17/09/12 New piece coming soon.... I've been keeping my head down for a while but I've got a wee bit more time again & i've been getting the urge to put finger to keyboard... for now i'll leave a wee link to a cracking website i found tonight.... enjoy... http://digital.nls.uk/broadsides/index.html

Edinburgh. It bothers me. It Motivates me

Edinburgh is a city that I have always loved. Indeed, growing up in Stirling, I said from the age of 6 or 7 that I wanted to live in Edinburgh. I've been here permanently for 10 years now. The longer I stay here the more I appreciate and love this city for all it's perversities and nuances. It is no surprise that so many writers have chosen to live here. Almost every one of those have an appreciation of the many Jekyll and Hyde type characteristics of Auld Reekie. I live in the Dalry area. A traditional urban working class area. The remnants of the brewing and distilling industries are a part of day to day life here. The industry may have long gone but it is still far from an affluent area. Most of the properties around me are one bedroom flats. A large number are rented from a mixture of private landlords, housing associations and the council. I live surrounded by addicts of all descriptions and yet also by many young professionals on the first step of the property ladder. Young families, pensioners, immigrants. The area was once known as being virtually the Jewish quarter of Edinburgh, with many immigrants from eastern European countries. To a degree, some things never change as there is still many eastern Europeans in Dalry. But that is no different from many other parts of Edinburgh. There are massive gaps between rich and poor here. I could cite the schemes like Wester Hailes, Niddrie, Sighthill et al. But the picture that does it more clearly is an area like Haymarket. There are a number of bedsits in the area, but in the streets just behind the bedsits are some of the most expensive houses in the city. The two sides of the city could not be more apparent. At rush hour sharp suited solicitors and businessmen will walk past homeless addicts and barely notice their existence. They don't. I do. And it bothers me. It motivates me. The fact that the capital city is one big metropolitan, multicultural melting pot is a vital key in why my love of Edinburgh continues to grow. It is all these things that are absolutely fundamental to explaining the core of my political motivations and beliefs.

On my way home from work this evening I was walking through the Leith Links. A homeless man was standing by a bench with some earphones on. Not unusual in itself. He stands at that spot most evenings, usually on the bench, dancing with his hands in the air, music from his radio blasting out. This time though he had a tattered newspaper in his hand. If he had been in a suit and tie then you have presumed that he was using one of those hands free mobile phone devices. He wasn't dressed like that and I'll bet that he doesn't have a mobile phone let alone a “hands free”. Yet he was rambling away quite the thing. “It's terrible. There's been mass resignations. It's all falling apart...” he said to whoever he thought he was talking to. I didn't stop and left him standing there as I hurried up the road, the monologue continuing for who knows how long. A colleague was a few steps in front of me. Not someone I can say I really know, but seems a nice enough woman to be fair. But she turned round and made some quip about him being a politician or suchlike, that part passed me by to be honest. But what did hit home was when she said “I'm glad I'm not hanging around here. Ooff, (waving her hand in front of her nose) Ye can smell the drink off him eh.”. You may say that I'm no one to judge as I just walked on by as well. But I had no inclination to mock the man in the slightest. I really felt sorry for the guy. It made me think again about why I spent yesterday delivering leaflets for my local SNP candidate in the council elections. It made me think about why I am devoting so much of my time and energy on the fight for Independence.

I want to relay another story from earlier in the day. While on a cigarette break I bumped into an old colleague who had worked in the office a number of years ago. He was just passing by. When I knew him he was holding down the same job as myself and has always seemed a nice enough bloke. Anyway, he asked how I was doing, said I was looking good and suchlike. I thanked him and asked how he was doing. He said he had been kicked out of his girlfriend's and a friend's, so was now homeless. He was living at the homeless hostel next door to the office. I couldn't return the compliment to him as it would have just sounded cheeky or patronising. To save me giving too graphic a description, lets just say he looked like he was homeless, he didn't look well at all. So it was no surprise when he told me that he was dealing. His frankness was disturbing. Not because I felt that he was doing something morally wrong. That's a whole separate debate for another time. But due to his admission that “It's all ah ken eh. Some folk sell a bit ay weed and ah hae tae... ye ken dae ma thing tae get by.” I replied “ Aye, well ye ken I'm no one to judge.” At that he spotted a friend coming out of the hostel, hollered over and told me he had to go but it was nice to see me. I won't lie and say I wasn't relieved when the encounter was over.

