Wincing and recoiling

snp_conferenceDo you ever read something that makes you physically wince? I flinched twice reading George Kerevan’s article. I cringed when i read this “the Scots electorate (mercifully) is having a year off”. Aye, George! Because voting is such an onerous task we should be glad of anti-democratic British Nationalists like Ruth Davidson who want to relieve us of the chore. Participating in the democratic process is such a burden we should happily do the bidding of those who advise us to sit down, shut up and eat our cereal.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if there was some way we could all just disengage from politics altogether? Wouldn’t it be great if there was some elite prepared to relieve us of the need to think about all that politics stuff? Wouldn’t it be a mercy if we were given two years off from the grind of democracy? Or five? Or fifty?

That five minute walk to the polling place is hellish enough. But then they make you pick up a pencil and make a mark on a bit of paper! Sometimes, you even have to think about where you’re putting that cross! (Yes! A cross! That’s two – count them! – TWO pencil strokes!) And you might be asked to do this TWICE in the one year! It’s inhuman!

Of course, it’s not just the voting that’s a massive imposition. All that politics nonsense takes up so much space in the newspapers and so much airtime on TV and radio. Think how much more sport there could be in the papers if it weren’t for all those column inches being devoted to stuff about health and education and welfare. Think how many more soaps could be crammed into a day if they would just stop putting politicians on. Who needs it? We pay those politicians to run the country. Can they not just get on with it? Do they have to be pestering us all the time?

I’d barely recovered from the physical impact of that little gobbet of thoughtlessness when I was made to recoil again; this time at the suggestion that,

This upcoming spring conference will be the last at which the SNP top brass can remain silent on the referendum question.

What!? The SNP leadership can remain silent about the new referendum at next month’s conference!? They can get through the whole two days without so much as mentioning it!? As they say on Twitter, WTF!?

I know George noticed the All Under One Banner march in Glasgow on Saturday 5 May. I know he’s aware of it, because he mentions it in the very next sentence. What does he think those 50,000 people were marching for? Longer tea-breaks!?

In theory, I suppose it’s possible that there were people on that march whose enthusiasm for independence wasn’t matched by a sense of urgency. It was a very large gathering. Perhaps I missed the banners saying ‘POSTPONE THE REFERENDUM’. Maybe I failed to hear the chants of, ‘what do we want? Independence! When do we want it? When Pete Wishart is satisfied that we can’t possibly lose!’.

Or perhaps I read the mood correctly. Perhaps there was a feeling of urgency in the air. Perhaps there is an expectation that the SNP will respond to that sense of urgency. Perhaps a large proportion of those people are anticipation something more than silence on the referendum question when the party meets in Aberdeen next month. Perhaps a significant number of those people will be bloody annoyed if all they get is silence from the “SNP top brass”.

One thing I can say for certain about the people on that march – they know the value of participative democracy. They don’t think of participation in the democratic process as a chore to be avoided if at all possible. They aren’t content to sit down, shut up and eat their cereal. That march was democracy in action. Those people, and the thousands more who were with them in spirit, were insisting on having their say.

The SNP leadership better be listening. And they damn well better have a good response. Silence will not satisfy those people. Silence is not an option.


If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence campaign.

donate with paypal

donate with pingit

 

Prison, punishment and democracy

prisonChristina McKelvie is quite wrong when she says that “prison is a place people go to be punished“. Prison is the punishment. Imprisonment. Incarceration. Immurement. Forfeiture of liberty is the penalty. The law allows for no further punishment beyond this. Prison is a place people are sent as punishment, not to be punished.

Prisoners are wards of the state. The state is responsible for their welfare. Which means we, each and every citizen of Scotland, owes a duty of care to prisoners. That may be an uncomfortable thought for some. But it is a fact, nonetheless. It is an unavoidable corollary of a truly democratic system. The necessarily implication of this is that we must ensure that inmates are not subject to additional punishment whilst in prison. It is essential that our justice system be fair. The penalties imposed for breaking the law must be transparent and consistent and even-handed. Which means we must be able to measure, as accurately as possible, the extent to which individuals are being punished. We do this using time. Ideally, the period of incarceration correlates closely with the seriousness of the crime so that those who have committed similar offences forfeit their liberty for the same amount of time.

