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!
Tuesday, 1 November 2011
Cross-party social
This is a reminder that the cross-party social night is this Friday at 8pm, meeting in the Middle Bar in Teviot. So all politicos at Edinburgh University - Nationalist, Labour, Tory, Liberal, Green, Socialist can get together for a blether and a chance to meet each other as fellow students and humans, and not (always) as implacable foes.
Wednesday, 26 October 2011
Public lecture by Alasdair Allan
This post is just a wee reminder that the public lecture by Dr. Alasdair Allan MSP will be tomorrow (Thursday) in Appleton Tower, Lecture Theatre 2, 7pm.
Dr. Allan is the Minister for Learning and Skills with responsibility for the Scots and Gaelic languages, and will be speaking on the subject of "Language and Politics in Scotland".
The event is free to attend.
Dr. Allan is the Minister for Learning and Skills with responsibility for the Scots and Gaelic languages, and will be speaking on the subject of "Language and Politics in Scotland".
The event is free to attend.
Tuesday, 13 September 2011
Calling all new Freshers!
Hello and welcome to whichever one of Edinburgh's universities you are studying at! The next few years will be some of the best of your life, and if you want to make them even better, then drop in and have a chat with Edinburgh Universities Scottish Nationalist Association! We campaign for the restoration of Scottish Independence on and off campus, and put on plenty of social events to relax at with a drink to take your mind off all the hard work you'll surely be doing over the next 4 years. We meet weekly in the middle bar at Teviot (Edinburgh University's student union, in Bristo Square) on Tuesdays at 7pm, so pop along if you want to chat! We've already been to Napier University's society fair and got a great response, and held a pub quiz at the Pleasance where teams walked away with great prizes including whisky, buckfast and irn bru! If you want to find out more contact us via email at eusna@hotmail.co.uk, visit our facebook page at or come along to one of our meetings every tuesday in teviot at 7pm. University is a great time to meet new people and try new things, so if you're interested in our ideas, want to get involved in student politics, or just want to find a few people to have a drink with every tuesday night, come and get involved, or contact us to find out more! You won't regret it!
Tuesday, 6 September 2011
A Sense of Balance?
A Sense of Balance?
There's been a fair lot of comment in the last few days following the announcement by Tory leadership hopeful Murdo Fraser that he'll disband the Scots Tories and form a new centre-right party should he win the contest to replace Annabel Goldie. A lot of this comment has taken the form of backslapping among the Scottish left, congratulating ourselves on how our nation has sent them hamewards tae think again, how genetically social-democratic we are, and the odd word about Thatcher.
All of which has a certain measure of truth, but I'd be the first to chastise any Nationalist (or any other non-Tory Scot) for complacency. 1997 saw the Tories wiped out in Wales just as in Scotland, now they have 8 Welsh MPs. They had 9 AMs in 1999, now they have 14. Revival can happen, jst as can decline. That's not to say that the Tories are on the cusp if a comeback in Scotland (indeed, all the indications are the other way), but the Tories are people who know a thing or two about power, and we should never let our guard down.
That said, a Tory comeback at the moment does not seem to be on the cards, something which seems to dismay even those Scots who'd rather gouge their eyes out with a rusty spoon than vote Tory. These are folk who are convinced that we need a Tory presence in Scottish politics to provide balance from otherwise lefty tendencies.
I beg to differ.
Seeing healthy numbers of blue, red, green and yellow dots on charts of the parliament's seat distribution may appeal aesthetically, but think about what a Tory presence in our public discourse really means before you lend a sympathetic nod to the idea of “balance”.
The Tories, to be blunt, have been on the wrong side of almost every major debate most people can remember. Privatising industry. Gay rights. Devolution. Iraq. Hunting. Minimum pricing. The Tesco Tax. Land Reform. The Poll Tax. Proportional Representation. The great council house sell-off.
And look what they're getting up to in England – tuition fees through the roof, privatising swathes of the NHS, cutting public services to the bone.
If this is balance, then frankly, it's a balance we don't need. The longer we allow the voice of privilege to shriek in our halls of power, the longer we hold back our nation from true progress.
There's another angle to these calls for “balance” as well. John McTernan, writing over at LabourHame (http://www.labourhame.com/archives/1843), argues that we need more Tories to balance our body politic. Now, far be it from me to suspect that Tony Blair's former advisor, and the man who wrote in the Scotsman during this year's Scottish election that Labour were doing badly because they weren't negative enough, might have some broadly rightist sympathies. I'm sure such could not possibly be the case. No, he argues that Scottish politics needs the Tories so that the workload of attacking the SNP can be shared more equally and realistically among all the opposition parties. One commentator on the article goes further, saying:
“A reformed conservative Party could become a potential coalition partner for Labour, and why not? We have to bury our political differences (which have become smaller and smaller since the nineties) and present a united front to stand up for our Union. Never before in the history of British politics has an alliance been so vital.”
Is this what the Labour party has come to? The Union is now more important than the founding principles of Labour. The issue to be addressed is not the disgraceful fact that there is so little difference between Labour and the Constervatives (openly acknowledged). I could hardly believe what I was reading – the prospect of a Tory free, independent Scotland is something that sends the shivers down this Labourites spine! Living in Britain, shared alternately between the Tories and the rightward-drifting Labour is the best we hope for, so all hands on deck! What we have here is clearly no more about balance, but about desperate alliances to halt the prospect of Scotland going it alone.
