Indy Hats For All

If we’re going to screw up, let’s screw up on our own terms, our own policies, our own standards.

Does that not sound like a terribly attractive proposition?

Well, I’m sorry, but I’m sick of being told I’m a whinging, moaning, scrounging Scot.

Are we headed for Utopia? Bloody hell – of course not. Behave. If we gain independence it’ll be tough (and Westminster have made no bones about the fact that they intend to make it as tough as they possibly can – for no genuine pragmatic reasons {because we are not worth anything to them - they subsidise us, so they should be glad to see the back of us, right?} – you know, just because they can). Should the fact that it will be tough stop us? I sincerely hope not.

In last night’s debate, Alastair Darling gave us three job creating powers that would be devolved to a NO voting Scotland: Everything is better in the UK. Everything is better in the UK. Everything is better in the UK. Three options that were all the same and were nothing to do with devolved powers.

In his response to the never-ending Plan B on currency question, Alex Salmond gave three Plan Bs – pound without currency union, new currency, or Euro – but still preferred a currency union. At least he gave three options, albeit not stating which he placed as first contender.

If I’m honest, I’m quite keen on no currency union and sticking with the dreaded Panama option – Panama sank into financial decline and everyone died and the whole place was overrun with rabid monkeys. Or maybe not. Why not check it out?

I’m campaigning for a hat, (obviously) to go with the Panama option – it’s the jaggy bunnet:

And, yes, I’m being frivolous. I apologise. But when I hear a Labour politician, who is supposedly engaging in a debate on behalf of Better Together i.e. Labour, Tory, Lib-Dem joining together against Scottish Independence, sneak in what Labour would do if voted in in 2015, I think frivolity is a reasonable response. If you are there to argue that Scotland is better off as part of the UK, that has to be because you believe that Scotland is better off as part of the UK no matter what party is leading the UK government - be it Tory, Labour, Lib-Dem or UKIP. When confronted with specific issues, you can't say, "Oh, but Labour wouldn't do that/would do this." You're not speaking for Labour - you're speaking for the Better Together, no matter what, no matter who.This was not the place to start campaigning for Labour (Tory Lite) in the UK elections in 2015.

The hat is one of the many reasons it's just as well I'm not in charge. Probably.

Be a Good Little Subject (And say, "Thank You.")

Apparently, because I live in a country where I am not being bombed or tortured, I should just shut up, stop moaning and blah blah blah about politics and get out there and dance in the streets at my good fortune.

Yep. I should be so grateful that I am not being bombed or tortured, I should be a good little subject, sit quietly and never, ever question my government.

But, for me, if not being bombed or tortured is all you require for what you consider to be a good standard of living, then you’re setting the bar pretty low.

Of course I am aware that there are countries around the world where atrocities are carried out daily, where war rages, where drought and famine kills. Of course I am grateful every day for the fact that I do not live in one of those countries.

But this means I should ignore inequalities and injustice in my own country? Well, if there is logic to that statement, it escapes me.

Ah, but wouldn’t the government just love it if we all adopted that line? If we said, ‘Well, hey, I’m not in Gaza, so you guys go ahead and pass whatever laws you like. And that thing about taking away our rights, you know, scrapping the Human Rights Act, that thing you have planned? Well I’m not in Syria, so, yeah, you do that and I won’t say a word, ‘cause I’m not being bombed or tortured. And your continued attack on the poor and vulnerable in our society? Hell, yeah – go for it – they’re mostly scroungers (and probably *whispers* immigrants) so you go right ahead. I’m not in Iraq and no one else is abusing me physically, so you go right ahead and abuse my rights and those of the weakest in my society.’ Ooops – I forgot to say thank you.

This kind of right wing logic is terrifying to me. It’s like looking into the heart of darkness – you can’t come away unscathed. It preys on my mind and distresses me that there are people out there who think this way.

And, you've guessed it, it’s another reason I’m voting YES. I want my country to be as far away from right wing thinking as it can possibly be. I’m not pretending we don’t have any right wingers in Scotland – we do. Roughly 500,000 Scots voted Tory in the last general election and we all know that a UKIP guy got in at the European election. But it is, currently, a small voice. I don’t want it to rise. I don’t want it, fuelled by UKIP and Tory and Britain First, to get stronger. I want us to get away – far away – from the right wing.