It’s not easy to know what alternative measure might be used. What is certain is that, were there to be various additional punishments meted out whilst the sentence is being served, measuring the impact on individuals of these on individuals must be as close to impossible as makes no difference. For the system to be perceived as fair, the state must do all it can to ensure that the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences are as close to identical as possible.

We send people to prison because we care about society. It would be illogical, therefore, not to care about the welfare of prisoners. They may be segregated from society, but they do not cease to be part of it. The vast majority will be expected to resume a life within society once their sentence is served. Prison must prepare them for this. It simply makes no sense to imagine that you can prepare an individual for being part of society by treating them as a social reject. It is in society’s interest that every effort be made to engage those who, self-evidently, have the greatest difficulty engaging.

There can hardly be anything more symbolic of rejection and disengagement than denial of that most fundamental of civil rights, the right to vote. A blanket ban, in particular, must be inherently unfair. Two individuals having committed identical crimes under identical circumstances and been given identical sentences could be arbitrarily subject to different penalties in terms of loss of opportunities to vote simply by virtue of when they serve their period of incarceration. One might miss two or more chances to exercise their democratic franchise, whilst the other misses none. It is inherently and unavoidably unfair.

Democracy is better for being participative. The more people who vote, the better. The more people who vote, the more representative of society the outcome is. In order to ensure – or, at least, facilitate – maximum participation the default position has to be that absolutely everybody has a vote. There should be no discussion about who has a right to vote. The very fact of such discussion diminishes our democracy. What may be debated is the matter of who is permitted to exercise their right to vote. But the onus is on those who wish to deny this permission to make a case which is valid within the context of an overarching set of democratic principles.

I have yet to see any such case for denying prisoners the opportunity to exercise their democratic right.


If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence campaign.

donate with paypal

donate with pingit

Sunday Herald’s death rattle

If you’re looking for words to describe Neil Mackay’s open letter in today’s Sunday Herald, the following list might prove helpful.

self-righteous self-obsessed self-satisfied self-pitying
self-devoted self-indulgent self-flattering self-complacent
self-conceited self-aggrandising self-interested self-involved
self-congratulatory self-seeking self-regarding self-serving

herald-march-300x273The Sunday Herald editor’s attempt to deflect and defuse scathing criticism of his paper’s coverage of the All Under One Banner (AUOB) march in Glasgow last Saturday (5 May) brought to mind the BBC’s established practice of dealing with complaints by the simple expedient of declaring itself innocent – having first appointed itself the ultimate arbiter in all such matters. Mackay goes one better, however, by pronouncing himself and his newspaper, not only guiltless, but impeccable – a splendiferous flowering of all that is purest and brightest in the realm of print media. If his piece had run to another hundred words we might have been obliged to add self-beatification to that list.

Hark at this,

we wish to provide balance, accuracy and fairness. Our coverage last Sunday was an attempt to maintain that tradition.

the Sunday Herald has long tried to provide balance

the Sunday Herald office is staffed with some of the most experienced and talented reporting staff in journalism.

the Sunday Herald prides itself on the accuracy of its journalism and photo-journalism.

the Sunday Herald has impeccable credentials when it comes to our journalism

Was Neil Mackay explaining editorial decisions? Or was he writing his own testimonial?

And what about those editorial decisions? Mackay doesn’t quite manage an apology for the picture which adorned the front page of last Sunday’s edition. Or for the caption which accompanied it. The picture was widely condemned for giving the impression of a British Nationalist counter-demonstration which was (at least?) equal in size to the march. Or, as he puts it in an early instance of his self-serving narrative,

the picture was not representative of the day’s event

Even as he attempts to justify the pejorative image he can’t help slipping into language which reveals the same sleekit dishonesty. The complaint wasn’t that the picture was “not representative” of the event. The complaint was that the picture massively misrepresented the event. It misrepresented the event in ways that should have given any professional journalist pause. It misrepresented the event so completely and so comprehensively that it should have rung alarm bells on sight. It should not have needed to be pointed out. It was so wholly inappropriate as to be like a sharp stick poking the eye of the beholder.