This will not do. Whether Scotland does become independent or not in the next few years, the fact is that we are plainly developing a very separate political culture from that subsisting south of the border. As Murdo Fraser has noticed, that culture has little place for the voice of privatisation, cuts and privilege. Whether that voice continues to be represented by the Tory party as currently constituted, or in some other form, Scotland must continue to resist it. We must continue to bring our nation along the path of equality, of land reform, of renewable energy, of autonomy.
Will Murdo Fraser deliver that under any party banner? Awa an gie's peace.
There's been a fair lot of comment in the last few days following the announcement by Tory leadership hopeful Murdo Fraser that he'll disband the Scots Tories and form a new centre-right party should he win the contest to replace Annabel Goldie. A lot of this comment has taken the form of backslapping among the Scottish left, congratulating ourselves on how our nation has sent them hamewards tae think again, how genetically social-democratic we are, and the odd word about Thatcher.
All of which has a certain measure of truth, but I'd be the first to chastise any Nationalist (or any other non-Tory Scot) for complacency. 1997 saw the Tories wiped out in Wales just as in Scotland, now they have 8 Welsh MPs. They had 9 AMs in 1999, now they have 14. Revival can happen, jst as can decline. That's not to say that the Tories are on the cusp if a comeback in Scotland (indeed, all the indications are the other way), but the Tories are people who know a thing or two about power, and we should never let our guard down.
That said, a Tory comeback at the moment does not seem to be on the cards, something which seems to dismay even those Scots who'd rather gouge their eyes out with a rusty spoon than vote Tory. These are folk who are convinced that we need a Tory presence in Scottish politics to provide balance from otherwise lefty tendencies.
I beg to differ.
Seeing healthy numbers of blue, red, green and yellow dots on charts of the parliament's seat distribution may appeal aesthetically, but think about what a Tory presence in our public discourse really means before you lend a sympathetic nod to the idea of “balance”.
The Tories, to be blunt, have been on the wrong side of almost every major debate most people can remember. Privatising industry. Gay rights. Devolution. Iraq. Hunting. Minimum pricing. The Tesco Tax. Land Reform. The Poll Tax. Proportional Representation. The great council house sell-off.
And look what they're getting up to in England – tuition fees through the roof, privatising swathes of the NHS, cutting public services to the bone.
If this is balance, then frankly, it's a balance we don't need. The longer we allow the voice of privilege to shriek in our halls of power, the longer we hold back our nation from true progress.
There's another angle to these calls for “balance” as well. John McTernan, writing over at LabourHame (http://www.labourhame.com/archives/1843), argues that we need more Tories to balance our body politic. Now, far be it from me to suspect that Tony Blair's former advisor, and the man who wrote in the Scotsman during this year's Scottish election that Labour were doing badly because they weren't negative enough, might have some broadly rightist sympathies. I'm sure such could not possibly be the case. No, he argues that Scottish politics needs the Tories so that the workload of attacking the SNP can be shared more equally and realistically among all the opposition parties. One commentator on the article goes further, saying:
“A reformed conservative Party could become a potential coalition partner for Labour, and why not? We have to bury our political differences (which have become smaller and smaller since the nineties) and present a united front to stand up for our Union. Never before in the history of British politics has an alliance been so vital.”
Is this what the Labour party has come to? The Union is now more important than the founding principles of Labour. The issue to be addressed is not the disgraceful fact that there is so little difference between Labour and the Constervatives (openly acknowledged). I could hardly believe what I was reading – the prospect of a Tory free, independent Scotland is something that sends the shivers down this Labourites spine! Living in Britain, shared alternately between the Tories and the rightward-drifting Labour is the best we hope for, so all hands on deck! What we have here is clearly no more about balance, but about desperate alliances to halt the prospect of Scotland going it alone.
This will not do. Whether Scotland does become independent or not in the next few years, the fact is that we are plainly developing a very separate political culture from that subsisting south of the border. As Murdo Fraser has noticed, that culture has little place for the voice of privatisation, cuts and privilege. Whether that voice continues to be represented by the Tory party as currently constituted, or in some other form, Scotland must continue to resist it. We must continue to bring our nation along the path of equality, of land reform, of renewable energy, of autonomy.
Will Murdo Fraser deliver that under any party banner? Awa an gie's peace.
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
The Deadliest River on Earth
You might not be immediately aware of it, but a force far deadlier than the alligators or piranhas in the Nile or Amazon stalks the still grey waters of the Clyde. The United Kingdom’s nuclear ‘deterrent’, Trident, is based at Faslane, just 25 miles from our largest city, Glasgow. Four submarines glide silently in and out of the Gare Loch, barely hinting at the awesome power within them. That’s 200 nuclear warheads, a stones throw away from over 1 million people. Now the Scottish people have repeatedly shown their opposition to these weapons being in Scottish waters, but UK governments of all parties have repeatedly point-blank refused to withdraw them.
Nuclear weapons are the most destructive objects ever devised by mankind. In their only wartime use so far, two of them killed over two hundred thousand people in Japan, most of them innocent civilians. They make no distinction between enemy soldier and innocent child. They lay waste to cities and leave whole areas drowned in radiation for years. And with the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, they will not realistically be used in the foreseeable future.
The United Kingdom first obtained nuclear weapons in the early 50’s, when the Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin said ‘we’ve got to have one and it’s got to have a bloody Union Jack on top of it’. Not a great deal has changed in 60 years. The government of the United Kingdom will never give up its nuclear weapons as long as they guarantee it a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Weapons with the capacity to kill millions are an extravagantly expensive vanity project so United Kingdom Prime Ministers can strut on the world stage as if the Empire never went away. Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money spent in service of a dead ideal and to massage the egos of those who still see Britain as a Great Power and not the rich, historical but not very powerful country that it really is and indeed should be.
