Can! Should! Must!

Yes we can! Yes we should! Yes we must!

With six months to go until the people of Scotland vote on the constitutional future of our nation, Yes Scotland has launched a massive campaign to promote the message that Scotland can, should and must be independent. As you might expect, I have no disagreement with any of that. But, as you might also have anticipated, I have my own slant on this message.

That Scotland can be independent is a given as far as I am concerned. The economics of it all have never been an issue for me. So long as I was persuaded that independence would not result in an economic catastrophe of epic proportions the finer details could be of no more than academic interest. Facing a decision with such momentous implications for my country and its people, I find at times darkly comical and at times grossly insulting the idea that I might be swayed by necessarily tenuous promises and threats involving relatively trivial amounts of cash. Or threats involving large amounts that simply aren't credible.

There is, of course, no economic catastrophe looming. At least, not one caused by Scotland restoring its rightful constitutional status. We know what causes economic disaster, and it's not the people exercising their democratic right of self-determination.

If the economics of it all have not been an issue in the sense of something that causes me any significant concern, it certainly has been an issue in terms of the obsessions of unionist politicians and their friends in the media. They would have us believe that the economy is the only issue. That it is all about the economy. There are reason for this.

Firstly, the anti-independence campaign knows that people tend to be pre-occupied with money. Even if there were not genuine reasons for worrying about how we are going to pay for the things we need, we are conditioned to fret about whether we can afford the things we want. Democratic politics has all but been abandoned in favour of a neo-liberal economic imperative. Politics outside the referendum debate long since forsook lofty or even merely worthy ideals. It has been reduced to unseemly squabbling over money. Since this is all they know, the British parties have tried to frame the referendum debate in the same terms.

Then there is the fact that economics is the perfect territory for a campaign which, apart from the odd smear attempt, relies entirely on scaremongering. Nobody does doom-laden prognostications to order better than practitioners of the dismal science.

But, perhaps most importantly of all, the obsessive focus on economic arguments serves to divert people from the areas where the No campaign's arguments are pitifully weak or totally non-existent. They are distinctly uncomfortable talking about democracy and social justice. As well they might be.

There is no economic catastrophe looming. Don't take my word for it. That is the verdict of authorities such as The Financial Times and credit rating agency, Standard & Poor's. Even David Cameron admits that Scotland is economically perfectly viable. Anti-independence campaigners will throw their hands up in horror at any suggestion that they are arguing that Scotland is "Too wee! Too poor! Too stupid!", while simultaneously pumping out propaganda which suggests precisely that. They don't feel any need to be consistent. Inconsistency and even total contradiction serves their purpose of creating a sense of confusion.

I absolutely abhor and totally reject the suggestion that Scotland must tick somebody else's economic boxes in order to qualify for that which is ours by right. But if those boxes must be ticked, then they have been. Scotland is a wealthy nation. Scotland can be independent. Next question!

In addressing the matter of why Scotland should be independent Yes Scotland builds its case on democratic accountability, economic efficiency and social justice. And a very strong case it is too. An unanswerable case. The argument that, as an independent country with a government that we have actually elected, Scotland will "make better and more relevant decisions for our future than remote Westminster" is just about as solid as any political argument gets. Especially when one understands that the "remoteness" of Westminster refers, not merely to linear distance, but to an ever-widening gulf in political culture.

Impeccable as Yes Scotland's approach undoubtedly is, I would tend to approach the argument that Scotland should be independent on a more basic level. I would argue that Scotland should be independent because it is fundamentally right. It is a matter of constitutional justice. Independence is normal. What we seek for Scotland is no more than the constitutional status that all other nations take for granted. It is not a question of whether Scotland should be independent but a question of whether Scotland's anomalous constitutional position as an appendage of the British state can any longer be justified.

In fact, it is a question of whether that anomalous position is tenable even in the relatively short term. I would argue that it is not. I would argue that we have reached a tipping point. I would contend that the political union between Scotland and England is broken beyond any hope of salvation. I will go further and argue that efforts to preserve the political union will ultimately fail - with the probability that other aspects of the union between our nations will be severely and perhaps irreparably damaged in the process.

This is a price that the British establishment appears to be willing to pay in order to preserve the structures of power and privilege that define the British state. We see confirmation of this readiness to sacrifice the social, cultural and economic unions, which largely work to our mutual benefit, in the increasingly shrill and confrontational stance of the UK Government and the British parties.

For decades the union has been held together by a noisome potage of lies, deceit, bribery and ever more uncomfortable compromise. Various things have served to dissolve this unreliable glue - the reconvening of Scotland's Parliament, the rise of the SNP as a political force, and the burgeoning of internet communication all being major factors. The political union is done. It is now only a question of how much we can salvage of the rest of what has been developed over the past three centuries. Unionists seem hell bent on destroying all of it in a fit of pique.

And that is one of the reasons why Scotland must be independent. We simply cannot afford to let the forces of reactionary ultra-conservatism triumph. We must not allow the ruling elites to destroy that which is ours by any measure of natural justice in order to preserve that which they regard as theirs by divine right.

