Till a’ the Seas Gang Dry

She was born at 11 o’clock at night, in the Royal Hospital, just off the Falls Road in Belfast. My wee girl. No moment has ever caught my breath so much, been such an overwhelming emotional surge, as when the Nurse passed Eve to me.

A few years later, and I’m standing in another Royal Hospital maternity ward. This time, it’s Sunderland. And this time I’m being passed my gorgeous wee boy. Not a new experience now, but no less breath-taking. Joseph. The wee Mackem with a Scottish daddy, an English mummy and a Norn Irish big sister. The quintessential British family.

Recently I realised that this wasn’t a first for my family. True, on my mum’s side, we can trace our Scottish ancestry back through Henderson’s and Mackintosh’s, through Glasgow and Renfrewshire, all the way back to a little village on the northern tip of Harris in the 1700s.
But my dad was born in Birkenhead. His mammy was a wee lassie from Dumfries, and his daddy a Scouser. It was only a couple of months ago I learned for the first time that the Grandad I never met (he died when my dad was two) was also born in Belfast, to Scottish parents. Incredible.

Why should we fight for Scotland to remain part of this United Kingdom? Sure, we can talk about the risks to independence – the implications of Currency Union, the costs and uncertainties to establishing a new country, the long-term prospects for oil etc – but that’s not why I’m fighting to save the Union. I’ve no doubt that, in the long-term, Scotland could do just fine as an independent country, even if social justice would be the casualty in the short-term.

I’m fighting for the Union because we’re family. Sometimes, granted, we’re a bit of a dysfunctional family. But which family isn’t from time to time? I’m fighting for the Union because this wee island that we live on in the North Atlantic means we’re stuck with each other anyway. I’m fighting for the Union because for over 300 years it’s been a glorious experiment in the removal of national borders, and yet somehow managed to enable all of us to retain our distinctiveness. I’m fighting for this Union because I don’t want a trip back to a 19th Century past in which the Nation-State is the paradigm for how we live in community. I’m fighting for the Union because without it Scotland and England and Wales and Northern Ireland would have been competing with each other for centuries, and not co-operating.

Please Stay Scotland

There aren’t many of us who don’t have family from another part of the UK. And that’s not a product of globalisation or upward social mobility: it’s been the case for generations. The Union has broken down barriers between us, and still enabled us to be who we are. It’s Union that is the future, not division.

But we do need a different kind of Union. The shared spaces which have knitted us together – particularly the political ones – need to be reformed and refreshed. We need more subsidiarity: decision-making at a local level. We need an elected second chamber in Westminster. We need a written Constitution. We need a new electoral system, a version of proportional representation that removes the binary choices of First Past the Post. We need greater autonomy for the nations and regions, including in England. In short, we need a Federal state.

And, so long as there is a No vote on Thursday, I will be forever grateful for the Independence Referendum debate for the new energy and engagement it has injected into the democratic coma which all of us had slipped into. It’s true to say that the UK will never be the same again. Let’s take this energy and invest it in reforming our political system, renewing our bonds, getting to know each other again. But let’s do it working from a principle of Unity, not one of each to their own. Let’s remember that we really can be greater than the sum of our parts.

Because, like a lot of families, even although we don’t say it that often, we really do love each other. And I love you Scotland. You gave me birth, gave me education, gave me that stubborn streak that’s served me so well, helped me not to take myself too seriously, and gave me that accent that is a conversation starter the world over.

And I’m not ashamed to say that I love the rest of the Union too. Every part. You’ve nurtured my kids, given me work, taught me who I am as a man. I’m so thankful that I’ve been privileged to spend my life all over the UK – Glasgow, Belfast, Sunderland, London and more.

One of my favourite poets, Robert Burns, sums up my feelings in so many ways. In To a Mouse, Burns, speaking as the Ploughman who’s just turned a mouse out of its nest says:

I’m truly sorry Man’s dominion,
Has broken nature’s social union,
An justifies that ill opinion,
Which makes thee startle,
At me, thy poor, Earth-born companion,
An fellow mortal!

It’s a stanza which for me sums up our need to live well with all, to build a world that bestows honour upon the vulnerable, and reminds us of both our shared humanity and our capacity to mess things up. We would do well to remember the words of Burns, whatever the result on Thursday.

Lets Stay Together Trafalgar Sq

In a classic track, the band Faithless capture the feeling when a relationship has gone sour. On Monday night I stood with thousands of other people from all around the Union at the Let’s Stay Together rally in Trafalgar Square as we sought to demonstrate our love for Scotland. If I may be permitted to speak for them, as well as myself, these are the words I would send to my fellow Scots, and in particular those planning to vote Yes:

You’re packing your bags like people in the movies do, all severe, not saying a word.
And I’m sitting down here just watching you and I’m thinking, where has all the love gone, where’s it all gone to? Don’t leave.
You know it’s never been easy to love someone like me.
Trying to find who am I, and what you need me to do? Don’t leave.
Where did all the love go? Where’s the love gone to? Don’t leave.
You got me hurting. Don’t leave.
You know it’s never been easy to love someone like me. Don’t leave.
Don’t know how to write a love song. Don’t leave.
You know it’s never been easy to love someone like me. Don’t leave.

