We are delighted to host a second guest post from North East SNP MSP and Holyrood Health and Sport Committee member Mark McDonald.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Back in the 1970s, while suppressing the McCrone report, the parties who now make up the No campaign told Scotland that it would be as poor as Bangladesh if it voted to become independent.
Withholding the true extent of Scotland’s potential oil wealth to construct a narrative of a nation incapable of running its own affairs was insulting to Scotland then, and it persists now.
But the comparison was also an insult to Bangladesh, and her people. By using another nation to construct a negative narrative, you are by definition looking down on that nation, sneering at it if you will. There is no doubt Bangladesh faces serious problems of poverty, but I would be willing to bet that her people are still fiercely proud of their independence, and would view an attack on their nation’s integrity in a very dim light.
And yet this contemptuous attitude to other members of the community of nations continues unabated from those opposed to Scotland taking her own path. The desire to undermine the cause of Scottish independence appears to be so overpowering that diplomatic niceties go out the window.
This weekend, the No campaign, with little concern for the UK’s relationships with other nations, made Denmark the target in a bizarre quote from a UK coalition source, when trying to explain why Scotland’s interests were best served as part of the UK in Europe:
“At these European summits, you see all the key players moving around, the French, the Germans and the British. But where are the Danish? They’re nowhere. It’s not that Denmark is not significant, but it’s not as important as these other nations, simply because of its size.”
I suppose the UK Government won’t be banking on any support from the Danes in European negotiations any time soon.
Over the last few years Ireland and Iceland have taken the brunt of the anti-independence campaign’s international insult offensive. The gleeful use of the ‘Arc of Insolvency’, coined by smug anti-independence politicians in 2008 – despite the fact that the UK was somewhat goosed at the time as well, and that those self same anti-independence politicians were in part responsible for the UK’s plight – hardly helped international relations. Now while Ireland and Iceland may well have faced significant difficulties, we know that they went through those difficult times as independent nations, and are recovering well as independent nations. How galling for them it must have been to look to their near neighbour, the UK, with whom they might have expected to find some solidarity in the face of financial adversity, to instead be faced with politicians laughing at them and calling them names in order to achieve some form of political one-upmanship in their own constitutional debate.
This behaviour appears regularly at First Minister’s Questions where we have seen Iain Gray and Johann Lamont stand up and openly do down other nations for the sake of trying to undermine the arguments for independence. From Namibia to Montenegro, Ireland to Togo nations are brought up to draw an unflattering comparison. In the unlikely situation that Johann Lamont becomes First Minister, imagine her first meeting with the Namibian ambassador: “Hello ambassador, your country’s a bit rubbish isn’t it?”
You see, this is the crux of it all. I don’t want Scotland to be independent because I think we are better than any other nation, or because we are bigger or richer than any other nation – which is essentially the narrative being cultivated by the No campaign in all of the examples above – I want Scotland to be independent because we are just as good as any other nation.
I want us to take our seat at the EU top table, alongside the Danes and the Irish, and any other nation the No campaign wishes to insult. We may not have size on our side, but it isn’t about how loud you shout, it’s about what you say.
I want to sit at the UN and make common cause in pursuit of international peace and tackling poverty and inequality with nations like Bangladesh, Namibia and Togo, because I believe an independent Scotland can be a force for good in the world. Togo, in fact, was one of the rotational members of the Security Council in 2012-13.
And above all else, I want to see a Scotland where we make our own decisions, on the issues that matter to our people. Just like every single one of those nations the No campaign look down their noses at.
To paraphrase Winnie Ewing – Stop insulting the world, Scotland wants to get on.
#1 by Chris on February 14, 2013 - 9:34 am
Oh dear. This Bangladesh story magically re-appears. Is there a vote coming up? Who was it that was supposed to have said it – Donald Dewar????
The rather extreme end of the nationalist spectrum have been re-telling themselves this for years. I have tried to look for evidence if this is true. The only evidence seems to be their own self-perpetuating of this myth.
