Scottish Referendum
On the 18th of September, in less than two weeks, the people of Scotland will vote on what will be the largest decision affecting the future of the country since the
Act of Union in 1707. Fortunately for the people of Scotland, this will not be a decision made by a few lords hiding from the crowds in an Edinburgh pub, but will follow on from over two years of informed debate amongst the populous of Scotland and indeed the UK, as it should be. For me, this is an issue I feel strongly about. So much so that I felt compelled to write this essay (is it a yessay?) before that referendum, to help to express my feeling on the subject, as they have no other out for one simple reason.
I cannot vote.
This is not a surprise to me, as I have known from the start I could not, and would be unlikely to allowed to, as to call upon the whole of the Scottish diaspora to vote would be both impossible to manage, and indeed unfair to the actual residents of the country. However,
If I could vote, I would vote Yes.
Why would I vote Yes? Well, at the start of the debate I was torn. My heart said yes, but my head said no. However, the more I have listened to the debate, and read on the subject, the more I have come to realise that my head was just scared of change. There is nothing to be gained by the
status quo, and I find myself increasingly at odds with the way current western democracies in general are run. It could be said that as a child of Thatcher, I am just provoked to a knee-jerk reaction to a Tory Government in Westminster and indeed
there may be a case to be made for that, but I like to feel that I have grown past, and can see beyond that particular chip on my shoulder.
I have come to embrace the fact, that all democracies should drop the un-representative first past the post system, and adopt some kind of proportional representation (PR). Since I have resumed voting, now that I an a citizen of this fair country (Canada), I have been made further aware of the inequalities and inadequacies of this system, and see voting reform as the only just way forward.
How is it possible then that an independent Scotland will go forward under this kind of system when most western democracies fight it tooth and nail? Well, simply put, because it's already in place. The cynic in me suggests that this is the case to limit the powers and strength of a Scottish parliament, but it works. Far from giving what are deemed to be weak/hung parliaments run by coalitions, the last election gave the SNP a strong majority (hence the referendum, meanwhile Westminster currently ticks by on a Conservative/Lib-Dem coalition, go figure). But perceived weak governments aside, this kind of governmental reform is completely necessary in Scotland, and I would argue, in the UK and Canada too (anywhere really, but those are the ones I feel passionately about). Indeed coalition parliaments are better for the people, as they provoke debate and compromise. Two things which I feel would benefit any country's democratic process. There is a nice little summary of the possibilities present here on the
National Collective site. Of course, the UK had the option to change the electoral system, but
botched it, as neither of the big two parties actually want change.
This increased democratic representation, coupled with the left-leaning politics on the whole of the Scottish political parties, will, I believe, lead to an improvement in social justice across the board.
I have been warned that an independent Scotland will not be the Socialist utopia I may believe it will become. I think this is fair. Scotland in general may be left leaning, but there are other factors that need to be considered. All in all, I think it could only be better for Scotland, as improved representation is the only fair policy for people of all political leanings. It means too a greater voice for Scottish Tories, and not a Labour stampede riding rough-shod over the will of the people. Furthermore, it will open the doors to smaller parties and the concerns of people of all political leanings to have their voices heard.
But why stop at voting reform? The possibilities for a new Scotland are only limited by our imaginations. In the modern age, who would write the Scottish constitution, after all, the
Declaration of Arbroath may be stirring stuff, but it's a little out dated. In the age of crowd sourcing and with a smaller population to deal with, there are other new ways to do these things, as
Iceland has shown. A Scottish constitution, for the people,
actually written by the people. Mind. Blown.
Comparisons to Quebec
As a Scot in Quebec, there is always the question as to how I feel about Quebec's independence from the rest of Canada. Indeed, even from my first visit here, I have been made aware of a feeling of kindred spirit between Quebecers and Scots. With the referendum approaching, it is a question I am asked almost daily.
Indeed, there are many historical similarities. And both nations are left-leaning societies, with many cultural values in common. There are also many parallels to be drawn between the two states in the rise of Nationalism in the 1970s.
With this in mind, it is no great surprise that journalists from both sides of the Atlantic are looking to get the perspectives of Scots in Quebec on the subject. I have been lucky enough to be contacted by two journalists to talk on the subject. One from the
Glasgow Herald, who was in town to write for this feature, and one from
La Presse, a local paper looking for the perspective of Scots in Montreal, before going over to cover the referendum from Scotland and report back. For the
Herald piece, my take wasn't used for the final story. Initially I was a little disappointed with this, but then, I doubt I was adding much. For the article for La Presse, we all got our say, and although the report covers only parts of the whole conversation, I think it was pretty comprehensive of the feelings of the four members of the discussion.