And it’s not too late for this Union of ours. We can start again. If it’s possible to completely deconstruct the Union through Scottish independence and build a harmonious future, then it’s even more achievable to renew and re-build this Union which has made us who we are.

Perhaps I’ll leave my last words on my feelings for both Scotland and the Union to Burns:

O my Luve’s like a red, red rose
That’s newly sprung in June;
O my Luve’s like a melodie
That’s sweetly played in tune

As fair art thou, my bonnie lass,
So deep in luve am I:
And I will luve thee still, my dear,
Till a’ the seas gang dry

The Politics of Otherness


“It is now long ago that I learned this lesson from General Armstrong, and resolved that I would permit no man, no matter what his colour might be, to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him. With God’s help, I believe that I have completely rid myself of any ill feeling toward the Southern white man for any wrong that he may have inflicted upon my race. I am made to feel just as happy now when I am rendering service to Southern white men as to when the service is rendered to a member of my own race. I pity from the bottom of my heart any individual who is so unfortunate as to get into the habit of holding race prejudice.”

Booker T. Washington, Up from Slavery, 1900

Tourtoirac is a beautiful wee place, if in a kind of ramshackle way. Its intriguing maisons and petit chateau have a grandeur which, if somewhat faded, nevertheless retain a charm which deliver the sort of mystique that I was looking for on a maiden family holiday to France. Throw in a meandering river running through the centre of the village and the chance to buy fresh bread every morning from the bona fide boulangerie opposite the medieval Abbey, and you could say that I was happy with my holiday choice.

It’s the kind of place that seems untouched by the world. But not just by the apparent absence of satellite dishes and Dom Jolly-esque mobile phone etiquette; it gives the impression that the world has always passed it by. There is no urgency in Tourtoirac, and that is something I was very glad to experience.

And yet there is one very visible reminder that the paysage francais has not always been the sleepy, presiding reality in this Dordogne village. Situated beside the Post Office, opposite the village square, is an obelisk-shaped war memorial adorned in French flags, the state of which clearly shows the place of importance that it holds amongst the local population.

Tourtoirac War Memorial cropped

Around the base of the monument dozens of names of local men killed during the First World War are listed, grouped around an engraving which proclaims: ‘Tourtoirac, to her children killed for their country 1914-1918’. On the same level, but on a different panel is a smaller, but still lengthy, list of local men killed in their turn during La Deuxieme Guerre Mondiale.

In a sense, this monument and its rude interruption into my family holiday should not be a surprise. It stands to reason that most towns and villages in France, much like those in the area that I grew up in Scotland, have war memorials to those lost in the two conflicts which were played out largely in Western Europe, and largely in France. But I nevertheless felt a dissonance to the surroundings which I was enjoying and the peace that I was experiencing.

A plaque on the upper part of the obelisk particularly caught my eye. On that plaque are listed five names. The names have a decidedly Jewish tint – Kohn, Aaron, Samuel – and the testimony which accompanies them is chilling: Assassines par Les Nazis (assassinated by the Nazis), Le 1er Avril 1944.

Tourtoirac Jewish names cropped

I have visited a concentration camp. Yet this plaque particularly shook me. Since encountering the Tourtoirac War Memorial, I’ve found it difficult to forget. It may be that I’m feeling nostalgia for my grandparents and their experience of the Second World War, at a time when we as a family are marking the first anniversary of my Gran’s death, a particularly poignant loss for us as the last surviving member of my family from that generation.

However I think that my awareness of war, violence and hatred, and the dissonance to that peaceful place, was particularly heightened because of what was – and is still – going on around the world even as I was reading the names on that monument.

This year alone we have seen vicious civil wars taking place in eastern Ukraine, Syria and Iraq. We’ve seen hundreds of young girls abducted by Boko Haram in Nigeria. We’ve seen Iraq fall apart in a sectarian blood-bath. And that was before the horrors of ISIS and the so-called Islamic State began to be visited upon much of that country. We’ve seen civil unrest in Missouri as yet another young African-American man is shot dead by the police. And, of course, we’ve witnessed the continuation of the ancient conflict in Israel-Palestine with thousands killed, maimed and displaced, predominantly in Gaza.

These conflicts bear witness to the triumph of fear and of scapegoating. They exemplify the politics of division, and the worldview which says; you can’t be part of this community unless you look like us, talk like us, think like us. It is, and always has been the politicisation of the Other: whether the Jew, the Russian, the Kafir, the Palestinian, the African-American – the list is endless and changes depending on where you’re standing.

Where have all the big ideas gone? The ideas which transcend identity – religious, national or racial? Many of the 20th Century’s big ideas, like Fascism or Communism, soon revealed their true colours. They were equally as hostile to the Other, and as equally prone towards using violence to achieve their ends. The Tourtoirac War Memorial shows that much.

Yet I can’t help noticing that the ideals around which we organise our world today are those which either idolise profit-making or seek to define us by the lowest common denominators. We seem to be left with either the Market or the Tradition. Important though these are, they leave me feeling cold as ideologies around which we will build our world. They lack vision, purpose, and often even a narrative. They represent the politics of survival, nothing more.

