Beware the language police!

I think there's a point being missed in all this Calman stooshie. And it's not a point about Susan Calman - who is all but irrelevant to the issue. On the basis of her reported comments I would dismiss Calman as a second or third-rate wannabe comedian who has essayed a bit of satire without grasping the essential point that the crucial prerequisite of effective satire is a solid grasp of the subject matter. To this the good satirist will add some hopefully thought-provoking observational quirkiness that causes amusement.

Satire points up uncomfortable truths. Satire does not perpetuate the myths that prop up conventional power.

Satire is clever, in every sense of that term. I see no evidence of cleverness in Calman's remarks about the referendum debate. I see only a crude and distinctly unfunny resort to facile stereotypes and lazy misconceptions. Criticising a self-proclaimed comedian for failure in their chosen craft is not abuse. It is merely criticism.

Satire also takes a stand. Something which Calman assiduously avoids doing. Satire is committed. It has a point to make. There is no such thing as idle satire. It is never benign. It always has a target and it should never be in doubt who or what the target is. Calman tried to pass off as satire something that plainly wasn't the real deal. It is right that her audience should feel short-changed. Perhaps even cheated.

But neither is satire or humour the real point here. This is not about whether something is funny or not. There is no possibility of a definitive answer to that question. Evidently, some people thought Calman's tediously unoriginal comments were hilarious. I can only feel as embarrassed for them as I do for her. Poking a stick at the political establishment is a worthy pursuit. Pandering to ill-informed prejudice only serves to expose those afflicted by such prejudice.

The real point here is the way in which the anti-independence campaign has leapt upon what was, for the most part, no more than a perfectly unremarkable and entirely predictable reaction to an equally unremarkable and commonplace attempt at comedy that turned out to be somewhat ill-judged and just plain unfunny. Rather than discussing some insignificant performer, we should be taking a close look at the political players in all of this. Rather than asking questions about the nature of comedy, we should be asking what is the purpose of the hysterical sensationalising of a few critical comments.

What does the anti-independence campaign hope to achieve by making such an inordinate fuss about something of so little substance?

There is, of course, the obvious propaganda angle. The ongoing effort to create an impression of independence supporters as a bitter, bilious mob. It is a variation of a propaganda technique known as projection or flipping in which you take whatever it is that you are open to being accused of and accuse your opponent of doing the same thing - but first and worst. You see it all the time as evident racists attempt to brand their opponents as racist.

But the ultimate purpose is more insidious. The aim is to control and constrain debate by intimidation. To have every independence supporter afraid to put their head above the parapet for fear of being branded with whatever unpleasant epithet is currently in vogue with the largely unionist mainstream media.

This is the kind of power that the media loves to wield just for its own sake - making it all the easier for the political propagandist to turn that power to their own purposes. It is the power commonly deployed in the ever-popular game of Let's Force A Resignation! But the game here is to make every pro-independence voice hesitant and wary. To make everyone who would speak out for the restoration of Scotland's rightful constitutional status over-cautious to the point of banality.

It is an attempt to dictate not only the terms of the debate but to control, without even the pretence of impartiality, the very language in which that debate is conducted. The distillation of the unionists' argument here - eagerly and unthinkingly picked up on by those anxious to be perceived as "good" nationalists - is that opponents of independence have unfettered freedom of expression while others must self-censor or suffer the consequences.

I, for one, will have none of it! I am happy to defend Susan Calman's right to be as embarrassingly unfunny as she wants. But the quid pro quo is my right to say just how unfunny and out of her depth I find her. And to say it in my own way without being subject to the dour rigours of some self-appointed language police.

This is the most important political debate in any of our lifetimes! If that is not cause for passion then what is? Unionists would suck all the passion out of the debate leaving only the dour calculations of the dismal science and a litany of smears and fears to which we are permitted to respond with nothing stronger than a bit of heavy tutting.

Fuck that!

Distinct voices

In a piece in today's Herald, the paper's Political Editor, Magnus Gardham, displays his signature misunderstanding of Scotland's independence campaign by representing disagreement between SNP leader, Alex Salmond and Yes Scotland chair, Dennis Canavan, on the issue of a post-independence currency union with rUK in terms of a "split" within a single "nationalist" movement. It is not.

