Things Can Only Get Better

The key fact that Scottish Labour seem to have missed is,that the SNP are now the Scottish Govt. This level of denial has led them to come up with a suicidal policy switch of now backing a referendum on independence. The Scottish Government will decide the term, timing and process of the now inevitable referendum vote, whatever Labour thinks. They can no more force the agenda than they could prevent people deserting Labour in droves in last weeks elections in England and Wales.

 

Wendy Alexander’s announcement that she and her immediate colleagues have completely changed their public position on a referendum on independence is not only a catastrophic mistake in political strategy, it is also been implemented in a hopelessly inept manner.

 

It was a decision that was clearly not made in communication with her Scottish Labour MSPs, her colleagues in the Calman Commission or her Cabinet members at a UK level. When this calamity is combined with her brothers gloriously inept handling of the Scottish Elections, for which he has not yet been held to account, it does look like a spectacular contribution by one family.

 

One thing that has been forgotten about this by all the media is that this is no blurted out – on the hoof make it up as you go along policy. It is the manner that it came out that gave the impression, disjointed, ad hoc and generally all over the place. Several key Scottish bloggers had the story at the time, while the rest of the media ignored it, but Wendy started her leadership with a ‘slip’ at her very opening speech.

 

At the Apex Hotel in Edinburgh, when she launched her leadership in September she hinted at how she might be prepared to call Salmond’s bluff. ‘There will be a referendum in 2010,’ she told the delegates. The press ignored this for some reason. So she’s had eight months and three media advisers to stew over this idea.

Tim Luckhurst’s analyis – and the Times publishing of it – is predictably reactionary nonsense seemingly immune to international law. Luckhurst (or ‘Nae Luckhurst’ as he was dubbed after his brief and calamitous reign in charge of the Scotsman) in his argument that all members of the Union should vote on Scottish Independence misses history from his analysis. The Scottish movement for self-determination in various guises is over 100 years old. It has been through an intense period over the last decade. It is for our country to decide its fate. Of course negotiations for settlement would proceed, but that is a separate matter. All else is jangling nonsense.

As Ewan Crawford writes in the Guardian: “The SNP believes that a referendum in 2010 offers perhaps the best possible prospect for a “yes” vote. At present, opinion polls are fluid. What seems clear from the polls is that the preferred current option for most Scots is a parliament with greater powers - for example over tax and benefits - but within the UK. But crucially, when the option of greater powers is removed, the polls show virtually an even split for and against independence. Oddly, Alexander wants the referendum to be on the straight yes/no question, which dramatically increases independence support.”

Crucially also, and this is about the problem of a party that has been so embedded in Scottish culture for decades, the Labour Party confuses itself with The Scottish People. So, when they have a visceral hatred of the SNP they assume that this is reflective of the general will. The reality is that many people – who in no way would have described themselves as nationalists or supporters of independence (not always the same thing) – have been quietly but deeply impressed by Salmond’s administration. In equal measure many have been dismayed by Brown at a UK and Alexander at a Holyrood level. Add to this the dreaded prospect of another Tory Govt waiting in the wings under Cameron and I believe Scotland would win the Referendum vote, and become independent.

One commenter on the Guardian site summed up what many are feeling today: “Financially Scotland would really be no better or worse off out of the UK. Politically though, it would no longer be dominated by the English right, we would no longer have to keep nuclear weapons in our country, we would no longer see our friends and family members in the armed forces packed off to the Middle East to do the dirty work of the American neo-cons and big business and above all we would no longer need to listen John bloody Motson during the World Cup. I will be voting “yes”.

It may not be rational, economically tested or level-headed but it does I believe sum up the predominant mood. As a friend of mine said to me over the top of the morning paper this fine sunny day: ‘Things can only get better.’

