In two years' time, Scotland will be
holding a referendum to determine its future as a nation. Watching
the news today, one could be forgiven for thinking that, instead, it
was holding a bake sale. "Would you buy a used pie from this
man?" asks Johann Lamont, pointing the finger at Alex Salmond
(one assumes that if Iain Gray were still Labour leader, the
offending item would be a sandwich). Whatever one's political
inclinations, it's hard to escape the feeling that someone's
telling porkies - but to focus on this is to miss the bigger
question. Why should anybody contemplating the referendum base their
decision on what they think of individuals?
The great man theory of history has
always been seductive, and this is certainly a historical moment.
It's often easier to contemplate such momentous changes (and there
will be changes regardless of which way Scotland votes) by filtering
them through the personalities involved. But whilst this may prove
useful for students trying to form an emotional connection to the
past, it is dangerous on several level when applied to the present.
First of all, we need to take ego out
of the equation. The magnetism of particular individuals (whether it
attracts or repels) will have little meaningful effect on how events
play out after the referendum. Yes, in the short term, it may play a
significant role in alliance building (whether that's renegotiating
aspects of the union, strengthening our relationship with Westminster
or establishing new international relationships), but this decision
is much bigger than that. We are voting not just on how issues might
be managed in the immediate term but, potentially, about how our
country will function for hundreds of years. In that time,
everybody involved in today's squabbles will die.
Secondly - and this may seem less
obvious - we need to take nationalism out of the equation.
Scotland deserves better than to have its future decided by
flag-waving, whether that flag is the Saltire or the Union Jack.*
This isn't about dead warriors, empire, Team GB, Woolworths or
tartan-wrapped fudge. People can feel passionately Scottish and still
support the union or can vote for independence without jeopardising
their British identity - really, it's okay, that's allowed. I was
quite taken aback when I heard members of the No campaign arguing
that we shouldn't be independent because people care for each other
across the border. Personally, I care for people all over the world
(and have family around the world too) but it doesn't influence my
political relationship with them. It would be perfectly possible to
support an independent Scotland from an internationalist perspective,
preferring that option for economic or managerial reasons without
according it sentimental value. Similarly, it's possible to support
the union without the prerequisite of having best friends who are
English.
Thirdly, we need to remember that this
isn't about political parties. If it were, why would Labour be
working with the Conservatives? The Green Party has allied itself to
the Yes campaign alongside the SNP, as has a faction of the Labour
Party. Despite their official line, there are LibDems wavering in
either direction. And alongside this, of course, there are a great
many ordinary people who feel passionately one way or the other but
don't worry much about political parties until it comes to marking a
cross on the ballot paper on election day (if, indeed, they even do
that). Don't like the SNP? Independence would likely lead to them
splitting and dwindling as members' other concerns rise to the fore.
Don't like Labour? If we stay in the Union you can bet they'll take
the blame for every subsequent Westminster-wrought ill. (The
Conservatives are probably not long for this world either way.) In
other words, it's all rather complicated; and, again, the issue of
our country's long term future is bigger.
If we, the Scottish public, allow this
issue to be reduced to a spat about personalities, we'll all be
poorer for it. So by all means bitch about Salmond (if you don't
blame him for the recent confusion over legal advice, you can always
remind yourself of his sometime cosy relationship with Donald Trump),
but don't base your approach to the referendum on that issue.
Despair, if you will, or one or more of the No campaign's strange
bedfellows, but remember that they won't be around as long as the
consequences of this decision. And let's remember that, when all is
said and done, we'll all be eating the same pie, so let's not poison
it with spite.
* I realise that, strictly speaking,
it's only the Union Jack when it's flown at sea, but I'm trying to
keep this simple.
What bothers me is the concept of a "used" pie. Isn't that, well, a turd?
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Perhaps it's intended to imply that we shouldn't take any shit from Salmond, which would be fair enough, but I'm not sure it's been thought through to that extent.
ReplyDeleteIt's the Union Jack wherever it's flown, on account of how that's what it's been called for the past 300+ years.
ReplyDelete300+? The current Union Flag has only been in existence for 212 years.
ReplyDeleteAnd technically it's only the Union Jack when the ship flying it is in port.