Later on, after both of these incidents I counted no less that 12 homeless men on the way home from work. That works out at about 4 a mile. There are facilities all over the city for homeless people. There are facilities that attempt to re-home people, to help them with their drink and drug problems. To help get them back into work and to help them re-enter society in a vaguely meaningful way. How much of these problems are down to the individual and how much responsibility do we have a society? Johann Lamont attacked the First Minister a few weeks ago in Parliament because he could not guarantee that a single child or baby would ever die again in tragic circumstances. Salmond, quite responsibly, explained that no Government could ever make that promise. With that understanding in mind, none of us can or should claim that Scotland will become a land of milk and honey after independence. Even if we get to see a credible left wing government in this land. One that really does close the gap between rich and poor. That increases the council or housing association property stock. That increases the number of people from all backgrounds going on to free higher and further education. That increases the minimum wage. That gets rid of nuclear weapons. That does all these things and more. And that vision is certainly achievable. Maybe, unfortunately there will always be people who fall through the gaps in society. But that does not for one second mean we give up on those people. To be clear I am not in any sense advocating a Nanny State. But the day we can stop working to make things better is the day when no one falls through the gaps. That is a day that will never come.

The Queen will remain Head of State after Independence

So the official SNP line stands. But on today, this very special day... aye, it's a Monday and we've all just got the first working day of the week out the way. But seriously, today has been Accession Day. The day that King George VI died and Queen Elizabeth ascended (or should that be descended?) to the throne. So it seems appropriate to reflect on one or two issues.

Firstly, I should state clearly my belief that the current SNP position on this is entirely correct. The Republicans are satisfied by knowing that a referendum on the monarchy can be held at some point. Maybe that should be “will be held at some point.”, the reason that it is worth noting the two there is that I am making a presumption that the SNP will win an election after Independence and therefore be able to fulfil its policy commitments. It may well be that other parties contesting a Scottish General Election would not make such a commitment. At present the Scottish Unionist Parties leaders are so sycophantic that I doubt very much that they would.

There is no timetable set out at the moment for when the party foresees the monarchy/republic referendum. For the time being we are trying to get as many people on side for an Independence Yes vote as possible. If the thought of losing the Queen as Head of State puts anyone off voting Yes then it seems a relatively small concession to make. This movement's vision for independence is not impeded by having an unelected head of state. As long as we live in a parliamentary democracy then the country's legislation is decided upon by the people for the people. Therefore we can make all the social and legislative changes that we want. The ones that bring the various strands of the Scottish Independence movement together.

Secondly, and this follows on nicely from the point about parliamentary democracy, the Queen does very little. David Cameron said "Today is a day to pay tribute to the magnificent service of Her Majesty the Queen. With experience, dignity and quiet authority she has guided and united our nation and the Commonwealth over six varied decades." She has represented the State abroad and at home by attending hundreds, probably thousands of dinners, banquets, balls etc etc. She has given speeches honouring foreign dignitaries or fallen soldiers. It would be interesting to find out just how many of those speeches she has written herself. Before anyone points out that even the great First Minister has his speeches written for him, the difference is that politicians have earned their position by writing speeches for themselves over many years, normally. Before I veer too off track here back to the point about “service” and/or leadership. The whole point of a Constitutional Monarchy is that the monarch only performs ceremonial duties. She has never expressed her political opinions publicly. In what way does she lead? I really can't see it. To serve suggests that she has given up a lot to fulfil her responsibilities. But what? She has lived a full family life, visited more countries than most people I know will do in their lifetimes. She has engaged in all the recreational activities she has chosen to. Did she really want to teach under privileged children how to read and write? Or to be a renowned watercolour painter? Call me a cynic but I doubt it. So to sum up this point. She hasn't really served. She has just gone through the motions in a way that she was prepared (I mean that in herself and by other people) to do from the day she was born.

Thirdly, I have already talked about the vision this movement has of Independence. Republicanism goes hand in hand with that. We all know how to play a bit of politics and we all have to keep that in mind in this campaign. But, as unimportant as she is, the symbolism of having an unelected head of state is quite simply wrong. For anyone to have such grotesque levels of wealth and privilege is nothing short of abhorrent. For me it goes against everything We all stand for. Scotland will not become a wealthier place by luck. It will be done by work. Damn hard work. Lizzy didn't need to work. She was just lucky. I wanted to say more here on this point. But I'm struggling a little. Nothing to do with the time of night. It's because opposition to an unelected head of state and support for a republic is a maxim for me. I struggle to see how any educated democrat, and certainly any left leaning person, could support a system where someone becomes head of state by accident of birth.