The full article is posted here. I was also contacted for by Radio Canada, but didn't get the message till after the event, stupid phone.
What was interesting was that of the Scots in Montreal interviewed for both articles, 9 in total, I was the only one who came out as yes. So maybe it's a good thing the ex-pats don't get to vote!
However, when asked if I would vote yes in a referendum for Quebec independence, I must say, as things currently stand, I would vote no.
The one main difference in my eyes between the PQ and the SNP, and here I switch to talking about parties rather than the case for each nation, as I believe the differences between the policies of these two parties to lie at the heart of my reasoning, and the policies of the main independence party in each nation would shape the future independent country that could or would be formed if independence was gained. The key difference in my mind between the two outlooks is the difference between
Civic Nationalism, and
Cultural Nationalism. The former to my mind is the right way to go about things. If you want to start a new country, you want to make it one that others would want to come to. You want it to be a place that is inclusive, and any decision to be made on the question of Independence is one that affects all the people living within it's borders, therefore any Nationalist movement that should be inclusive of all these people. Cultural nationalism is the kind of nationalism that is put forward by the PQ (I stress the PQ here, as there are other parties that promote civic nationalism here in Quebec, but they are small, and rather outside the main debate). Quebec for the Quebecois is the way they look at it, and the debate here revolves around one issue, that of the French language and cultural supremacy. To me, this is extremely narrow minded, and does not represent me, or indeed a large portion of the population of Montreal (if not Quebec). here we are more enraged over whether the word
pasta is acceptable on the menu of an Italian restaurant, as it is not a French word, than we are over for example, the economic capabilities of the province, and what currency an independent Quebec could use. This is light-years behind, to my mind, what should be being debated. Quebec nationalism seems to be where Scottish nationalism was back in the 1970s, all heart and no substance. However, where the Scottish nationalism debate has evolved, Quebec nationalism has stagnated. To the point where the question here is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
That is not to say that Scotland is free from the down sides of cultural nationalism. I am not naive to the existence of racism, anti-English sentiment and ingrained bigotry that exist. I grew up on the West Coast, where the bigotry is so ingrained as to be omnipresent. However it is not the policy of any of the political parties of the country to be exclusionist (UKIP and Daily Mail readers aside). I love Montreal, and Quebec, but I will never be accepted as a Quebecois, no matter how long I stay here (Montrealer, maybe).
No, if anything, the case could be made that the model of Scottish independence is not Quebec,
but that it is that of Canada itself.
One direct comparison that can be made between the two places is that
the youth of both Scotland and Quebec have less interest in
Independence. The Quebecers were polled after the latest and rather
decisive defeat of the PQ in the provincial elections, revealing that
the the 18-24 year olds here were not keen on
sovereignty as a policy, and were
unlikely to vote for the PQ.
Leading to the moniker "the No generation". It seems that back in
Scotland, the dropping of the voting age from 18 to 16, which may have
been seen as a ploy to get more votes for the Yes campaign, seems to
have had the opposite effect, with the youth vote
considerably more No than other sections of voters (at least at the start, I don't know how this has changed nearer to the vote taking place). Does that mean the defeat of the PQ in the last election was the last chance for Quebec independence, indeed, is this the last time Scotland will get to vote on the issue, as the next generation will be of a mind that none of it matters, and boundaries are irrelevant in the Internet age? I would hope not, but it may be the case.
Summary
To me, the overriding reason I would vote yes is hope. Hope that
Scotland can go forward from here with her head held high,
promoting social justice, and following more closely the will of the
people more than any Westminster government is actually able to do,
never mind whether or not it has the will to. How hopeful will I be in two weeks time? That remains to be seen.
So that's where I stand. But I'll leave you with this one thought, if you are still on the fence, and are looking for one reason to tip you over into voting yes, consider this...
...Scotland's entry into Eurovision 2015, the Proclaimers.
N.B.
To inform yourself of the question and the decision to be made, there is this document released by the David Hume Institute.
For an article discussing the similarities and differences between Scotland and Quebec, go here. I have yet to find the full article, but the intro is interesting.
For the actual relationship between Scotland and Quebec during the referendum, this article dates from before the PQ collapse, but is quite telling.