Estimates vary, but Wikipedia tells me that Trident cost £12.9 billion pounds in 1996 and £280 million per year to run. That is a staggering amount of our money for an immoral weapons system that is nearing obsoleteness in the post-ideological world where threats are just as, if not more likely to come from non-state actors such as Al-Qaeda than an opposing country like the Soviet Union. It boils down to about one billion of that is Scotland’s share based on population. Think about that. What could we do if we had an extra billion to play with, and twenty million pounds extra per year? We could buy more state of the art equipment for our hospitals and schools. We could upgrade our roads and infrastructure. We could invest even more in green energy to provide the successor to the nuclear age, or afford to give tax breaks to enterprising companies and businessmen in that sector.
That’s why we need independence. To break away from the world stage posturing of the United Kingdom and concentrate not on weapons to kill millions but the problems that blight the lives of our people. A country that can afford to spend billions on nuclear weapons and millions on the monarchy but claims it can’t afford to pay for free university tuition in England or free personal care for the elderly as we have here in Scotland is not one that I want to be a part of.
Nuclear weapons are the most destructive objects ever devised by mankind. In their only wartime use so far, two of them killed over two hundred thousand people in Japan, most of them innocent civilians. They make no distinction between enemy soldier and innocent child. They lay waste to cities and leave whole areas drowned in radiation for years. And with the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, they will not realistically be used in the foreseeable future.
The United Kingdom first obtained nuclear weapons in the early 50’s, when the Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin said ‘we’ve got to have one and it’s got to have a bloody Union Jack on top of it’. Not a great deal has changed in 60 years. The government of the United Kingdom will never give up its nuclear weapons as long as they guarantee it a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Weapons with the capacity to kill millions are an extravagantly expensive vanity project so United Kingdom Prime Ministers can strut on the world stage as if the Empire never went away. Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money spent in service of a dead ideal and to massage the egos of those who still see Britain as a Great Power and not the rich, historical but not very powerful country that it really is and indeed should be.
Estimates vary, but Wikipedia tells me that Trident cost £12.9 billion pounds in 1996 and £280 million per year to run. That is a staggering amount of our money for an immoral weapons system that is nearing obsoleteness in the post-ideological world where threats are just as, if not more likely to come from non-state actors such as Al-Qaeda than an opposing country like the Soviet Union. It boils down to about one billion of that is Scotland’s share based on population. Think about that. What could we do if we had an extra billion to play with, and twenty million pounds extra per year? We could buy more state of the art equipment for our hospitals and schools. We could upgrade our roads and infrastructure. We could invest even more in green energy to provide the successor to the nuclear age, or afford to give tax breaks to enterprising companies and businessmen in that sector.
That’s why we need independence. To break away from the world stage posturing of the United Kingdom and concentrate not on weapons to kill millions but the problems that blight the lives of our people. A country that can afford to spend billions on nuclear weapons and millions on the monarchy but claims it can’t afford to pay for free university tuition in England or free personal care for the elderly as we have here in Scotland is not one that I want to be a part of.
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Waking up to reality in the new Scotland
Well, it's finally happened. The people of Scotland are going to have the question of whether or not to become an independent state put to them in a democratic referendum. A lot of nationalists may be forgiven for thinking that this was it, we've won. After all, for the past few years we've been so fixated on simply getting the referendum, that it was easy to forget that we still have to win the thing!
Well, if nothing else, the results of the Scottish elections definitively put an end to any quibbling or petty arguments about the people of Scotland's choosing of their constitutional future. The starkness and definitive nature of the result can be seen in the raw parliamentary arithmetic, the electoral map, and on Youtube, in the shocked faces of candidates, both SNP and otherwise, as their results came in. All uncertainty has been removed, on both sides of the argument. Unionists have had to face up to the fact that, like it or not, there will be a referendum in which the people will exercise their democratic right to choose. To their credit, most of the intelligent ones among them (they do exist) have done so with good grace, and recognise their need to build a positive case for the Union if it is to be preserved. No doubt these same intelligent Unionists are thoroughly dismayed by the recent rumours that Lord Reid will be the man to lead their campaign.....
However, the immediacy and tangibility of the referendum we have long campaigned for also provides some challenges for we nationalists. Politically, nationalism and a desire for independence is what defines us, and it is the only thing that fully unites the SNP. We are a broad church, and whisper it, but without independence many of us would be very at home with Labour, the Lib Dems or the Tories. And yet, in recent years, we have not been doing much talking about independence. This is entirely understandable. The SNP is a nationalist party, but it rightly is also a realist and gradualist party. It has spent the last four years governing competently, addressing the major domestic policy issues and not wasting its time trying to persuade the Unionist majority in the parliament to take their heads out of the sand long enough to hold a referendum.
However this is no longer the case. The election result has put independence right into the spotlight, and has had many of us re-examining our reasons for wanting independence, of which there are as many as there are nationalists. Sometimes, hanging around only with nationalists means we can forget why we want independence, as we all take turns to agree with each other in conversation. Now, with independence cropping up in conversations with other friends, who may not necessarily immediately agree with us, we must get used to hearing our ideas challenged.
So, why do you want independence?
Well, if nothing else, the results of the Scottish elections definitively put an end to any quibbling or petty arguments about the people of Scotland's choosing of their constitutional future. The starkness and definitive nature of the result can be seen in the raw parliamentary arithmetic, the electoral map, and on Youtube, in the shocked faces of candidates, both SNP and otherwise, as their results came in. All uncertainty has been removed, on both sides of the argument. Unionists have had to face up to the fact that, like it or not, there will be a referendum in which the people will exercise their democratic right to choose. To their credit, most of the intelligent ones among them (they do exist) have done so with good grace, and recognise their need to build a positive case for the Union if it is to be preserved. No doubt these same intelligent Unionists are thoroughly dismayed by the recent rumours that Lord Reid will be the man to lead their campaign.....