What we have here is disagreement between people representing two quite separate elements of that independence campaign. One of these, Yes Scotland, exists for the purpose of channelling diverse strands of Scottish political opinion into the debate on Scotland's constitutional future. The other, the Scottish National Party, exists for the purpose of winning and retaining political power.

Of course, the anti-independence campaign has a vested interest in blurring the distinction between these two organisation - in much the same way as it seeks to generate uncertainty and confusion about every issue relating to Scotland's independence. Better Together epitomises the politics of fear and this requires that they should undermine the confidence of the people of Scotland at every opportunity by denigrating our institutions; belittling our achievements and disparaging our potential. It is certainly not the way most of us hoped that the campaign would be conducted. But we must remember that the unionists are predominantly operating under the odious influence of Westminster and the British party system, and we should lower our expectations accordingly.

Yes Scotland represents the politics of hope. The politics of bold ambition. The politics of noble aspiration. Such things are anathema to most politicians. In the TV comedy. Yes Minister, Sir Humphrey Appleby could always be sure of deterring James Hacker from any course of action simply by describing it as "brave". There is no more cowrin', timorous beastie than the politician in pursuit of power. But, fearful as they may be of the more worthy aspects of politics, these politicians nonetheless know that they cannot easily attack things like hope, ambition and aspiration for the simple reason that these are commonly held to be good qualities. Indeed. most politicians will strive to associate themselves with such qualities to whatever extent that they can short of actually making them part of their own politics. And they will attack them in others only to the extent of using such terms as "unrealistic" and "woolly-minded".

It is easier to attack a politician than an aspiration. So unionists attack Alex Salmond while trying to pretend that Yes Scotland does not exist. Or, at least, that it does not exist as a separate entity distinct from the SNP.

But it would be wrong to say that this failure to distinguish between the SNP and Yes Scotland is simply a result of Better Together propaganda. To be brutally frank, they are just not that good. Even with the assistance of a mainstream media that, through ignorance, prejudice or just plain laziness, has aided the unionist propaganda effort, the fact remains that this effort has been clumsy and inept. It should have been easy to counter. We are entitled now to ask why this hasn't happened. Why has Yes Scotland failed to chart its own course through the referendum debate? Why has the organisation so signally failed to develop a voice of its own clearly distinguishing it from the SNP? Why does it continue to show such deference to Alex Salmond and the SNP?

Perhaps more pertinent are the questions that must be addressed to the SNP. Why has the SNP failed to encourage Yes Scotland to be the campaigning organisation it was always intended to be? Why has the party made it so easy for the impression to be given that Yes Scotland is what unionists always wanted to claim it was - nothing more than a front for the SNP?

Contrary to an all too common belief, it was never in the SNP's interests that it should "control" Yes Scotland. The SNP was always going to be best served by hiving-off the broader constitutional issue in order that it could focus on it own constitutional policy. The SNP is not really in the business of fighting the referendum campaign. It is focused on the 2015 UK elections and the 2016 Scottish elections. Which is not to say that it has no interest in the outcome of the referendum. Of course it does! But the SNP is a political party. It cannot be other than principally focused on the elections by which it wins power. Setting up Yes Scotland should have freed the SNP to pursue its party political objectives safe in the knowledge that the main campaign for a Yes vote was being carried forward by people committed to restoring Scotland's constitutional status but not encumbered by any "party line".

What has gone wrong?

My own view is that the SNP leadership's strategy was good. But the strategy has not filtered down to other levels of the party. Alex Salmond and his team were rightly confident that they could create and maintain a clear distinction between the SNP and Yes Scotland at the highest levels of the two organisations. What they failed to take due account of was what would happen when the new kids on the block of Yes Scotland's grass-roots groups encountered the famously formidable machinery of the SNP at branch level. And the relatively small number of individuals who hold the levers of that machinery.