There is another reason why Scotland must be independent. It is, I am convinced, the consideration which will ultimately persuade those still swithering as they stand with pencil poised over ballot paper that they must vote Yes. Or, that they must not vote No. It is the consideration of what a No vote means. What will persuade many in that eleventh hour is the thought of the consequences for Scotland of voting No.

Addressing a meeting in Dundee recently I asked the sixty or seventy people in the room to think about whether we would ever be able to look each other in the eye again if Scotland voted No. I urged them to think about the question we are being asked in the referendum. The question which, in reality, we are asking ourselves.

Should Scotland be an independent country?

I asked them to try and imagine that question being asked in any other country? I asked them whether they could conceive of the people of any other nation even considering the possibility of answering No to that question?

We must vote Yes even if for no other reason than that the alternative is unthinkable. Voting No  is an admission of inferiority that will blight our nation for decades - perhaps forever. It is a failure to grasp the opportunity that we have won for ourselves which will bring down upon our heads the bitter condemnation of future generations - not to mention the deserved contempt of our neighbours and the world in general.

If we vote No then we will be the nation that threw away its independence, not for any sound, rational reason, but out of craven timidity.

If we vote No we will be the people who held our sovereignty in our hands and chose, through fear of shadows and phantoms, to hand it back to the ruling elites who have treated us with nothing but sneering disdain.

Forget about the tawdry trinkets of "more powers" being dangled before you by the British parties in the hope of persuading you to abandon both pride and enlightened self-interest to vote No! The idea that the ruling elites of the British state might voluntarily relinquish power is ridiculous at the best of times. That they might do so having, in their own eyes, just triumphed in a battle to preserve their grip on that power is a notion so ludicrous as to border on the insane.

It is obvious that we can be independent!

It is easy to understand why we should be independent!

It is vital we realise that we must be independent!

This article first appeared in the March 2014 issue of AYE Magazine.

The referendum is about us

The following is a transcript of a speech I presented at Yes Dundee's Yes Cafe in Roseangle Art Gallery, Dundee on Saturday 1 March 2014.

Yes Dundee

I have been a supporter of independence all of my life. Or, as I prefer to put it, an advocate of restoring Scotland's rightful constitutional status.

I put it that way because, for me, this is first, last and always a constitutional issue. I accept the inevitability of all the talk about economics and currency and all the rest. I understand the necessity for it. But these are peripheral issues.

The referendum is not really about what currency we use, or whether we will be a few pounds richer or poorer, or how much "clout" we have in the world. It is about how we think of ourselves, our communities and our nation.

It is about whether we see ourselves as being a nation at all. Or whether we see ourselves as merely a region within the British state.

A nation is its people. And let me be quite clear that, when I talk about the people of Scotland, I am not referring to the kind of "Scottishness" in which the likes of Alistair Darling profess such puffed-up patriotic pride while all the time talking Scotland down.

I take no particular pride in being Scottish. Pride is for personal achievements. All I had to do was be born in Fife to a mother who was herself born in this very city and a father who, somewhat inconveniently for my argument, contrived to get himself born in Australia. But you take my point. I was born Scottish. There was no effort or personal sacrifice involved.

So-called New Scots - Asians, East Europeans and the rest - have more right to express pride in being Scottish than I do. Because they have made a conscious decision to be Scottish.

Being Scottish is not about a common inheritance. It is about a shared commitment.

So when I talk about the nation of Scotland I am talking about the people of Scotland. And when I talk about the people of Scotland I mean those who have made a commitment to the nation and its people. And if that sounds like some kind of circular argument I make no apology for that. I see no reason why a nation need be defined by reference to anything outwith itself.

We are a nation not because others say that we are. We don't need anybody else's permission to be a nation. We are a nation because we say we are.

But what kind of nation are we? Obviously, that depends on what kind of people we are.

The anti-independence campaign likes to pretend that nationalists like myself are claiming some kind of "Scottish superiority". They like to put about the notion that we are saying that people in Scotland have different, and somehow "better" attitudes than people in the rest of the UK. It's all lies, of course.

All we claim is that there is a distinctive political culture in Scotland. Not unique. Not necessarily better. But different from the rest of the UK.

This should not be a controversial claim. Voting patterns alone should make it evident that Scotland has a distinctive political culture even if it wasn't already glaringly obvious from the fact that we are having this referendum!

We need independence so that the policies which affect our lives can be informed by our own political culture rather than the political culture of the British state. Is that too much to ask?

What makes Scotland's political culture different? Ultimately, it must be the people. Because it is people who shape the political culture. But that does not imply that individuals in Dundee or Dunfermline have attittudes that are markedly different from those of individuals in Doncaster or Durham.

We can all be offended by the injustice of the bedroom tax and the obscenity that is Trident.

It merely means that those attitudes are expressed differently through the local institutions and processes of democracy so as to produce a distinctive political culture.

People are pretty much the same the world over. But political cultures vary tremendously. Why should it be such a dreadful thing for Scotland to have its own political culture?

