Losing sleep at night

The future of Faslane may well hang in the balance should the Yes camp triumph in the independence referendum. The nationalist vision of Scotland, rid of weapons of mass destruction, would seemingly spell the end for nuclear submarines in the Gare Loch. However, it has been muted that the controversial facility may constitute the grand bargaining chip that could enable retention of the pound. A fledgling nation state with a Guantanamo-esque millstone around the neck would presumably quash the pacifist enthusiasm of those who view the nuclear question as pivotal to which way they will side in September.

Are nuclear weapons for the UK a good idea? A cynic (or realist) may opine that the red button does little more than buy a seat at the top table of geopolitics. Desirous of a more venerable justification, establishment mantra expounds an ‘ultimate insurance’ pretence. I do find this reasoning rather odd. The asymmetric and intractable nature of emerging threats renders nuclear annihilation a damp squib. Could we really ‘nuke’ Tora Bora? Mutually assured destruction may have kept the peace between the ideological superpowers of the cold war but it is a redundant doctrine for a country stripped of real global power.

Notwithstanding the so-called ‘axis of evil’ and other pariah regimes, it seems wholly implausible to think that the knowledge of David Cameron’s authority to unleash Armageddon protects us against rouge dictators. If the ‘ultimate insurance’ argument is so compelling then it puzzles me as to why every other European country except France manages to do without. Maybe they are reckless risk takers, but I think that leaving nuclear politics to the superpowers is perfectly reasonable. It is certainly cheaper. We spend more than £2 billion every year on our flagship deterrent. I for one think that there are far more positive uses for such vast sums of money.

Alex Salmond has given a ‘cast iron guarantee’ that an independent Scotland would be free of nuclear weapons. One suspects that Faslane has been at or near the top of any pre-emptive strike strategy against the UK for many years. As a Glaswegian, it would be a great relief if our city and local area ceases to be potential collateral damage in the highest stakes game of all. Nick Clegg hammered another nail into the coffin of politician’s trust and credibility with his tuition fees volte-face; the First Minister would perhaps hammer in the final one should he renege on his pledge.

As an optimist, I hope that the nuclear weapons argument can be won within a UK or Scottish political framework. However, I know that many people have little faith in the Westminster elite changing their tune anytime soon, which amounts to a powerful reason for them to vote yes. Either way, I won’t lose any sleep about being uninsured

Time to let go?

I don’t know about you, but I’ve thoroughly enjoyed Ian Hislop’s Olden days. A nostalgic clamouring for yesteryear sometimes seems a ubiquitious panacea to the apparent ills of modern society. Glasgow’s lost utopia is, arguably, the zenith of pride and community spirit centered on the shipbuilding industry. Until the latter part of the twentieth century, the city witnessed the repeated rising of colossal ships that dominated the skyline and then the climax of them running down the slipways to showcase the enterprise of Clydeside around the world. In Glasgow, only defence contractors BAE remain. While just outside the city, Faslane – with its nuclear submarines – constitutues the largest single site employer in Scotland.

The shipyards at Govan and Scotstoun are highly political. They are as much an emotional attachment to an idealised past as they are workplaces for several thousand of our fellow citizens. Not surprising then, that the loss of the last bastion of Glasgow’s shipbuilding empire is a potent threat, which Philip Hammond and the No campaign have seized upon. I work as a pilot on the River Clyde. The sense of history is palpable when I navigate vessels up and down this iconic waterway. At low tide you can still see a slipway at the old John Brown’s yard – now Clydebank College. Sadly, a truly globalised industry has witnessed more productive competitors seize the initiative to the extent that even the UK government ordered its new Royal Fleet Auxiliary tankers from Korea.

At the same time, there is an attempted renaissance on the Clyde. New BBC headquarters at Govan, the Riverside Museum and a smattering of property development herald a paradigm shift long over due. Glasgow’s incorporation of its most famous natural asset is, however, well behind the curve. London leads the way in terms of the adaptation of historic docks in the UK. Liverpool, Portsmouth and Cardiff are among other commendable examples. Unfortunately shipyards, scrap merchants and the other decrepit remnants of a bygone age are not the most sought after neighbors for modern development that requires the approval of individuals and families to live and relax. To fully benefit from what the Clyde could add to an evolved service based economy, a holistic approach is essential. Only a radical blueprint will suffice to rejuvinate a near dormant artery.