Magnus Gardham is quite wrong to suggest that Alex Salmond might be at all discomfited by Dennis Canavan's intervention on the matter of a currency union. Salmond will quietly welcome such interventions. This is Yes Scotland doing the job it was created to do. Elsewhere in the SNP, however, the distinctive voice of Canavan and Yes Scotland will strike a discordant note. Elsewhere in the SNP distinctive voices are distinctly unwelcome. They are regarded as being dangerously off-message. The danger is that, at the place where it matters most - the interface with voters, the distinctive voices of Yes Scotland are being actively discouraged and, in some instances, silenced completely.

Both Salmond and Jenkins urgently need to get a grip of their troops. Jenkins needs to inspire his people to be more assertive in proclaiming the big ideas of independence. The "brave" ideas that do not sit well with party politicians. Salmond needs to impress on the SNP's local cliques the fact that the party has nothing to fear from a strong, autonomous Yes Scotland with its own distinctive voice.

Reasons for voting YES - 1

Those who follow me on Twitter may be aware of my tweets stating reasons why I will be voting YES in Scotland's independence referendum on 18 September 2014. In this series of short articles I aim to explain and expand upon those short statements. The numbering of the articles should not be taken to suggest any order of preference or importance.

---

I'll vote YES, not because I am inspired by a great past,
but because I aspire to a better future.

People who campaign for Scotland's independence are often accused of harking back to the past. Accusations that are invariably accompanied by some reference to a certain romantic action adventure movie starring Mel Gibson. There is more than a little irony in the fact that such accusations invariably come from those who constantly make (highly selective) references to the history of the British state in their attempts to present something that might be mistaken for a positive case for the union. But the accusations are, of course, complete nonsense.

This is not to say that history is unimportant. By which I mean actual history and not the pish and piffle served up by Hollywood - however entertaining that pish and piffle may be. A nation is, in part at least, defined by its history. And since the right to self determination rests on Scotland's status as a nation we cannot do other than have some regard for the past events which brought about the existence of this nation called Scotland.

But a nation is not only defined by its history. It is also, and arguably more importantly, defined by its people - their values, their priorities and their aspirations. The nation is only to a very limited extent defined by what we were then. To a much greater extent it is defined by what we are now and what we want to be in the future. As Ernest Renan put it in his 1882 lecture on civic nationalism, What is a Nation?,

The existence of a nation (you will pardon me this metaphor) is a daily referendum, just as the continuing existence of an individual is a perpetual affirmation of life.

What this concept of an ongoing redefining of the nation helps to illustrate is the fact that the nation is not something fixed and immutable as it would be if it was solely or even principally defined by an unchangeable past. The nation is what its people choose it to be. We are not trapped in the present any more that we are stuck in the past. We can choose a different future.

The question then becomes one of how best we may be empowered to shape that future. Those intent on preserving the union would have us believe that we can do so within the context of the UK. But at the very core of the British state lies the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. A concept which is the antithesis of popular sovereignty. Parliamentary sovereignty denies the ultimate authority of the people and puts it instead in the hands of a political clique which needs no mandate from the people of Scotland and only rarely can be claimed to have one.

Only with independence can the people of Scotland fully exercise the sovereignty that is ours by right. Only with independence can we hope to build that future to which we aspire.

Scotland does have a great past. For such a small nation we have contributed much to the world. One can acknowledge this without dwelling on it or presenting it as an argument for any kind of Scottish exceptionalism.  The past is where we have come from. What is important is where we are going.

Related articles

• Referendum debate: A mystery to the media?
• Independence: Day One not Year Zero

For A' That 21 - On The Ex PM & Silence

I was honoured and delighted to join Michael Greenwell and Andrew Tickell in the For A' That podcast this week.

Independence: Day One not Year Zero

March 2016: Doomsday for Scotland?

The campaign to deny Scotland the normal constitutional status of a sovereign nation is inherently illogical. Independence is the default status of nations. It simply makes no sense to claim, as British nationalists do, that independence must be argued for. That a case must be made in order to establish that which, in respect of any other country, is simply assumed.

Logically speaking, it is for those who would preserve the union to explain why they hold that Scotland should be an exception to the rule. It is for them to sell the idea of the union. Their task is, or should be, to offer persuasive reasons why the people of Scotland should continue to forego that which is theirs by right. The unionists aren't even trying.