We want independence, not because we regard ourselves as superior, but because we refuse to accept that we are inferior.

We refuse to accept that we are less than the people of other nations who take their independence for granted.

So, if the kind of nation we are depends on the kind of people we are, what kind of people are we? In a very real sense, that is what will be determined by this referendum and the campaign leading up to the vote.

How that campaign is conducted will say a lot about who we are. Which is why I so deeply resent the way that the British parties in Scotland are behaving. But that is a whole other topic.

Let's consider instead what the vote says about us. Think about the question we are being asked.

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Can you imagine that question being asked in any other country? Can you conceive of the people of any other nation even considering the possibility of answering No to that question?

The fact that we are asking this question of ourselves tells us what kind of people we have been. People who have, for too long, been meekly content to accept a subordinate status within a union that was contrived in a different age for purposes that were never relevant to us.

A union that we, the people, had no part in creating or sanctioning. An anachronistic, dysfunctional, corrupt union which serves none of the people off these islands well.

A union which was always intended to serve the purposes of the ruling elites. A union which, in that regard if no other, has not changed one iota in the last three centuries.

A union that sucks the human and material resources out of our nation and in return gives us government by parties that we have emphatically rejected at the polls.

A union that imposes policies which are anathema to our people. Policies which have been rejected by our democratically elected representatives.

A union which, were we being given that option now, not one of us would vote to join - but which we are nonetheless being asked to vote to remain in.

All of this and more is what we have accepted in the past. And our acceptance of all this has defined us in the eyes of our neighbours, the world, aye! and ourselves.

Ladies and gentlemen, I put it to you that the fact that we are asking ourselves this question says nothing very flattering about who we have been in the past.

The way in which we answer the question can change all that. It can change the way we see ourselves in the future. It can change the way others perceive us. It can change who we are. And by changing the kind of people we are and how we think of ourselves it can release the forces which will change the nation.

Or it can do the other thing. We can vote No and confirm that we are to be no more than that which we have been. That we will not be what we aspire to be. That we choose not to be all that we might be.

I ask you again, ladies and gentlemen, can you imagine the people of any other nation making such a demeaning choice?

If we vote No, will we ever again be able to look one another in the eye?

Ladies and gentlemen, I said earlier that i wasn't particularly proud of being Scottish. I explained that this was because there was no personal achievement involved. No effort. I didn't have to do anything in order to become Scottish. So I see no cause for pride.

But I do take pride in my country. I am proud of Scotland. Not a vaunting, strutting, flag-waving, belligerent, "my country right or wrong" kind of pride. A quiet, cautious, conditional, pragmatic kind of pride. I want to be proud of my country. I want Scotland to be a country I can be truly proud of.

I see no possibility of Scotland being that country while it remains part of the British state. We are told that, with a bit of constitutional tinkering here and there Scotland can be "as good as independent". That is a fallacy.

The only ones who have the legitimate authority to decide what powers the Scottish Parliament has are the people of Scotland themselves. So long as that power remains in the jealous grasp of the British state, Scotland will be less than a nation and its people will be diminished accordingly. The more so if they actually consent to this condition.

This referendum is not about money or oil or monarchs. And it certainly isn't about Alex Salmond. It is about you. It is about us. It is about the people of Scotland and what kind of people we are.

This referendum is about the most fundamental constitutional issue of all - sovereignty. The sovereignty that rightfully rests with the people of any nation.

This referendum is about whether we are the kind of people who will carelessly allow that sovereignty to be usurped by the ruling elites of the British state, or whether we are the kind of people who will seize to ourselves the power to shape our own destiny.

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

I'll vote Yes, not because I'm resentful about what has been done but because I'm hopeful about what can be done.

I'll vote Yes, not for anything that is promised, but for everything that is possible.

I'll vote Yes, ladies and gentlemen, and for the sake of Scotland; for the sake of Scotland's people; for the sake of Scotland's future; and for the sake of your own modest pride, I urge you to do likewise - VOTE YES!

We need better questions

So, here we are! It's 2014! The big one! The year of decision for the people of Scotland.

As the turn of the year loomed and in the immediate aftermath of the old year's passing, there was much sombre talk of the seriousness of the issue and of the need for this seriousness to be reflected in the way the two sides conduct themselves in the debate. Hopes were expressed - some genuine and heartfelt, some no more than pious cant - that there might be less shouting at each other from entrenched positions and more meaningful dialogue. Thousands upon thousands of words were expended stating and restating the need for "more information" and "more answers". Usually without saying what the questions were that required these answers, and almost never making any reference to the screeds of information that is already available. The New Year message from the pundits was simply that the referendum debate had to be "better" in 2014.

My advice, dear readers, is that you maintain normal respiration in the meantime.

While there will surely be developments in the referendum campaign (I would love to speculate on what these might be but, regrettably, that is not my purpose here.), the tactics and tone of the debate are unlikely to change much. The pace will quicken. The volume will increase. The media will make embarrassing efforts to sensationalise trivialities. But there will be little in the overall pattern of the debate which will differ from what we saw in 2013.

No difference?

