Not For Export

There are things that I love about being Scottish, and there are things that make me cringe. Watch the above YouTube link and you'll understand why Scots have a reputation for being loud and, let's face it, a wee bit 'shouty'. I'm appalled by the way in which the 'debate' between Nicola Sturgeon and Johann Lamont – Scotland's two most senior female politicians - was conducted. It was a travesty, as anybody who's watched a televised debate will know all to clearly once they've watched this one. It gave 'getting a word in edgeways' a whole new meaning, as there were no words getting in edgeways anywhere. It took me back to many a night in a Glasgow pub,when all many did was scream to be heard. The debate between Sturgeon and Lamont portrayed some of the worst characteristics of Scottish culture, but far from the Scottish pub where it belongs, if anywhere at all. It leads me to imagine that in government boardrooms, for government is business, across Scotland all they do is shout over the top of one another, showing no respect for another's right to speak, or indeed what they have to say, or an audience's right to hear it. Learning how to debate effectively may be one of the few things that an English education could be of benefit for.

Is it just me, or is the debate going a bit stale? Reduced to the mediocrity of shouting over one another? Trident, the pound, the economy. Ok, we get it. Yes, no Trident. Yes, no the pound. Yes, richer. No, poorer. So let's move on to something else shall we? There's plenty to be discussed. Oil, shipbuilding and welfare.

Oil: we've got it. The only thing that concerns me here is that sometime during the Blair years they changed the boundary line of what was Scottish and English sea. It resulted in England ending up with far more of it than it was possibly geographically reasonable to justify. What's going on there? Why is nobody talking about that?

The shipbuilding argument also baffles me. The shipyard debate has risen, fallen away most of my life much like a giant whale floundering on the shore, with the Govan shipyards playing the central role. Every single time that giant whale has patiently waited for an exceptionally high tide to come in so it can swim off into the distant ocean, it only lasts for what seems like a customary few years before ending up back in shallow waters again. I don't know if it's still safe to say that Scotland are world leaders in shipbuilding? The fact that we still get awarded UK government contracts for the construction of British Military ships probably says more than I could. Are we going to loose those contracts post independence? I don't know either, though I'd be willing to guess if we are able to win those contracts now, why wouldn't we win them in the future? Is that incredibly naïve of me? I don't think it is, given the neo-liberal stance of our current UK government and the growing pace with which it's adopting that ideology. Parts of the Ministry of Defence are already sub-contracted to giant multi-national corporations such as SERCO, who have little or no attachment to the British political system and yet are entrusted with a small volume of it's secrets.

So why would Scottish shipbuilding be treated any differently post independence? All in all the loss of UK government shipbuilding contracts is a bizarre line for Scottish Labour to be following, given that they outsourced Scotland's own shipbuilding requirements only a few years ago to Poland.

Welfare: let's get serious. Clearly welfare reform under current UK governance is a disaster. For me personally, I think there should be welfare reform. Not because I think welfare should be cut, but because I think much of the bureaucratic stress it causes it's claimants could be removed. The Scottish government's guarantee to abolish the Bedroom Tax goes a long way to addressing growing inequality across Scotland. Though I still believe that a large scale review of Scotland and the UK's housing needs to made to get the right people into the right housing.

So isn't about time that oil, shipbuilding, and welfare were debated. Then there's education and health.

It has to be said Nicola Sturgeon hit Johann Lamont with a tricky left hook regarding the whole subject of the pensionable age reduction in Scotland, due mainly to the fact that the Scottish die quite significantly younger than the rest of the UK electorate. I think she was right to be astonished; it's a very difficult question. Why? Because to answer it well you have to either deny or confirm that Scottish people do die younger. That's pretty shocking: the fact that Scots die so young (as a result of poor health) that many don't reach the current pensionable age is an abomination. To agree to reduce the pensionable age is to admit that Scotland is being failed by both governments, and entering Scotland into another two tied agreement that separates us further form UK policy. To not agree is to condemn many to life filled only with work; for many, another abomination. To admit to the problem would require a solution, and that could only be drastic changes throughout health care and welfare provision in order to reduce premature death amongst under sixties. There is no funding for such basic human care due to the state of the Union. Also, which was well referenced by Lamont during the debate, Scottish Labour gets their orders from London. She/they can't say much without Ed Milliband and his team's approval.

Welfare reforms bring us to other issues, such as the minimum wage and corporate tax, which although incredibly boring will go a large way to redefine Scotland's future. The Yes campaign seem to be in support of increasing the minimum wage and cutting corporate tax. In a new, richer Scotland I don't see how that is unrealistic with more money in our pockets. What is unrealistic is that we might be offered more powers post an independence no vote. I'm sorry folks, devo-max is off the table. If we were to be given devo-max we would have had it as part of this referendum debate. It's as simple as that. Westminster had the opportunity to provide Scotland with a devo-max option as as part of the independence referendum and failed to. Not only that, we know that the majority would have voted for it. Not many of us were immediate yes'. However the history between Westminster and Scotland for those of us in the know knew that not providing us with a devo-max option was just another attempt to pull the wool over our eyes and not offer the Scots anything at all. Not offering us devo-max was a perfect example of how Westminster continually seeks to undermine Scotland and how out of touch Westminster is with Scottish sentiment.