However, the immediacy and tangibility of the referendum we have long campaigned for also provides some challenges for we nationalists. Politically, nationalism and a desire for independence is what defines us, and it is the only thing that fully unites the SNP. We are a broad church, and whisper it, but without independence many of us would be very at home with Labour, the Lib Dems or the Tories. And yet, in recent years, we have not been doing much talking about independence. This is entirely understandable. The SNP is a nationalist party, but it rightly is also a realist and gradualist party. It has spent the last four years governing competently, addressing the major domestic policy issues and not wasting its time trying to persuade the Unionist majority in the parliament to take their heads out of the sand long enough to hold a referendum.
However this is no longer the case. The election result has put independence right into the spotlight, and has had many of us re-examining our reasons for wanting independence, of which there are as many as there are nationalists. Sometimes, hanging around only with nationalists means we can forget why we want independence, as we all take turns to agree with each other in conversation. Now, with independence cropping up in conversations with other friends, who may not necessarily immediately agree with us, we must get used to hearing our ideas challenged.
So, why do you want independence?
Monday, 7 March 2011
EUSNA on the campaign trail
With the Holyrood elections just around the corner, members of EUSNA have been getting involved in the campaign to re-elect the SNP. Over the last four years, the SNP has delivered for Scotland, and come May the people will have a straight choice between the SNP, fighting on a strong record of government and Labour, who over the last four years have offered nothing but negativity and knee-jerk reactionary responses to every initiative.
Members of EUSNA have been out leafleting for Marco Biagi, the SNP's candidate for Edinburgh Central. (visit the Facebook page for Marco's campaign here: http://www.facebook.com/Marco.Biagi.SNPforEdinburghCentral )
We will be getting ever more involved as the election draws nearer. Leafleting, hustings, debates... if you want to get involved, email us as: eusna@hotmail.co.uk
EUSNA members with Jim Eadie, the SNP's candidate for Edinburgh Southern (visit his campaign page here: http://www.edinburghsouthernsnp.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=5 )
Members of EUSNA have been out leafleting for Marco Biagi, the SNP's candidate for Edinburgh Central. (visit the Facebook page for Marco's campaign here: http://www.facebook.com/Marco.Biagi.SNPforEdinburghCentral )
We will be getting ever more involved as the election draws nearer. Leafleting, hustings, debates... if you want to get involved, email us as: eusna@hotmail.co.uk
EUSNA members with Jim Eadie, the SNP's candidate for Edinburgh Southern (visit his campaign page here: http://www.edinburghsouthernsnp.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=5 )
Monday, 28 February 2011
Report from the debate...
A week or so back there was a debate at the University of Edinburgh about how best to respond to the cuts and fees currently dominating education debates. Our newest member, George Lerner, spoke on behalf of EUSNA. He reports...
A panel ended last Thursday to discuss the cuts, our SNP representative, just one of eight, concluded that the general mood was to chastise the major political parties, rile the fifty-person audience with unnerving commendation of bankers, and be subjected to the fawning ferocity of utopic talk that read very little into the problems and solutions faced by Scotland.
It began with an introduction; the beginning of a welcome political dialogue that was not reciprocated with reason granted by the expansive girth of the panel’s Scottish political connections. It included a Conservative, a Labour member, a Lib-Dem, and a Socialist in addition to an Anarchist, a Green, and a Feminist.
While each speaker was asked a question and each one granted the ability to give what was supposed to be a prompt reply, the overall topic of the debate was not Scotland. Indeed, a bystander could have been taken back; temporarily confused that he or she was seated near Westminster, discussing its problems, then really a mere three miles away from Scottish parliament and hundred times at that from London. Despite questions from our own Ben MacPherson and Euan Campbell, a scrappy performance was brought to bear coalescing under an umbrella of either the meanderingly redundant, involving stating with a remedial ‘if bankers do that, we’d be happy to have them leave,’ and party-toeing nihilism to include, ‘well Labour’s policy in Scotland doesn’t exist, so I guess I’ll just make it up as I go along.’ One must question whether bashing bankers, and it came up quite often, does any good. While I agreed that bankers and the banking sector needs to come under major restrictions, one should have mentioned that the banks which were bailed out or nationalized were all South of the Border. Most of the speakers believed that the protesters were doing the right thing. While I agreed that civil disobedience is necessary, nothing has ever accomplished by protesting your way out of it.
It should be noted, though, that the Feminist speaker, who did not have had applause in mind, should nonetheless be congratulated for not conforming to expectation, and discussing the problems directly. She said, ‘women could be most affected by the cuts since they are disproportionately represented in the humanities which are being cut 40 to 60 percent, than the marketable (science and business) degree.’
My thoughts from beginning to end were that the debate ignited few sparks. There were some passionate, albeit, pointed remarks from myself, George Lerner, but overall the mood was acquisitive and not dynamic. Intellectual debate was scorned and riding the bandwagon seemed like a much more enviable opportunity than seeing if Scotland’s perfunctory union with England could get any better. Indeed, not one member of the panel included a singular word in just one their remarks beginning or ending with: ‘Scotland.’ Instead, while the moderator tried their best to keep the panel, and the audience, at ease, the questions and answers were petty, trivial, vague and generalized.