I see independence as the only way for that to happen.

P.S. If my posts on FB or Twitter bother you, just unfriend/delete me. I'll understand.

Sensible Negotiations

One of the more disturbing reasons I’ve seen for voting NO is that the post-YES negotiations would be carried out by – you’ve guessed it – that Wee Fat Eck and the SNP.

So let’s think about this. Scotland votes YES to independence. Negotiations with Westminster begin. Do you want the Scottish negotiators to be the people who said we can’t do it, who said we’re too wee, who said we are ‘not genetically programmed to make political decisions’, who said we are Better Together?

What kind of negotiators would those people be? Would they have an independent Scotland’s interest at heart? I fail to see how, but I’m happy to be enlightened.

However much you hate the SNP and their leader, you have to give them this: They have Scotland’s best interests at heart. They have fought for, and won, the chance to have this referendum, to give you the chance to make this decision. They’re all about Scotland and what is best for Scotland and what they believe Scotland can become with independence.

And the negotiating committee would not just be SNP - it would be made up of representatives from other parties and Scottish civic societies. Would it be majority SNP? Very probably, but that’s just logical, when you think about it (please think about it) since they hold the majority of MPs and MSPs who fought for independence and are the only party in no way beholden to Westminster i.e. no one is going to lose their job if they don’t do as they’re told. I would be seriously suspicious of e.g. Johann Lamont negotiating my country’s independence, given her stance.

I appreciate that this may be unpalatable for those who, for whatever reasons, hate the SNP, but it would be just plain daft to give up the chance of independence – if you genuinely want independence – just because you don’t like the guy/party doing some of the negotiating.

As has been said many, many times – this is a means to an end. In 2016 there would be the first Independent Scottish elections and that’s when you get to decide who runs your country. And your vote would actually matter.

Please don’t give up that opportunity based on a dislike of one person or because you’d rather the people who don’t believe in independence negotiate the terms for that independence. If you stop and think about it, it really doesn’t make sense, does it?

I'm sorry? What? Could You Say That Again?

Sometimes you have to step away from the screen, rub your eyes, look back and check that you really read what you just read.

I saw a NO voter today, a life-long Labour supporter, say that, in the event of Westminster reneging on its vague promise of more powers or, worse, actually reducing powers and/or funding in Scotland, that it would be Alex Salmond’s fault and he hoped that Salmond would be able to live with himself.

I’ll just type that out again for you: any negative consequences of a NO vote would be Alex Salmond’s fault.

His logic – and I use that term loosely – being that, had that wee, fat Eck (height and weight v important in politicians) just left things alone, not bothered everyone with his pesky desire to give us the opportunity to see our nation free from Westminster rule, everything could have stayed the same. ‘Cause, you know, it’s all perfect at the moment.

Again, you’ll note the personal touch here with all blame being attributed to one man – not a party or a campaign or YES voters – just this one man, Alex the Merciless. You’ll also note that any ill-effects after a NO vote would not be the fault of NO voters. Nope. Nor would they be the fault of the Westminster parties lying. Nope.

And this life-long Labour supporter is perfectly happy for his party to link arms with his life-long enemy – the one he never votes for, but frequently gets stuck with – the good old Tory party. He doesn’t blink an eye. It gives him no pause for thought that his party is in cahoots with the Tory party and the Lib-Dem party in their attempts to convince people that Scotland is incapable of being a successful independent nation. If he did stop and think about that, he’d probably find someone else to blame anyway. Any guesses who that someone would be?

Has anyone got a pair of ruby slippers I can borrow? This can't be real.

What It's Really About (for me)

What It’s Really About

Well, it’s all about Salmond, isn’t it? The question on the ballot paper is: Do you want Alex Salmond to be the king of Scotland. Forever.

Except it’s not. It absolutely is not. The question is simple: Should Scotland be an independent country?