The Case for Cornwall

“Britain* is divided into four parts; whereof one is inhabited by Englishmen, the other by Scots, the third by Welshmen, and the fourth by Cornish people, which all differ among themselves, either in tongue, either in manners, or else in laws and ordinances.”
– Polydore Vergil (Henry VIII’s geographer)

What is it with the London media? It seems if you email celebrity chefs like Rick Stein and the mockney Jamie Oliver calling yourself “CNLA” and promising a “rosy glow” in their pricey restaurants in Cornwall, you can get coverage in a dozen newspapers, whereas if you manage to collect 50,000 signatures for a Cornish Assembly in two years, you get none. Bear in mind that the Cornish population is only 400,000, and the

petition was badly publicised, and you can see the scale of feeling. Cornwall, meantime, has the lowest GDP in the UK, at a mere 62% of the average. An article in the Western Morning News has pointed out “in places like Mousehole, Port Isaac & Cadgwith, it is possible to buy any number of £1000 paintings, but not a pint of milk” thanks to the vast number of second homes there. Rick Stein is part of the problem, and has led to Padstow being nicknamed Padstein, thanks to buying up half the town. Would Stein or Oliver agree with this?

“We, the people of Cornwall, must have a greater say in how we are governed. We need a Cornish Assembly that can set the right democratic priorities for Cornwall, and provide a stronger voice for our communities in Britain, in Europe, and throughout the wider world.”

Most Scots don’t know that Cornwall is not a proper part of England. For centuries, a significant number of its natives have always regarded themselves as non-English, and it is the only “English county” with its own language, laws and nationalist movement. For example, if you die without a will in England, your property goes to the Crown. In Cornwall it goes to the Duke of Cornwall (Prince Charles), and the Duchy has been used more or less as an expense account for the heir to the throne. The story of the decline of Cornish mining, farming and fishing is one with which Scots have first hand experience.

Troops Oot

I recently engaged Angus Macleod, Scottish Political Editor of the Times about why they still referred to the ‘Scottish Executive’ when no such body existed. Nobody, not the Tories, not even the British Govt refer to the SNP administration as anything other than ‘the Scottish Government’. In a give-away line that anarchists would love he explained: “The reason why the term Government might not be appropriate is that the devolved body does not possess all the powers of a government e.g. declaring war (I’m not being entirely flippant - that is a government - defining responsibility).”Alex Salmond claimed yesterday that Britain’s involvement in the war in Iraq was “the most disastrous foreign policy decision of recent times”. He should put his convictions to the test. Scotland with 8% of the UK population but 11% of the UK war dead in Iraq is following an ancient tradition of disproportionate representation in the British Armed Forces. This Easter we should pull our troops out.  As the war of words intensified a furious Des Browne issued a personal challenge to Alex Salmond to visit British troops in Iraq after the First Minister was accused of undermining morale. Remarks by Salmond made about Scots soldiers being “kicked in the teeth” by the Westminster government were labelled “outrageous” by his Labour opponents.On the fifth anniversary of the US-led invasion, Mr Salmond told BBC Scotland: “I don’t believe, incidentally, the views of the Scots squaddies are any different from the Scots population. They do their job because they are professionals and they do it bravely and completely.” He then said: “They get kicked in the teeth when they are in Iraq by their regiments being wound up. They get treated disgracefully by the government - across a range of ways - which has broken the military covenant.” None of which is really debatable.What was telling though was the response. Salmond’s getting “too big for his boots” they argued.Far from it. Salmond should take the next step and explore how to bring our troops home. One of the lasting legacies of this government may be tha the big con about Scottish Soldiers involvement in British State activities may be about to be broken. What does a Scottish military need to be? A well equipped defence force, a relief and disaster organisation and a source of pride. Little else. The suggestions in todays Scotsman newspaper that a cabal of British Arms dealers should dictate the Scottish economy is ridiculous. That the discredited arms dealers of BAE and others should gather and lobby David Cairns to collaborate on anti-independece propaganda s not surprising (‘Scots defence industry would be decimated’) But at Easter 2008 can we not think of anything more productive for people to do in this 21 C Scotland than make vicious weaponry? 

The Critical Community

In the wake of the most recent failure of will in Bali, its interesting to see who’s co-ordinating disinformation on the environment here in the Grand Old Ukania.