To give one example of what I tried to do when the topic was close to tackling the deficit and cuts, it asked: are there alternatives to the cuts? To which my reply was: why not make it more efficient and save money that way? Surely, cutting out some English bureaucracy in the form of Trident, education, and other public services would go a long way to lessening the stranglehold of £170.8 billion? A budget deficient, which should have been pointed out, is greater than at any time in Scottish and English history except for the wartime needs of just two periods: the 1910s and 1940s. However, while
trying to conjure some reasoned arguments which could step the problems; I myself sometimes showed a lack of concision than the others had.
Speaking for the SNP is possibly one of the most difficult but rewarding opportunities that I could have enjoyed. And, while I should deal with the rancor of the audience and speakers more pristinely, I will make sure that the problems discussed in Scotland should have something to do with Scotland. That’s why I came onto the panel, and I think the audience, through grit and groaning understood my message to them at the end. It’s a much better solution for the SNP to be fighting battles against the banal interlocutors from other parties by explaining to them that if they live in Scotland they should help fight and put the priorities of the people living around the University of Edinburgh first before those of Westminster. That, without touching the education budget, the SNP is going to free up SNP £100m in local NHS spending, what would the other parties do? More cuts, ignore existing solutions for the deficit, and ignore Scotland.
- George Lerner
A panel ended last Thursday to discuss the cuts, our SNP representative, just one of eight, concluded that the general mood was to chastise the major political parties, rile the fifty-person audience with unnerving commendation of bankers, and be subjected to the fawning ferocity of utopic talk that read very little into the problems and solutions faced by Scotland.
It began with an introduction; the beginning of a welcome political dialogue that was not reciprocated with reason granted by the expansive girth of the panel’s Scottish political connections. It included a Conservative, a Labour member, a Lib-Dem, and a Socialist in addition to an Anarchist, a Green, and a Feminist.
While each speaker was asked a question and each one granted the ability to give what was supposed to be a prompt reply, the overall topic of the debate was not Scotland. Indeed, a bystander could have been taken back; temporarily confused that he or she was seated near Westminster, discussing its problems, then really a mere three miles away from Scottish parliament and hundred times at that from London. Despite questions from our own Ben MacPherson and Euan Campbell, a scrappy performance was brought to bear coalescing under an umbrella of either the meanderingly redundant, involving stating with a remedial ‘if bankers do that, we’d be happy to have them leave,’ and party-toeing nihilism to include, ‘well Labour’s policy in Scotland doesn’t exist, so I guess I’ll just make it up as I go along.’ One must question whether bashing bankers, and it came up quite often, does any good. While I agreed that bankers and the banking sector needs to come under major restrictions, one should have mentioned that the banks which were bailed out or nationalized were all South of the Border. Most of the speakers believed that the protesters were doing the right thing. While I agreed that civil disobedience is necessary, nothing has ever accomplished by protesting your way out of it.
It should be noted, though, that the Feminist speaker, who did not have had applause in mind, should nonetheless be congratulated for not conforming to expectation, and discussing the problems directly. She said, ‘women could be most affected by the cuts since they are disproportionately represented in the humanities which are being cut 40 to 60 percent, than the marketable (science and business) degree.’
My thoughts from beginning to end were that the debate ignited few sparks. There were some passionate, albeit, pointed remarks from myself, George Lerner, but overall the mood was acquisitive and not dynamic. Intellectual debate was scorned and riding the bandwagon seemed like a much more enviable opportunity than seeing if Scotland’s perfunctory union with England could get any better. Indeed, not one member of the panel included a singular word in just one their remarks beginning or ending with: ‘Scotland.’ Instead, while the moderator tried their best to keep the panel, and the audience, at ease, the questions and answers were petty, trivial, vague and generalized.
To give one example of what I tried to do when the topic was close to tackling the deficit and cuts, it asked: are there alternatives to the cuts? To which my reply was: why not make it more efficient and save money that way? Surely, cutting out some English bureaucracy in the form of Trident, education, and other public services would go a long way to lessening the stranglehold of £170.8 billion? A budget deficient, which should have been pointed out, is greater than at any time in Scottish and English history except for the wartime needs of just two periods: the 1910s and 1940s. However, while
trying to conjure some reasoned arguments which could step the problems; I myself sometimes showed a lack of concision than the others had.
Speaking for the SNP is possibly one of the most difficult but rewarding opportunities that I could have enjoyed. And, while I should deal with the rancor of the audience and speakers more pristinely, I will make sure that the problems discussed in Scotland should have something to do with Scotland. That’s why I came onto the panel, and I think the audience, through grit and groaning understood my message to them at the end. It’s a much better solution for the SNP to be fighting battles against the banal interlocutors from other parties by explaining to them that if they live in Scotland they should help fight and put the priorities of the people living around the University of Edinburgh first before those of Westminster. That, without touching the education budget, the SNP is going to free up SNP £100m in local NHS spending, what would the other parties do? More cuts, ignore existing solutions for the deficit, and ignore Scotland.
- George Lerner
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
Iain Gray's at it again...
A while ago, I blogged on here about the economic dangers of letting Iain Gray’s fiscal illiteracy loose on Scotland’s economy. That a man who doesn’t know how Norway structures its $510,000,000,000 oil fund thinks he is qualified to say Scotland shouldn’t do the same is odd. That a man who hasn’t a clue about how the financial sector is structured should seek to be first minister of a country which has a large financial sector is worrying. But, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. Gray himself opened a speech at the Fabian society some years back by admitting he knew nothing about the economy (http://joanmcalpine.typepad.com/joan_mcalpine/2010/12/oh-dear-kevin-the-teenager-has-got-over-excited-again-iain-gray-according-to-an-interview-in-scotland-on-sundaythinks-he.html). Perhaps he’ll take a crash course should his cohorts emerge victorious in May.