But “the most experienced and talented reporting staff in journalism” were totally blind to the problem with that image. They were unaware. They just didn’t see it. That’s the issue here, Neil! That’s the problem. As the editor, it’s your problem. And you are evidently as oblivious to that problem as you were to the unacceptable nature of the image. It’s about the mindset. It’s about the ethos. If your newspaper was even half as good as you imagine it to be, somebody would have caught that picture before it went to print. But nobody saw it. Or, worse still, somebody may have spotted the problem but felt unable to speak up. What does that say about your “impeccable credentials”, Neil?

Then there’s the caption below the offending image. The caption which compounded the pejorative nature of the picture by claiming that “ugly confrontations marred the event”. The term ‘confrontations’ implies two or more parties. It is reminiscent of British media reports which described the British Nationalist rioting in George Square on the day after the 2014 referendum as “clashes”, suggesting that Yes supporters participated in the violence rather than being the targets of it.

The caption is at least as misleading as the picture. Again, it begs the question as to why “the most experienced and talented reporting staff in journalism” so readily resort to material which does anything but “provide balance, accuracy and fairness”.

It’s a conundrum that Neil Mackay urgently needs to address. If he and his staff are to be credited with the principled professionalism to which he lays claim, than how can this misrepresentation and distortion be anything other than deliberate? How might we simultaneously accept that they are exceptionally good at their jobs and that they make repeated blunders such as have been described? How does Neil Mackay reconcile this grating contradiction?

While he’s about it, perhaps he might try to explain how his claim of “balance, accuracy and fairness” can be compatible with holding the SNP leadership responsible for every word uttered by anybody who so much as hints at even the most tenuous association with the independence campaign, while the likes of Ruth Davidson and Richard Leonard are not similarly held to be accountable for the behaviour of British Nationalist bigots spewing bile on social media and confronting peaceful marchers on the streets with abuse and Nazi salutes.

Warning! The prejudice oozing out of the following paragraph may permanently stain clothing or carpets.

It is also disheartening that SNP figures do not speak out to condemn such distortion of the truth, when they know full well the values and the standards of the Sunday Herald. By maintaining their silence, they are allowing lies to poison the body politic. Staff in this paper have had many conversations with many senior elected figures in the SNP who are as disgusted by the conspiracy theories of the Yes fringe as any right thinking person would be – so we would ask them: when you see your supporters lying and bullying, have the courage to stand up and call them out; failing to do so betrays any claims by the party that it stands up for what is right and fair and decent.

See how that first sentence turns the accusation of distorting the truth back on those who are levelling that charge against the Sunday Herald. See how Mackay assumes authority to speak on behalf of “SNP figures”. See how he makes the SNP guilty by default. See the way the entire independence movement is reduced to a “Yes fringe”. See how he claims the moral high ground of “right thinking people”. See how everybody who dares complain about the very thing he’s doing in this passage are collectively condemned for “lying and bullying”. See how whatever he does is lauded as “right and fair and decent”.

There was a time when journalists could get away with this kind of manipulation. But people are daily growing more aware of trickery which, in any case, isn’t nearly as subtle and clever as the likes of Neil Mackay suppose. Among a more aware and astute readership, such clumsy, clunking rhetoric is likely to have an effect quite opposite to that which is intended.

If it wasn’t already clear just how woefully Neil Mackay has misread the situation, there’s the following,

There seems to be a hatred of journalism – of questioning, of analysis, of nuance, of open debate – at the heart of such sentiment which is truly not good for democracy.

For a start, Neil, it’s not “hatred”. Labelling it as such is just an inept attempt to diminish criticism by portraying it as overly emotive. It’s not hatred. It’s anger. Anger at the media’s failure to adequately serve democracy by providing the questioning, analysis and nuance which contributes to open debate and informed electoral choices.

