choosing between fear and opportunity
The people of Scotland will vote in a referendum on 18th September this year to determine if they wish political separation from the United Kingdom. This vote is being framed as a Scottish nationalist rejection of England, and the decisive swing vote will most likely be determined by who can demonstrate where the financial advantage lies. I’m personally not happy with any of this and hope the discussion can be reframed into something more meaningful by the time the vote comes around.
The history of how the United Kingdom came to be formed over 300 years ago is complicated enough that most inhabitants are unaware of the difference between Great Britain and the United Kingdom, and few of us know the full list of countries, territories and dependencies of which it comprises. Scotland has always been a distinct country within the union, and has always had separate legal, education and healthcare systems. In 1999, a Scottish Parliament was created and since then ever more powers have been devolved from Westminster in London to Scotland.
why I won’t vote for independence
- I have no interest in the feelings of irrational nationalism that fuel much of the push for independence. Mel Gibson shouting ‘Freedom!’ with blue paint splattered on his face has never, and will never, stir my loins. All political histories are messy, bloody and unjust. I’m part of the human race, not a randomly carved section of it, and any form of tribalistic nationalism dismays me.
- We’re currently in a stable political union that has resulted in a country of relative peace and prosperity. If it ain’t that broke, don’t try to fix it.
- If we do separate from the United Kingdom, Scotland will undoubtedly become pettily fractured between the two major cities – Edinburgh versus Glasgow, with heightened tensions over rural versus urban. There’s always another unit to blame for our problems, the next ‘enemy’ to imagine.
why I will vote for independence
- The political system of the United Kingdom is disturbing and embarrassing. Imagine any new country, on the basis of our current understanding of representation and democracy, setting up a political system like this.
- The head of state comes from an inherited monarchy.
- The upper house is not elected but most are appointed for life by politicians, often based on how much they have donated to the major parties; some seats are still inherited; and there are 26 seats for the hierarchy of one religion exclusively, which counts only 20% of the population among its affiliates. (Plans to reform the House of Lords and make it mainly elected seats were dropped in 2012. Seriously!)
- The electoral system is first past the post.
- Over one third of members of parliament and half the Cabinet go to privileged and exclusive private schools, compared to 7% of the population.
- Less than a 25% of members of parliament are female; and less than 15% of the Cabinet are female.
- There is no change on the horizon. It suits the two big parties to continue taking turns in power. Politics should be about representation – our current system in the UK is disgustingly archaic and out of touch with today’s society. I view any opportunity to bring about change for everyone as golden.
Like many of my fellow Scottish residents, I still don’t know how I’ll vote on 18th September. But I do know that if I finally choose to vote for independence, it won’t in any way reflect a sense of superiority or pride about being Scottish; it won’t in any sense suggest I don’t want to share political space with the people of Wales, England and Northern Ireland. I fear nationalism and I fear change on this scale. However, if I do vote for independence, it will be to send a message to the stale political authorities of this union that our current joke of a system is not good enough for the 21st century, and a leap into the unknown is a rare opportunity for advancement that can’t be missed.
Sounds like what would happen here in the US, if someone proposed that our Congress vote themselves a pay cut.
LikeLike
Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it? People who hold power, and are getting that addictive chemical kick from the power high, are rarely keen on reform that would inevitably lessen their power. It’s not simply about money, they have a lot more invested. That’s why the opportunity to start from scratch is so appealing.
LikeLike
Yeah, well, we tried that, over here on this side of the pond, and look where we are now – “Leaders of the Free World,” and more screwed up than most of those we profess to be leading.
LikeLike
“Start from scratch” usually means little more than “give somebody else a chance to screw things up!”
LikeLike
So you’d take fear over opportunity any day? We would have the advantage of learning from your mistakes. 😉
LikeLike
Much as we had the advantage of learning from England’s? It didn’t seem to make any difference, we only learned how to make different mistakes.
LikeLike
Oh well, in that case I’m convinced! There’s no point in ever attempting to change anything. We’re all doomed and nothing can be improved …
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Government Simplified and commented:
Some great points on the troubles of nationalism and the political system of the United Kingdom. This post is about Scotland’s upcoming political independence referendum.
LikeLike
Thanks for another reblog! 🙂
LikeLike
No problem, you keep hitting on important points that I think are valuable to share!
LikeLike
Should be interesting. A few years ago, under Howard, we had a referendum on becoming a Republic. Howard, the monarchist that he is, worded the question in such a way that guaranteed a “no” vote, despite the majority of the country actually wanting to ditch the Queen. The option was 1) remain as is, or 2) become a Republican where the president would be elected by the parliament… no public input/vote.
Me personally, i like having the Queen; a distant mother figure who doesn’t meddle, but can if she wants, but never will. It fulfills our need for authority, and ensures no local politician can outgrow his shoes. Works a charm.
LikeLike
I know what you mean. When people talk about abolishing the monarchy I can tend to go the other way. But we don’t have to talk about heads of state along the lines of the US presidential model as being the only alternative. Ireland seems to have a good balance. I think it’s just that the monarchy combined the really poor electoral system, the lack of real choice in the stupid two party system, the scandalous set up in the House of Lords and completely unrepresentative nature of the House of Commons just all adds up to too much to take. We need reform and the power drunk politicians that could make those decisions on our behalf are never going to want to. And they can always convince people they’re right by appealing to the ever resident fear of change.
LikeLike
I saw this video ages ago, but it sums up the failure of the first past the post system.
LikeLike
That’s excellent, you don’t get much simpler explanations than that. But imagine a world of unstable coalitions where people actually have to work together!
LikeLike
That’s the problem in Brazil. There are over 40 parties.
