Once bitten - twice shy

Recent weeks have not been kind to the Better Together campaign in East Kilbride.

First, they had a chaotic visit by a Tory Cabinet Minister, Justine Greening. They were so frightened of the reaction to her visit that they switched meeting venues at the last minute. Those attending had to endure speeches shouted across a room far larger than needed – the public address system, and possibly many of the audience, having been abandoned at the original venue.

Just when they thought the worst was over, Michael McCann MP disgraced himself twice within days. At a debate organised by the Trades Union Council he showed how desperate the Tory-funded, Labour fronted, No campaign has become. Clearly rattled at being forced to justify a No vote, he abused his position on the platform to hurl abuse at a member of the audience, and at fellow No speaker, Professor John Foster.

McCann then turned his attention to the speakers for the Yes campaign, describing Yes supporter Cat Boyd as ‘a socialist’ in a tone that clearly meant it as an insult. His final comment was directed at Linda Fabiani MSP, when he criticised her for referring to the blacking of Chilean Air Force aero engines as an example of social justice that crossed borders, describing this as 'an esoteric issue'. This was too much for some Labour supporters who left the meeting in disgust.

Days later, to widespread ridicule on Twitter and Facebook, McCann used his column in the EKNews to complain that ‘bussed in’ members of the audience had heckled him.

Local Labour members are clearly annoyed at the way their party has been hijacked by such a unionist element, and local interest in Labour for Independence and Radical Independence is growing. Labour voters and members in East Kilbride are also increasingly willing to sign the Yes Declaration, and it is clear the party is facing a major revolt by its supporters over its pro-union stance.

The troubles facing the No camp in East Kilbride are mirrored across Scotland. Even a visiting journalist, Channel 4’s Jon Snow, was moved to comment on the negativity of the No campaign and the failure of Westminster to grasp the position in Scotland.

I have come away from Scotland deeply impressed by the high quality of debate, and the relatively low quality of many of the arguments put forward by the No campaign. I’m equally impressed by the range and quality of people who constantly surprised me by their commitment – often recently determined, to vote yes. My sense too is that where the vote on Scottish independence is concerned, Westminster politicians just don’t get it.

Sensing that their campaign is in trouble, Better Together has reached for an old favourite – promise that a No vote will lead to something better, but don’t specify what that might be. This tactic was first used in the 1979 referendum on devolution. Former Tory Prime Minister, Alec Douglas-Home, urged Scots to Vote No, and, after the General Election, Westminster would deliver something better. Sound familiar?

The "something better" turned out to be Margaret Thatcher, whose government refused to deliver any form of devolution, and subjected the country to policies consistently rejected by the Scottish people. These policies saw a massive rise in unemployment and the virtual destruction of Scottish industry, doing immense damage to the economy of East Kilbride.

While the No camp talk of more powers ‘guaranteed’, even their own publicity highlights the lack of clarity about what these powers might be. Some of their supporters point to the, as yet unimplemented, 2012 Scotland Act as the limit to any further powers that would follow a No vote. This Act implements the much watered down recommendations of the Calman Commission, which was set up as an attempt to save the union in response to the SNP taking power in 2007.

Here is the view from the Conservative Party adviser, Adam Tomkins, a regular 'objective commentator' on BBC news programmes, who is such a committed unionist that he refers to Scotland as North Britain:

A No vote is guaranteed to mean that devolution will change and develop. How do I know this? I know it because it’s already been legislated for, in the Scotland Act 2012. This Act, described at the time of its enactment by the then Secretary of State for Scotland as the largest transfer of fiscal powers within the United Kingdom in its history, will bring to Holyrood a substantial degree of fiscal devolution. 

Calman reported in 2009, and these powers were on the way when the SNP was elected to majority government in 2011. If the No campaign genuinely believed in delivering more powers for Scotland, they would have ensured these were also on the statute book before the referendum. Instead, all we have in place are the grossly inadequate powers in the 2012 Act.

Voices around Westminster make clear any proposals for more powers for Scotland would be given a rough ride, with a newly appointed Tory Minister describing devolution as ‘constitutional vandalism’. The Labour Party is so divided that no one has a clue what its policy is. Its plans for more financial devolution have been so badly developed that not even Johann Lamont could describe them accurately when she launched them for the press.