What inevitably follows from the fundamental illogic of the anti-independence stance is the inconsistency and contradiction that characterises their arguments. The recent wryly comic contortions on the matter of Scotland's oil wealth stands as a glaring example of this. With one face the British state tells us that the oil is a burden too great for Scotland to bear alone. That is is too volatile a commodity to be relied on to contribute to the Scottish economy. And that, in any case, it is in decline and won't be available to an independent Scotland.

Meanwhile, the other face is schmoozing the oil industry, talking up its importance to the UK economy and celebrating the very same "new oil boom" that face one denounced as a fabrication when it was referred to by the Scottish Government.

But there is another, arguably more fundamental contradiction that arises from the illogic of the anti-independence position. It goes like this. The union, we are told, is wonderful. The British state is a fine and glorious thing and this is equally true of all its institutions and processes. Better Together asserts that we are better together because we are thereby privileged to enjoy all the benefits of the British economy; British currency; British military might; British banking and financial services regulation; the British welfare system; British political administration and so on. All these things and more are held by British nationalists to be unalloyed blessings bestowed on the people of Scotland by a beneficent British state.

For the purposes of this exercise, let us assume that there is a measure of truth in all of this. I realise that this requires that we ignore British debt; the British banking collapse; the loss of the British credit rating and the decimation of the British welfare state, but please bear with me.

Having accepted, pro tem, this lauding of the British state and all its works, we cannot help but be struck by the mind-bending contradiction in Better Together's response to the suggestion of any kind of post-independence continuity. The Bank of England, for example, is pedestalled as the very exemplar of an independent central bank and, apparently, we should all be very grateful for its existence. But when it is suggested that an independent Scotland might continue to make use of this supposedly superlative institution, all of a sudden it's a very different proposition. While face one commends to us the good offices of what is, after all, as much Scotland's central bank as England's, face two issues dire warnings of  the catastrophic fate that would befall our economy if we entrusted the very same institution with the role of central bank after independence.

As if this wasn't confused and confusing enough, we have that self-styled ultimate authority in such matters, Alistair (Don't ask for my CV!) Darling, pontificating about how a monetary union such as has been suggested by the SNP would surely result in us being rapidly reduced to the penurious condition of Cyprus. Which is, when you think about it, not exactly a ringing endorsement of the British currency or the prudential capacities of the supposedly competent and reputable Bank of England.

And only a little digging uncovers yet more contradiction and inconsistency in the unionists' arguments. The basis of Darling's claims that a sterling zone would be an unworkable disaster for Scotland is the quite reasonable contention that, where the operation of separate and markedly different fiscal policies results in significant economic divergence, a common monetary policy becomes untenable. But that is where the reasonableness ends. Because what is it that the British parties are pretending to offer in the hope of fending off a Yes vote if not the very independent fiscal powers which lead to economic divergence.

What Darling and his British nationalist ilk fail to recognise is that Scotland is already in the position which he declares unacceptable. Insofar as the stultifying constraints of devolution allow, the Scottish Government is already operating fiscal policies that differ quite markedly from those of the UK Government - not least in terms of spending priorities. If the jam tomorrow promises of the British parties were worth anything at all then we presumably would have even more distinctive fiscal policies being applied in Scotland as these came to address the circumstances of the Scottish economy and respond to the democratic will of the people of Scotland. But we would still be in what is effectively a monetary union with the rest of the UK (rUK). The difference being that, without independence, we would have no choice but to remain tied to that monetary union and a monetary policy that would increasingly become incompatible with Scotland's fiscal policy.

So Darling is simultaneously telling us that, if we forego our rightful independence, the British state will deliver some kind of fiscal autonomy, and that this will eventually be catastrophic for our economy with no way out other than the kind of measure now being inflicted on the people of Cyprus.

Not the most tempting offer I've ever had.

The contradictions and inconsistencies referred to arise, as I have said, from the illogical premise of an anti-independence position that views independence as a privilege to be bestowed, subject to qualification, by a "higher power" rather than the normal status of any nation. But this does not explain how people like Alistair Darling can be so totally unaware of the confusion and disorder that permeates their arguments. For that we have to look at another aspect of the British nationalist mindset. The determination to portray independence as some kind of "Year Zero".