It may seem like a stretch to mention the Scottish Independence Referendum in a blog in which I’ve also mentioned Boko Haram. However – in a fundamentally much more benign form, of course – these are the terms on which even this debate is being conducted. Most of the key arguments on both sides are being made via appeals to Tradition/Identity (whether, Scottish or British) and the Market (i.e. which settlement will leave Scotland better off financially). This amounts to a great deal of heat and not a lot of light.

What inspires me are the possibilities that we have in this world to transcend otherness whilst recognising our differences; to find our shared humanity when it’s tempting to simply use labels to demean; to work for a whole that is greater than the sum of our parts; to aim for solidarity when it’s easier to divide.

In a word, Unity.

A Seismology of Political Earthquakes

What should we make of the recent European and Local election results? Nigel Farage’s claim that his party has secured the “most extraordinary result in British politics for the last 100 years” is, at first glance, hard to deny. As the party with the largest share of the national vote (around 28%) – the first time that the Tories or Labour have been displaced at the top of the pile since 1906 – UKIP have achieved a remarkable entry into mainstream UK politics. Their 24 MEPs are very hard to ignore indeed.

Likewise in the local elections; although Labour have topped the polls, winning control of six more Councils and adding 338 new Councillors, UKIP gained 161 new Councillors, to give them 370 Councillors overall and make them the 5th largest political Party in local government (after the SNP).

This demonstrable shift rightwards in British politics is a challenging reality for those of us on the political Left. What this might mean for the General Election in 2015 is open for discussion, but it’s certainly not to be dismissed.

Meanwhile, we are well and truly in the countdown to September 18th, the day our friends in Scotland will make a decision on whether to separate from the rest of the United Kingdom and form an independent country. Although the No vote has consistently remained out in front in all polls, there’s no question that a sizeable Yes vote exists in Scotland, and that the referendum result can yet go either way.

So what does all of this mean? I think that there are a few points worth making:

1. The UK electorate is tired of political business as usual – I think that the drive for an independent Scotland by a large minority on one hand and the remarkable growth in support for UKIP are both indicative of a more widely-held frustration with the way that we do politics in the UK. The lightning rod for this politics fatigue was, of course, the Expenses scandal. But the national furore around this scandal was actually encouraging – if society can’t raise its voice on an issue like this, then there really is no hope for our politics. Instead it’s the widespread apathy and disengagement by huge sections of the electorate which is to me a more worrying phenomenon. It’s the failure of all of the major political parties to really connect with and inspire the great mass of the electorate (and in fairness, we’re trying!) that has been the handmaiden of the rise of Scottish Nationalism and UKIP Little Britainism. If your narrative is that the system doesn’t work, and that politicians aren’t listening, then why not fundamentally alter it and just hope for the best?

2. The UK electorate is feeling fearful and protective – Although supporters of Yes Scotland and UKIP would each claim to have very little in common, both are supporting a political programme which is fundamentally about a retrenchment away from internationalism and collaboration, and back into what they regard as their primary identity – whether British or Scottish. These are political views which have been with us for a long time, particularly in the case of Scottish Nationalism. But their resurgence in recent years is, in my view, closely connected to the economic situation which began in 2007 and which we are still trying to untangle. When we are fearful about our material situation, we tend to withdraw to the familiar. We also tend to think that we can spend limited resources better than ‘them’. There is some truth in this, and I’ll say more about localisation of power below. But this withdrawal often correlates to – or even facilitates – an irrational fear of the Other; and soon some are complaining about the Romanian family who have moved in next door.

3. The Labour Party needs a reformation – I would say this, but I think that the mainstream political party trying hardest to move to a new model of politics is the Labour Party. We’ve always been about community organising and everyday people, but initiatives like Your Britain and the Future Candidates Programme are trying to move Labour Party politics beyond the usual suspects. Nevertheless, Labour needs to go further. As I’ve become more involved in the party over the last three years, it’s been a steep learning curve. Coming in with the zeal of the convert, looking to change the world, it’s easy to quickly get bogged down in a whole new lexicon of in-group language and behaviour, which can tend to dampen enthusiasm. It strikes me again and again just how similar this must be to a non-Christian joining a church for the first time. Like most long-established institutions, people don’t want to engage with the Labour Party in the same way as their parents or grandparents generation. They want to be part of a movement for change, something that focuses less on meeting protocol and more on policies that bring tangible social progress. If we’re going to re-engage our society with a new enthusiasm for the political process, we’re going to have to go deeper and faster in our attempts to change business as usual. Constitutional reform – such as a serious democratisation of the House of Lords, or implementation of a version of proportional representation in General Elections – would help. But the Labour Party can continue to lead by example, by introducing more measures like one member one vote for leadership elections, the Union opt-in and more grassroots campaigning.

4. The country needs to localise more political power – On paper our political system is fairly well set up to balance local and national decision-making. Yet if we can draw one lesson from all of the above, it’s that the common experience of politics in the UK is that it’s too remote. Many people feel like politics is something that happens to them, not through them. The more we can move decision-making downwards towards ordinary people, the better. The hope that ordinary voters can influence their communities around them is a strong card to hold. I believe that it’s the relative lack of that hope and connectedness to the political process which is a major factor in parts of the electorate turning to alternatives like Scottish Independence or UKIP or being turned off politics altogether.