In the event of a YES vote, would that make Alex Salmond happy? Yes, of course – it’s what he’s campaigned for all his life. Would it make him the leader of Scotland, in any capacity, after 2016? Only if enough people voted for him. In other words, it would be up to you, the Scottish voters.

Is your hatred of one man, and the fact that something you do could result in him getting something he wants, worth giving up the chance of taking control of our own finances, making our decisions for our own people, having a vote that actually matters rather than one that only gets us the government we vote for if it just so happens that enough people in England want the same as us?

That’s for your conscience. If personality is more important to you than policy, then you’ll stick to your guns and be very pleased at having thwarted one man, ignoring the fact that you have also thwarted a nation’s chance at self-determination and self-rule. But so long as that wee fat Alex isn’t smiling, eh?

Lots of people talk of the uncertainty, not knowing what Scotland would be like if they vote YES, exactly which currency, exactly who’d end up as the leader. And so, they reason, it’s safer to stay with what they know, with certainties.

But there are no certainties. No one can tell you who will be in charge of the main UK political parties in 2015, which of those parties will win the election, which of the policies in their manifestos they will actually keep. We’ve been promised more powers if we vote NO (by parties who vetoed devo-max on the ballot paper), but we’re not to be told what those powers are, just as we’re not allowed to negotiate any details of an independent Scotland before the referendum. We are expected to just wait and see. Uncertainty is rife no matter which way you vote.

And please remember that voting NO isn’t just voting against something – it’s also voting for something. It’s voting for Westminster to continue its control over these aspects of our lives:

benefits and social security

immigration

defence

foreign policy

employment

broadcasting

trade and industry

nuclear energy, oil, coal, gas and electricity

consumer rights

data protection

the Constitution (the UK doesn’t actually have one of these, so I’ve never quite understood that, but it’s what’s on the government’s website, so I included it here)

I see those as quite important. All the more so since the recent attacks on the poor and disabled through ‘restructuring’ of benefits. All the more so since the slide to the right that’s taking place in the UK at the moment. All the more so since more and more information comes to light about how much we’ve been lied to, and are still being lied to, about oil and gas.

No one can force people to look at issues rather than people. I could just be petty and say, ‘Oh, well, if a YES vote is a vote for Alex Salmond, then a NO vote is a vote for David Cameron.’ But that would be silly. This is not about either of them – it’s not about Lamont or Darling or Davidson or Miliband or Clegg either

A YES vote is to give Scotland complete control over its own finances and its own affairs. A NO vote is to leave some of that control in the hands of whichever Westminster party the majority of English people vote for.

For me, it’s that simple.

My Journey to YES

In a break from writing stuff and cruise stuff, a wee bit of political stuff. Fell free to ignore and wait for the more light hearted stuff to return.

A Journey to YES

It’s 4^th May 1979. I’m 16. My mum is calling me to come downstairs and watch this historic event. She’s never voted Tory, and never would, but she can’t help being impressed that a woman has finally become Prime Minister, albeit this woman, from this party. She wants me to watch, to share in this moment.

Reluctantly, I relent and join her in front of the TV. I’m not madly political at this age, but I know enough to know that I don’t like right wing policies, and I don’t care if this is the first woman PM – she’s from the wrong party, and policies and party are far more important than gender or personality or being ‘first’ at something.

That voice, the one most of us will grow to hate, already makes my skin crawl as it says: Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope.

Well, we were soon to learn, had we ever doubted it, that that was complete bollocks.

I couldn’t vote until after October 1980, so I had no influence. It didn’t take me long to learn that I would never have any real influence. By the next general election, in 1983, I had already decided that I would never vote Tory because they didn’t care about Scotland (or, as it often seemed, basic human decency). Quite right, to be fair – from a political point of view, why waste your time on a place where you will never win votes? I had also decided there wasn’t much point to voting Labour – they didn’t seem to be that bothered about us either. Again, quite right – why waste time and energy on a place where your vote is pretty much guaranteed? Far better to start changing your party, to slide further towards right, in the hope of gaining new support or regaining old support. Don’t blame them in the slightest – it was what they felt was politically sound.