At this point I should make it clear that I am not doing what so many of those pious and hopeful pundits do. I am not treating the two sides of the referendum campaign as if they are equivalent. Complaints about the quality of the debate have become tediously commonplace. Commentators seem to be queuing up to pontificate about how we're doing it all wrong. We are constantly subjected to patronising lectures about how it's the wrong people talking about the wrong things in the wrong way and at the wrong time. One of the more irksome features of these complaints has been the failure to adequately differentiate between the Yes and No camps.

Other than the fact that both are associated with the same debate, there are no real similarities between Better Together and Yes Scotland. In terms of their structure, their methods, their ethos, the two organisations are totally different. And yet those who rail against what they perceive to be the inadequacies and failings of the debate invariably take the line that each is as much at fault as the other. There are a number of possible reasons for this. It may sometimes be a misguided effort to appear even-handed and objective. It is often a matter of intellectual indolence in that it is just easier to lump the two sides together than it is to analyse and describe the differences between them. And, all too frequently, the assertion that one is as bad as the other represents a malicious attempt to tar the innocent with the same brush as the guilty.

Whatever the reason, rationalisation or excuse, it is wrong.

Given that the whole approach to the campaign taken by the two campaign groups is so radically different it is simply not reasonable to suppose that they will have the same effect. And it is not difficult for the honest, impartial observer to determine which approach is likely to have the most deleterious effect. When even unionists are criticising Better Together for its negativity and ineptitude there can be little doubt where  culpability lies if the debate does not meet the standards we might hope for.

The quality of the debate is not going to improve in 2014 through any changes in the way the two sides of the campaign conduct themselves. Yes Scotland doesn't need to change. Its strategy is clearly working - as evidenced by the fact that the more people hear of the campaign's message, the more likely they are to move towards a Yes vote.

Better Together is not going to change because, quite literally, it has nowhere to go. It has nothing new to say that is relevant to the issue.

Awkward questions

All of which begs the question, what then might raise the standard of debate? My answer, as you may have guessed from the title of this article, is "better questions". We need better questions asked of those who campaign against the restoration of Scotland's rightful constitutional status. And we need journalists and commentators to ask better questions of themselves when they purport to analyse the issue.

Why is the Yes side not included in this? Because pretty much all the questions that might be asked of them have already been asked - and answered - many times over. I don't know about anybody else, but I have to suppress a scream every time I hear some variation on, "What are you going to use for currency? Deep-fried Mars bars?". It doesn't matter how often the answer is given (The pound!), the question is still endlessly repeated, always in tones that suggest the questioner is convinced that they are hugely clever for having found the fatal flaw in the independence case that nobody else has thought of.

The currency issue can be used to illustrate what I mean by better questions.

When anti-independence propagandists try to suggest that there is some difficulty about independent Scotland having a currency we should ask, "Can you name a single developed, relatively wealthy nation which does not have a functioning currency?". This might be followed up with a question which could be asked a lot, "What reason do you have for believing Scotland must be the exception?".

On the matter of maintaining the currency union after independence the awkward question for unionists is, "Why won't the UK Government and British parties state categorically that they would favour abolishing the currency union?".

Having thus disposed of the currency issue, we can move on to some of the other matters where better questions need to be asked. The supposedly thorny issue of Scotland and the European Union, for example.

When some European politician or EU official says something supposedly casting doubt on the Scottish Government's position and this is then trumpeted by the mainstream media - invariably under a headline screaming about a "blow" to the SNP - then we should ask what real authority this individual has. Who do they really speak for? What reason is there to treat this view as definitive? What is their agenda?

When unionists insist that Scotland would be expelled and excluded from the EU, we should ask that most powerful question of all, why? Why would the EU do that? What reason would they have for behaving in such a way?

Much the same applies to Scotland's relationship with other international organisations, such as Nato. The default assumption of the anti-independence campaign is that Scotland would be a pariah nation shunned by the world. It is an assumption little challenged by the media. Again, we need to ask why would Nato reject Scotland? How would this serve the interests of the alliance? What reason is there to assume that other Nato members would not favour Scotland being part of the alliance?

More powers?

I'm sure you've all got the idea now and know what I mean by "better questions". But there is one area where really searching question will, arguably, be needed most and that is the issue of "more powers". The British parties in Scotland are already desperately trying to pretend that a No vote is a vote for increased powers for the Scottish Parliament. That effort at deception will intensify over the coming months. It must be vigorously challenged. We must ask the awkward questions.

• How might the three British parties in Scotland reach a consensus on "more powers" proposals that are also detailed and meaningful?
• How do the British parties in Scotland propose to get the agreement of their bosses in London?
• How will they make the proposals binding on a future UK Government? How will they guarantee delivery?
• How can they credibly commend as part of a devolution package powers which they have claimed would harm Scotland as part of being independent?
• Why didn't they devolve these powers before?
• Why do they now want to put forward proposals for more devolution when they refused the chance to have these included in the referendum ballot?
• Why do they not want their proposals mandated by the electorate?
• If they are offering something akin to full fiscal autonomy (FFA), how will the currency union work under devolution when they claim it wouldn't under the FFA of independence?