One thing’s for sure, if we don’t do something about it, there are many more political earthquakes to come – and I can’t remember hearing an earthquake described fondly.

What’s in a Name?

This is a big year for the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. After the preceding 306 years of union, 2014 presents the most serious challenge to the constitutional arrangements of the four nations which make up the UK, with the Scottish Independence Referendum on September 18th.

For some, it’s time to give up on what they see as an anachronistic quirk of the modern world, a hangover more suited to 1914 than 2014.

But in the UK I still see the possibility of something unique, exciting and worthwhile: in short, something I want to keep. Here’s why:

Unity brings Strength: As someone who regards himself as being on the ideological left, I’m firmly aware of the immediate impression that the word ‘Strength’ can give. Citing the UK’s membership of the United Nations Security Council or our position as an influential member within the European Union as reasons to maintain the Union, let alone the fact that we have the world’s eighth largest economy and fourth largest military spending, are derided by many as exactly the kind of 20th Century hubris that an independent Scotland could well do without.

It’s true that power politics is a too-common norm in our world and that there’s not enough empowerment downwards. If the consequence of the UK holding the power that we do is more decisions like the invasion of Iraq, then you can count me out too.

But the truth is also that power has always made the world go round. In all nations and in all eras, from the Phoenician Empire, to the Roman Empire, to the Khmer Empire, to the Spanish and British Empires, from American hegemony to the future Chinese dominance, the possession of power seems to be nine-tenths of the law when it comes to shaping the world that we live in. The question for us is not whether strong countries dominate the way the world works – we can see from the Crimea to the South China Sea that they obviously do.

There is only really one important question relating to our power and that is, how shall we use it? Because the potential of the UK’s combined economic, military, diplomatic and cultural power to be a positive force in the world is just phenomenal. The invasion of Iraq was a mistake; but what about the job our military did to stop a brutal war criminal and his militia raping and pillaging Sierra Leone? Tied-Aid was a mistake; but what about us having the second-largest international development budget in the world? 19th Century cultural imperialism was a mistake; but what about the way we hosted the Olympics in 2012?

It’s only with the collective strength that we achieve in the UK that we can make this positive difference in the world. The strength that we have in the United Kingdom can be a massive benefit not only to us, but to the rest of the world. All that matters are the choices that we make about how to use it.

Unity brings Solidarity: I am a great admirer of Co-operatives, Trade Unions and Credit Unions. These voluntary movements have for well over one hundred years sought to strengthen communities and individuals through the power of the collective. Each of them enable the pooling of resources in order to provide increased security to particularly the poorest and most vulnerable in society through using collective bargaining power in the areas of trading, employment and financial services. When part of the community falls on hard times, or faces the injustice of inequality, the rest of the collective can step in to ease their difficulties.

These institutions are all manifestations of a unity and solidarity that have been and can be reflected in the United Kingdom. Whatever stance you take on the economic viability of an independent Scotland, one thing that’s clear is that pooling our resources on this island makes it possible that areas of greater deprivation – wherever they are – can be supported by areas of greater affluence. Of course, the aim of a socially just United Kingdom should be to level out such inequality in the first place. And it’s clear that we have a long way to go in this regard.

However our ability to do so in the future comes exactly from the possibility of re-directing resources from one part of a larger pot to another. This may be possible to some degree within an independent Scotland, but not to the same degree that it’s possible within the world’s eighth largest economy. As I write, I can hear the howls of the Yes Campaign, pointing out the growing inequality that we’ve seen in the UK over the last 30 years. And they are right – we have to some degree squandered the opportunity for social justice that we have in the UK. But the solution to this missed opportunity is simply political will. Again, it’s not the resources – our wealth – we have that are the problem; it’s how we use it to make our country more equal that matters. And the economy of scale that the UK gives us makes the possibilities much more exciting, offering a solidarity that I believe we should aspire to.

Unity brings Hope: As a fundamental principle, union is always a better aspiration than disunity. Yes, the type of union that is created matters. The United States of America contains some gross economic inequalities. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had at its heart an ideology which flattened individual conscience and social freedoms. The European Union can at times have a tendency to require conformity and suppress diversity by seeking to engender a not-always-apparent common European story.

Yet there is something wonderful that happens when human beings overcome our natural inclinations to reject difference or even fear the other, and pursue connectedness. We’ve not got everything right in the United Kingdom; very far from it. But I truly love the fact that, in our difference – national, ethnic, linguistic, religious, regional, ideological – we have stuck with each other on this island, even when it would have been easier to give up and retrench into the familiar.

We live in in the most exciting country on earth: a truly multi-national state which has a respect for the other that, having travelled to about 40 countries of the world to date, I’ve yet to see bettered. This is not to say you can’t find bigotry or racism on these islands. But in truth we are a very tolerant nation. That comes from over 300 years of practice.

It’s this idea of hope in the possibilities of unity on this island that, above all else, makes me want to fight to keep the UK, rather than press the eject button.