Why, oh why is nobody debating immigration? Current UK immigration policy is tearing legitimate British families apart and costing the tax payer a fortune. Yet it hasn't been treated as anything other than a bullet point on what the con-dem-nation government is up to. Why isn't it part of the legitimate debate about what's going to happen in Scotland post independence, as much as the bedroom tax? Furthermore, no strategy at all seems to have been addressed to service Scots living out with UK borders despite this being the year of 'homecoming'. I mean, with a South African partner, am I even allowed to come home without having to disown my own family?

Other elements of the debate bemuse me. Like the Yes campaign's insistence that the UK government should be discussing the terms of a break-up before we've voted. Yes it would be nice to be prepared, but it is like asking what you're going to get out of a divorce before you break up. You've got to decide to break up first, haven't you? As far as I'm concerned that's what the two year period is for. The UK have made it perfectly clear that they want this woeful marriage, so it would be a very silly move for them to provide Scotland with any clear indication of how a break-up would commence. The EU takes up far too much of this debate than is necessary, and given that our new role model is Norway, who seems to survive perfectly well without it, just how relevant is it? What is truly worrying is that the SNP seem to continually bang on about there being one Conservative MP in Scotland. Somehow indicating that there is very little Tory support in Scotland, without mentioning the 14 Conservative MSP's. It's very misleading, and I'm not sure why they do that. Scotland will not be Conservative free post independence.

If you look at the Yes or the Better Together campaigns websites, there is little to choose between them. Both declare they are winning in the polls, and both seek to undermine the validity of the other with the essential mud slinging. The problem with the no vote, though, is simply this: it lacks vision. Where is Scotland going as part of the UK? Are we getting a massive tax rebate April 2014? Is the Queen going to host all the foreign dignitaries in Edinburgh from now on? Is proper history education regarding the Union in all British schools to become compulsory? Will all British libraries be required to supplement all published books with additional notes regarding the definitions and usage of UK, Great Britain, Britain, British, Scotland, Scottish, Scots, Northern Ireland, Northern Irish, Wales and Welsh? Never mind the complexities of the Manx, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar, or the near invisibility of minority groups of languages. Maybe yes voters need to come to terms with the fact that there really are some people who are very comfortable being part of the UK, who are both educated and informed as to the consequences of this and are happy to be British. It's naïve to presume that everyone wants the same thing. No voters have reasons, reasons that we are obligated to vigorously question them about but that also need to be respected.

As a Scot living overseas when news of the referendum first came to light I was left scouring the internet for information. It wasn't long before the media bias towards the Union reared it's head; every time a legitimate reasoning for Scottish independence came to the fore it was soon buried under pro-union rhetoric. What's worse it was insulting that most articles regarding Scottish independence were consigned to the Scotland page of the BBC, or each of the British newspapers individual Scotland blog. It completely undermined the issues and led to continual misinforming of the UK electorate about the state of affairs in Scotland. Most people north of the border could have informed you it would have been much closer affair than anybody at Westminster thought. The New Years announcements from the three main political parties was a testament to that. Economy first, Scotland second. If the imminent potential break up of the country isn't on the top of your list as a one of the country's political leaders you've got to wonder, as many of the Scottish frequently do, what's in it for us?

Given the growing gap between the reality of the Scottish independence debate and what was represented in the British media, Yes groups have sprouted up everywhere across social media, while I fear the no brigade are lagging greatly in this department. As a Scot engaged in the independence debate being on Facebook now is like occupying a self fulfilling pro-independence bubble shielded from the naysayers that simply don't seem to be there. What's clear though is the Yes' are passionate and determined and are not necessarily made up either of just SNP or Green voters. The Radical Independence Campaign are bringing both a socially engaged and urgent message to the Scottish electorate, that once the referendum is over we get to choose how our country will be run and, ultimately, they'll be much more choice than anyone ever expected. If enough people vote for independence. They suspect the SNP will disband having achieved their primary purpose and we will be left with a dramatically different Scottish political landscape that incorporates former Westminster MP's and radical political activists that can be represented due to our Scottish Parliament's proportional representation.

Globally the word is finally getting out and it's becoming a regular topic for discussion with strangers. The first few glimmers of international reportage on the Scotland debate were poor, brought to us by terribly misinformed, and possibly disinterested, English journalists. Now it would appear that a large number of international Scottish journalists have been mobilised and are deeply engaged in bringing a true reflection of Scotland's story to the world. Internationally, people seem more willing to accept the genuine possibility of a yes vote when only a few months ago people thought I was playing out some kind of fantasy in my head.

What I love about the debate too, though, is that we are getting a much better idea of what Scotland looks like and who we are. Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling, once distant figures of a Westminster elite, for me at least, appear to be coming home to roost. While celebrity Scots from all over the world, as they come out of the woodwork to hawk their wares via mainstream media, are starting to be asked the question. Some express an opinion, others not.

There are yes voters and no voters radically changing the political landscape of Scotland, and indeed our own understanding of ourselves. We are not all Big Red Clydesiders. We are a diverse and engaging group of varying opinions and backgrounds, with more of us admitting to our shared British roots than ever before. We are no longer a one size fits all stereotype. It's certainly not as clear cut as people might have expected. Many have ties south of the border, and indeed across the world.

One thing we can clearly agree on is that between now and September 18^th we are not going to see any form of agreement between the Yes and No campaign.