What Neil Mackay and others plying his dubious trade need to understand is that, however many award ceremonies they organise for themselves, they don’t get to decide when they are doing a satisfactory job. We’ll decide! They don’t get to be the final arbiters of what is good journalism. We do! They don’t get to declare themselves righteous and innocent. They don’t get to stand in judgement of their critics. They don’t get to act with impunity. The consumers of their product have the final say.

You don’t tell us, Neil! We tell you! And you really should have listened.


If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence campaign.

donate with paypal

donate with pingit

 

Backing off

pw_holdWe have here a curious instance of someone getting the point, then losing it. Pete Wishart lights upon a highly significant observation, only to immediately walk away from it in his eagerness to get back to comfortable and comforting platitudes about “new independence case”.

Difficult as it may be for some to believe, there was a time when there were genuinely Scottish Conservatives who really were regarded as the defenders of ‘Scottishness’. As Pete acknowledges, in the decades following WW2 that ‘Scottishness’ was threatened by a “pervasive, unifying British identity”. It was Conservatives, and particularly rural Conservatives, who stood for all that was distinctively Scottish.

In part, those Scottish Conservatives were standing against the homogenising influence of post-war socialism. But they were also resisting the rise – or should we better say, the resurrection – of a form of British identity which had its roots in the idea of the UK as a ‘Greater England’ within which all the constituent parts, but particularly Scotland, were to be subsumed.

Sound familiar? What those Scottish Conservatives were resisting was an earlier, less aggressive, less extreme form of the ‘One Nation’ British Nationalism which today threatens Scotland’s distinctiveness.

This is, of course, an oversimplification. But there is an essential truth here which Pete Wishart first notes, then chooses to disregard. The Scottish Conservatives of that post-war era won support in rural Scotland (and to some extent in urban areas as well) in large part because they tapped into a popular mood which valued Scottish distinctiveness and rejected the concept of a ‘One Nation’ British state.

What is perplexing is that, having picked up on something which has obvious relevance to the constitutional debate today, Pete Wishart declines to explore its implications. If opposition to ‘One Nation’ British Nationalism was a significant influence on attitudes and electoral choices in rural Scotland then, might it not be an important consideration now? If people in rural communities placed such value on ‘Scottishness’ then, is it not reasonable to assume that they might still do so?

Of course, that was fifty years ago. Times have changed. But have those attitudes also changed? Is that not, at the very least, a question worth asking?

The Scottish Conservatives have certainly changed. In fact, they no longer exist as a political party. As part of the blight of Thatcherism, they were absorbed into the British Tories. Today, the term ‘Scottish Conservatives’ is as much a deceptive misnomer as ‘Scottish Labour’. But the popular regard for Scottish distinctiveness that helped fuel electoral support for Scottish Conservatives half a century ago hasn’t necessarily disappeared along with distinctive Scottish Conservatism. In fact, subsequent SNP electoral success in former Scottish Conservative strongholds such as Perthshire suggests that this desire to maintain a distinct Scottish identity may still be a powerful motivating factor for voters.

Might it not, therefore, be a latent force for Scotland’s independence campaign? If the Scottish Conservatives of old could tap into a vein of opposition to the threat of a “pervasive, unifying British identity” back then, why should the independence movement not exploit that same well of popular feeling today?

Other things have changed since a vote for the Scottish Conservatives meant a vote for ‘Scottishness’. Scotland’s distinctiveness has changed dramatically in both form and degree. Whatever ‘Scottishness’ meant fifty years ago, today it refers to a distinctive political culture. To whatever were the historical and cultural connotations of the term has been added a brand of politics which contrasts starkly with that of the British state. A more progressive and humane politics which is increasingly at odds with the harshness and coldness and downright cruelty of British politics.

There is more that is distinctive now than there was then. More that is worth defending.

The threat has also changed. The “pervasive, unifying British identity” has metamorphosed into an ugly, bitter brand of ‘One Nation’ British Nationalism which poses a real and imminent threat, not only to Scotland’s distinctive political culture, but to the very democratic institutions and process which have been the source of that distinctiveness. British Nationalism is no longer merely concerned with suppressing ‘Scottishness’. It seeks to destroy ‘Scottishness’ at its roots.