United We Stand

What’s at the heart of the Scottish Independence debate? What’s it really all about? In my first post on thedangerouscurve, Musings from the Island Line, I wrote;

“…don’t be fooled by the rationale which claims independence can be a tartan ejector seat from Tory government. It’s not a coincidence that the SNP have risen to power in Scotland under first a Blairite British Government and then a Conservative-led coalition in Westminster. Scots as a whole tend to be traditionally orientated towards left-leaning politics. However, trying to solve the problem of the drift to the Right in British politics through the method of Scottish independence is using a sledge hammer to crack a nut.”

As an out and proud supporter of the No campaign, Better Together, I’ve been taking part in the online discussion through Twitter, arguing the case for the Union. What I’ve discovered has been both illuminating and disappointing in equal measure.

Disappointingly, I’ve discovered that my pro-Union compatriots are much less vocal – indeed much less present – in these online debates. Often it seems that the Yes camp is the only show in town when it comes to social media. Now, I’m not concerned that this is reflective of numbers for and against #indy; in my view it has a lot more to do with the zeal of the evangelist which, as the group advocating fundamental change, is more common amongst Yes Scotland supporters. Indeed, in my experience to date I’ve often found this zeal to spill over into vitriol or disdain when you dare disagree about the best path for Scotland’s future. In fairness, I’ve also found measured, thoughtful and passionate contributors amongst the Yes camp.

This imbalance disappoints me for two reasons. Firstly, Better Together is in danger of conceding that Yes Scotland is the truly grassroots movement, representing what the ‘people of Scotland’ want. We’re giving the impression that the Yes vote is much larger than I believe it actually is. It is certainly giving the Yes camp a sense of momentum at the time of writing. Secondly, the apathy of the silent majority (a majority which has been represented in every poll on the subject of #indy to date) allows Yes Scotland and its supporters to articulate the No vote’s argument for us. Instead of Better Together and its supporters making the positive case for the United Kingdom and everything that it offers, Yes supporters can caricature the campaign to maintain the Union as ‘Project Fear’.

It’s nevertheless been interesting to engage with my fellow Scots from the Yes camp and to learn about their motives for seeking Scottish Independence. If I was to broadly summarise the issues and ideals that seem to motivate them to support Independence, I would suggest that they believe the following. They see Independence as:

  1. An opportunity to create a more socially just nation
  2. An opportunity for Scotland finally to be recognised as a nation in its own right
  3. An opportunity to create a wealthier, more prosperous Scotland
  4. An opportunity to undo historic wrongs done to Scotland
  5. An opportunity for Scotland to cut the Tory apron strings, represented in all of the above

I am sure that there are other motives for the Yes camp which I’ve not listed here. I’m also sure that Yes supporters would articulate these reasons in a more elaborate or different way. But I’m confident that these points summarise the main thrust of their rationale.

If that’s the case, then how do we respond? Well, as I suggest above, we need to do a lot more than just respond. We need to pro-actively advocate for the Union and all the benefits that it brings to us all. The core of our argument needs to be found in the counterpoint to reasons 1 and 5 above. So let me quickly deal with reasons 2 to 4.

As I’ve said elsewhere, it really isn’t necessary in the 21st century for one’s nationhood to be dependent on or equivalent to political autonomy. Is my Scottishness innately diminished because I cast a vote to send a politician to Westminster rather than Holyrood to create Foreign Affairs, Welfare and Fiscal Policy? I don’t think so. Scottish nationhood is so much more than a political jurisdiction. The zero-sum, nation-state equation presented by the SNP and others is an unnecessary and inaccurate shibboleth.

Likewise, the economic argument is to me a distraction. Should the bottom line really be the bottom line in making our decision on Union or Independence? Some commentators have suggested that Scotland could be more prosperous as an independent country. Many more have suggested the opposite. But even if it could be unequivocally proven that the likes of oil, whisky and engineering could buoy the Scottish Exchequer in the seas of economic uncertainty and excessive Bank loans to GDP ratios that independence would bring, is that really the point? Does a few quid (or Euros, or Scottish Pounds) on our wage packet buy us out of our unity and solidarity with our friends from Wales, England and Northern Ireland? The truth is, over time, wealth comes and goes. What’s more important is how we as a society use the wealth that we do have. When it comes to the independence referendum, it really is not the economy stupid.

On the issue of historic wrongs, there is no question that they exist. Edward, Hammer of the Scots, The Highland Clearances, Maggie Thatcher’s Poll Tax; all of these loom large in the Scottish psyche. Indeed, some argue, the origin of the Union itself is tarred by the aristocrats who – on both sides – negotiated it without exactly focussing on the interests of the wider population of Scotland. But – leaving aside the historic wrongs which the Scots visited on England – are we to be bound by this narrative when we imagine our future? What concerns me is where we’re going, not where we’ve come from. What should concern us is creating a more egalitarian, more just, more harmonious, more compassionate society. True, this will include recognising that historic events and decisions have created the unequal society that we live in today. But only so that we know where to focus our efforts in building a more just society. And so, to my main point.

It’s social justice that seems to motivate many of the Yes campaigners whom I come into contact with. The paradox is that it’s also social justice which motivates many of us on the No side. We agree that, under Blairism and the prefix ‘New’, the rump of the Left lost its way towards the end of the Labour Government through mistakes like PFI, the abolition of the 10p tax rate and an unethical foreign policy.

