Indy Ref: Idealism VS Realism – Choose Wisely

We’re in the home stretch now, but there aren’t enough painkillers in the world to ease my referendum headache.  Living in Scotland has been interminable for the past two years, but lately the debate seems to have descended to bar brawl status as the two opposing sides pine for our votes.  But you can’t expect anything less from this debate.  It’s momentous.  Everything is at stake and every single vote will count; I really mean literally, when I write everything, because when you say yes this country will be changed forever.  For good or for bad, the future holds. 

     So it’s left to the voters to decide (with the information they have available) whether Scotland and its people would be better off in an independent country. 
 
     Unfortunately, this immediately presents a problem for the nationalists and their campaign: we can’t see into the future.  Salmond’s rhetoric aside, nobody can say with total certainty what sort of country Scotland would be and if its people really would be better off economically and socially with independence.  An undecided voter can only speculate: read the papers, watch the news, and try to imagine Scotland as a nation state on its own – the key word being ‘imagine’.  The nationalists are preaching for a fairer and more just society which is all well and good, but Salmond cannot respond to the important questions on Scotland’s economy after independence because he doesn’t know the answers.  I think the nationalists are hoping (praying even) that Scotland’s economy post-independence can operate in a way that serves the people because realistically they cannot say that it definitely will. 

     This is where the Yes campaign falters.  Like myself, most people find the economics of running a country esoteric and confusing; so we leave it up to the politicians we elect, trusting them to manage it in our interests.  Nonetheless, the 2008 global financial crisis has taught people that economics is precarious, capricious, and often dependent on external factors especially the political situation - and it also reinforced to the electorate that politicians aren’t as good at managing the country as they ought to be.  Those at the forefront of the Yes campaign have failed to reassure undecided voters over Scotland’s economy and its economic future with independence is too ambiguous for people to take the risk of a Yes vote.

     The vision of an independent Scotland the Yes campaign has proffered is idealised: built on the intangible hopes and dreams of nationalists.  Salmond’s rhetoric of “capturing hearts and minds” is ultimately a facade because a country is founded on the stability, security, and certainty of its economy, health service and military.  Obviously Salmond has never read The Great Gatsby and before Thursday I wouldn’t be surprised if he invites us to his ‘promised land’ or ‘utopia’.  Quite often, the No campaign has been accused of scaremongering (definitely Salmond’s favourite word) when actually they were just being realistic.  Gordon Brown (who I think has been one of the No campaigns best assets) spoke sense the other day when he said: “you can try to dismiss some of the warnings some of the time, but you cannot dismiss all of the warnings all of the time.”

     I never indulge in criticising Scottish independence because, although I have decided that I’m voting no, I can still see a lot of potential in the idea.  It seems to me that the main benefit of Scottish independence is that we could finally elect a government democratically.  Westminster has failed Scotland.  They might have doled out some extra powers but time and time again Scotland is controlled by a government 400 miles away that it didn’t even ask for; and again, I mean literally didn’t ask for: Scotland currently has 1 Conservative MP in the UK parliament out of a total of 59 representatives from Scotland.  Whatever the outcome of this referendum the old establishment of Westminster needs serious reform to keep it in line with 21^st century liberal democracies and starting, in my opinion, with its flawed first past the post voting system. 

     It was bold of Alex Salmond to stand up to the established order; to look them in the eye and say in true Bravehreat style: the Scots are part of this union and we will be counted - or we’re out.  Salmond has always struck me as a politician who genuinely cares about people – a trait all too rare in politicians these days.  Quite rightfully, he recently won GQ magazine’s politician of the year award.  This was obvious at the TV debates when Salmond approached the audience as he spoke and he also addressed audience members by their first name when they asked him a question.  His demeanour was a contrast to the arrogance and condescension of Alastair Darling, leader of the Better Together campaign.  There are few politicians that Scotland would welcome as a figurehead for unionist arguments, it seems like Darling was the lesser or many evils. 

     For a long time I was an undecided voter.  Both sides were engaged in wrangle of contradictory facts, pointless polls, and dogmatic opinions from some very boorish people - while I and thousands of other Scots were stuck in the middle afraid to lift our heads above the parapet.  Truthfully, I was intimidated by billboards confronting me in the street telling me that my children will suffer if I vote a certain way; or letters in the mail asking why I didn’t want to be part of one of the richest countries in the world.  With my experiences over the past two years, I think the debate has overall been successful but very divisive – I hope the two sides can accept the result whatever it is. 

     While the debate roared on, the turning point came for me when I was volunteering at the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games working as a reporter covering the table tennis.  On the surface, one would think this event was the perfect Yes campaign PR stunt: showcasing what Scotland and its people can achieve and could offer to the world.  However I think this interpretation is misguided.  When you looked closer, you could see the Games were about unity.  The Games saw countries coming together to compete and celebrate because what they had in common was more powerful than anything that differed between them.  At the table tennis there was immense support and pride for team Scotland, but as the competition reached its climax team England were winning medals. When I saw Scots in the crowd waving the St George’s Cross and shouting “c’mon England” in all sorts of Scottish dialects (no regard for nationalities or borders, no thoughts of separation) that’s when I knew that we really were better together.