The threat is greater now. There is more that must be resisted.

The obvious conclusion from all of this is that the Yes campaign should take the form of a bastion against the threat posed by this pernicious British Nationalist ideology. What would seem to logically follow from the first part of Pete Wishart’s analysis is that the Yes campaign should go on the attack against a project which would subsume Scotland into a homogenised British state.

I surely can’t be the only one who is perplexed at the way Pete Wishart side-steps the pachyderm in the parlour to get to the comfy chair of his preconceived notions about a “new independence case”.

Even if there was anything “new” to be said about independence, what is the point of presenting this to people who aren’t listening because they’ve already decided that independence isn’t happening? What purpose is served by putting all the resources of the Yes campaign into polishing a proposition which is already as perfect as any political proposition might be?

Why is Pete Wishart so resistant to the idea of doing something new? He almost makes the case for a Yes campaign focused on vigorously defending what Scotland has and aggressively attacking that which puts it in jeopardy. But then he backs off from this and takes refuge in a rather less politically ‘brave’ obsession with being ‘positive’. He almost gets there. But then he chooses to let the British Nationalists off the hook. Why?


If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence campaign.

donate with paypal

donate with pingit

 

Then what?

sunday_politicsI rarely watch the BBC’s Sunday Politics Scotland show. It is presented by Sarah Smith and Gordon Brewer. But that’s not the only reason I don’t watch it. The thing is, I don’t need to. I always know – with an adequate degree of certainty – what it will be about. I know, because I understand what is the function of the programme. It’s function is to lend the authority of the state broadcaster to whatever stories the print media has been peddling over the preceding week. In that respect, Sunday Politics Scotland is no more than a weekend version of BBC Scotland’s daily news and current affairs output. All are there merely to stamp the latest British Nationalist propaganda with the imprimatur of an institution which is able to exploit the residual respect afforded to what was once the most respected news organisation in the world.

The stories which these programmes seek to furnish with a veneer of credibility fall broadly into three categories –

  • SNP: Spawn of Beelzebub? Or imps of Satan?
  • Crisis threatens [insert name of Scottish institution or public service]!
  • Scotland: Hellhole? Or cesspit?

Whether it’s distributing incendiary baby boxes or denying jakies the gut-rot they crave, the SNP is always wrong. Whether it’s NHS Scotland or Police Scotland or anything else that might be somehow associated with Scotland, it’s a day away from total collapse, and has been since the hated SNP forced their way into government by the devious ploy of persuading people to vote for them time after time. Whether it’s potholes or potheads, Scotland is the worst. You know the sort of thing I mean. The papers are filled with it every day. A persistent current of nasty negativity, deliberate distortion and downright dishonesty.

The BBC’s role is to bring an air of gravitas to all of this. We’re all supposed to take it seriously because it was on the Beeb. All too many do just that. Because it’s TV (and radio) where time is a major constraint, what the BBC serves up is a distillation of the bile, bunkum and bullshit fed to us by the print media. A short, sharp jolt of extra-strong lies. Where the press is the hose spraying us with propaganda, TV is the hypodermic injecting it straight into the brain.

So, I don’t bother watching the likes of the Sunday Politics Scotland. If I’ve been following the news cycle, I can pretty much predict what will be on the programme. And I can be quite certain about how it will be presented.

The people, too, will be familiar types. Mostly British politicians peddling the promises and platitudes and pieties and slogans and soundbites and sophisms which are their stock-in-trade. They will point fingers of blame at one another as each denounces policies and actions they only lately espoused and will later embrace again whilst being ‘very clear’ that they have never/always favoured those policies and actions – delete as appropriate. They will condemn failures and weakness and incompetence and corruption until it seems that all is failure; all is weakness; all is incompetence; all is corruption.

They will offer alternatives that always turn out to be indistinguishable from the other alternatives. They will talk of new directions, but always it’s the same destination. They will dance the dance of faux rivalry. They will perform the familiar ritual. They will go through the well-practiced motions.

