wisdom. It is believed, without any need for evidence, that Scotland can only pay the bills at the generosity of our English neighbours. The reality is very different.
Scotland has 8.4% of the U.K. population. Scotland pays 9.4% of the U.K.’s taxes.
Repeat those figures in your head until they are imprinted on your brain.
It is true that we Scots have a higher level of public spending per head than the English. But when this is raised, what’s never pointed out is that this is because we want this to be the case. We value the N.H.S. and our education system. We choose to have free prescriptions and free higher education. Westminster chooses to have nuclear weapons and to involve itself in wars like Iraq. This has never been a question of affordability – it’s about priorities. Which society do you want to live in? One in which the welfare state is valued, and access to education is provided based on ability and willingness to learn? Or one based upon the Thatcherite vision of the world, where individualism replaces community, the welfare state is slowly dismantled, and our purse strings are controlled by a government in London?
When we talk about the need for Scots to determine their own future, it’s more than just an abstract idea. It is a fundamental question which shapes every aspect of our government and our society. Which Scotland do you want?
Dan Paris is a member of Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association, who are colleagues and friends of EUSNA in the Dear Green Place. This article first appeared on National Collective.
Mock Referendum
EUSNA members conducted a mock independence referendum the other week, obtaining a nail-bitingly close result of 47% in favour and 53% opposed!
With 2 years to go until 2014, there really is everything to play for in showing students across the country why with independence Scotland can be a better place!
Friday 27 January 2012
Why Independence?
The Scottish Government has published its long-awaited consultation plans, and finally we know the question that will be put to the Scottish people in autumn 2014.
‘Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?’
Well let me start off this article by saying that my name is Fraser Dick, and yes, I do agree that Scotland should be an independent country. I believe that independence is a method by which means we can move forward and make this country more democratic, more prosperous, more tolerant, and more confident in itself. Westminster rule might have served Scotland well in the past, but those days are long gone, and in an interconnected, globalised 21st century, its structures are becoming obsolete, as the optimum model appears to move towards nimble, social-democratic north-european nations. Scotland, and indeed the UK as a whole, is not an overly bad place to live at the moment. But it has potential to be so much more.
First, imagine the economy of an independent Scotland. Freed from the constraints of a United Kingdom economy which is lopsided in favour of the City of London, and with proper, full economic levers that other independent nations enjoy, it will be possible to mould an economy which is truly tailored to the people it serves. A simple example of this is corporation tax. Given this power, the Scottish Government could lower the tax in order to attract inward investment of the kind seen recently from Amazon et al, and in doing so actually increase tax revenues thanks to the new companies which would invest in Scotland, thus providing both jobs for the people of Scotland and tax revenue to pay for social services, which would be valued in the progressive independent Scottish state, rather than dismantled as appears to be the current British consensus. Having economic decisions made closer to the people they affect is integral in allowing Scotland to become a mobile, more economically competitive country in the modern age, able to make decisions at a more local level that are thus more specifically and sophisticatedly tailored to communities. Independence allows Scotland to concentrate development efforts on industries in which we excel, such as renewable energy, engineering, video games and the high-tech microelectronics business. All highly-skilled sectors requiring an educated workforce and a nimble economy, two things which a post-independence Scotland would have.
Also, it is not the case, as is often said, that Scotland is somehow intrinsically ‘too poor’ to be independent. Independent figures from GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland) have consistently shown that Scotland pays its way within the UK, and indeed runs at a slightly lower deficit than the current British state. They show that between 2005/6-2009/10, which are the last figures available, Scotland ran at a deficit of 10.6% of GDP, while the UK as a whole ran at a deficit of 11.1%. Comparable figures, showing that Scotland is very much an equal partner in the United Kingdom. And when these figures are combined with Scotland’s population to give a measure of how rich a country is per head of population (known as GDP per capita) it can be seen that Scotland could expect to have the 6th highest GDP per capita in the world post-independence. For comparison, the UK currently sits at number 15 on the same scale.