I was on the radio with a “climate change sceptic” the other day. We were discussing my local food experiment which seeks to cut carbon emissions by reducing food miles. Stuart Waiton is a Sociology lecturer at Abertay University, and, as it turned out rather predictably, as writer for the LM Networks house paper, Spiked. His tirade was routine and could have been scripted. Our project was ‘nimbyist, parochial and pathetic’. In Stuart’s world everyone is healthy and living longer and you can buy a chicken for £2, so why worry? “What’s the problem?” he pleaded.

The radio researchers had taken the concept of eating from locally sourced food to Baldragon School in Dundee. The children had rejected the idea out of hand – the very concept of sourcing food from near where you lived was thought bizarre and impossible. Instead they defined themselves as “Asda” or “Tesco” kids. They were thoroughly brandwashed into a diet of processed industrial food. No big surprises there.

Turkey Twizzlers all round?

Cultural Planning in Scotland – Leading the Way

The new National Conversation launched by the Scottish government and the recent Green Paper on the Governance of Britain launched by Gordon Brown both seek to enhance and invigorate democracy, particularly at local levels. However, both documents have little to say about they will engage the wider public in their conversations, or what newly invigorated democracy will mean for the communities that make up the nation.

In Scotland, Community Planning Partnerships and emerging Urban Regeneration Companies (urc’s) are looking at with issues of “how to” engage meaningfully with local people and develop community leadership. There are even Standards for Community Engagement. The London think tank Demos made a recent foray north of the border to produce their Glasgow – Dreaming City document. The reaction and furore that document provoked, while purposefully intended, suggests that engaging in a conversation with a community or a nation about its future is not a one-off event but an ongoing dialogue. Politicians retreat to their parliaments, planners move on to their next job and Demos go to their new beach in Bristol. What happens to the people?

Scotland’s Libertarian Left

About ten years ago, when I was working there, Canongate Books published a coffee-table hardback called The Commissar Vanishes. It was a visual record of the way the Soviet Union had manipulated their earliest photographic records to airbrush certain figures out of history. Most notably, Leon Trotsky.

There’s a couple of reasons why this comes to mind. The first is personal. Since 2001, when I parted company with Canongate, the Booker-rescued publishing house has gone to great lengths to try and airbrush both Rebel Inc out of its history.

Almost all of the Rebel Inc titles have been republished with the Canongate logo, their origination quietly concealed. That Canongate’s profile is based almost entirely on the underground credibility, cutting edge authors, media buzz and international attention that Rebel Inc brought to them seems neither here nor there. It’s irritating when someone passes your work off as their own, but hell hath no fury like an aristocrat scorned.

The second reason is less frivolous. Trotskyists complain that their Commissar hero was airbrushed out of Russian history. Which, as the book shows, was true, although not particularly important in the general scheme of things. Yet the same people seem to have lost all sense of irony when it comes to the libertarian left.

The Marxist left seems to spend more time sifting through the historical debris of the Russian revolution that is either healthy or necessary. Yet few of them actually understand the process whereby, between 1917 and 1921, the soviets were systematically emptied of all opposition and power by Lenin and his communist party. Nor do they understand that soviets were syndicalist in nature. The successful but short-lived participatory period of the Russian revolution was essentially anarchism in action.

It is to the marginalised historians and writers of the libertarian left that we have to turn to in order to glean an accurate account of historical events like the Russian revolution. The writings of Emma Goldman, Maurice Brinton and Noam Chomsky help redress the balance and give us fresh perspectives on seemingly familiar ground. This is important and nowhere less so than here in Scotland.

Consider John Maclean, the most famous Red Clydesider. Since his death in 1923 Maclean has been elevated to the role of martyr and saint by Scotland’s authoritarian left. Yet if the same folk stopped to reflect meaningfully on the actualities of Maclean’s life they’d observe that he rejected all attempts to be incorporated into either wing of the authoritarian left of his day. Maclean steadfastly refused to join either the Scottish Labour Party or the Communist Party of Great Britain. Nor did he have any illusions in bureaucratic trade unions. For John Maclean was a syndicalist.