In a supporting role, the ‘experts’ are there to present selected facts with an air of scientific certainty that is supposed to be reassuring. Their task is to give an impression of order and control. The solidity of statistics and research is offered as a remedy for the rambling rhetoric of politicians.

Then there are the pundits and commentators who are brought on to interpret it all for the benefit of viewers assumed to be afflicted by the intellectual equivalent of dental caries brought on by a syrupy diet of sport, soaps and celebs.

The journalists tend to stick dutifully to a cosy consensus defined by the London-centric corporate media. They don’t see it as their job to challenge the narrative of established power. They don’t ask awkward questions. They don’t offer insightful analysis. They are as immersed in the British political system as the politicians. They are as much a part of the British establishment. They are as embedded in the structures of power, privilege and patronage which define the British state.

Other than the ‘political correspondents’ of approved publications, the talking heads seem to be drawn at random from a pool of people whose qualifications are never quite clear. Katharine Mary Grant, better known as Katie, seems typical.  Her credentials as a commentator on Scottish politics appear to consist of being a minor member of the British aristocracy who has written some children’s books and penned opinion pieces for various organs representing the more rabid and ranty fringes of right-wing British politics.

Ms Grant gives the impression of having breakfasted well on generous helpings of Smugabix. She oozes the assured, self-righteous pomposity that comes from a life of easy advantage and an absolute conviction of British exceptionalism. She is there to comment on things that she cannot possibly comprehend. It is this lack of comprehension which qualifies her to appear on the BBC’s Sunday Politics Scotland show. She is able to present the British establishment perspective untainted by any awareness of the reality and unsullied by any relevant experience. Being wrapped in the cocoon of a prestigious BBC current affairs programme is supposed to normalise this perspective.

180505_marchI didn’t watch the edition of Sunday Politics Scotland on which Katie Grant appeared recently. I am, however, reliably informed that, delivering her haughtily disdainful verdict on the the All Under One Banner march in Glasgow the previous day (Saturday 5 May), she posed a question which should probably be read with a tone of sneering incredulity.

It looks like a body that wants one thing. But if they ever got that thing then what would happen?

Interesting and informative as it might be to dissect and analyse this comment in some detail, I’m going to focus on the bit where she asks, presumably with an air of snide perplexity, “then what would happen?”. This is notable, not because of the dumb but proud incomprehension in the face of a massive exercise in popular democracy – as noted earlier, if Katie Grant was capable of understanding the motives and aspirations of those participating in the march she’d be useless for the BBC’s purposes – but because it is a question neither she nor any other representative of the British establishment would think to ask of the British Nationalist ‘One Nation’ project.

If that project progresses, what then? What constitutes success? What is the end-state that British Nationalists are aiming for?

We know what is the purpose and intent of this ‘One Nation’ project. We know that the British state is driven by an imperative to lock Scotland into a political union unilaterally reformed to better serve the British ruling elites. We know that they want to undo a devolution experiment which, from their perspective, has gone disastrously wrong.

We know that they want to deny Scotland’s democratic right of self-determination.

We know that they want to emasculate the Scottish Parliament.

We know that they want to dismantle Scotland’s democratic institutions.

We know that they want to prepare Scotland’s public services for sale to profiteering corporations.

We know that they want to prevent Scotland’s land and resources being taken out of the hands of grasping individuals and exploitative businesses and used for the benefit of the many.

But then what happens?

Do they suppose that the people of Scotland will meekly submit to their democratic rights being denied?

Do they imagine the people of Scotland won’t defend the only Parliament that they elect?

Do they think the people of Scotland will quietly tolerate the transfer of powers to an unelected shadow government accountable only to the British executive?

Have they even considered how the people of Scotland might react to the privatisation of precious public services such as NHS Scotland?

Have they envisaged the response when Scotland’s people are overruled on the issue of fracking just as we were on the matter of EU membership?

Suppose they proceed with their plan to absorb Scotland into ‘Greater England’, then what?

