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!

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

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?

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?