Near the end of his novel, Poor Things, from which Bella Caledonia takes its name, Alasdair Gray contrasts John Maclean with the communist left in a fictitious letter to Hugh MacDiarmid:

“I cannot like the orthodox communists. They have one simple answer to every question and believe (like the fascists) that they can forcibly simplify what they do not understand. In any discussion with one I feel I am facing a bad school teacher who wants to shut me up. McLean is a good school teacher.”

Are young women about to sink the Western Isles?

Gaels from the strict Free Church tradition see nothing at Callanish but a pile of stones made special only by heathen tradition. For such folk, relating the tales of Brigid and suggesting they predate her appearance in Christianity as “St Bride” also borders on the sacrilegious. But for island women, who’ve accepted their absence from public life is both “natural” and “traditional”, it’s important to know there’s another story where women shared the responsibility for shaping Celtic society. That’s why the feminist magazine Harpies and Quines in the 1990’s used the image of Scottish actress Juliet Cadzow in warrior mode from a John McGrath play to express the traditional strength of Celtic women.

And that’s why Brigid needs mentioning again. Because without a resurgence of women power on the Outer Hebrides, the island chain faces depopulation and stagnation. And without knowing it, the island fathers have invoked the memory of the Celts most powerful female figure by the simple act of renaming the island chain last year.

Hebrides means the place protected by the pre-Christian fire goddess Brigid or Bride. And the Gaels’ decision to revert to “the Outer Hebrides” after 35 years as the breezy-sounding Western Isles, would suggest the ancient role of women in protecting island culture is finally being embraced.

Not so. According to the Outer Hebrides Migration Study young women are about to sink the “place protected by the goddess” - by leaving.

The report, published in February, states baldly that twice as many young women as young men are peeling away from the traditional crofting areas on the Western Isles. And 71% of the incomers are men. If the current trends continue there will be more males than females by 2009.

Democracy 2.0

It’s a poor sort of memory that works only backwards.- Cheshire Cat

On the night of Scotland’s greatest sporting achievement, I watched Scotland defeat World Cup finalists France in a bar in Burntisland. Due to the Sky connection failing frantic efforts to locate coverage of the game ended in us watching the match broadcast by Al Jazeera +1 (like Channel 4+1 without 24 hour Friends). At the end of the bar a man stood with sore arms holding up a radio with David Begg’s commentary blaring out. So the imagery lagged behind the commentary by a second. We heard the goal hit the net before we saw it. We knew how poor Landreau (the French goalie) must have felt. Of course, back home the BBC was broadcasting the England – Israel game.

As a metaphor for Scotland’s position in the world this is perfect.

Self-determination is about new emerging forms of democracy. Forms that reflect the kind of society we might want to create, ones that might be inclusive, participative and creative. The potential remains for means and ends to be joined in a way that can engage with the many thousands of people entirely disenfranchised from politics by the wholesale merger of ideological outlook and policy that has taken place over the last twenty five years. The fragmentation we know is far wider and runs even deeper. Dislocation with the spaces we inhabit will define our age.This disenfranchisement takes multiple specific forms, from deep disillusionment, paralysing cynicism, to actual exclusion due to electoral incompetence. The opportunity to simply opt-out is most easily accepted because there is rarely any opportunity to ‘opt in’ other than to take part in facile exercises in pr and window-dressing: ‘consultations’, citizen juries and such facades. Britain is not alone in Western Europe but it is different.As Eric Canning has written:

“The British State itself is an anachronism even by comparison to the other major states within the European Union who have moved forward from old colonial forms. The British state structure is archaic in its monarchic and oligarchic forms of prestige, patronage, power and privilege. Its rituals are arcane and obscure, masking an autocracy of authoritarian control operating behind a democratic facade.”