Secondly, we must consider Scotland’s vast energy riches. We are lucky to have these, in fact it could be said that we have got extremely lucky twice in 50 years. North sea oil will run out eventually, but there is a good 50 years of it left, which is forecasted to generate £500 billion. The UK government has squandered these riches since the 1970s, despite Norway’s excellent example of the creation of a sovereign wealth fund, and the fact that it is now worth over $500 billion. This level of money could be being held in trust for the people of Scotland, if we had had control of our own oil revenues. Luckily there is still time to create such a fund, as half of all oil and gas reserves remain untapped. Oil revenues could have such a transformative effect on the Scottish economy, that when they were first discovered, the UK government’s own advisor said that an independent Scottish currency would be the hardest in Europe. The UK government feared this fact becoming public knowledge, and so marked the report ‘Top Secret’ and kept it hidden for 30 years.
It is however, true to say that to base Scotland’s economy on a resource which is by definition finite would be foolish. Which is why Scotland has such good fortune to be in possession of 25% of Europe’s renewable energy capacity. Our wind and wave power capability is unrivalled almost anywhere on the planet, and our expertise in developing such technologies is second to none. The Scottish Government has already set the most ambitious climate change targets on Earth, and with independence it is not inconceivable that Scotland could eventually generate 100% of the energy it required through renewable sources. In this way, oil revenue meets renewable potential to create a perfect synergy. Oil revenue, invested wisely, can pave the way for the renewable age and a low-carbon economy, slowing the march of climate change and protecting the natural environment.
Thirdly, an independent Scotland can be a beacon of progressive values in many social fields. Just one of these fields is in immigration policy. Scotland’s population is falling. Which is why an independent Scotland would welcome immigrants with open arms in order to provide workers to drive our economy, unlike the morally untenable anti-immigration consensus which appears to exist at Westminster. Another of these fields in our democracy itself. Currently, British democracy is far from democratic. The First-Past-The-Post voting system entrenches a two-party system which does not accurately reflect the will of the electorate, and ensures that smaller voices are simply not heard. It also encourages adversarial politics, where policy debate is replaced by mud-slinging and constant searching for the next soundbite. By contrast, the Scottish Parliament has an excellent voting system, which provides people MSPs with a link to their constituency while at the same time ensuring that all voices are heard via the list system. In addition to this, its propensity to throw up coalitions means that politicians must work together in order to find solutions that are in the best interests of the people of Scotland.
Moreover, in an independent Scotland democracy can truly rule, without the influence of unelected Lords, as is currently the case in the United Kingdom. It is an affront to democracy in this day and age that someone can have an input on our laws purely because of the family they were born into or because of party patronage. An issue related to this is the monarchy. Initially, an independent Scotland would retain the Queen as head of state, but independence is a major step on the road to becoming a republic, as Ireland did several years after independence. In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that power, nominal or not, can lie with an 85 year old woman purely because it lied with her father before her, and in an independent Scotland we can work towards replacing this outdated anachronism with true democracy and a head of state who is accountable to the people.
However possibly the greatest progressive value of independence would be the removal of nuclear weapons from Scottish waters. Trident, based at Coulport on the Clyde, has never had approval from the people of Scotland. Time and again they have stated their opposition to Trident’s position in Scottish waters, and time and again Westminster has ignored them. Nuclear weapons are the deadliest objects ever devised by mankind. They make no distinction between enemy soldier and innocent civilian, lay waste to cities and leave whole regions drowned in radiation for years. They are immoral weapons whose continued existence 50 miles from Glasgow puts 1 million people in the firing line. But as long as they guarantee the UK a permanent seat on the UN Security Council then disarmament will never occur. Billions of taxpayer pounds are spent as a vanity project so Prime Ministers can pretend the Empire never went away. And with independence we could ensure that Scotland no longer has anything to do with these bombs.
Finally, on a more abstract level, I want Scotland to find its place in the world. With full sovereignty, the people of Scotland can have their voice heard on the world stage in a way that currently is not possible as part of the United Kingdom. They can take responsibility for their own destiny as a nation and shape it into what they want it to be. We can build a better relationship with the other people of these islands, and hopefully post-independence remove the old grudges, claim and counter-claim on Scotland’s position in the United Kingdom. In breaking apart, Scottish independence can bring the people of the United Kingdom together.
‘Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?’
