The Fool on the Hill: Why Scotland?

Contents

1. Preamble
2. Of histories and loyalties
3. Where we are now
4. Scotland, considered as a state
5. So is it worth it?

Preamble

I got into a wee discussion on the Fediverse today, with a Scottish Labour guy called Alex Gallagher, about reasons for seeking independence for Scotland.

In this discussion, he said, in part:

Simon, I'm tempted to ask: if history doesn't matter what's the point of Nationalism?

to which I answered:

there's no point to nationalism. I'm a communist, not a nationalist. There are tactical choices one makes in order to bend the tide of history towards socialism. The United Kingdom (it's a union — the clue is in the name) has entrenched imperialist traditions which it is futile trying to change; in the Socialist Republic of Scotland we can build a better nation.

Well, that's a true statement of what I do feel, but why, and is it rational? Specifically, why choose Scotland?

Of histories and loyalties

I joined the independence movement back in the mid 1970s as a pacifist, as someone chiefly concerned to reduce dangerous levels of conflict in the world, and I saw those conflicts then (and still do now) as chiefly driven by imperialism and by rapacious capitalist exploitation. I saw the most significant imperial power as being the United States of America, and probably the second most as being the Soviet Union; but the United Kingdom was clearly then and is even more clearly now a nation which has in its most central institutions a very toxic level of entitlement. It was also where I lived and where I could seek to affect change.

I saw then the primary reason for splitting the United Kingdom as breaking up that state, and by doing so as hopefully defanging its nuclear arsenal and rendering untenable its permanent position on the security council. So you could, if you consider that I owe some birthright allegiance to the state, see my reasons as purely treasonous. And I think I would plead guilty.

In 1979 there was a referendum on devolution to Scotland, and I campaigned (hard) for the cause, both because I did not think the then constitutional arrangement of having Scotland governed by a Secretary of State with very little democratic oversight was very democratic, and more because I saw it potential stepping stone towards independence and thereby towards the breakup of the United Kingdom.

And, of course, we won. We won by 51.62% to 48.38% — by coincidence, almost exactly the same margin as that by which the UK voted to leave the EU. We won, but we didn't get devolution, and we didn't get it because weasels in the Labour party introduced never seen before nonsense into the conditions of the vote which meant they could count dead folks votes on the 'no' side.

And so, of course, the SNP put down a vote of no confidence in the Labour government. What else could they reasonably do? And so, of course, the Labour government fell, as it deserved to do, andin its place we got Thatcher, the only politician I have ever truly hated.

Labour, of course, blame the SNP for this; they do not look into the mirror to question to what extent their own duplicitous subversion of democracy was to blame.

To be fair, we did win devolution in 1997, under a subsequent Labour government. But we must observe that where Thatcher had made war only on Argentina and Ireland, that same Labour government engaged in a rampage of ill-conceived military adventurism across half the globe.

But, let's be fair again: a situation arose in the former Yugoslavia where politicians — Slobodan Milošević chief among them — whipped up ethnic hatred for personal political gain, as Farage and Johnson have since done in the UK, Orbán has done in Hungary, and Putin in Russia. There is a need to resist such evil, and while I cannot believe that good can come out of violence, nevertheless when violence is used to subjugate and oppress, I do not know of any effective strategy other than violence which can effectively defend and deter.

So, although all Blair's messianic imperial adventurism, his 'great power' posturing, was of one piece, cut from one cloth, and although it culminated in the catastrophic disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan, nevertheless I can see some moral justification for his interventions in Bosnia Herzegovina and in Kosovo.

Where we are now

But, we are where we are.

