Why Yes?

Dishonesty in politics is endemic.

Starting with that sentence will not, I'm sure, inspire much controversy. It's human nature, after all, to present your case forcefully and to rubbish your opponent's with all your might. And, for the greater good, a wee bit of exaggeration here, a little distortion there, some wilful misunderstanding on the side – well, it's all in the game, isn't it?

Except that, when it emerges that exaggeration, distortion and wilful misunderstanding forms the whole of your argument, we have a problem. (Please note my heroic forbearance in not placing the word “Houston” before “we” in that sentence.)

Scotland is a small country. In identity it is quite distinct from England, its larger neighbour. There may be some who would argue with that but (apologies for the vernacular) they are aff their heids! Everyone knows we are chalk and cheese – north and south of the border. Our fortunes (Scotland and England) have been linked since a political settlement agreed in 1707 called The Act of Union. For many people in England, in the unlikely event that they would read this far, this is probably a surprise as, through no fault of their own, they believe Scotland to be a province – not a country and have no knowledge of the history of our two nations and their shaky relationship – over a lot more than 300 years.

Nowadays anyone who has a computer ( and that seems to be just about everyone) can look up the history of The Act of Union and research its origins and the motives of those who signed it. Looking back on the history of this period, they will find that chicanery, double dealing and hypocrisy are not modern inventions and that they are not all on the English side. How significant that history is today I leave to you to decide. The main emotion it inspires in me is a sadness that the ordinary people had as little say in things then as they have now. By the time (then) someone became landed or titled, and by the time someone (now) becomes either of the above or a politician, it seems a kind of amnesia about life in a council house where you worry about how much it will cost to live for the week sets in – and very rapidly.

Why this happens is a subject for a treatise on its own and I am sure there is more than one out there already. “All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” was a quote my late father - God rest his soul - was partial to. But it is not the whole story. There are degrees of power, degrees of corruption and, I assert, it is not an impossibility to have an honest politician who is not simply inspired by greed and self interest. Our politicians, in Scotland and the UK, are a mixed bunch in that respect as you might logically expect. I have no-one to recommend for canonisation and stories of expenses claims and second homes span the entire range of the British political parties.

So why am I taking the trouble to write this? Firstly, I believe there is only one sensible response to the Independence referendum – and that is a Yes vote - and, secondly, I believe there is a major, unusual level of dishonesty going on in the year or so leading up to this vote. We have Yes Scotland representing the side of those who want independence and Better Together representing the side of those who wish to continue the Union. It is interesting to consider the various factions on each side. Better Together comprises all those within the Labour Party who have attained any kind of office and everyone in the Conservative Party. The Liberal Democrats – well they just do what they are told these days – so they are there for the Union. Various independents continue to represent themselves and the UKIP and Respect parties are dedicated to the Union. How comforting it must be for David Cameron that George Galloway salutes his indefatigability.

For Independence, obviously there is the SNP - but there are also a lot of other groupings – Trade Unionists for Independence. Labour for Independence, National Collective and many others. The Scottish Socialist Party is also pro independence . There are prominent ex-Labour figures such as Dennis Canavan,who genuinely possesses socialist principles, actively involved in the pro-independence movement. It is obvious that there is a significant pro-independence movement not made up of SNP members. The reasons for this are clear and too many to list here but these, I think, are the main ones:

the lack of support for socialist policies in England

the defection of leading Labour figures to neoliberalism

the lack of sympathy with ordinary working people from Westminster politicians

the readiness of all Westminster politicians to bow to the worst media influences

patronising attitude in the media towards Scots

dishonesty in the Better Together campaign

The fact is that England, for complex reasons, is still a country where there is a conservative consensus. They do not always vote Conservative (please note distinction of lower and upper case) but they are historically conservative. Scotland is not. Recent election results have borne this out rather starkly.