Do they really think Scotland’s independence campaign can be utterly vanquished?

Do they seriously suppose the Yes movement can be crushed out of existence?

Do they imagine the aspirations of Scotland’s people will simply evaporate?

Something close to half Scotland’s people want independence. Many more are at least content with devolution. Only a relatively tiny minority favour the anti-democratic British Nationalist project. Suppose the British state persists in pandering to that minority while contemptuously disregarding the rest, then what?


If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence campaign.

donate with paypal

donate with pingit

iScot Magazine May 2018

Scotto Voce

The following is an excerpt from my article in the May 2018 issue of iScot Magazine.

1805_iscot_coverIt’s on the news. There’s been an explosion. It was in one of those countries that you couldn’t find on a map, even if you didn’t keep getting it mixed up with that other country that you couldn’t find on a map.

You don’t recognise the unpronounceable name of the actual town where this incident happened. You know it’s not one of the places that have become familiar as a site of atrocities because, on the news, they’re referring to it as “the town of…”. A prefix reserved for places they think people won’t know is a town unless they’re told.

You wonder if there’s some rule that governs when that prefix is dropped. Is it after a certain number of atrocities? Or is it after a certain number of mentions of the…

View original post 86 more words

Will you stand?

When I took to the stage at Glasgow Green after the magnificent All Under One Banner march from Kelvingrove Park on Saturday, I spoke without notes. The following is partly a transcript of my address based on Martin Hannan’s report in The National, and partly the speech I would like to have made. Little of it is based on personal recollection, as I confess to having been quite overcome by the immensity of the occasion.

auob_stageI have supported independence all my life. I joined the SNP as soon as I was eligible. That was in 1962, when I was aged 12. A lot has happened in the fifty odd years between then and now.

I remember Winnie Ewing’s stunning Hamilton by-election victory in 1967.

I well recall the hard graft of the two UK general elections of 1974 – both winter campaigns.

I remember the British Labour betrayal of Scotland in 1979 and the ugliness of the Thatcher years which ensued.

But we got past all that. We got over it. We survived it. And here we are, 50-odd years on, in May 2018.

May is a significant month. It was on 12 May 1999 that the Scottish Parliament was reconvened by Winnie Ewing – three decades after her historic victory.

At last, Scotland had a real Parliament again!

On 3 May 2007 there was an election which shocked the British parties and broke their stranglehold on Holyrood. On 11 May, SNP administration was sworn in and Alex Salmond became First Minister.

Somewhat inconveniently for my rhetoric, it was 3 September 2007 before we were finally rid of the derisory ‘Scottish Executive’.

At last, Scotland had a real Government again!

In the years since then, Scotland has developed an increasing distinctive political culture. As far as the limits of devolution allow, Scotland has been doing things its own way.

At last, Scotland was acting like a real nation again!

And the British political elite doesn’t like it!

Friends! Over the years of campaigning to restore Scotland’s rightful constitutional status there were times when I felt great elation. There were times when I felt bitter disappointment. But always I felt quietly confident that our cause would prevail.

Lately, however, I have felt something else. I have felt anger. And I have felt fear.

I have felt anger at the British state and its utter contempt for our Parliament and its disrespect for our Government and its disdain for our people.

I have felt fear for what British Nationalists will do if we fail to stop them. They will emasculate our parliament. They will dismantle our democratic institutions. They will eradicate our distinctive political culture. They will sacrifice our public services on the altar of private profit.

Friends! I will not let my anger turn to impotent rage or misdirected hate. I will not let my fear turn to tremulous hesitancy or paralysed inaction.

I will hold fast to my fear. I will be motivated by it. I will raise aloft my anger. I will be energised by it. And I will make a stand against the rolling juggernaut of anti-democratic ‘One Nation’ British Nationalism which is threatening this country.

Will you stand with me?

Will you stand in defence of Scotland’s Parliament?

Will you stand in defence of Scotland’s Government?

Will you stand in defence of Scotland’s public services?

Will you stand in defence of Scotland?


If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence campaign.

donate with paypal

donate with pingit