Where we are is

1. The planet is burning;
2. Multiple concurrent crises of pollution are causing a mass extinction;
3. Russia is fighting a potentially genocidal war of imperial conquest in Ukraine;
4. Wars driven by climate degradation are spreading in the Arabian peninsula and in the Sahel;
5. Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom;
6. The United Kingdom is no longer part of the European Union;
7. The Conservatives have once again shown that, apart from being utterly amoral people, they are utterly incompetent in government; and
8. The Labour Party is once again expelling socialists and seeking re-election on the basis that it can deliver neo-liberalism, globalism, and British exceptionalism more effectively than the Conservatives.

Under these circumstances, does it still make sense to try to break up the United Kingdom? Does it still make sense to try to build a polity with a broadly left-of-centre electorate? And if it does, why Scotland?

Let's be clear about this. I was not born a Scot. I am a Scot only by adoption, and for me my allegiances to Auchencairn, to the Stewartry, to Galloway and to Europe are all equally important with my allegiance to Scotland; indeed, if you have to rank them, I'm a localist and a communist: my loyalty to my community — to Auchencairn — comes first.

So, again, why Scotland?

Scotland, considered as a state

Well, states are defined by geography. Scotland, considered as a state, has one short, easily controlled land border, with only two major crossing places, one intermediate crossing place, and twelve minor ones, for a total of fifteen altogether.

Scotland has sufficient agricultural production to be self sufficient in food (although we are not at present self-sufficient in varieties of food we choose to eat).

Scotland is self sufficient in energy, with substantial surplus for export; and although we need to very rapidly close down our fossil hydrocarbon extraction, nevertheless we are so extraordinarily blessed by wind, rain and tides that with reasonable management we will continue to have surplus energy indefinitely.

Scotland (still!) has a wealth of mineral reserves of many kinds.

Scotland has a highly skilled workforce, and traditions of skills in engineering and technical work of all kinds, in the arts, in the sciences and humanities.

Scotland has, compared to the United Kingdom if not to Europe more broadly, a relatively low density of population.

Scotland has a culture of democratic institutions rooted in a presbyterian kirk and in a strong labour movement.

And, as I've documented repeatedly, Scotland has on many measurements social attitudes considerably to the left of the United Kingdom as a whole.

If you are going to break up the United Kingdom, you have to do it somewhere. And while I deeply sympathise with those in, for example, the old county palatinate of Lancashire who also wish to break away, it seems to me that the Gretna to Berwick line is one of the places where such a break can most easily be made.

So is it worth it?

The planet is dying. Communism on a dead planet is not a victory. Independence on a dead planet is not a victory. Even peace, on a dead planet, is not a victory.

We have, genuinely, very little time.

Reversing climate change is past praying for. Halting climate change is already almost outwith our grasp. Even slowing climate change is, at best, very unlikely. Do we have the spare bandwidth for any other political objective?

I would argue — but not with confidence — that the only way we're going to tackle this emergency is through a profound, systemic change to how we operate economics at every scale from the local to the global. I would argue that the profit motive, the market economy, has to go — utterly — if life on earth is to have any chance of survival. I would argue that the overthrow of capitalism is not tangential but central to the task we face.

But... Scotland?

You have to start from somewhere. You have to start from where you are. Scotland is where I am.

You can't impose communism. As the Marxists have repeatedly demonstrated, this doesn't work. You have to build it. There isn't much time. You have to build a majority. You have to provide an example.

Can we build that majority in Scotland in time? Can we provide that example?

It would, honestly, need a miracle.

But it would need far less of a miracle than swinging a state wedded to its nuclear missiles, to its submarines, to its aircraft carriers, to its projection of power, to its aristocrats, to its secretive city corporations, to its tax havens, to its imperial past, to its exceptionalism.

We know Scotland was never great. We know Scotland never conquered anywhere. We know that all too many of Scotland's military adventures ended in catastrophic defeat. And that is precisely what is great about Scotland: we know who we are.

A miracle is impossible, of course. And a miracle in Scotland alone is irrelevant on a burning planet. But it feels to me as though a miracle is less impossible here; and that once the first miracle has been achieved, others may follow.

And we either fight for miracles, or we despair.

Share on social media