As Professor John Curtice points out, the gulf between the powers Scots want the parliament in Holyrood to have, and what they believe Westminster will deliver, is huge:

No less than 68 per cent of Scots agree that, in the event of a No vote, the Scottish Parliament should become primarily responsible for taxation and welfare. But just 39 per cent think Holyrood will actually be given more powers and responsibilities should Scotland vote No.

With clear echoes of 1979 and Alec Douglas-Home, the Scottish people must not be fooled again by unspecified offers of jam tomorrow. 

The ONLY way to guarantee Scotland gets the powers we need to grow our economy and to deliver a fairer and more prosperous country is to vote Yes on 18th September.

Unionism is a Form of Nationalism, Too

Nationalism. It is a term often misunderstood, mistakenly or intentionally, but thrown around anyway like mud by those who do not understand its meaning, demeaning the debate we are having. Before we continue, here are some simple definitions of nationalism:

Cultural Nationalism is where historical and cultural characteristics determine that a country is different to its neighbours. It doesn't mean it is any better - just different.

Civic Nationalism is defined by territory and those within it seek the right to self determination. An example would be European member states. 

Ethnic Nationalism is where a nation is defined by ethnicity or race. Citizenship is genetic, and ethnic nationalists seek to exclude those from different backgrounds. It has been linked to fascism and apartheid.

The first two terms are peaceful and democratic. Ethnic Nationalism? Most definitely not. It has no place in society. Ethnic Nationalists do not believe that someone from a different ethnic background should be a part of that nation. The above definitions are easy enough to understand. 

In our context, the Oxford dictionary defines nationalism as:

Advocacy of political independence for a particular country:

 - Scottish nationalism

What we are seeing more and more of is the demeaning of the word 'nationalist', by some uncomfortable with the idea of independence. It's a term which is now branded around by an increasingly agitated, shaken opposition from those within the Better Together camp. The official No campaign use it, as do politicians from unionist parties. It most certainly shouldn't be a term of abuse.

On social media, you may well be called a cybernat. Other terms include Cyberrat, or CyberNazi. Rather than offer an alternative, modern vision of what unionism can be, some unionists instead insult their opponents. 'Cybernat' is a loser's word. More often than not, you know you have won an argument when it is used. 

Unionism is a form of nationalism, though. What else could it be? Think about it.  Essentially, unionism is tied to British state nationalism. If unionists aren't nationalists, what are they? Confused? Unionists should admit to their nationalism, too, and be comfortable with it. Those who describe themselves as Scottish nationalists have, so why can't unionists? 

It isn't wrong for nations to seek self determination. In Scotland, cultural nationalism and civic nationalism are largely responsible for getting us to where we are right now. We have diverged politically from the rest of the United Kingdom for a number of years now - think how irrelevant UKIP are in Scotland. There is a democratic deficit, and unpopular decisions are often taken at Westminster, which a majority of Scottish MPs oppose. Think the privatisation of Royal Mail, and implementation of the Bedroom Tax. It is time we had a government which reflected our voting behaviour.

Independence is normal. It is the default status of nations. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.  Scottish independence will not be 'cataclysmic for the world' as Lord Robetson suggests. 

Having said all that, you don't have to be a nationalist to vote for independence. It is understandable that some people do find difficulty describing themselves in such terms. They aren't misunderstood or wrong - indeed, they often have other valid reasons for voting Yes. You can call yourself a democrat, and support independence – as Colin Fox states. Alternatively, you can describe yourself an internationalist and support independence. You can call yourself whatever you want and support independence, really. 

There are many great reasons for voting Yes. 

Better Together may worry we will turn our neighbours into foreigners overnight - their words, not ours. They will still be our neighbours, and we will work constructively with them. We seek a modern democracy, where the makeup of our Parliament is more representative of how we actually vote. We do all this in a peaceful, respectful way. We wouldn't describe ourselves as separatists, and we certainly aren't going anywhere. Our debate should be filled with facts, not abuse. This debate is much too important. 

All we argue is that we SHOULD be independent because we will have a better future if key decisions are taken by the people who care most about Scotland - that is people who live and work here. It really is that simple.

A Just Scotland - Yes or No

This Friday, 25th April, sees the first major debate of the referendum campaign in East Kilbride.

The debate has been arranged by South Lanarkshire and East Kilbride Trades Union Council, and will feature two speakers from each side in the campaign.