What we particularly agree on is that British politics has taken a lunge to the right since the 2010 General Election: The Bedroom Tax, Atos assessments for DLA, anti-immigrant rhetoric, aggressive benefits sanctions, tax cuts for millionaires and the government’s failure to deal with the culture of the Financial Sector, so brutally exemplified in the Banker’s Bonus and Robin Hood Tax rows. All of these factors unite those of us on the Left who are tired of a culture of blaming the most vulnerable in society for the failings of the elite.

The enemies of social justice are a combination of apathy towards the political process, fear and individualism; the sense that I can’t change the system, and that the state of the economy means I’d be better off just looking after myself. It’s this apathy and fear that ushered the Conservative Party into government in 2010. It’s the (irrational) fear of economic meltdown that is raising the rhetoric against Eastern European immigrants. It’s the legacy of historic grievances and narrow identity politics that catalyses a retrenchment into Scottish Nationalism. It’s the failure to imagine just what could be achieved in our wee multi-national country if those of us on the left put aside our narrow selfishness and strove for solidarity, activism and unity.

Those in the Yes camp have concluded that the game is up. To them, the British experiment has failed to deliver the fruits of social justice. Leaving aside the exponential improvement in living standards across the British Isles in the last 307 years as we became the 7th largest economy on earth (with a smaller population than all above us on the list), we must acknowledge that there is a long way to go in achieving true social justice in the UK. Indeed, it will be a mission that is never truly complete. The search for social justice must be a permanent and indefinite state of mind. And I believe, to paraphrase a fellow-traveller, Dr Dave Landrum, that the fight for the Common Good within the United Kingdom is both missional and possible.

This week the Tory MP, Rory Stewart talked about the need for us to show the love that exists between the four nations of the Union by forming a human chain along Hadrian’s Wall. Well, in the words of Pink and Nate Ruess:

“Just a little bit’s enough. Just a second, we’re not broken, just bent, and we can learn to love again.”

No Future for Trident


When I was about 13 years old I had one of the most impressionable experiences of my childhood when I explored Faslane Submarine Base on the Firth of Clyde. I and a small group of Summer Campers spent the afternoon being shown around the base, and being taken out for rides on the speedboats which patrolled the Gare Loch. The particular stand out of the trip was the tour of the Polaris Submarine, complete with visit to the nuclear missile launch chamber. CND Youth Camp it was not.

Born in the late 70s, I’m from a generation that, in our youth, knew no other normality than the Cold War and everything that came with it: When the Wind Blows, The A-Team, Rambo, Russian villains in the movies, the Hippy Peace Camp outside Faslane we passed every summer on our way to our own Camp and, of course, the looming shadow of Mutually Assured Destruction. I have vivid memories of talking with my sister and our friends as a very young boy – no more than 8 years old – about what would happen to us in the event of a nuclear war. What would our parents do (as if it would matter)? What would become of us (we always assumed that we would survive)? So, standing in that launch chamber several years later, I was particularly affected.

It’s strange to think of that time now, not so much about the details of the day at Faslane, as the inherent feeling – no matter how remote – of dread that we all carried around in the back of our subconscious. Today I think that we often forget the relief and the release that the lifting of that ever-present threat gave to the world as a whole, even if only for the decade before Nuclear War was replaced in the popular consciousness by Al-Qaeda and the ‘War on Terror’ (that supremely ironic epithet).

So as we move towards the 2016 Parliamentary vote on whether the successor of Polaris, Trident, will itself be replaced, I find myself returning to those memories as a spur to remember the reality of a world order premised on the destructive power of nuclear weapons. And I find myself asking, what is Britain doing with a Nuclear Deterrent in the modern world? In particular, why are we undertaking to spend around £100 billion over the next forty years to build and maintain a replacement to Trident?

To be clear: I don’t believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament. But I do believe that Britain could lead the world on multi-lateral nuclear disarmament, and that renewing Trident would be a mistake. Here’s why.

Historically, Britain developed the H-bomb in order to keep up with the threat posed by Soviet Russia from 1945 on. And you can see the logic. There was a huge degree of uncertainty about Stalin’s intentions towards the Capitalist West and the USSR already had the Bomb. The knowledge of just how horrific Nagasaki and Hiroshima had been was not yet the stuff of high school History text books. It was a different time altogether.

But we’re not fighting the Cold War in 2016.

So are the other nuclear powers threatening us? Realistically, no. We have a good relationship with China, India, and Pakistan. Iran is finally coming in from the cold, and has neither nuclear weapons nor a delivery system. North Korea, despite all its rhetoric, has no reliable delivery system: what military nuclear infrastructure it does have could be dealt with using conventional weapons.Is Israel really a nuclear threat to the UK? Quite.


The sticking point often presented by those who are pro-Trident renewal is Russia. Yet even Russia’s aggressive foreign policy, led by their bellicose President, is not enough to justify committing the UK to another 40 years of nuclear deterrence: Putin cannot be in power forever; diplomacy has been massively under-used (both with regard to Russia and to multi-lateral nuclear disarmament); the all-singing & dancing Trident submarine is not the only nuclear weapons delivery system option; it is strong and flexible conventional armed forces and alliances which we really rely upon for our territorial defence in Europe.