Well let me start off this article by saying that my name is Fraser Dick, and yes, I do agree that Scotland should be an independent country. I believe that independence is a method by which means we can move forward and make this country more democratic, more prosperous, more tolerant, and more confident in itself. Westminster rule might have served Scotland well in the past, but those days are long gone, and in an interconnected, globalised 21st century, its structures are becoming obsolete, as the optimum model appears to move towards nimble, social-democratic north-european nations. Scotland, and indeed the UK as a whole, is not an overly bad place to live at the moment. But it has potential to be so much more.
First, imagine the economy of an independent Scotland. Freed from the constraints of a United Kingdom economy which is lopsided in favour of the City of London, and with proper, full economic levers that other independent nations enjoy, it will be possible to mould an economy which is truly tailored to the people it serves. A simple example of this is corporation tax. Given this power, the Scottish Government could lower the tax in order to attract inward investment of the kind seen recently from Amazon et al, and in doing so actually increase tax revenues thanks to the new companies which would invest in Scotland, thus providing both jobs for the people of Scotland and tax revenue to pay for social services, which would be valued in the progressive independent Scottish state, rather than dismantled as appears to be the current British consensus. Having economic decisions made closer to the people they affect is integral in allowing Scotland to become a mobile, more economically competitive country in the modern age, able to make decisions at a more local level that are thus more specifically and sophisticatedly tailored to communities. Independence allows Scotland to concentrate development efforts on industries in which we excel, such as renewable energy, engineering, video games and the high-tech microelectronics business. All highly-skilled sectors requiring an educated workforce and a nimble economy, two things which a post-independence Scotland would have.
Also, it is not the case, as is often said, that Scotland is somehow intrinsically ‘too poor’ to be independent. Independent figures from GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland) have consistently shown that Scotland pays its way within the UK, and indeed runs at a slightly lower deficit than the current British state. They show that between 2005/6-2009/10, which are the last figures available, Scotland ran at a deficit of 10.6% of GDP, while the UK as a whole ran at a deficit of 11.1%. Comparable figures, showing that Scotland is very much an equal partner in the United Kingdom. And when these figures are combined with Scotland’s population to give a measure of how rich a country is per head of population (known as GDP per capita) it can be seen that Scotland could expect to have the 6th highest GDP per capita in the world post-independence. For comparison, the UK currently sits at number 15 on the same scale.
Secondly, we must consider Scotland’s vast energy riches. We are lucky to have these, in fact it could be said that we have got extremely lucky twice in 50 years. North sea oil will run out eventually, but there is a good 50 years of it left, which is forecasted to generate £500 billion. The UK government has squandered these riches since the 1970s, despite Norway’s excellent example of the creation of a sovereign wealth fund, and the fact that it is now worth over $500 billion. This level of money could be being held in trust for the people of Scotland, if we had had control of our own oil revenues. Luckily there is still time to create such a fund, as half of all oil and gas reserves remain untapped. Oil revenues could have such a transformative effect on the Scottish economy, that when they were first discovered, the UK government’s own advisor said that an independent Scottish currency would be the hardest in Europe. The UK government feared this fact becoming public knowledge, and so marked the report ‘Top Secret’ and kept it hidden for 30 years.
It is however, true to say that to base Scotland’s economy on a resource which is by definition finite would be foolish. Which is why Scotland has such good fortune to be in possession of 25% of Europe’s renewable energy capacity. Our wind and wave power capability is unrivalled almost anywhere on the planet, and our expertise in developing such technologies is second to none. The Scottish Government has already set the most ambitious climate change targets on Earth, and with independence it is not inconceivable that Scotland could eventually generate 100% of the energy it required through renewable sources. In this way, oil revenue meets renewable potential to create a perfect synergy. Oil revenue, invested wisely, can pave the way for the renewable age and a low-carbon economy, slowing the march of climate change and protecting the natural environment.