The seeds of regeneration have been sown and the Commonwealth Games can provide the impetus. Glasgow’s river might be too shallow for the largest modern cargo ships but there is ample depth for yachts and medium sized passenger vessels including the historic Waverly paddle steamer. Whether Scotland votes yes or no, I think it is time to look forward rather than back. Glasgow’s river is a wonderful natural asset, which could provide opportunities for future generations that far outweigh the piecemeal existence of dwindling defence contracts. And while we’re on the subject of revitalising waterfronts, might there be an alternative use for Faslane should it be determined that nuclear submarines are consigned to the olden days? A booming cruise sector and Scotland’s status as a growth tourist destination intimates just one possibility.   

Religion, Racism, Monarchy and Music

For the second week in a row, the Spectator podcast proves a probing catalyst into the minutiae of the Scottish independence debate. The discussion about the state of Atheism as we approach Easter reminded me just how much influence Christianity still wields today. This fused in my mind with something I heard on the radio yesterday about the role of music during the First World War.

The establishment pillars of religion and monarchy – personified through christian discourse and the royal family – are rapturously exalted in the national anthem God Save the Queen. Interestingly, the national anthem is used by English sports teams, while the other home nations choose overtly nationalistic alternatives. I think that the widespread collapse of the Corries’ folk song, Flower of Scotland, into a diatribe is a sad indictment on a union in peril.  

As an atheist at school I remember – almost defiantly – keeping my head high, while remaining respectfully quiet as the vast majority engaged in ritual prayer. Rebellious defiance has matured into the strong atheistic strand of my reasoned scepticism. While on the monarchy, I have made a complete u-turn.

Passing out as a school leaver and entering my young adult phase, I was an enthusiastic apologist for the Royal Family. I often cited the purported awfulness of a ‘president Yo Blair’ as a worthy reason for keeping the Queen. However as my political views have drifted away from conservatism and towards egalitarianism, the monarchy has become – for me – as indefensible as all hereditary privilege and entitlement:  The very antithesis of equality. Despite the alleged ‘ceremonial’ position of the monarch, the fact that neither you nor I have the opportunity to represent our country, as head of state, is a sad signal that reflects a society anchored to its history of unjust inequality.  

The national anthem validates and celebrates the institutions of religion and monarchy respectively. While it might be tempting to disown the song in favour of the contemporary Scottish alternative; I’m afraid to say that the traducing, yet popular, insertion of ‘b*s***d*’ into the Flower of Scotland has vanquished any hope it may have had as a viable alternative.

Anti-English racism is a scar on our society; I’ve experienced it personally, possibly because of my indeterminable neutral accent! A wider example was evident at Hampden Park during a crucial world cup qualifier – against Belgium in 2001 – when England was actually the target for communal loathing routines. The spectacular failure on the pitch – in typically Scottish style - brought me close to tears that day which shows, I think, just a strong notions of identity can be.

Crass anthem adaption and tribal abuse may be written off as immature irrelevance by those in denial of a racist anathema in elements of Scottish society, but I disagree. I think these examples are symptomatic of something more pervasive. As I alluded to in my last post, I think that ‘London’ as the apparent source of all evil may offer some explanation.

I’ve not heard what the Scottish national anthem post independence would be. I hope that it might reflect a society aspiring to stand proud without a perennial chip on the shoulder. Right now I feel disinclined to make the dubious lesser of two evils choice when it comes to supposedly unifying songs: 'Hail the establishment' or 'we hate the English'? I wonder if an independent Scotland would offer a positive choice on the singing front?    

The colourful arguments support a yes vote

This week, for the first time, I felt an inclination on which way I might be swayed on the question of Scottish Independence. The great decision of our generation deserves objective appraisal rather than rash prejudice. Interestingly it was a somewhat parochial debate between the Spectator's Fraser Nelson and Angus Robertson of the SNP about cultural identity that moved me to sense a preference for the first time.

The spectrum of reasons for voting one way or another is utterly fascinating: From oil wealth to nuclear weapons. The macroeconomic argument gains most coverage. This is unsurprising, given the conventional wisdom that the mantra of 'it's the economy stupid' will prevail when the sun rises on the 18th of September. Game theory buttresses the dictum that the savvy Scottish voter will vote for rational self-interest. Therefore, much of the debate has focused on whether independence would lead to financial gain or loss. 