 These are the sort of questions that must be asked. There are many more.

Silly questions

My hope, then, for 2014 is that journalists, interviewers, analysts and the general public will begin to ask better questions of the No campaign. It would also be good if they could stop asking silly questions about currency and deep-fried confectionery. But there is one silly question we can't avoid,

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Why is that a silly question? Ask yourself what other nation would question its own right to be independent.

This article was first published in AYE Magazine.

Related articles

• 2013: The year of fear
• Better Together challenged on blueprint for Scotland | Left Foot Forward

2013: The year of fear

I don't think it is any exaggeration to say that 2013 has been the year of fear. We have been subjected to a relentless campaign of grinding negativity from the British parties in Scotland, from the UK Government and, of course, from the aptly named Project Fear itself. The almost exclusively union-supporting media have regaled us daily with terrible tales of the various disasters that must inevitably befall Scotland should we decide to assert our rightful constitutional status.

I don't intend to review these scare stories here. They are familiar enough to anyone who has been paying even passing attention to the referendum debate. Less familiar will be the rebuttals which have comprehensively debunked the scare stories. These tend to get considerably less coverage. From the laughable nonsense about mobile phone roaming charges to the endlessly repeated fallacies about Scotland being simultaneously expelled from the EU and forced to adopt the euro, every bit of anti-independence fear-mongering propaganda has been forensically dismantled by a growing army of online commentators.

There is another element of fear in the referendum campaign, however. In contrast to elaborately contrived stories about how will be the only developed country in the world without a functioning currency if we vote Yes, we hear of genuine, reasonable concerns about what will happen in the aftermath of a No vote. I was recently asked to list those concerns. I will now attempt to do so - in no particular order.

Budget cuts

Few people now doubt that one of the first consequences of a No vote will be a slashing of Scotland's block grant. As is their normal practice, the British parties refuse to be honest and forthright about their intentions. But all the talk is of ending the Barnett Formula in favour of a "needs based system". The fly in the ointment here, of course, is that those "needs" will not be determined by the people of Scotland, as would be the case with independence, but by British politicians in London.

The priorities of these politicians, we can be sure, will be very different from the priorities of the Scottish people. The principal aim will be to reduce the differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK (rUK). This is quite explicit in British Labour's idea of "One Nation". We can be sure that this does not involve rUK moving towards the principles of social justice and universalism that have distinguished the policies of the Scottish Government over the past several years. What it means is the Scottish Government being forced to abandon those principles due to being starved of the funds needed to translate them into policy and action.

Most notable among the many implications of these budget cuts will be the enforced privatisation of NHS Scotland and the abolition of universal benefits such as free prescriptions, concessionary travel and free university tuition.

A secondary purpose of the budget cuts that will hit Scotland in the event of a No vote is the diversion of funds to marginal constituencies in England - the constituencies where UK elections are decided regardless of how the people of Scotland vote.

Loss of powers

A No result in the referendum will be represented as an affirmation of the union and a vote for Westminster rule.

Alongside the erosion of Scotland's budget we can expect to see an erosion of the powers of the Scottish Parliament. This is likely to be gradual at first, but the momentum will grow. Various arguments will be deployed to rationalise this clawing back of powers by Westminster. Not least of these will be the smaller budget controlled by the Scottish Parliament and the fact that more and more public spending in Scotland will be controlled from London, either directly by the UK government or indirectly through private companies answerable to the UK Government.

The "Calman changes" implemented by the new Scotland Act will be abandoned as being unaffordable due to the stringencies of Scotland's reduced budget. Every effort will be made to roll back devolution to the point where we no longer have a government but instead revert to having only a "pretendy wee Executive".

All the talk of "more powers" that we are currently hearing from the British parties will quickly fade away to nothing. They clearly have no real appetite for further empowering the Scottish Parliament. And it will be maintained that, by voting No, the people of Scotland will have shown that they too lack the appetite for more powers.

Imposed policies

As well as policies that are forced on Scotland by London's stranglehold on spending, there will be increasing direct imposition of policies in the name of "harmonisation" and "efficiency".

One of the reasons that devolution is an ongoing process is something I call the justification problem. Basically, as more and more powers are devolved it becomes increasingly difficult to justify continuing to reserve the dwindling few that remain. As an example, once the devolved administration has secured full control of transport policy, it becomes problematic for central government to justify retaining power of transport-related taxes such as Air Passenger Duty. It's a case of "if this, why not that".

But this process can work in reverse. As powers, and particularly budgetary powers, are stripped away, it becomes ever easier to justify the repatriation of ever more powers. Once the Scottish Parliament is weakened, there will be nothing to prevent a massive rolling back of devolution. And if there is nothing to prevent it, then it will surely happen.

Tampering with the electoral system

The electoral system for the Scottish Parliament was designed to ensure that no party could ever win a majority. More precisely, it was designed to ensure that the British parties - principally British Labour - would always control the parliament and ensure that it did not make waves. That all fell apart in 2011 when the SNP stunned everybody by gaining an overall majority at Holyrood.