Perhaps caution alone provides a rational for the UK to remain nuclear? We don’t know what we don’t know, after all. There is the potential for new, rogue nuclear states to emerge in the future. Yet all countries are equally threatened by the presence of nuclear weapons. The only solution to this fear would be nuclear proliferation, and no-one wants that.

And by this insurance-policy rationale you can simply make up Defence strategy on the hoof. We don’t know for sure that the plot to the film Independence Day won’t one day come true. Perhaps our Defence Policy should include investing in giant lasers which point out into deep space as a deterrence against Martian invasion.

It may well be that rogue elements obtain a nuclear weapon. But will the knowledge that we have three nuclear missile-equipped submarines cruising silently somewhere under the waves of the earth’s oceans really stop Islamic State dreaming of planting a nuclear-equipped car bomb in a major British city? No, Britain’s enemies are the type of guys who are more likely to plant a nail bomb in a crowded pub than to preside over a modern Cuban Missile Crisis.

So, the first reason not to replace Trident is that it’s ineffective in terms of our defence. Warfare nowadays tends to be – in the jargon of the military – asymmetric. Mutually Assured Destruction only worked because the destruction was assured. Mutually.

The second reason not to replace Trident is that it’s immorally-expensive in a time when we are being told that austerity requires Fire Fighters to be on active duty until they are 60 years old and when Junior Doctors, Teachers and other public servants are facing swinging cuts to their pay and conditions. As George Osborne continues his drive to reduce spending and the Local Government budget is slashed (particularly Labour-run Councils), the £100 billion set to be spent on Trident looms large. To put this in perspective, the entire Health Care budget for 2015-16 is £134 billion: the ultimate cost of Trident is expected to be more than the total Defence, Police, Transport, Agriculture and Secondary School budgets for this year.

The third reason to scrap Trident inverts one of the most frequent arguments given in its support: our Place in the World. Britain’s membership of the exclusive Nuclear Club is often described as a fact which gives us credibility – like a Pall Mall Gentleman’s Club on steroids. We are a nation that means business, it’s implied; take us seriously. But there’s another way to look at our membership, and that is the example that we’re setting to the rest of the World.

When the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed by the British Government in 1968, we and the other signatories agreed to three key principles. First, we agreed that all signatories are entitled to civilian nuclear energy. Second, we agreed that those without the bomb should not try to get it, and third we agreed that countries with the bomb would negotiate the elimination of all nukes. Yet in reality we have not prioritised multi-lateral nuclear disarmament, and we’re about to update and extend our capacity to initiate a nuclear attack. What is the moral or practical basis for our protestations against North Korea’s nascent nuclear programme? Our bad example of de-nuclearizing nimbyism is exactly the same as the Iranian and North Korean case for the defence.

But the final reason to scrap the Trident replacement project is ultimately the strongest, putting all of the others in the nuclear winter of shades. This is the moral case against the use of nuclear weapons. Nukes are a quite appalling evil in our world, on a scale that is off the chart. In a typically-depressing way, they represent the apogee of humanity’s squandering of the good that is in us: our wealth, intelligence, technological creativity and collaborative spirit. When we have wealth, we tend to hoard it. When we have intelligence our default position is to use it to give ourselves a selfish advantage. When we develop technology we often use it to become lazy. Despite our capacity for collaboration, again and again we lionise the individual at the expense of the communal. And when we discover phenomenal energy, we use it to create the most destructive power on earth. A power that kills men, women, children and the environment indiscriminately, both in a split second, and for decades afterwards.

It’s a power that we and the world could well do without.

Musings from the Island Line

Riding the Hong Kong Metro Island Line train on a Saturday morning in full kilt and associated Highland paraphernalia was certainly one way to get noticed. Ordinarily, the incongruity of being a six-foot, three- inch tall white guy in a skirt amongst a throng of generally-shorter Chinese commuters would be enough to make me feel like I was standing out from the crowd. But it was the terribly polite, subtle-yet-noticeable way in which my fellow travellers took selfies with me on their iPhones that really made me feel like I was doing the Tuesday morning School-run in a mankini.

Never have I felt more self-conscious in my identity as a Scotsman abroad. Despite the fact that the travel involved in my day job gives me call to perform the role of ‘conspicuous foreigner’ amongst the otherwise tranquil daily routine of Ethiopians, Argentineans, Cambodians and Ugandans, my journey on the MTR (Sheung Wan direction) occupies a category of its own.

And yet it was a good feeling: good to be identified as a Scotsman abroad (No’ Awa’ Tae’ Bide Awa’ and all that); good to be associated again with the generally-positive views of Scots and interest in Scotland which I often encounter on my travels. It seems that, even in a former colonial toe-hold like Hong Kong, we Scots somehow manage to get a pass on the negative legacy of the British Empire – the nasty bits – and are instead awarded epithets like ‘plucky’, ‘industrious’ or just ‘drunk’.

Since the Hong Kong wedding (there was a reason I was riding the MTR in full regalia), I’ve been musing on the parallels between the status of Hong Kong in China and the status of Scotland in Great Britain. Without wanting to overstretch the analogy, it seems that both represent distinct cultures (in the case of Scotland, a nation) which are to all intents and purposes – economic, historic, social, linguistic, political – grafted onto the larger culture against which they are juxtaposed.