Thirdly, an independent Scotland can be a beacon of progressive values in many social fields. Just one of these fields is in immigration policy. Scotland’s population is falling. Which is why an independent Scotland would welcome immigrants with open arms in order to provide workers to drive our economy, unlike the morally untenable anti-immigration consensus which appears to exist at Westminster. Another of these fields in our democracy itself. Currently, British democracy is far from democratic. The First-Past-The-Post voting system entrenches a two-party system which does not accurately reflect the will of the electorate, and ensures that smaller voices are simply not heard. It also encourages adversarial politics, where policy debate is replaced by mud-slinging and constant searching for the next soundbite. By contrast, the Scottish Parliament has an excellent voting system, which provides people MSPs with a link to their constituency while at the same time ensuring that all voices are heard via the list system. In addition to this, its propensity to throw up coalitions means that politicians must work together in order to find solutions that are in the best interests of the people of Scotland.
Moreover, in an independent Scotland democracy can truly rule, without the influence of unelected Lords, as is currently the case in the United Kingdom. It is an affront to democracy in this day and age that someone can have an input on our laws purely because of the family they were born into or because of party patronage. An issue related to this is the monarchy. Initially, an independent Scotland would retain the Queen as head of state, but independence is a major step on the road to becoming a republic, as Ireland did several years after independence. In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that power, nominal or not, can lie with an 85 year old woman purely because it lied with her father before her, and in an independent Scotland we can work towards replacing this outdated anachronism with true democracy and a head of state who is accountable to the people.
However possibly the greatest progressive value of independence would be the removal of nuclear weapons from Scottish waters. Trident, based at Coulport on the Clyde, has never had approval from the people of Scotland. Time and again they have stated their opposition to Trident’s position in Scottish waters, and time and again Westminster has ignored them. Nuclear weapons are the deadliest objects ever devised by mankind. They make no distinction between enemy soldier and innocent civilian, lay waste to cities and leave whole regions drowned in radiation for years. They are immoral weapons whose continued existence 50 miles from Glasgow puts 1 million people in the firing line. But as long as they guarantee the UK a permanent seat on the UN Security Council then disarmament will never occur. Billions of taxpayer pounds are spent as a vanity project so Prime Ministers can pretend the Empire never went away. And with independence we could ensure that Scotland no longer has anything to do with these bombs.
Finally, on a more abstract level, I want Scotland to find its place in the world. With full sovereignty, the people of Scotland can have their voice heard on the world stage in a way that currently is not possible as part of the United Kingdom. They can take responsibility for their own destiny as a nation and shape it into what they want it to be. We can build a better relationship with the other people of these islands, and hopefully post-independence remove the old grudges, claim and counter-claim on Scotland’s position in the United Kingdom. In breaking apart, Scottish independence can bring the people of the United Kingdom together.
Saturday 21 January 2012
EUSNA Members with Angus Robertson
Why Tibetan Monks Watch Braveheart
“Independence isn’t just history.” That was the message of leafleters outside Scottish cinema screenings in the 1990s as Wallace rode onto our screens ready to free the nation.
Today the Braveheart effect on Scottish politics may have worn off, with modern nationalism now being centred on economics, democracy and future aspirations. But with the referendum set to be held in 2014, the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn, just how closely the independence movement should run to historic sentiment is still a real issue of debate.
Recently, several sources including the Scottish Centre of Himalayan Research reported that Tibetan monks had been watching Braveheart, even between prayer times, presumably encouraged by the story of Scotland and its fight for independence from a much larger and much more powerful neighbour.
Perhaps it is the monks’ philosophy of all things being interconnected that has in some way influenced these developments – and that is something we should learn from. Independence movements around the world are bound together by a common goal; and in the new age of internet democracy that solidarity will have an even greater part to play.
These developments on the role of our history in Tibet are particularly interesting due to our own criticisms of the subject. Scotland’s story is a “Hollywood invention”, we are often told. It was “wildly romanticised”, or simply “didn’t happen”. Whilst we should ensure our knowledge of the subject is as factual as possible, it is fair to say that Scotland’s obsession with freedom is not a post-Braveheart phenomenon but a very real and long-lasting notion centred at the very heart of our culture. We wouldn’t dismiss India’s struggle for independence as fictional due to some inaccuracies in the 1982 film Ghandi. Films do not create these notions; they interpret them.
Recounting the history of Bruce and Wallace was in fact a common feature in the works of Robert Burns, almost 500 years after the Wars of Scottish Independence. His intention was not to simply reminisce on the past but to actively inspire the Scottish society of his own time to stand up for itself against a culturally and politically one-sided union. The Tibetans, it seems, are emulating such an idea.