In the event of a No vote we can be sure that the British parties will collude in an effort to restore the status quo ante. Changes will be made to the electoral system with the intention of preventing the SNP ever forming another administration, even at the cost of thwarting the democratic will of Scotland's people.

Preventing another referendum

The main purpose of tinkering with the electoral system will be to circumvent calls for another referendum on independence. Most of us will recall how vehement the British parties were in their opposition to the people of Scotland being allowed a say in their own future.

Scotland's referendum has been a massive embarrassment and inconvenience to the British establishment. It is the most significant outbreak of popular power that the British state has had to face in a long time - possibly ever. It is a challenge to the established order that the British state will not tolerate again. A further referendum will be prevented at any cost.

Constitutional dispute

The dispute arises from the affirmation of parliamentary sovereignty implicit in a No vote. Or, to put it another way, the denial of popular sovereignty that a No vote would represent. When distilled down to its basics, this is what the referendum is about. The principle that ultimate authority is vested in the people versus the idea that it is vested in the monarchy acting through parliament. In Scotland, the historically accepted principle is that the people elect a parliament which acts in their name and is ultimately answerable only to them. The authority of the parliament and the government is derived directly from the people.

The British system is different. In it, the authority of the parliament and the government is derived from the monarch. It is by the grace of the Crown in Parliament that the people are permitted to choose those they send to the parliament as their representatives.

This may be a crude representation, but it serves to highlight the fundamental differences between the two systems and, more crucially, their total incompatibility.

These two principles have coexisted side by side for centuries only because the difference has been ignored. The referendum puts an end to that. The two principles being offered as the choices in a plebiscite has unleashed a constitutional genie that will not go back in the bottle for the simple reason that the bottle no longer exists. The bottle's existence was conditional on there being no formal acknowledgement of the sovereignty dichotomy. The bottle has now been smashed regardless of what the referendum result may be.

A No vote creates an ongoing constitutional problem in that it ostensibly settles the matter in favour of parliamentary sovereignty - and will be held by the British establishment to have done so - but the irresistible force of popular will then comes up against the immovable object of the inalienability of popular sovereignty.

In short, a No vote creates a situation in which continuing constitutional dispute is inevitable. A conflict which will be increasingly rancorous and one which can only, and ultimately must be resolved by independence.

Victory for Tories

A no vote will be paraded by the Tories as a victory for David Cameron. The mileage they get from this will almost certainly be enough to secure them a win in the 2015 UK election. Our reward for voting No will be yet another government that we have rejected at the polls and yet more policies that are anathema to us.

At what point will people say, enough?

End of political discourse

One of the benefits of the referendum campaign in Scotland has been a revival of political discourse. The political environment is richer and healthier and more diverse and more active than it has been in decades. It is questionable how much of this will survive the deadening effect a No vote.

Political turmoil

While there is the very real possibility that political discourse may be depressed by a No vote there is also the chance that much of the energy may be diverted to less constructive forms of activity. People are getting exited about the possibility of change. Independence is the key to virtually all of that change. A No vote will trigger a wave disappointment and frustration that will have to find an outlet. It is not easy to see how this might play out.

There will be considerable upheaval in the political parties too. But speculation on that topic could well be endless.

Setback for progressive politics

The independence movement in Scotland, and the previously mentioned political discourse that this has engendered, has become something of a standard-bearer for progressive politics in the UK. There is a distinct possibility that a No vote will take some of the momentum out of the drive for political and economic reform while simultaneously providing a fillip to more reactionary elements.

Loss of respect
 
The people of Scotland are being offered the opportunity to rectify an anomalous situation. We have the chance to reinstate our nation's rightful constitutional status. We have the chance to assert and affirm the sovereignty of Scotland's people in Scotland.

We are offered the opportunity to bring our government home. To have our country governed according to the needs and priorities of Scotland's people. To take decisions for ourselves. To manage our own affairs. To be a nation again.

If Scotland rejects independence we will be a global laughing stock, subject to a barrage of ridicule and contempt that we will have earned by our lack of resolve. If we don't respect ourselves, why should anybody else do so?

Damage to relationships within UK

I have written at some length on this topic in an earlier article, Vote Yes to save the union. I would invite readers to take a look. For those who have no wish to do so, the following selected excerpts may give a sense of my argument.

We all, nationalist and unionist alike, tend to value the same things about the union, differing only in the emphasis that we put on each. Where we part company is principally, if not solely, on the matter of the political union of the UK. I would urge unionists to think long and hard about whether we do not have a common interest in that regard also.

The sheer mindlessness of the anti-independence rhetoric pumped out by Blair McDougall's appalling Project Fear operation precludes the kind of nuanced analysis that Alex Salmond has offered [when he spoke of the six unions: the political union of the UK; union with Europe through the EU; the currency union, the Union of the Crowns; a defence union based on Nato and a social union among the people of the UK].

