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.       

Giving the Power and Freedom of Education Back to the Student

At the end of an english lecture I suddenly zoned in for a change when the words of the lecturer caught my ear.  She told us, the students, that we could send her feedback on the provisional essay questions that she had set for the assignment worth 40% of our mark for this semester.  I couldn’t quite believe it, there were gasps from the audience: for once we actually had a say on important work that is part of the assessment.  Ok, so there weren’t actually gasps; more like sighs of relief that the lecture had finished – nobody seemed to be as struck as I was at our new found power.

     Upon leaving the lecture theatre I hit the library to see the provisional questions the lecturer had uploaded and immediately I spotted things that I found problematic or confusing.

     It was great for the tables to be turned and for me to be able to mark the work of my superior.  Exams and assignments are always things that we seem take for granted: inevitable, unchangeable, just plain awful – and it’s true.  That’s what they’re like, it’s always been that way (sometimes good, sometimes bad) and no one can change that.  But it was liberating to participate and contribute to my education for once – I have never had an opportunity like that before and I don’t think another will come up soon.  I felt as if the outcome of my studying was in my own hands, where it belongs, and no longer decided by devious essay questions that they haven’t changed for about 20 years.

     I sent my comments away (generally things like be more specific here, clarify what this means or consider rewording this) with a word of caution that I wasn’t trying to sound like I knew better or that my suggestions were infallible.  I basically wrote how I was really just thrilled to actually have a say. 

     Over the past year and a half of pressing on with Uni work I’ve found it fascinating and enlightening in so many ways; but there are times when you can’t help feel a little frustrated at the way the courses are run.  Sometimes it’s timetable dilemmas, other times it’s the long wait for assignment feedback then the unhelpfulness of the comments; not to mention that at Strathclyde University the faculty of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (HASS) has been brutally marginalised and undervalued - that’s for another article but believe me it is in the making.  Remember all the times when you wished you could just scream at your lecturer or tutor because of their complete failure to understand the situations, desires and needs of students?  You put up with it at school, but University can be different.  There’s nothing wrong with challenging work and you get used to the stress of deadlines, but can we at least have some say on important issues like how we’re assessed, what from the classes should take and know that when we have concerns and suggestions someone will listen to us.  Lecturers need to get off the picket line and start interacting with students again.

     So, take note lecturers and University officials across the land: it’s our education – can we have it back please?

      Sigh of relief and air punch, my comments were very well received.  Thank you, lecturer, look what can be accomplished when we work together. 

     This was an example of a lecturer trying to engage with students, but students have to respond because it works both ways.  Call me the sacky-student-suck-up if you want to; but I look at the essay questions before my email, and then look at the amended questions the lecturer posted recently – this sacky student had his say and made a difference.

Making a Stand at Sochi

Consider the effort, ambition and determination that an athlete puts into competing at a major sporting event – the Olympics, Paralympics and Winter Olympics being the apex of the sporting calendar – then imagine being told at the last minute it was all in vain.  For reasons beyond your control you can no longer take part in what you’ve spent your life preparing for: crushing your hopes and dreams and potentially ruining careers.  This is the main reason why I think it would be wrong to boycott the Sochi Winter Olympics – respect for those representing team GB.

     However, I do realise it comes at the cost of giving up the principals of human rights that Britain has always championed.  Put simply, the overt homophobia in Russia is appalling.  For far too long it has been unchallenged by the rest of the world leaving many liberal countries with only a facade of tolerance: it’s all well and good to support equality at home, but ignoring international discrimination without any strong condemnation is hypocritical.  Putin’s anti-gay and lesbian rhetoric is ludicrous.  His anti-gay legislation has seen countless members of the Russian LGBT population physically and psychologically bullied with crimes ignored by the authorities. 

     With this in mind, I still believe that boycotting the Sochi Winter Olympics would be the wrong course of action.  I think that David Cameron is right to say that the best way to stand up to the crimes in Russia is to participate as opposed to sitting out.  Mainly because, unfortunately, boycotting the games would have little effect other than being a moral protest.  A protest of real consequence would only work if a number of liberal democracies signed up; and even then, would Russia listen or even care?

     As well as having little effect, a boycott would be politically damaging and I think this is Cameron’s main concern.  Relations with Russia are frosty at the best of times, but to snub such a massive event could potentially look like a petty retort to the disagreements the countries have had over the years.  Furthermore, it could escalate (as I’m sure the press would acknowledge) and resurrect the battle of liberalism against communism – it sounds a bit extreme, but the media wouldn’t hesitate to dramatise the issue. 

     The issues in Russia can only be solved by the international community pulling together to chastise the country for its human rights abuses.  The Winter Olympics itself is a sporting event and therefore should not be compromised for competitors and fans solely because of the faults of the host country; politics and sports are never a winning combination and should be left to their own devices.  The protest should have been against Russia hosting the event in the first place; but now, the situation is unchangeable.   Political diplomacy and pressure during and after the games would be more effect than not showing at all – which would almost be like giving in.  Let Britain turn up and show them how we do.