But while overseeing economic development is an important part of the job of First Minister, there are other things for the top man (or woman) in Scotland to see to. One if these is diplomacy. Iain Gray has demonstrated as poor a grasp of diplomacy as he has of economics during his lamentable tenure as Labour’s leader in the Scottish Parliament. He has drawn criticism from Ireland and Norway for misrepresenting them in his attacks on the SNP. Gray can now add Montenegro to his list – perhaps he’s trying to complete a set. Prior to Holyrood’s Christmas break, Gray attacked Alex Salmond for holding up Montenegro as an example of how independence could be achieved. When Salmond noted how the nation of Montenegro went from a plebiscite to UN membership in forty days, Gray lowped to his feet and immediately started mouthing off about ethnic cleansing (which didn’t happen in Montenegro) and two World Wars also being involved… the wars of course, had nothing to do with Montenegro’s independence and I seem to recall hearing that most of the rest of the world suffered then as well, but no matter. Just Gray getting his facts wrong again, nothing to see here, folks.
But, of course, it does matter. It matters to the people of Montenegro when they see their history being misrepresented in public by someone who ought to know matter, and it matters to the people of Scotland that their relations with other nations are not soured by such ill thought out rhetoric. Mark McLachlan at the Universality of Cheese reproduces an email from a Montenegrin friend about how this matters to them, (http://the-universality-of-cheese.blogspot.com/2011/01/nezavisna-crna-gora-nezavisna-scotland.html). The Montenegrin ambassador in London has written to Gray, Ed Milliband and several Scottish newspapers, but of course the arrogant Labour leadership have not bothered to issue an apology.
From the Scotsman:
In it [the letter], the Montenegro Charge D'Affairs, Marijana Zivkovic, writes: "I cannot help but feel deep regret about the way you chose to depict it (Montenegro] in your public statement." The sharply-worded letter to Gray has been copied to Labour leader Ed Miliband. Last night, the SNP said that Gray should withdraw his comments immediately.
Montenegro achieved independence in 2006 after a referendum and is an official candidate for membership of the European Union. In the letter to Gray, Zivkovic says: "Your statement that Montenegro was involved in 'ethnic cleansing' including your references to 'a war crimes tribunal and a UN peacekeeping mission' is simply incorrect.'
She adds: "It was the only former Yugoslav republic where neither war nor devastation took place in the last decade of the 20th century."
Is this really the kind of representation for our country that we want at international level? Gray and Labour are an embarrassment to Scotland, and we cannot let them get their grubby, blundering hands on power to embarrass us even more.
But while overseeing economic development is an important part of the job of First Minister, there are other things for the top man (or woman) in Scotland to see to. One if these is diplomacy. Iain Gray has demonstrated as poor a grasp of diplomacy as he has of economics during his lamentable tenure as Labour’s leader in the Scottish Parliament. He has drawn criticism from Ireland and Norway for misrepresenting them in his attacks on the SNP. Gray can now add Montenegro to his list – perhaps he’s trying to complete a set. Prior to Holyrood’s Christmas break, Gray attacked Alex Salmond for holding up Montenegro as an example of how independence could be achieved. When Salmond noted how the nation of Montenegro went from a plebiscite to UN membership in forty days, Gray lowped to his feet and immediately started mouthing off about ethnic cleansing (which didn’t happen in Montenegro) and two World Wars also being involved… the wars of course, had nothing to do with Montenegro’s independence and I seem to recall hearing that most of the rest of the world suffered then as well, but no matter. Just Gray getting his facts wrong again, nothing to see here, folks.
But, of course, it does matter. It matters to the people of Montenegro when they see their history being misrepresented in public by someone who ought to know matter, and it matters to the people of Scotland that their relations with other nations are not soured by such ill thought out rhetoric. Mark McLachlan at the Universality of Cheese reproduces an email from a Montenegrin friend about how this matters to them, (http://the-universality-of-cheese.blogspot.com/2011/01/nezavisna-crna-gora-nezavisna-scotland.html). The Montenegrin ambassador in London has written to Gray, Ed Milliband and several Scottish newspapers, but of course the arrogant Labour leadership have not bothered to issue an apology.
From the Scotsman:
In it [the letter], the Montenegro Charge D'Affairs, Marijana Zivkovic, writes: "I cannot help but feel deep regret about the way you chose to depict it (Montenegro] in your public statement." The sharply-worded letter to Gray has been copied to Labour leader Ed Miliband. Last night, the SNP said that Gray should withdraw his comments immediately.
Montenegro achieved independence in 2006 after a referendum and is an official candidate for membership of the European Union. In the letter to Gray, Zivkovic says: "Your statement that Montenegro was involved in 'ethnic cleansing' including your references to 'a war crimes tribunal and a UN peacekeeping mission' is simply incorrect.'
She adds: "It was the only former Yugoslav republic where neither war nor devastation took place in the last decade of the 20th century."
Is this really the kind of representation for our country that we want at international level? Gray and Labour are an embarrassment to Scotland, and we cannot let them get their grubby, blundering hands on power to embarrass us even more.
Tuesday, 12 October 2010
The Problem(s) with our Parliament
The Problem(s) with our Parliament…
Since the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, countries across Europe have had to adapt their structures and functions due to global and regional pressures. Indeed, nation states have had to move away from the traditional nation state model, with sovereign and legislative powers being devolved to local, regional and European levels.