Yet in one key aspect Hong Kongers and Scots seem to diverge: namely their views towards their respective constitutional settlements. Hong Kongers are culturally Chinese by majority, yet since the1997 handover have tended to see full political union within China as less than expedient. Scots meanwhile are culturally Scottish by majority, yet since devolution in 1999 have tended to see retaining full political union with the other nations in the United Kingdom as preferable.

So why do most Scots seem in poll after poll to hold their identity as Scots in happy tension with their British passports? It boils down to the difference between Nationalism and Patriotism.

Nationalism is a sectional interest defining nations in exclusive and regressive terms: we are us because we are not them. It’s a dangerous foundation on which to base a political project. And we have seen this in the way that the Scottish National Party and the Vote Yes Campaign have articulated their vision for Scotland’s future.

Their core message is essentially a version of libertarian individualism. The Nationalist myth tells us that it’s the means to the end which are most important: secure self-determination and all else will fall into place. Nationalism is the cure, and Independence is the pill.

Patriotism is different. A Patriot loves her country. She is proud of it, wants to represent her fellow countrymen and their values well, is assured of her identity, is generous in its definition and is outward-looking. She wants her nation to be recognised in the world, but her Patriotism does not dictate her view on the particular constitutional settlement by which her nation is governed.

I believe that many Scots feel like they should vote Yes because they are essentially Patriotic. They are drawn to the grand claims and romantic language which Nationalism uses. But I have a message for my fellow Scots: it’s ok to vote No. You won’t lose your identity, and you’re no less a Scot than those who plan to vote Yes. Moreover, it’s a fundamentally wise decision to choose to maintain our Union with Wales, England and Northern Ireland. And here’s why.

Observers of American politics will be familiar with an axiomatic phrase which was drummed into the Democratic Party campaign team who were fighting to win the Presidential election for Bill Clinton in 1992. It’s this phrase – slightly-adjusted – that those of us who believe in the Union must keep in mind: it’s not the economy stupid.

Because the decision about what country we’ll be citizens of in the near future, of how we will share this small group of islands in the Atlantic Ocean, is too important to be decided by simply following the money.

Yet the economic issue seems to dominate the debate time and again. Will Scotland be better off financially in or out of the Union? I’ve seen statistics which seem to answer the question in both the affirmative and the negative. And I tend to think we would be slightly worse off financially in an independent Scotland. But even if we could speak with certainty on the economic impact of Independence, we should still avoid the economic argument in defence of the No vote. If I know one thing it’s this: never rile a Scotsman by telling him that he isn’t capable of doing something under his own steam.

And there are other ways to measure the value of the Union. Our shared language, in all its glorious forms, enables us to go anywhere in the United Kingdom and be understood. Our shared values mean that a Glaswegian has more in common with a Liverpudlian than a Parisian. Our shared history, at least over the last 300 years, means that we have a common story. Our shared geography means that we cannot simply ignore the reality that we share a small island (look at it on an atlas) with limited resources in a rapidly globalising world. We need to pool the resources for the benefit of all in these islands.

In particular, our shared relationships mean we are more than just neighbours, and in this respect I declare an interest. I am a Scot, married to an Englishwoman, with a daughter who was born in Belfast and a son who was born in Sunderland. This pattern repeats itself ad infinitum across our island. And it’s not a recent phenomenon either. My grandfather was also born in Belfast, to Scottish parents. He grew up in Southampton, settled in Liverpool and married a Scot. We are a family on this island – literal and metaphorical – and despite SNP claims that independence wouldn’t undermine this, I believe it would introduce a massive psychological and emotional wedge between us, an inevitable drifting-apart which benefits no-one. Independence is not a house move, it is a divorce, and I worry about what would happen to the kids.

How do these claims differ from the Nationalism which calls the Scots family to create a Nation-State? First, the United Kingdom is not a nation. It’s a voluntary arrangement of shared government between multiple nations. There is no such thing as the British Nation, but there is a British State. The UK eschews the narrow reductionism of nation and embraces an expansive vision of union. The irony of the SNP argument is that they want Scotland to secede from the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in order to join the European Union as an independent nation! This is a massive blind spot in their reasoning. When the world is requiring increasing integration the SNP are seeking disintegration.

And don’t be fooled by the rationale which claims independence can be a tartan ejector seat from Tory government. It’s not a coincidence that the SNP have risen to power in Scotland under first a Blairite British Government and then a Conservative-led coalition in Westminster. Scots as a whole tend to be traditionally orientated towards left-leaning politics. However, trying to solve the problem of the drift to the Right in British politics through the method of Scottish independence is using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. We’ve got to believe that a new engagement in politics by the electorate can actually make a difference to who’s in charge and what their policies will be. It’s voter apathy that’s been the real harbinger of Tory Doom, not political activism, and claiming that the only way to save UK politics is through the disassembly of UK politics is a skewed logic indeed.

So if you’re a patriot living in Scotland, if you want the British family to flourish in all its diversity, if you value unity and integration over narrow Nationalism, if you want all of us who share this island to become greater than the sum of our parts, and if you’ve got a vote in next year’s referendum, please, do us all a favour and vote No.