Speaking for Yes will be local SNP MSP, Linda Fabiani, who will be joined by Cat Boyd, of the Radical Independence Campaign.

Three strikes and you’re out for No camp

As the sun returns to Scotland for this momentous year, the shape of the campaigns raging around the independence referendum are revealed. Those campaigning for a No vote have found it an unhappy experience.

At a national level, the No campaign has faced growing criticism over the negativity of its campaign; this stems from those backing the union trying to face two ways. David Cameron talks of the UK as a ‘family’ and of his emotional attachment to it. But, he does this from London and when he does come to Scotland, he refuses to debate Scotland's future with Scotland's First Minister.  In the meantime, his government argues that, far from joining a family, Scotland ceased to exist in 1707 and only Westminster has any claim on the inheritance of 300 years of union.

This stance first came a cropper on the issue of the UK's £1 trillion plus of national debt. The Scottish Government pointed out that claiming all the benefits of union, including use of the currency, also meant taking responsibility for the debts. The people who loaned the money to the UK Government also weighed in; they demanded clarity over who would pay them back. Chancellor George Osborne had to issue a statement, supported by the Governor of the Bank of England, confirming that the Treasury accepted its responsibility for 100% of the debt if Scotland votes Yes.

Failing to learn its lesson, the UK Government then sent George Osborne to threaten Scots with the loss of the pound in the event of a Yes vote. This time, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, cheered him off. In a ‘Yes Minister’ kind of gesture, the senior Civil Servant at the Treasury provided a letter for Osborne to wave. Having made his statement and refused to answer questions, Osborne retreated south. As it became clear that Scots had reacted badly to this episode, Osborne was attacked for his ‘Sermon on the Pound’ having been a monumental error.

Fortunately for the Governor of the Bank of England he had stayed clear this time – in fact he had been up a week earlier to talk about how a currency union might work, during which he stressed his admiration for one of the authors of the currency union proposal. Then, one of Osborne’s Tory colleagues confirmed to the press that a Yes vote would be followed by agreement on a currency union. Trying to save face, the UK Government tried to link the currency union to Scotland keeping Trident on the Clyde. In his last speech to an SNP conference before the referendum, Alex Salmond rejected this proposal as unacceptable and confirmed that Trident would go.

Shifting from high finance to low blackmail, the Tory Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, joined in. He arrived in Glasgow to lecture workers in the Clyde’s defence contractors on their prospects after a No vote. Knowing he has no credibility with shipyard workers, many of whom already face redundancy, he spoke to the workers at Thales – formerly Barr and Stroud, the specialist optical suppliers founded in Glasgow over 100 years ago.

Members of the workforce reacted angrily to what they described as ‘emotional blackmail’ from a man known for serving redundancy notices on soldiers still serving on the front line. The fact that Thales is 40% owned by the French Government appears to have escaped the hapless Defence Minister and his advisers.  It seems all his visit has done is emphasise how badly London, with its focus on financial services, has mismanaged the industrial base of Scotland and the rest of the UK.

The longer the referendum campaign has run, the more the central argument of the No campaign has unraveled. Scotland is not ‘Better Together’ in the union, it is Westminster that is is better with us in the union. Its politicians see issues solely from this perspective, which is why they are now panicking. With Ed Balls supporting Osborne’s currency bluff, it clearly doesn't matter who forms the UK Government in 2015, Scotland’s interests will not be well served.

By contrast with the disastrous No campaign, Scots are being won over to the Yes side, not by arguments about what we have done in the past, but the potential we have for the future. The resulting swing to a Yes vote can be seen from this graph.

Source TNS UK

While the proportion of people who are undecided is almost unchanged, those supporting No have dropped by 4%, and those supporting Yes have risen by 5%. This augurs well for continued progress by a Yes campaign that is delivering a positive message here in East Kilbride and in communities right across Scotland.

The visit by these out of touch ministers making threats that don’t stand up to scrutiny does the job of the Yes campaign, by demonstrating the importance of cutting the London link and letting Scotland take its own decisions.

Please show your support and sign the Yes Declaration:

I believe it is fundamentally better for us all, if decisions about Scotland's future are taken by the people who care most about Scotland, that is, by the people of Scotland.

Being independent means Scotland's future will be in Scotland's hands.