I raised this myth on this forum several months ago and lots of sensible nationalists told me that they had never heard it. So can we have some evidence please or accept that your argument is based on drivel?
I am rather shocked at this article was posted on this site. Isn’t Newsnet a more appropriate home for nationalist-victimhood-drivel? I’d hoped for a forum of reasonable debate here, but it seems yet again as the stakes get raised and an election comes up tribalism is rearing its ugly head.
Now I could be wrong. Someone might have made the Bangladesh comment and I have been unable to find it. Someone might have even made it as a joke. But some evidence would be welcome otherwise I suggest that the editors delete this drivel and send it to Newsnet with the rest of the conspiracy theorists.
#2 by BM on February 14, 2013 - 11:23 am
Let’s say the Bangladesh comment wasn’t made. The Namibia one was. The Togo one was. Heck, even Better Together’s Blair is telling us that if we become independent then we’ll end up like Norway (and he meant it in a bad way)!
Maybe you think it’s okay to say Namibia and Togo are second-class countries, but I certainly don’t, and I think it’s about time we did away with that sort of rhetorical point.
We deserve better, quite frankly.
#3 by Doug Daniel on February 14, 2013 - 11:35 am
Seems to me your criticism is based entirely on one example. Even if the Bangladesh comment is actually a myth, does that make it any more acceptable that Jim Murphy used to regularly deride Ireland and Iceland as the “Arc Of Insolvency”, or Iain Gray’s Montenegro blunders, or the general “LOL!!! They’re all African countries!” type attitude from unionists when you present a list of countries that became independent since WWII?
“At these European summits, you see all the key players moving around, the French, the Germans and the British. But where are the Danish? They’re nowhere. It’s not that Denmark is not significant, but it’s not as important as these other nations, simply because of its size.”
Do you really think that’s an acceptable message to be sending to the world? “If you’re not one of the big boys, you’re not important”? That’s exactly the sort of imperialist mindset that has made the UK one of the most unequal countries in the world. And let’s face it, when Better Together say “stronger in the UK”, that’s exactly what they mean – “big is best, might is right, if you’re not a big country then sit down, shut up and let us make the rules.”
No thanks.
#4 by Iain Menzies on February 14, 2013 - 2:00 pm
So its alright to talk about other countries if you are saying nice things (arc of prosperity) but not less nice things (are of haha your skint). As if these comments are actually about ireland or whoever. They aint, what they are about if SNP leadership saying things that turn out to be stupid.
As for all those countries managing to sort out everything to be an independent nation in all of half an hour…well what did they have to set out? This idea of an average of 18months may be right…its also meaningless. I mean its an average….so will scotland be above or below average…whats the high end of the spread…the SNP seem to be saying that we would be below average…on what basis are they saying that?
As for the danish stuff….thats perfectly fair. Denmark isnt as important as, say Germany. Why cos germany has 20 times the population. Might might not be right….but it is damned mighty
#5 by Doug Daniel on February 15, 2013 - 2:15 pm
“So its alright to talk about other countries if you are saying nice things (arc of prosperity) but not less nice things (are of haha your skint).”
Well, yeah, that’s pretty much what I’m saying. Slagging off other countries is not exactly the best way to go about creating constructive diplomatic relations. How would you like it if you kept hearing your neighbour going “Eurgh, who would want to be like Iain? He’s so insignificant and rubbish.”
As for 18 months being meaningless – at least it’s got some sort of basis. The folk who cry that it’s “totally unrealistic” are incapable of providing an alternative estimate, which is mainly because they have no actual basis for saying it’s “unrealistic” – it’s just a knee-jerk reaction.
To be honest Iain, your last bit there kind of sums up what I suspect unionism is really about: Bigger Together. And fair play if that’s why folk want us to remain in the union, but I wish they’d be more honest about it instead of trying to pretend that it’s nothing to do with being too wee, too poor and too stupid. I completely disagree with you, of course – it’s not the size of your population that matters, it’s what you do with it, and I would suggest there is substantial evidence that this is indeed the case.