The term "Year Zero" is most commonly associated with the horrors of Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia back in the late 1970s. More generally, the term refers to the political notion of a new order that comes about by the elimination of all that has gone before. Year Zero implies the eradication of all culture, all traditions, all institutions and all social structures so as to start anew. I am not suggestion that Better Together are talking in quite such startling terms. But they are certainly contriving their very own Year Zero scenario for Scotland in the hope of frightening people away from voting Yes. And, let's be frank, because they have nothing else to say.

If the most dire of the British nationalists' prognostications were to come to pass then independence day would see Scotland cast adrift and isolated in the world. Machine-gun towers and razor-wire would appear along the border with England. Families would be torn asunder and alienated from one another. Relatives and friends would suffer that most appalling of all fates - they would become... foreigners!

Our economy would immediately collapse; all trade would cease; businesses would uproot overnight and move lock stock and barrel to the other side of what would inevitably be dubbed by the Daily Mail, "The Tartan Curtain".

TV and radio broadcasts would be cut off. The music of the Beatles and Billy Bragg would suddenly sound incomprehensible to the Scottish ear. Mobile phones would stop working and Scottish airports would be bombed by the RAF.

Scotland would be partitioned in the manner of Ireland with Orkney and Shetland becoming an rUK enclave laying claim to all the resources of Scotland's territorial waters - presumably backed by the might of a Royal Navy whose ships would be built anywhere in the world rather than in Scotland.

Scotland would, according to the unionists' Year Zero scenario, become an outcast nation, shunned by Europe and America alike. The offended dignity of the British state would, we are assured, find a sympathetic echo in corridors of power around the world. Scotland would be summarily ejected from the EU and other international bodies. All international treaties and conventions would be rendered null and void.

And, of course, Scotland would become a one-party state. A dictatorial regime would hold sway and we would all find ourselves toiling under the somewhat pudgy iron fist of a tartan-uniformed Emperor Eck as he sits enthroned in Salmond Palace (formerly Bute House).

If we are here straying into the realm of the ridiculous it is only to find that we are not the first to set foot there. The union flag is already firmly planted in the land of bizarre ideas.

A more sane, sober and sensible scenario would represent Scotland's independence, not as Year Zero, but as Day One. We will wake up after the celebration party to find the shops still open, with their shelves fully stocked. Those who are not too hung-over will wend their weary way to work in the same jobs they hated before. The trains and buses will run. Planes will take off and land at Scotland's un-bombed airports. The TV schedules will be little changed, if at all. People in Scotland will communicate with friends and family elsewhere just as they have always done.

Financial institutions will continue to function. If they view the new situation with some trepidation who can say that's necessarily a bad thing given their past record. But the hole in the wall will continue to disgorge cash for those who have it.

There will be no Year Zero. Outwardly, nothing much will have changed on Day One of independence. Under the surface, however, there will be much that is different. And the ensuing months and years will surely see Scotland find a better way. The fact that we can even hope for such a thing is a powerful enough incentive to vote Yes.

Referendum debate: A mystery to the media?

Scotland's independence referendum

Reading the editorial in today's Guardian I was struck by two things. The shallowness of the analysis. And the bitterness of the comments that followed.

The first of these is evident in the rather quaint notion that Ruth Davidson's speech the other day marked some sort of major shift in Tory thinking on devolution. The reality, of course, is that the Tories are no more offering firm proposals on "more powers" than their British Labour allies. Their interest in enhancing democracy in Scotland is a function of the perceived threat of a Yes vote in next year's referendum. With that threat removed, all the British parties will suddenly lose interest in devolution.

And what of the threat of a Yes vote? Is it, as the analysis offered here suggests, such a remote possibility as to be hardly worth reflecting on? Only if one looks no farther than the headline figures in polls. While these would indicate support for independence at no more than 35% what they do not make clear is just how weak the assumed No vote is.

Polling also shows that, when people are asked about what powers they would like the Scottish Parliament to have, a clear and in some cases substantial majority indicate that they want powers that they cannot have while Scotland remains bound to the anachronistic union..

Most people in Scotland want independence. They just haven't yet realised that the thing they want is called independence.