There is no doubt that Scotland has great potential. We are blessed with talent, resources and creativity. We have the opportunity to make our nation a better place to live, for this and future generations. We can build a greener, fairer and more prosperous society that is stronger and more successful than it is today.

I want a Scotland that speaks with her own voice and makes her own unique contribution to the world: a Scotland that stands alongside the other nations on these isles, as an independent nation.

Socialist Case for Yes Heard in East Kilbride

Yes East Kilbride hosted a packed public meeting on Friday 11th April, with speakers explaining the socialist and trade union case for an independent Scotland.

Chaired by Yes East Kilbride's Paul McCartney, the audience heard from John Davidson; Vice-President of East Kilbride PCS Branch, Frances Curran; former SSP MSP, and Elaine C. Smith; actress, entertainer, and Convenor of the Scottish Independence Convention.

Over 100 people attended the event.

Elaine C. Smith took the opportunity to pay tribute to Margo MacDonald

Elaine said:

"Margo's dedication is recognised as having made a major contribution to getting us to where we are today."


"Her presence in the campaign will be sadly missed, but we owe it to her to redouble our efforts and complete a journey in which she played such a large part."

Frances Curran and Elaine C Smith

Chair of Yes East Kilbride, Paul McCartney said:

“It was great to host such a well-attended event, with many new faces eager to find out more information in the run up to the referendum.

“All speakers made fantastic points, and it was clear the audience enjoyed the event. There were engaging questions and lively debate, which was exactly what we wanted.

“The point was well made that we don't want the absurdity of nuclear weapons, food banks, or a repeat of the Iraq war.

"On 18th September, for the first time in our history, the people of Scotland will be truly sovereign and can decide who is best placed to make the decisions that affect their community.

“As the polls narrow, and as momentum grows towards a Yes vote, there is all to play for.

"We will continue to put our positive message to East Kilbride at similar events over the coming months."

Notes: photos by Craig Maclean

Margo MacDonald - an appreciation from East Kilbride

Yes campaigners in East Kilbride were saddened to hear of the death of Margo MacDonald, Independent MSP, and veteran promoter of Scottish independence.

Many obituaries are being published of Margo, who has had a tremendous impact on Scottish politics since her election to Westminster for the SNP at a by-election held in the autumn of 1973 in Glasgow’s Govan constituency. Although Margo was not re-elected in the February 1974 general election, from then on she was an established figure in Scottish political life.

What many of the obituaries will miss out is Margo's earlier political life, and her connection to East Kilbride.

Having fought the 1970 election for the SNP in Paisley, Margo was selected to fight the next election for East Kilbride, the town in which her family had settled when Margo was already in her late teens and which already had a large SNP presence.

Bill Arthur, former SNP Councillor for Long Calderwood ward on East Kilbride District Council, knew Margo and her family well. He attended Duncanrig Secondary with Margo's sister, Anne Aitken.

Bill recalls Margo's time as the Westminster candidate for East Kilbride.

"Having been a PE teacher, Margo was a hugely energetic candidate. She had me driving her all over East Kilbride to a wide variety of events, from attending the British Legion to standing outside Rolls Royce giving an open-air speech at lunchtime.

"She had a tremendous personality, very charismatic, and with a huge interest in people.

"Margo was a very fair-minded person, so when the party asked her to take on the job as candidate for the Govan by-election, not seen as an easy task, she agreed to do it, despite my protestations.

"She was a great character and will be sadly missed."

Margo greets Gordon Murray as SNP candidate for East Kilbride as George Reid looks on

Long-standing independence supporter, Lottie Fulton, now living in Calderwood, also remembers Margo’s time as candidate in East Kilbride and working in her campaign in a later contest in Hamilton.

Lottie, who then lived in the Murray, remembers Margo making regular visits back to East Kilbride.

"I was working as a Home Help at the time, and I used to meet Margo when she came to East Kilbride to visit her mother. Conveniently, she could also get her hair done by the hairdresser who came to look after her mother’s hair at her home.

“Margo was a great person to be around; she was great fun and a very charismatic character. She drew people to her, and they put in an extra effort because of that.

"Scotland has lost a great Member of Parliament, and a great ambassador."

Margo's husband, Jim Sillars, the former Labour and SNP MSP, was scheduled to speak at a Yes campaign rally in Calderwood hall on Friday 11 April.