That left me, as far as I recall, with the Liberals, the SDP and the SNP. In the end I decided that, since my vote had little or no influence in Westminster, that I’d opt for the SNP and hope that one day we would achieve independence. No one else had any particular cause to care much about us; surely we’d be better off taking care of ourselves?

That doesn’t mean that I loved all SNP policies, or that I was convinced they had the best leader – to be honest, I don’t even remember who that was. I know I could google this stuff, but I’m trying to give you it from memory, to take you through my thought processes as I remember them. I opted for the SNP because I wanted my vote to count. I understood – still understand – that I wouldn’t necessarily get the government I voted for in an independent Scotland, but at least a greater percentage of my countrymen would get what they had voted for.

Oddly, I’m in agreement with some of my NO voting friends on this point. I agree that Scotland gets exactly the representation it should in Westminster. We are a tiny nation. Why should a nation of 5 million dictate to a nation of 55 million? That would not only be wrong, it would be ridiculous. But while my NO friends see this as a reason to stay, that we have the correct level of representation, I see it as a reason to go. My country will only ever get the UK government it votes for by chance, if it just so happens to tally with the desire of the country with the larger population. While that is, technically, fair, it’s not good enough for me. I don’t believe it’s good enough for my country.

That was how I came to support independence. I’ll blog again about more specific points (unless the comments on this get too ugly, of course) but I just wanted to share, as others have, my journey to YES, which started long before YES was even a real option.

It's A Reciprocal Thing

Many years ago I declared myself a no review zone. I had a lot of friends – from various writing sites and spoken word nights – who were prose writers and poets, many of whom went on to to be published or to self-publish novels, short story collections and poetry collections. Obviously, the quality varied and there was - sorry, really, really sorry – a tendency towards angsty, awful poetry that even the Vogons would have refused to read. Poets who had clearly never read any poetry, ever, were putting out collections that amounted to nothing more than opening a vein and bleeding onto the page and asking to be praised for their bravery.

I bought them. I bought them all. I supported them all. They were nice people. They may not have been hugely talented poets, but they were lovely and I wanted to support them in the only way I could – financially. But I couldn’t, in all conscience, write glowing reviews. Hence the no review zone.

Later, several friends released excellent short story collections, poetry collections and novels – but I couldn’t review them. I was the non reviewer. The no review zone. I was stuck. While I had lost touch with the majority of the really not very good poets, I had made this declaration and felt I had to stand by it. It was a blessing in some ways, but when I read something wonderful I really wanted to say so, to shout out to everyone: BUY THIS! IT’S AMAZING! AND I KNOW THE AUTHOR!

But I couldn’t. I didn’t do reviews.

And then I brought out my own collection and things got a bit more difficult.

When you buy a book, do reviews matter to you? They matter to me. I find myself looking at reviews on Amazon and I’ll read a 5 star review, then I’ll look at a 1 star review, then I’ll look at those reviewers’ other reviews. If the 5 star person is giving great reviews to everyone, I ignore their opinion. If the 1 star person is just a nippy wee git sniping at everyone, I ignore their review. But if those people give a variety of reviews over several books, I’ll take their opinions a bit more seriously and they may influence my decision to buy or not.

I wanted reviews for my book. But how could I ask for reviews? I’m the non reviewer – how cheeky would it be to ask other people to do what I was unwilling to do?

But I asked, and they did, and they were lovely. But now I know I have to do the reciprocal review, and what if I read their book and I don’t like it/think it’s badly written/come face to face with Vogon poetry? Do I have the courage to be honest if they’ve given me a 5 star gushing review? What’s the protocol here?

Well, we know, don’t we? We see it every year in those ‘authors pick each other’s books as book of the year’ in various newspapers.

But if I do the obligatory, you gave me 5, I'll give you 5, my credibility is shot.

And it sucks. But it’s what we do.

There is no such thing as an honest reciprocal review. Is there?

P.S. Here are some wonderful things I would have reviewed had I not been the non reviewer (seriously - buy all of these): A Man's Hands, A Documentary About Sharks, Somewhere to Start From, Spit, Melons and Memory, Ordinary Domestic, Dot,Dash

and loads more. TUT.