Amongst this back drop of structural change, minority national parties across Europe have campaigned for their respective regions to have some form of political and financial autonomy. This challenge to the centralist notion of power has resulted in regions across Europe being given substantial powers concerning domestic matters.
And indeed, we in Scotland have recently celebrated the tenth anniversary of our very own devolved parliament. However, instead of this moment being generally one of celebration there has been a dispute over the benefits of the parliament and a debate about the future of the Scottish parliament.
Firstly, it has to be conceded that the parliament did have considerable teething problems, however the parliament has delivered some significant policies such as free personal care for the elderly, the banning of smoking in public places and the abolishment of tuition fees just to name a few. Furthermore, the parliament has made considerable progress in allowing the parliament to be as accessible and open to the Scottish public.
So, yes, the parliament has had, and I am sure will continue having a positive impact on Scotland. However, the future impact it will have is directly linked to the constitutional future in Scotland. Should the Scottish parliament have more powers? Indeed should it have full fiscal powers?
Well, yes, the Scottish parliament needs more powers, especially fiscal powers. Currently, the Scottish parliament is one of the few, if not the only parliament in the world which doesn’t raise the money it spends. The potential of the parliament is being limited due to the absence of fiscal powers.
When one considers the potential of renewable energy supplies in Scotland, one has to realise that for Scotland to reach its potential in this field, the parliament needs full fiscal powers. It needs to be allowed to set competitive rates for businesses to come and develop and harness our renewable energies. Indeed, if the parliament had the ability to raise a public debt, the government in Scotland could invest in an industry which needs large amounts of capital to establish and build the structures needed. This money would create jobs and create the biggest renewable energy industry in all of Europe.
However, even if the parliament does get more powers, this will not be solely enough to improve it. For too long many of the political parties have hindered the development of the parliament. Partisanship too often dominates debate after debate. Instead of debating the actual detail of the policies, the politicians at times have refused to move towards a common consensus due to the hard work of party whips and the impact of the political culture.
What needs to happen is for politicians to break away from the old political culture of Westminster. Parties need to encourage bills from committees and individuals. Indeed, all parties in opposition need to use the committees to influence and enhance the legislative programme of the parliament.
With more powers and resources, along with a change of political culture at Holyrood, the Scottish parliament can only then try and work towards its full potential.
Independence anyone?
Since the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, countries across Europe have had to adapt their structures and functions due to global and regional pressures. Indeed, nation states have had to move away from the traditional nation state model, with sovereign and legislative powers being devolved to local, regional and European levels.
Amongst this back drop of structural change, minority national parties across Europe have campaigned for their respective regions to have some form of political and financial autonomy. This challenge to the centralist notion of power has resulted in regions across Europe being given substantial powers concerning domestic matters.
And indeed, we in Scotland have recently celebrated the tenth anniversary of our very own devolved parliament. However, instead of this moment being generally one of celebration there has been a dispute over the benefits of the parliament and a debate about the future of the Scottish parliament.
Firstly, it has to be conceded that the parliament did have considerable teething problems, however the parliament has delivered some significant policies such as free personal care for the elderly, the banning of smoking in public places and the abolishment of tuition fees just to name a few. Furthermore, the parliament has made considerable progress in allowing the parliament to be as accessible and open to the Scottish public.
So, yes, the parliament has had, and I am sure will continue having a positive impact on Scotland. However, the future impact it will have is directly linked to the constitutional future in Scotland. Should the Scottish parliament have more powers? Indeed should it have full fiscal powers?
Well, yes, the Scottish parliament needs more powers, especially fiscal powers. Currently, the Scottish parliament is one of the few, if not the only parliament in the world which doesn’t raise the money it spends. The potential of the parliament is being limited due to the absence of fiscal powers.
When one considers the potential of renewable energy supplies in Scotland, one has to realise that for Scotland to reach its potential in this field, the parliament needs full fiscal powers. It needs to be allowed to set competitive rates for businesses to come and develop and harness our renewable energies. Indeed, if the parliament had the ability to raise a public debt, the government in Scotland could invest in an industry which needs large amounts of capital to establish and build the structures needed. This money would create jobs and create the biggest renewable energy industry in all of Europe.
However, even if the parliament does get more powers, this will not be solely enough to improve it. For too long many of the political parties have hindered the development of the parliament. Partisanship too often dominates debate after debate. Instead of debating the actual detail of the policies, the politicians at times have refused to move towards a common consensus due to the hard work of party whips and the impact of the political culture.
What needs to happen is for politicians to break away from the old political culture of Westminster. Parties need to encourage bills from committees and individuals. Indeed, all parties in opposition need to use the committees to influence and enhance the legislative programme of the parliament.
With more powers and resources, along with a change of political culture at Holyrood, the Scottish parliament can only then try and work towards its full potential.
Independence anyone?
Monday, 4 October 2010
Iain Gray's Ecnomik ill-iterasee
Poor, poor Iain Gray. You have to feel sorry a man whose economic illiteracy has been so painfully exposed twice in less than a week. On Thursday, First Minister Alex Salmond laid bare Gray’s apparant failure to know the difference between cash injections into banks and support for the general money system, having moments earlier shown up Gray’s total ignorance of the structure of Norway’s economy. If Iain Gray is serious about becoming Scotland’s First Minister next year, he’s going to have do some serious clueing up regarding basic economics. It is worrying that the man who wants to lead a country with significant oil and banking revenues if flummoxed by simple facts about the operation of those industries in countries of similar size and economic structures to Scoland. How can Iain Gray stand and oppose the establishment of a Scottish Oil Fund (against the opinion of Nobel Prize winning economist Josef Stiglitz http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LnPL96D72M&feature=player_embedded ) when he doesn’t even know how the Oil Fund in Norway is structured? How can Iain Gray make any judgement about the level of state support for Scottish banks if he cannot tell the difference between money given to individual banks and the support given to the financial system in general?