So as we can finish on a positive note I can put the minds of all Independence supporting Republicans as ease. Since 1990 there have been 34 “new countries”. Not one of them has a monarchy, constitutional or otherwise. The SNP are playing a wise game indeed. Trust them on this. Precedent is certainly on OUR side.

Colonies Update

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/300158

I don't intend to add updates to my posts so quickly on a regular basis but the above link seems an important addition to this debate. I had no idea that this story was brewing when I started to write earlier this evening. Maybe this is a lesson in doing your research fully before typing. But I am not a journalist, a researcher or a politician, just another blogger.

“As far as I know, Donald Trump has no plans to build a leisure facility in Antarctica, so I cannot imagine why the First Minister would think that his writ should run to Antarctica.” Michael Forsyth (the last Tory Scottish Secretary for those not aware)

I think Forsyth sums it up fairly well. He makes perfectly clear the difference between a Scottish Nationalist and a Tory. He is small minded, insular, petty and demeaning. He has no vision for Scotland and cannot see beyond £ signs. My earlier suggestion does the complete opposite of that. It is completely in tune with the vision that our movement has had since it's very beginning. I cannot resist finishing with my favourite Independence quote/slogan... Winnie Ewing 1967 "Stop the World, Scotland wants to get on"

The Colonies

I'm going to be slightly mischievous in this my first post. At least I hope it will provoke a little discussion. Especially as I will not pretend to have all the answers here, but I think this is an idea worth discussing more fully.

It has been said by the SNP that Scotland will take it's fair share of the debt. Given our population size that amounts to between 8% and 9% of the UK's debt. That seems entirely fair. Then we take everything within Scottish territory, like 90% of the UK's oil fields. These figures have been well rehearsed already. However if we are to take on our fair share of the "shared" resources and commitments then should that not mean the remaining colonies as well? Sorry, I should be a little more precise in my terminology here. The term colonies was dropped in 1981. I bet I'm not the only one to be slightly amused that that term was dropped by Thatcher. They were renamed British Dependent Territories. That was changed again in 2002 to British Overseas Territories. Much more politically correct I'm sure you'll agree. At the last count 14 of these territories remain. Before anyone tries to be funny, I'll make clear that Afghanistan (or at least parts of it) do not count towards any of the 14. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that an ardent British patriot could still claim that the sun never sets on the British Empire.
Given that the Scottish Government will negotiate a settlement with the remaining UK Government in regards to Scottish Independence, why not ask for our fair share of the Overseas Territories? Most supporters of the home rule movement will initially baulk at this suggestion. Indeed, I would have as well for all the usual reasons of being anti-imperialist, left leaning, etc etc... until I saw the list of the 14. If we take our 8% to 9% share then we should be due one of those territories. I've not made any calculations in terms of land mass or population size of the territories. But one of those territories could be a huge asset to an Independent Scotland. The one I am thinking of would have no issues in regards to governing a population or anything like that. I'm not even suggesting we get all of it, just a bit of it. A bit of it that could be negotiated as part of the separation settlement. How does a slice of the British Antarctic Territory sound?

Alex Salmond for many years now has told us that Scotland has the potential to become "the Saudi Arabia of renewables". Indeed Scotland already leads the way in developing technology in this field. Recent deals done by the First Minister around the world are testament to that fact. Having a slice of the Antarctic would be massive scientific coup for a country of Scotland's size. The Antarctic has no permanent human population. So all I am really suggesting is that we get the right to set up a scientific base there maintained by one or all of our universities. I am open minded as to how that would be funded, either by the universities themselves or maybe even some of the money saved when we get rid of Trident. Importantly though, it could have knock on benefits for our education system, especially the universities. Of course that ties into a boost for our economy. But, the primary argument here for me is (as is always the primary argument in that of Independence for me) in terms of the type of country we are trying to create. It sends out a loud message to the International community. We are striving to punch above our weight in science and education. It's the very philosophy of a nation that strives so hard at every step to be the best it can and to lead by example. That is why students from all over the world want to study at our universities. That is why businesses from all over the world want to invest in Scotland. That is why Scotland can and will be a success as an Independent Nation.