Whereas the circumstances of the world in which we live require a concept of independence that involves a redefining of relationships, the No campaign can think only in terms of a complete severing of those relationships. It presents a totally false choice between all of the six unions, or none of them. Even to the point of threatening to wilfully destroy things that work well, such as the currency union.

Those unionists who value the same aspects of the union as nationalists do must ask themselves whether they are prepared to sacrifice the good bits in order to preserve a political union which serves nobody other than the elites of the British state. They must accept that a No vote does not mean a return to some comfortable status quo ante. Scotland has changed in ways that make that impossible.

A No vote on 18 September 2014 will have consequences. The outcome itself and the all too easily envisaged response of the British state to that outcome will alter an already unsatisfactory political union in ways that must inevitably have a deleterious effect on the social union that we all value so much.

Conclusion

Scotland's independence referendum is all too often portrayed as a choice between a Yes option fraught with unspeakable dangers and a No option which is consequence free. This is a misleading and even a dishonest representation. Choices are always accompanied by consequences. If the people of Scotland are to make an informed choice on September 18 2014 then it is essential that they should be made aware of the implications of both options. Just as it is vital that they understand the difference between malicious scare stories and genuine concerns. My hope is that this article will prompt a discussion which may lead to a better appreciation of what a No vote would mean for Scotland.

Related articles

• Referendum debate: A mystery to the media?
• Questions! Questions! Questions!
• Project Fear becomes Project Hate
• Vote Yes to save the union

Vote Yes to save the union

Nicola Sturgeon

Nicola Sturgeon rattled a few cages with her address to the SNP Conference in Perth when she spelled out the risks associated with failure to seize the opportunity offered by the referendum.  With a forthrightness that was either refreshing or shocking depending on your perspective, she told the party faithful and the voting public that, "Scotland can't afford a No vote!".

A lot of the shock was feigned, of course. I first wrote about the implications of a No vote way back in June 2012 (What does no really mean?). At the time, such "negativity" was generally frowned upon within an independence campaign determined to be totally positive, although many people expressed the view that I was actually being overly optimistic. Since then, however, the theme has become part of the narrative of the referendum campaign and the pretence that Nicola Sturgeon was saying something new and controversial was as dishonestly contrived as anything we've heard from Better Together.

The reasons Scotland can't afford to vote No are now well known. Not only will there be no further devolution, it is all but certain that the Scottish Parliament will be stripped of many of its existing powers. The Barnett Formula will be scrapped in favour of a "needs-based" allocation - with those "needs" being defined by a UK Government that has every incentive to cut the block grant to the bone. Not only will this facilitate higher spending in those parts of England where UK elections are actually decided, it will also force the Scottish Government to abandon policies which provide comparisons with those being imposed in England which are increasingly embarrassing for all the British parties.

We can also expect that measures will be enacted to prevent a further independence referendum and that the electoral system will be rigged to ensure that government of Scotland is returned, in perpetuity, to the safe pair of hands that is British Labour and the ever-biddable LibDems.

How do we know this will happen? Simply because this is what best suits the interests of the British state. And, following a No vote, there will be nothing to prevent it. It is nothing more than realpolitik and the forces of history taking their inevitable course.

Even without taking into account the devastating blow that would be dealt to our standing in the world and our own self-esteem by choosing to be less than we might be, it is fairly clear how all of this would be disastrous for Scotland. But it is not my purpose here to dwell on this aspect. My argument is that the repercussions of a No vote will also be disastrous for the union. If this strikes you as counter-intuitive then I would merely ask that you bear with me while I explain.

If a disinterested observer were asked to compile a list of terms to describe the anti-independence campaign, I hazard that the word "thoughtful" would not feature prominently - or at all. In truth, the campaign to deny Scotland's rightful constitutional status never really gets much beyond trite variations on the already painfully banal slogan, "Better Together". If we are not just plain "Better Together" - with no explanation of what constitutes "better", then we are "stronger together" - with no thought as to the nature of this supposed strength or the purposes for which it is deployed. Or we have more "clout" in the world. Another piece of hackneyed sloganeering that draws on the lexicon of militaristic imperialism, with no recognition of the fact that projecting power on a global scale is an obsession of the British state that has little resonance in Scotland.

On reflection, it can be seen that all of this has little to do with benefits accruing to Scotland from being part of the UK. It is all about the advantages the British state gains from being bigger. The thinking simply doesn't get much beyond the woefully simplistic notion that bigger is better

What is missing from the anti-independence campaign's argument is a more profound consideration of what it is about the union that is valued. Valued, not by the British political parties and the vested interests that they represent, but by the people of the UK.

Alex Salmond addressed this issue back in July 2013 when he spoke of the six unions that "govern our lives today in Scotland". The political union of the UK; union with Europe through the EU; the currency union, the Union of the Crowns; a defence union based on Nato and a social union among the people of the UK.

The First Minister talked of these six unions in terms of their importance to Scotland, making the point that only the first of these - political union with the UK - works against Scotland's interests. The others serve us reasonably well and are generally valued by the people of Scotland. Recent polling by Wings Over Scotland confirms this as it shows, for example, a plurality in favour of EU membership, the monarchy, and being part of the Nato alliance.