LikeLike
So, what would you go for? I think part of the solution will lie in banning career politicians. People will make much less opportunistic alliances if they’re not building up a history of favours and resentments with other power drunk individuals.
LikeLike
Being both Scots and English, if there were independence it would feel like part of me had been cut away. Scotland will still do much trade with England, so sharing a currency makes far more sense for Scotland than for a separate remnant; also there are Scots in the civil service in Westminster: Scots from Holyrood might now be negotiating with Scots in London.
Bring the Republic of Ireland back in! Then the three of us together could counterbalance the English, who are a bit much for Scots Welsh and Northern Irish.
LikeLike
I can’t totally understand that. There are so many people who would be devastated by a split, and lots of English people who live here would feel sadly alienated if the yes vote wins. I don’t think it’s anything to take so seriously. Country boundaries have ebbed and flowed forever, and the European model we’re all now used to with open borders and an almost common currency is surely the future. One of the other things that could convince me to vote yes is the possibility of a UK-wide referendum to leave Europe. Imagine if we voted to the stay in the UK and the UK left Europe! I’d be furious – talk about retrogressive.
LikeLike
As someone who knows almost nothing about this subject, I think your post was very well written, a demonstration of sober thinking and criticism. And, kudos for the Braveheart reference!
LikeLike
Thank you! Are you a fan of your political system?
LikeLike
I’m in Texas in the US. We have a decent way of politicking but it’s certainly got its drawbacks. The two-party system limits the kind of candidates have a shot at winning. For instance, if you are pro-military then you need to be fiscally conservative. If you are fiscally liberal you probably also want to pull the trigger on carbon taxing. Issues like these are linked for no good reason, and you end up with these standard platforms and no mobility of ideas. And, none of the candidates end up being able to accomplish anything anyway. So, it’s a bunch of mouth-moving to get to get elected and gridlock or catering to special interests thereafter. Money rules for the most part. I know I’m being cynical! It’s easier to notice the bad things than to notice the good things.
LikeLike
You should watch the video on first past post that John posted above. Depressing, simple and true.
LikeLike
Watched it. Agreed on your trifecta.
LikeLike
Independence is silly, based on Nationalism as you so eloquently pointed out.
All that bloody blue paint.
It’s one of the reasons I like the Spanish national anthem above all others. It has no words.
On the 18th September, which is the date of Jimi Hendrix’s death I shall be listening to his music all day…as I usually do, and hopefully the Scots will use their heads at the polls.
LikeLike
I say we tie Mel Gibson to a tree and let both Scottish and English children throw rocks at him- and then everyone’s happy and we can go back to paying attention to things that really matter, like poverty and healthcare.
LikeLike
Both of which would be priorities for an independent Scottish government, as opposed to the current UK government which is continuing to the destroy the healthcare system and forcing families deeper in poverty.
LikeLike
How do we know it would truly be their priority? They all say so, but that’s different from actually doing something. Even Cameron and Osbourne say it’s their priority.
LikeLike
True, but it may be worth the leap into the unknown to see if a new and hopefully improved political system will make a difference in the long run. It’s got to be better than what we’ve got, right?
LikeLike
Not necessarily. I don’t have your positive outlook on change. Current Iraq isn’t that much better off than Saddam era Iraq. How about post revolutionary Ukraine?
And there’s no way Britain is going to make anything easy. What’s Scotland’s bank going to be, RBS?
It’s a monumental and complex task to set up a country with a new political system. I don’t know of any smooth example from a historical perspective.
LikeLike
Use their heads and help the United Kingdom realise political reform is necessary? Or use their heads to keep the corrupt status quo? Did you read the post or did you have your nationalistic English fingers in your ears going la la la la?
LikeLike
Here we go again.
I do not support nationalism so further division is not a good thing. It just brings MORE nationalism and…division.
Really, sometimes I wonder if you are not having ”that” time of the month all month.
LikeLike
But I framed the whole discussion around the fact that the decision should be made on other factors. I’m so un-nationalistic I don’t care what other territory my territory is tethered to – but I do care that reasonable political decisions can be made. I think a yes vote would force a change in all UK politics. (not even going to respond to your typical nonsense personal attack, you hateful misogynist)
LikeLike
The other factors are just noise..all that stuff about school percentages parliament and wot not.
And to say you are NOT going to respond to my nonsense personal attack means you have just responded to my nonsense personal attack.
Whats a misogynist?
LikeLike
A man who has lost an argument with a woman, and blames his stupidity on her hormones (of which he knows nothing).
LikeLike
I always understand that the way to make a hormone was not pay her?
Maybe that’s a different type of biology?
LikeLike
Violet = sharp and witty original comments
Ark = recycled jokes from the 70s (that weren’t even funny way back then)
LikeLike
True..you live in Scotland. And for that. I suppose one must have a reasonably well developed sense of humour.
So, on the Scottish thing. Are we clear now?
No split. The Scots could not teach the English a ”lesson” so rather than act like a petulant child, stay put and work from within the union.
Good. That’s sorted…next post.
LikeLike
I’m suddenly feeling all nationalistically anti-English. How odd!
LikeLike
I can’t stand rugby and I refer you to the comment I made regarding the Spanish National Anthem.
Do you actually read my comments or do you simply see ”Arkenaten” and haul off and rant at me?
LikeLike
Jings, nothing to do with rugby, it was an illustration of how nationalism is generally a negative, not positive, force (as in ‘we all want England to lose’). Often inspired by people being irritating about their country of origin e.g. you, in the comments above.
However, it’s true that I do see your cute little pharaoh face and instantly look for something to pick at. 🙂
LikeLike