For us, we can read the history books, we can watch the films, we can look at the current reality in Scotland and see fair treatment, freedom of speech, individual equality, and freedom of choice, and wonder how the country can possibly be considered “not free”. But there is a difference between individual freedom and collective freedom – the right a society has to democracy and self-governance. A nation’s people cannot be free unless they have both.
The answer to becoming a truly modern nation is not to forget our country’s history but to celebrate it and learn from it in a way that is inclusive and forgiving. There is a reason why the history of Scotland fascinates and resonates with people all around the world. It’s the story of the underdog; the simple idea that any society or any individual, regardless of precedence, can stand and be counted. The Tibetans understand why that message is universal, and so should we.
Originally produced for andrew-barr.com
Today the Braveheart effect on Scottish politics may have worn off, with modern nationalism now being centred on economics, democracy and future aspirations. But with the referendum set to be held in 2014, the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn, just how closely the independence movement should run to historic sentiment is still a real issue of debate.
Recently, several sources including the Scottish Centre of Himalayan Research reported that Tibetan monks had been watching Braveheart, even between prayer times, presumably encouraged by the story of Scotland and its fight for independence from a much larger and much more powerful neighbour.
Perhaps it is the monks’ philosophy of all things being interconnected that has in some way influenced these developments – and that is something we should learn from. Independence movements around the world are bound together by a common goal; and in the new age of internet democracy that solidarity will have an even greater part to play.
These developments on the role of our history in Tibet are particularly interesting due to our own criticisms of the subject. Scotland’s story is a “Hollywood invention”, we are often told. It was “wildly romanticised”, or simply “didn’t happen”. Whilst we should ensure our knowledge of the subject is as factual as possible, it is fair to say that Scotland’s obsession with freedom is not a post-Braveheart phenomenon but a very real and long-lasting notion centred at the very heart of our culture. We wouldn’t dismiss India’s struggle for independence as fictional due to some inaccuracies in the 1982 film Ghandi. Films do not create these notions; they interpret them.
Recounting the history of Bruce and Wallace was in fact a common feature in the works of Robert Burns, almost 500 years after the Wars of Scottish Independence. His intention was not to simply reminisce on the past but to actively inspire the Scottish society of his own time to stand up for itself against a culturally and politically one-sided union. The Tibetans, it seems, are emulating such an idea.
For us, we can read the history books, we can watch the films, we can look at the current reality in Scotland and see fair treatment, freedom of speech, individual equality, and freedom of choice, and wonder how the country can possibly be considered “not free”. But there is a difference between individual freedom and collective freedom – the right a society has to democracy and self-governance. A nation’s people cannot be free unless they have both.
The answer to becoming a truly modern nation is not to forget our country’s history but to celebrate it and learn from it in a way that is inclusive and forgiving. There is a reason why the history of Scotland fascinates and resonates with people all around the world. It’s the story of the underdog; the simple idea that any society or any individual, regardless of precedence, can stand and be counted. The Tibetans understand why that message is universal, and so should we.
Originally produced for andrew-barr.com
Tuesday 17 January 2012
A new semester, amid new beginnings for Scotland.
Rarely has the over-used cliche 'New Year, New Start' seemed more apt. January 2012 seems to have ended the phoney war between the Scottish and UK Governments over the independence referendum.
Just back to uni and want to get involved?
Well please do!
EUSNA still meet every Tuesday at 7pm in Teviot's lounge bar, and we're always happy to receive new members!
If not, please check us out on Facebook at www.facebook.com/EUSNA or tweet to us at @EUSNA or just old fashioned email us at eusna@hotmail.co.uk!
And remember everyone, it's coming yet for a' that!
Just back to uni and want to get involved?
Well please do!
EUSNA still meet every Tuesday at 7pm in Teviot's lounge bar, and we're always happy to receive new members!
If not, please check us out on Facebook at www.facebook.com/EUSNA or tweet to us at @EUSNA or just old fashioned email us at eusna@hotmail.co.uk!
And remember everyone, it's coming yet for a' that!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)