It seems that the No Campaign has marshaled the majority of the establishment into their camp. The apparent co-option of the ostensibly impartial Civil Service underlines Better Together's superiority on this front. Business also generally seems to favour the status quo, with Standard Life amongst the high profile firms to voice concern about Scotland going it alone. However, when you get out and about around Glasgow, the debate becomes more colourful than the rather grey technicality of macroeconomic pontification.

A common reason I hear for voting no is not that Scotland would become an impoverished basket case, but various connotations of 'I don't like Alex Salmond and the SNP'. I respond to these statements of intent by pointing out the blatant irrelevance of our self styled El Presidente and his motley cohort over the longer term. To vote yes is not to vote SNP. In fact, the democratically superior voting system adopted for Scottish Parliamentary elections means that, individually, we have a more equal opportunity to dismiss our politicians than the bizarre and anti-democratic first past the post system that prevails at Westminster elections. Thus, a valid reason to vote yes is to enhance democracy, especially after cynical sections of the media closed ranks and trashed the democratically progressive move to the alternative vote system.

Amongst the more outlandish theories that I've heard is that large sections of the catholic community in Scotland will vote yes because it would precipitate the eventual collapse of the United Kingdom! Thereby facilitating the unification of Ireland. While I don't subscribe to this hypothesis, I do think that we can learn something from across the Irish Sea. The fact that the Repulic of Ireland is an independent nation state does not impose an onerous burden on family connections that transcend international borders; I doubt very much – contrary to sensational media claims - that we would suffer any real familial disconnect post separation. 

I have an English mother and Scottish father. I was born and raised in Scotland and I do consider myself Scottish to the extent that when I'm travelling the world, I do say that I am from Scotland, not the UK or Great Britain. I don't think independence would have any detrimental effect on social connections between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Optimistically perhaps, I think that the pernicious undercurrent of the fervent anti-English brand of nationalism - highlighted by Nigel Farage on his ill-fated trip to Edinburgh - would ebb away if 'London' ceased to be the default blame depository. 

Scotland is already a country with limited devolved government, international sports teams, a separate legal system and a vibrant culture. It is true that more than 300 years of union has engrained a united history of toil and achievement and forged societal bonds. One only has to look at our record of fighting wars, building an empire, advancing science and democratic progress to see a proud record of standing together. I would venture though that Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians could equally have uttered such proud sentiments before their respective successions.

A proud sharing of culture and political independence are not mutually exclusive. One can rejoice in our common language and appreciation of Shakespeare while accepting that Scotland does have it’s own culture: From Burns suppers and poetry to Chewin the Fat and Only an Excuse on Hogmany. The sight of Scots in kilts at social gatherings is an enduring mark of identity that I’ve witnessed (and enjoyed) all over the world. There is something to being Scottish that is more wholesome than a mere subdivision of Britishness. Having British and Scottish cultural strands need not be a trade off. The best of British is and would continue to be imbued in a constantly evolving Scottish identity.

It may be true that social attitudes in Scotland regarding welfare and immigration are more similar to those in England than many in the Yes camp like to admit; but the electoral record shows an unequivocal chasm. Support for the Tories in Scotland verges on insignificant, yet a Tory Prime Minister represents Scotland on the International Stage while a Tory led government implements its often-unpopular agenda. For better or worse, Independence would put a permanent end to this anomaly.

Given the historic opportunity that Alex Salmond has achieved in holding a referendum, it is perhaps understandable why he has played safe by pledging to retain popular elements of the UK such as the monarchy. I would have preferred a more radical blueprint that really seizes the moment: A new country freed from the hereditary baggage of inequality and not afraid of tackling sensitive big questions such as euthanasia. With the polls narrowing, it is looking increasingly likely that the grey financial ‘what ifs’ are being eclipsed by the colour of everything else that it means to be an independent country. When I access the possibility of achieving the sort of society that I would like to live in, my gut instinct – at the moment – intimates that an Independent Scotland offers the more plausible route. As Angus Robertson said, no other country has regretted choosing self-determination.