Paul McCartney, Chair of Yes East Kilbride said:

"Our thoughts are with Jim Sillars and Margo's family at this difficult time.

"However, despite Jim's withdrawal, the Calderwood meeting will go ahead, pursuing the cause that meant so much to Margo throughout a political career that blossomed right here in East Kilbride."

Photograph courtesy of the Scottish Political Archive

The view from Thames Ditton

As part of their annual reporting, major companies are required to assess potential changes to the market in which they operate. They should highlight potentially significant risks, and provide an indication of the steps they are taking to mitigate these risks.

Because this is the season for annual reports, many companies have recently published such risk assessments. These prompted endless cries from the No campaign that there is too much risk and uncertainty in the world. According to No, Scotland should stick its head back under a benevolent Westminster blanket and snooze its way through the future. As if that were remotely possible.

Over the past few days, a new type of business risk assessment caught the attention. This was an email sent by Bill Munro, a Non-Executive Director of local travel company, Barrhead Travel. Munro chose to send his email, said to outline his views on independence, not just to a few friends and family, or even to his rugby team pals. No, Mr Munro used Barrhead Travel’s internal email system to broadcast his ‘views’ to all 800 of the company’s employees.

We are asked to overlook the fact that if an ordinary member of staff had done that they would have been hauled in and at best told not to do it again or, at worst, fired. We will even overlook the fact that the email undoubtedly provoked staff into spending company time arguing the rights and wrongs of what they had just received.

What is more difficult to overlook is that the views expressed in the email weren’t even Munro’s, they were simply lifted from a publication by a Mr Bob Lyddon, referred to as a “banking expert”. Mr Lyddon has close connections to the right wing, anti-EU, Bruges Group. Mr Munro pretends his memo is the view from Barrhead, whereas it is really the view from Thames Ditton. Yet, the interests served by Mr Lyddon could not be further from the interests of Barrhead Travel and its employees.

In his blog ‘Flight of fancy’, Stephen Noon exposes a catalogue of errors in Mr Munro’s email:

He says his business wouldn’t be able to trade outside an independent Scotland for 3 years: this has absolutely no basis in reality – trading takes place between independent countries every day of the year, Scotland would be no different. Ireland (in the EU) and Norway (outside the EU) all trade with England, so too would Scotland.

He says Scotland would be ‘outwith the EU’ but as Charlie Jeffery, Professor at Edinburgh University says “the conclusion of almost all independent expert analysis is that Scottish EU membership would be uninterrupted”.

He says Scotland would have to have its own currency, but Scotland already has a currency, the £ sterling and this would continue after a Yes. As a UK Government minister told the Guardian last week, "of course there would be a currency union". As the government minister continued, "saying no to a currency union is obviously a vital part of the no campaign. But everything would change in the negotiations if there were a yes vote"

He says Scotland has ‘joint and several liability” for the UK’s national debt, however, this has been explicitly denied by the UK government which announced to the markets earlier this year that it would retain legal responsibility for all UK debt. As the Scottish Government set out in its White Paper, Scotland would meet its fair share on the basis that assets and liabilities go together – a cost that is already factored in to Scotland’s national accounts estimates.

He says Scotland would immediately have to join the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) on the path to joining the Euro, but EU law makes it 100% explicit that joining ERM is a totally voluntary decision. His claim is contrary to the legal position set out in the treaties and secondary legislation.

He says the ERM requirement would result in spending cuts in Scotland, but as the EU law position already stated makes clear, this claim has no basis in fact.

The email sent to all Barrhead Travel staff can be see here:

Whether he likes it or not, Mr Munro’s memo to Barrhead staff carried the force of an official statement. What can staff now make of the company’s future when they see its decision-making is in the hands of directors with such little understanding of the world around them, or such little regard for the truth?

Mr Munro was able to (ab)use the email system of Barrhead Travel to broadcast his torrent of errors to 800 staff, who had no right of reply. But, on 18 September, that inequality disappears. For the first time in 300 years, all of our voices will be heard, as we democratically determine Scotland’s future. Between now and then Yes East Kilbride will provide opportunities for residents to hear the case for a Yes vote, and to have their say on the issues that are important to them.

Let Mr Munro keep his face firmly set on the view from Thames Ditton while we set about forging the view from East Kilbride. Come and join us, starting with this event on 11 April: