Who Owns Scotland? A final post on Independence

As the countdown to THE VOTE enters its last exhausting phase, a nation is well and truly holding its breath.  My own family is divided on the subject, as are my friends.  None of these are people I would characterise as idiots - some are frighteningly intelligent in fact.

But there's something I've noticed in the last panicked, frantic week since the YouGov poll so terrified the Westminster parties.  My thinking on this matter has gone beyond the poll, beyond this one country.  The last week has led me to ask a question that uses Scotland as its test case but could be equally asked of the UK as a whole or any country that purports to hold itself to true democratic standards.

So who owns Scotland?  A space alien arriving in the last week might have leapt to some strange conclusions if they'd been held in a secret bunker and been forced to watch rolling news.

So here are some suggestions:

1.  Gordon Brown

In the heat of the poll shocks, a rather strange saviour appeared on the horizon - None other than Gordon Brown - the same entirely discredited figure lampooned for years in the British media and at least once a week at PMQs since his ignominious resignation post crash, post the end of boom and bust.  But maybe I'm wrong.  By dint of being 'the most famous Scottish politician' and therefore appealing to Scots because, in a fit of faultless logic, he's Scottish, Gordon rode in at the 11th hour to table the version of Devo-Max that was set to save the Union.  Gordon's ideas, far from being anything resembling national policy or any formal proposal were, in Gordon's own words, something he'd concocted in conversations with his own constituents - surely Kirkaldy's first non sheep related contribution to any national debate.  They did not, and do not, as far as I can work out, have even the support of the now leader of Gordon's own party.  They are a blueprint for constitutional change that has not been voted for, ratified or even discussed in either the Scottish or UK parliaments. And yet... they may form the basis of the future constitutional makeup of a United Kingdom in the event of a 'No' vote.  This is, as far as I can make out, extremely odd behaviour for a democratic country.

2.  The Markets

The markets are nervous.  The markets dislike uncertainty.  The markets will make Scotland suffer in the event of a Yes vote.  Alistair Darling and David Cameron are loathe to unsettle the markets, to upset them, to do anything that might make them respond negatively to the UK as a whole, never mind Scotland...  Who the **** are the markets?  Are talking about the movers and shakers of large scale capital and commercial investment?  Are we talking about 'big business'?  Are we talking about those who hold the largest slices of UK debt?  Are we talking about the financial operators and investment bankers whom the UK government just bailed out?  The great financial wizards that just about sunk their own version of capitalism only a handful of years ago?  There are a few terrifying questions here that need addressing.

A.  When did I elect the markets to act as guarantors and overseers of British or Scottish political policy?  Are we to consult the markets on all the democratic decisions we try to make within our political system?  Should I ask the markets to educate my children (Or in my case my cat), dictate our health service policy (The markets also dislike the NHS by the way - its a closed protectorate founded upon 'dangerous socialist principles'.  The market would seek to turn it into a private free for all, run for profit - should we do that too?)

B.  Given that the markets misgivings are in large part being solicited, encouraged and presented by elected UK politicians and not just random back benchers - the Prime Minister and leaders of the next two major parties (Such as we can still call the Lib Dems that), am I to assume that British politics is already largely in hock to big business and capital brokers - that our political system is little more than a multi-coloured layer of administration in which small arguments can be had but the same agenda is preserved?  Business in particular is not shy about its motivations.  It acts in its own interest, always.  This is why our country at least attempts to maintain the pretence of not being run as a PLC.

C.  Scottish Independence is no small matter of branding or PR.  It is real politics.  of course the markets don't like it.  They hate real politics in almost all its forms because we theoretically have a political system in which power ultimately lies with you and I.  There are few things that scare the markets, and indeed the politicians more than an 85% turnout for ANYTHING.  They would rather we kept our expressions of populism confined to X factor.  Genuine populist debate that could shake or redefine the comfortable status quo will not be popular with the markets.  they would rather have politicians who don't do anything and leave them to get on with things their way.  Speaking of which...

3.  The Leaders of the three Westminster political parties.  Westminster politics is a sickly beast right now.  We are led by a PR man for whom principles are something that less evolved beings worry about.  Cameron has backed down to big business on taxation, on alcohol minimum pricing, cigarette packaging and on the green incentives he championed and then withdrew from because it was hard.  he has no demonstrable political backbone and only takes any sort of stand where he perceives there will be a 100% chance of success.  Even then, he still misreads the political landscape as he did over Syria.  He has spectacularly misread the tone and quality of the debate in Scotland and has lacked both foresight and courage to meet the arguments head on.  He could have turned the whole thing into a damp squib by simply conceding to having Devo Max on the ballo
t paper - no independence - no cost to the better together campaign given they are supposed to support more powers.  (Funny how they weren't up for that one)

He is opposed by probably the weakest leader of the Labour Party in living memory (And even I can remember some pretty dreadful ones)  He has next to no personal charisma, no core group of labour voters with whom he has any resonance - too ineffectual to appeal to the liberal intellectulatte, too sheltered, pretentious and socially ignorant to have any presence with the core of working class Labour voters.  Too weak and close to the unions to win over the centre ground South.  I'm sure he is a really nice guy, but he can't deliver a coherent message to the point that his message regardless of its content can only be incoherence.

Then there's Nick Clegg...

It is interesting to note that UK politics is in such a state of turmoil that though a broadly unpopular right wing government is in coalition with a morally bankrupt centrist party, opposed by a centre leaning Labour Party.  In this climate, with its whole bias leaning right, only the UK could come up with UKIP, a party of protest TO THE RIGHT OF ALL OF THIS!

These people do not have the qualifications to dictate the terms of devo max to the people of Scotland from proposals drawn from thin air and carved up between them, without taking those terms to the House of Commons for approval.  They cannot do that of course because English MPS would use it as an opportunity to answer the West Lothian Question and seek to remove Scottish votes from English issues.  They are hugely opposed to what they perceive as another 'giveaway' to the Scots.  This is why I hope the answer to my question is in fact the below.

4.  You

Call me old fashioned, call me naive.  I still believe that the people of Scotland (And as an ex pat I sadly do not include myself in this) should be able to come to their own decision and for that decision to mean something.  This is about self determination at its most fundamental.  It is about redefining our relationship with our politics - to assume full accountability for the policies we chose to let define us.  We could linger on as the socially liberal corner of a UK that seems to regard our values with less and less respect, but where would that actually get us, would that galvanise a people with many gifts, many strengths and many problems to take some hard choices of our own.  A yes vote will not be a vote for an easy life.  It will be a vote to step onto the international stage and test our identity, culture and principles against the best and worst the world has to offer.  We will be empowered to build a country around the national conscience we pride in Scotland and be expected to defend and uphold its values in the world.  I think we can do it and once we are on the road to that, the markets, big business and even the UK's politicians (with luck new ones) will begin to see the opportunities that only a new country can present.

So when you all come to cast your vote, know that I am deeply jealous of your ability to properly take part, the chance you now have before you.  I ask nothing more than that you take your decision for the best possible reasons in a way that asserts the power of a people to determine their fate.  There is still some strength left in a galvanised people with the ambition to make a real difference, both inside and outside of their own country.

Take that chance, and there is nothing you cannot overcome.