So – to the point. Dishonesty in politics is endemic. But there is a point where it becomes insulting and I am afraid Better Together reached that point some time ago. Their technique ( and, make no mistake, that is what it is) is to continually ask questions about detail which cannot possibly be provided on economic futures. These are not questions they could answer themselves – ask Better Together about the future of Scotland and you will get lots of uplift about the Olympics and how happy we all are with austerity. None of their assertions is evidence based. If figures and statistics are the benchmark, independence will be economically beneficial to Scotland. You won't find Alastair Darling admitting that – but it is true – objectively – and those figures and statistics are available to him.

The real problem is that many of the assertions the Better Together campaign make are childishly stupid and transparently false and, much though I dislike Darling, I don't think he is stupid so why is he making statements like," independence is a one-way ticket to send our children to a deeply uncertain destination". What kind of destination is a vote for more Westminster led politics?  (Labour or Tory – it makes little difference now.)  The poor will get poorer – the rich will get richer and the sneer on the face of the ruling class will be just that bit more complacent. Happy days indeed! A funny thing – as you might imagine - I get into arguments and differences of opinion often here in Dunfermline (out in the provinces) – often with people who I feel should really be on my side – Labour party members. Mention the word “socialism” and it is a bit like mentioning a dodgy old uncle we don't talk about. Say, “Do you believe in cutting benefits? Do you think immigrants and the unemployed are responsible for the financial state of the country? How about the bedroom tax? What about that anti-union legislation – is Ed going to repeal any of it? Should Darling have gone along to the Tory Conference? Any plans to really throw your weight about and abstain on some Tory motions? ” Straight answers – don't hold your breath.

But when did that matter in politics? Better just to try to frighten people about their pensions and benefits (at the same time as calling them scroungers). And there are always those dodgy foreigners that we can blame too. In case I am not being crystal clear here, my point is that they know these points are false and they know the arguments are dishonest – but they don't care. This union is so important that they will say anything to try to preserve it. For some of them, of course, it is purely a career decision. After her Thatcherite statements about “something for nothing”, it is unlikely that Johan Lamont could forge much of a career in politics in an independent Scotland. But for some, there is a genuine attachment to the Union, which I understand to some extent. I was brought up British and Scottish. As kids, my older brother, sister and I went to the Picture House in Kings Park where we lived and we were members of the GB club. It wasn't till about thirty years later that I finally realised I was a member of the Gaumont British club and not a strange alien body called “The Jeeby Club” but I would have been proud and happy, had I known. I understand and share in the feeling of Britishness that comes from that era but the basis of it is simply not there any more. Materialism, Thatcherism, Monetarism, Neoliberalism and apathy have destroyed it. I went to school with children who mainly had Polish and Irish and Italian surnames – because I was brought up Catholic. It never occurred to me then that some of my classmates were immigrants, that my ancestors were immigrants and it was never brought to my attention in any way. Nowadays, mainly because of newspapers like The Daily Mail, immigration has been identified as the root cause of all problems in Nigel Farage's England – but, with a few exceptions, this attitude does not prevail in Scotland.

The Westminster government in recent years commissioned a study into immigration, and what they describe as “Benefit Tourism”, and the finding of a thankfully scientific and objective team was that there was no clear evidence of this. Furthermore they found that , on balance, immigration was economically positive to this country. Needless to say the findings have never been mentioned in any press reports I have seen. David Cameron has not been particularly forthcoming on this topic either but then neither have there been any Labour Party views aired on this subject of late – apart from craven agreement with the Daily Mail element which seems to characterise Westminster these days.

Here are some hard facts. I am a lifelong Labour voter. I will never vote Labour again. In the last few years they have betrayed the working class – who pay their wages – again and again. The “Free market” movement that was begun by Margaret Thatcher is being perpetuated by Darling, Lamont, Murphy and co in Scotland and Miliband and Balls in Westminster. I hope they are proud of themselves. As for Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney and the others, I am sure there is plenty of room for improvement. None of them were elected by me and who knows what the future holds. But this I do know. A Yes vote is not a vote for the SNP. It is a vote for self-determination. It is a vote for a better future. When Scotland becomes independent we will elect those we want to run our country – and I predict confidently they won't include Rupert Murdoch, The Daily Mail or Nigel Farage.