Here is Iain Gray being given a basic lesson in economics: http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/scotland/default.stm
And it gets worse for the leader of the Labour Group in the Scottish Parliament. Gray, and his party might well expect to be attacked by Mr. Salmond - he is, after all, the leader of a different political party. His criticisms, however valid, will doubtless be ignored by them (if not by the general public). But it’s a different matter when Marc Coleman, one of Ireland’s leading economists and the economics editor of Newstalk, weighs in and lays bare just how poor Gray’s understanding of the Irish economy is (http://newsnetscotland.com/economy/728-ireland-economy-defended-after-attack-by-labours-iain-gray?awesm=fbshare.me_AUPAL ).
With regard to Labour’s oft repeated rhetoric about the “arc of insolvency”, by the way, just how well do they think Unionist Great Britian is going to emerge from the upcoming Tory cuts? And just how well would Scotland fare under those cuts if a man with Gray’s poor economic understanding was at the helm?
Here is Iain Gray being given a basic lesson in economics: http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/scotland/default.stm
And it gets worse for the leader of the Labour Group in the Scottish Parliament. Gray, and his party might well expect to be attacked by Mr. Salmond - he is, after all, the leader of a different political party. His criticisms, however valid, will doubtless be ignored by them (if not by the general public). But it’s a different matter when Marc Coleman, one of Ireland’s leading economists and the economics editor of Newstalk, weighs in and lays bare just how poor Gray’s understanding of the Irish economy is (http://newsnetscotland.com/economy/728-ireland-economy-defended-after-attack-by-labours-iain-gray?awesm=fbshare.me_AUPAL ).
With regard to Labour’s oft repeated rhetoric about the “arc of insolvency”, by the way, just how well do they think Unionist Great Britian is going to emerge from the upcoming Tory cuts? And just how well would Scotland fare under those cuts if a man with Gray’s poor economic understanding was at the helm?
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
Calling all Freshers!
First of all, I’d like to welcome any and all Freshers to Edinburgh University on behalf of EUSNA. It’s a great university in a great city and I’m sure you’ll enjoy your time here.
Any new students who are looking for a politcal party that will stand up for Scotland are in luck... we’re here! To join EUSNA, or simply to have a wee blether with us to find out what EUSNA and the SNP are all about, you’ll find us in the Cabaret Bar at the Pleasance – just look for the desk with the Saltire banner.
See you there!
I’d also like to just write a wee note about our usage of the word “Nationalist” in our name. Some students have questioned us about the term, sometimes feeling a little apprehensive because of the negative connotations associated with the word in some places, especially in Eastern Europe. I’ll just take this opportunity to emphasise that EUSNA and the SNP are NOT far-right, racist or ethnically based in any way whatsoever. The SNP is a civic nationalist party, which seeks Scottish independece from the United Kingdom, and welcomes people to our country and party regardless of race, country of birth, religion, gender, sexuality, shoe-size or anything else. Some of the party’s most committed members are of Pakistani, Polish, English, Italian or Irish origin. Some are Muslims, some are Catholics, some are Protestants, some are Jews, some are of no religious faith at all. All of these people are welcome – if you love Scotland you are welcome to join our cause.
Any new students who are looking for a politcal party that will stand up for Scotland are in luck... we’re here! To join EUSNA, or simply to have a wee blether with us to find out what EUSNA and the SNP are all about, you’ll find us in the Cabaret Bar at the Pleasance – just look for the desk with the Saltire banner.
See you there!
I’d also like to just write a wee note about our usage of the word “Nationalist” in our name. Some students have questioned us about the term, sometimes feeling a little apprehensive because of the negative connotations associated with the word in some places, especially in Eastern Europe. I’ll just take this opportunity to emphasise that EUSNA and the SNP are NOT far-right, racist or ethnically based in any way whatsoever. The SNP is a civic nationalist party, which seeks Scottish independece from the United Kingdom, and welcomes people to our country and party regardless of race, country of birth, religion, gender, sexuality, shoe-size or anything else. Some of the party’s most committed members are of Pakistani, Polish, English, Italian or Irish origin. Some are Muslims, some are Catholics, some are Protestants, some are Jews, some are of no religious faith at all. All of these people are welcome – if you love Scotland you are welcome to join our cause.
Monday, 21 June 2010
Welcome to EUSNA's blog!
This is the blog for EUSNA - the Edinburgh University Scottish Nationalists Association. EUSNA is the Edinburgh University branch of the Federation of Student Nationalists, the student wing of the Scottish National Party (SNP).
We believe in Scottish independence from the United Kingdom, and campaign on campus for this goal. EUSNA meets weekly during term time, and also arranges debates with other political societies at the University, and has hosted talks given by distinguished political figures, as well as weighing in with leafleting and hustings during election time.
This blog will be used to post news about the society (details of events and so on), as well as to engage more generally in the debate concering Scotland's constitutional future.
Get on board - see you in Freshers' Week!
We believe in Scottish independence from the United Kingdom, and campaign on campus for this goal. EUSNA meets weekly during term time, and also arranges debates with other political societies at the University, and has hosted talks given by distinguished political figures, as well as weighing in with leafleting and hustings during election time.
This blog will be used to post news about the society (details of events and so on), as well as to engage more generally in the debate concering Scotland's constitutional future.
Get on board - see you in Freshers' Week!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)