The idea is that we can move from cultural subjugation to active citizenship, from being the top end of a stagnant pool to the mouth of a free flowing river. To do so we need to draw on the traditions of republicanism and a socialism that are liberating and liberatory, contemporary and grassroots and abandon our statist past, be it the Whitehall or Strathclyde model of turgid centralism.A new republicanism can help shift us from the status of subject to citizen, from passive liturgent to active participant.And yet, despite the frequent cry of Dick Gaughan’s ‘No God and Precious Few Heroes’, we exist in a state of voluntary servitude, a state loathed by many, blissfully ignored by more and even celebrated by some.

A History of Violence

38 men were murdered in Glencoe on the 13th February 1692. Anther 40 women and children died of exposure after their homes were burned. By modern standards of human carnage this is, in truth, relatively minor. This approximately equals the daily toll of deaths in Iraq, an occurrence which now doesn’t even rate the headlines any more. At the time what was particularly horrific about the massacre was that it involved such a breach of the laws of hospitality. Under old Scots law there was a special category of murder known as “murder under trust” which was considered to be even more heinous than ordinary murder. The Glencoe event was a clear example. After the Second World War, the victorious allies put those Nazis who still survived, on trial at Nuremberg. Much importance was attributed to the so-called Nuremberg Principle which was established there - that it is illegal to carry out an illegal order.

Balmoral Buyout

Any serious attempt at dismantling the concentrated pattern of private landownership in Scotland will get nowhere if it does not face up to the fact that the Queen’s ownership of Balmoral is a central part of the problem. It remains an totemic obstacle to radical land reform since it’s continued existence legitimises large scale private landownership. It’s time to buy-out Balmoral. Andy Wightman , one of the foremost architects of the land reform movement of the 1990s, and now one of the people behind the Common Good movement writes from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

When Alex Salmond visited the Queen at Balmoral earlier this autumn, I doubt that he said much about his administration’s plans for land reform. It would be a breach of Parliamentary etiquette if he had (Parliament should normally be the first to hear). But it is probably as much to do with the fact that there appear to be no such plans.

Which is a pity, since there is much that Alex Salmond has said in the past he wishes to do. In an article he wrote in the Sunday Express in November 1995 he argued that the unregulated land market in Scotland was intolerable, that absentee landownership was an inappropriate qualification for landownership and that all land should be controlled by a democratically elected Land Commission. Since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, much has in fact been done. On 28 November 2004, the system of feudal tenure in Scotland was abolished although you’d be forgiven for not having noticed since a few individuals continue to own the vast majority of privately owned land in Scotland. Indeed it is one of the curious things about attitudes to the question of landownership that there is general approval of the abolition of feudalism but little antagonism to this concentrated pattern of landownership.

The one issue around which much of this ambivalence revolves is the Queen’s ownership of Balmoral Estate which induces everything from anger to romantic enthusiasm. Although Balmoral is the private property of the Queen (except it isn’t quite this simple as we shall see), it is also an indispensable part of the constitutional furniture. This is partly because she spends so much time there (the film The Queen starring Helen Mirren provides an entertaining portrayal of her time there) and partly because she uses the time there to entertain such figures as Gordon Brown and Alex Salmond. Who could not fail to be impressed by the employment she generates in Upper Deeside, the spin offs in tourism and the fact that munificently, she provides all of this out of her own funds?

But many of Scotland’s landowners are charming, polite, eager to please and undertake good works in the community. So what? Just as a benign dictator who is popular with the masses does not diminish one iota the case for democracy and human rights, so the presence of so many charming members of the nobility still lording it over huge swathes of Scotland (but doing a splendid job) does nothing to detract from the case for radical land reform.

Of course many will argue that it matters little in the overall scheme of things that the Queen owns Balmoral. What matters is the symbolism and what this says about or attitudes to who owns our country because, for a start we know so little about how land is owned and by whom. For example, Queen Victoria is popularly believed to have fallen in love with Balmoral and purchased it in the 19th century. She didn’t. Likewise, the Queen is regarded as the owner of Balmoral Estate. She isn’t.