The currency union is just a fact of life for all of us. As convenient an arrangement as might be contrived. And the social union is something we are so comfortable with that we rarely even think of it. When we do reflect on it, however, it is likely that we rank it first among all the unions. The rest are mere practical or political arrangements, whereas the social union is about people.

My point here is that, if we get past the self-serving politicians of the British parties whose sole priority is the preservation of the structures of power, privilege and patronage which benefit them and their clients; if we address those who have been lured by the simplistic slogans of the anti-independence campaign and induce them to really think about what it is that they value about the union, it is highly probable that they will come up with much the same answers that Alex Salmond did. They would surely place the highest value on the social union. And, while they might vary in the way they prioritise the others, there would still be general agreement with pro-independence campaigners on the list as a whole.

We all, nationalist and unionist alike, tend to value the same things about the union, differing only in the emphasis that we put on each. Where we part company is principally, if not solely, on the matter of the political union of the UK. I would urge unionists to think long and hard about whether we do not have a common interest in that regard also.

The sheer mindlessness of the anti-independence rhetoric pumped out by Blair McDougall's appalling Project Fear operation precludes the kind of nuanced analysis that Alex Salmond has offered. Whereas the circumstances of the world in which we live require a concept of independence that involves a redefining of relationships, the No campaign can think only in terms of a complete severing of those relationships. It presents a totally false choice between all of the six unions, or none of them. Even to the point of threatening to wilfully destroy things that work well, such as the currency union.

Those unionists who value the same aspects of the union as nationalists do must ask themselves whether they are prepared to sacrifice the good bits in order to preserve a political union which serves nobody other than the elites of the British state. They must accept that a No vote does not mean a return to some comfortable status quo ante. Scotland has changed in ways that make that impossible.

A No vote on 18 September 2014 will have consequences. The outcome itself and the all too easily envisaged response of the British state to that outcome will alter an already unsatisfactory political union in ways that must inevitably have a deleterious effect on the social union that we all value so much.

To those intending to vote No I say, if you value the best of the old union, then think of how it will be put in jeopardy by failure to take this opportunity to forge anew the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Think how much better together we will be if we create a new union. A reformed association which preserves all that is desirable and effective about what has been developed over the years but places this in the context of a political relationship fit for our times and the future. A relationship that is strong, not in the facile sense subscribed to by British nationalists, but in the sense of being robust and durable. A relationship that respects the differences between nations while cherishing the social and cultural ties among people. A true partnership of equals.

All of this is possible. It requires only the goodwill and commonality of interest that already exists. And the confidence to vote Yes.

This article was first published in Yes Clydesdale's Aye Magazine.

Related articles

• Sturgeon: Westminister will 'turn the screw' on Scotland in No vote
• SNP Conference: Party members' passion can swing vote for Yes campaign, says Alex Salmond
• SNP conference: 'Trust will bring us independence'
• Scottish voters warned of consequences of No vote
• Warning over No vote consequences

Looking behind the polls

I don't often comment on polls. I find it a bit of a pointless exercise. Such comments as I see on independence referendum-related polling usually fall into two categories. There's the endlessly analytical poring over the minutiae of the data that looks like a hell of a lot of work only to be rendered irrelevant by the next poll that comes along. Or, more commonly, there's the simplistic acceptance of the headline figures as if they represent a definitive forecast of the result of a referendum that is still eleven months away. Polls can tell us nothing about the result. At best, they might offer some clues as to trends and thus serve as a rough gauge of how the two campaigns are faring.

People tend to take what they want from polls. And what they take from them depends on whether they are looking for illumination or reassurance. The analysers, not unexpectedly, are generally the ones looking to shed some light on matters, while those who look no further than the basic findings are invariably the ones seeking comfort in affirmation of their preconceptions.

I am happy to leave the statistical number crunching to those better qualified and considerably more patient than myself. And I could never be so shallow as to read as far as the bit that suits my purposes and then ignore the rest. So, falling between these two extremes, what do I make of these polls?

Passion and normality

The following is a transcript of my address to a Yes Clydesdale Independence Roadshow in Biggar on the evening of Monday 7 October 2013.

The problem with following a couple of erudite and eloquent speakers such as Robin McAlpine and Aileen Campbell is that you're likely to discover that they've said most of the things that you were planning on saying.

Which is annoying. And even more annoying when they say it better than you could.

Tell you what else is annoying... Apart from Willie Rennie, I mean.

What's also annoying is people who answer a question with another question.

You know the kind of thing I mean.

What do you want for dinner? What do you fancy?

What would you like to drink? What are you having?

Are you OK under that bus? Do I look as if I'm OK?

That sort of thing. Very annoying.

But sometimes you can't avoid it. Sometimes you can't help answering a question with a question. Because sometimes the question simply begs another question.

People ask me, “What persuaded you that Scotland should be an independent country?”

Why would I need to be persuaded?

Independence is not some extraordinary, outlandish condition for a nation.

Independence is the default status of all nations.

Independence is normal.