What they do know is that the Better Together mob offer nothing. A No vote is a vote for the status quo, at best. And, as already noted, with the leverage of a possible Yes vote removed, it is almost certain to result in a rolling back of existing devolution; the "repatriation" of powers to the cesspit of Westminster; slashing of Scotland's budget; punitive welfare "reforms" beyond anything we've seen so far; rigging of the electoral system to ensure British parties will always hold power at Holyrood; and much else besides.

The polling is deceptive. Most of those counted as No voters have actually already rejected the status quo. They are more like Yes voters in waiting. As increasing numbers of them realise the dire implications of a No vote, they will move - first to the undecided category, and then to committed supporters of independence.

What Ruth Davidson's speech indicates is some sort of low-level awareness in the British parties that they are losing. That they chose the wrong strategy when they rejected devo-whatever. That the disinformation, distortions and downright lies are not being effective. That the ever more inane scare stories aren't working. They are now desperately trying to deceive voters into thinking that a No vote means enhanced devolution. They are setting up "commissions" to provide them with a pretext to <b>talk about</b> "more powers" because they have belatedly realised that they have nothing to say to the people of Scotland. Nothing to offer them.

While the mainstream media continues to peddle a cosy consensus informed by the perspective of the British state, politics in Scotland has changed. The referendum debate in particular has moved on apparently unnoticed by the majority of commentators. The question people in Scotland are asking is less and less why they should vote for independence and increasingly why they would want to stay with a UK that has irretrievably succumbed to the ideology which is driving the Tories' economic and social vandalism.

Independence has long since ceased to be the big scary abyss that the British parties still try to portray with a desperation that borders on the ludicrous. Independence is normal. It is the default condition of all nations. It is the constitutional status to which the people of all nations aspire. In Scotland, more and more people are wondering why they should continue to be the exception.

Why that should provoke such a bilious response from so many people outside Scotland continues to be perplexing.

Capitalist mythology

The mythical inevitability of capitalism

Capitalist ideology is rife with pernicious myths. The myth of wealth creation; which holds that inequitable distribution of resources is explained by the magical creation of new resources rather than the transfer of resources from the many to the few.

The myth of the "trickle-down effect"; which holds that the rich feed the poor rather than feeding off them.

The myth of the "path to prosperity"; which holds that those at the back of the queue will one day have the things enjoyed by those at the front if only they are patient.

Outside the bubble of capitalist mythology, resources ultimately and inevitably come down to matter/energy which can neither be created nor destroyed but only transformed or transferred. Wealth is not created but acquired. And it cannot be acquired other than at some cost to another part of the system.

Outside the bubble of capitalist mythology, the only time little fish eat big fish, rather than vice versa, is when the big fish is dead. Or when the little fish take collective action.

Outside the bubble of capitalist mythology, the path to prosperity for most leads only to a place that has been ravaged and depleted by those who got there first. A barren place where all that remains is a sign telling them that their turn will come so long as they don't push. And that they can only hope to make the line move faster by making sacrifices to "incentivise" those at the front.

But perhaps the most pernicious and insidious myth of all is the one being peddled here by Alex Massie. The myth of the inevitability of capitalism. A myth which holds that the inequity and injustice of the capitalist economic system is natural. Ordained. The unavoidable outcome of some immutable universal law rather than the consequence of choices made by those with the power to choose in the interest of preserving and expanding that power.

It is the myth of the capitalist economic system as a remorseless and undeniable force of nature rather than a contrivance of self-serving, avaricious, fearful and fallible human beings.

It is the dogma of despair. It is a message that mocks hope and aspiration. It is the worm in the ear of the masses that speaks to them of the futility of ambition and urges the relief of resignation and the ease of surrender.

It is a denial of our capacity to choose differently. Worse! It is a denial of our right to dream and to be motivated by that dream rather than by fear.

The first choice we have to make is that we will not be denied. That we will insist on our right to have a dream and to strive towards its realisation. And if that requires that we reject constitutional and political arrangements that are an impediment to our striving, then so be it. We will take our independence. And we will take our chances.

Adapted from a comment on Alex Massie: Forging the fiscal future in The Scotsman.

Related articles

• Capitalism Efficient? We Can Do So Much Better