#6 by Iain Menzies on February 15, 2013 - 4:00 pm
i suspect you could get many many people that would say that its the motion of the ocean…..
but this isnt about diplomatic relations. and you know its not. You really think that anyone is sitting in a presidential palace thinking well if THAts what they think were gonna be mean to them if they become independent? By that logic we would be at war with Germany again purly on the basis of Sun front pages during football matches.
Frankly the whole thing is silly, its little mroe than an attempt by nationalist to shut down a debate that they dont think they can win.
As for the 18 month thing….its not for unionists to say what a reasonable time frame would be. And as it happens i think a good number of people have gone a good way to showing why that time frame is laughably optomistic, and the 14,000 treaties is only part of it. Tho the 14k treaties is an interesting point. yeah there are a good number that no one would notice if they werent even opened, but Negotiation on the Eu, the WTO, Nato alone could take longer than 18 months, especially since all of that will be going on while we are negotiating with rUK as to the exact nature of seperation.
And yes for me a good part of the reason i dont support indy is because i believe that bigger is better.I dont think that better together hide that fact. I dont think any unionist does. I think nationalist like to paint them as…but its simply not true.
Unionist believe that its not JUST size that matters it is also what you can do with it. But that its better to know what your doing AND have a big’un 😉
#7 by Mark McDonald on February 14, 2013 - 2:04 pm
It’s almost like you stopped reading after the first paragraph. Have ypu any comment to make on the propensity of the No campaign to denigrate other nations?
#8 by Indy on February 14, 2013 - 8:11 pm
It is definitely true – but it was said in the 70s so you are not likely to find a record of it online.
#9 by Keef on February 14, 2013 - 11:51 am
The Bangladesh remark notwithstanding, what of the other examples mentioned?
I think the writer makes a valid point. So let’s have that reasonable debate you seem to so keen on. Not sure what election you are referring to, unless you meant referendum.
In order to have a reasonable debate, one should expect reasonable assertions. I fail to see where you incorporated that into your comment.
#10 by Chris on February 14, 2013 - 12:44 pm
Why do you think you can dismiss the author’s first point and then take the rest of his article seriously? It is not a serious contribution to the debate, just a collection of insults.
#11 by Chris on February 14, 2013 - 12:40 pm
Ok – I didn’t read on after the Bangladesh comment. It is the first comment and as such was a foundation composed of drivel. Even his attribution of it as “the parties who now make up the No campaign” was vague and woolly. Does Mark really believe that George Younger, David Steel and Bruce Milan got together to make this statement in some undetermined year in the 1970s? Or is it self-serving drivel?
There are people in every party who believe the drivel they hear. Most of them are kept busy being Branch Treasurer or Membership Secretary. I am astonished to realise that the author is an MSP – granted a list MSP – but I would have thought he would have been able to do some research (or get his staff to do not) and not base his article on an unsubstantiated point. This article looks as if it was written on the bus.
On his substantive point. I actually think it is a cheap shot, stringing together various points real, semi-real and completely imagined in order to build a picture of those nasty unionists insulting other people. The accused are vague, lumped together into one big pot and a theory cooked up to tie it altogether.
I spend half of my life working in Africa (in the last 12 months Burkina Faso, DR Congo, Sudan and Kenya) so I would wince whenever someone makes an unfair comparison. I find the comparison made by some nationalists between Scotland and South Sudan insulting as if Scotland’s acceptance to date of the Union is in anyway comparable to being subject to a 50-year ethno-religious war.
I guess if I respected the author’s point of view I might be more considerate of any of the real points he makes. But from my point it is simply a rehash of cheap points and does nothing to improve the debate or build a Better Nation, whether independent or not.
#12 by Chris on February 14, 2013 - 12:50 pm
Type your comment here
You haven’t sourced your quotation (a bit of a habit here I notice). SO I bothered to source it for you. It’s a “coalition source” he no more speaks for me than Brian Souter speaks for you.
I’m afraid you’re doing the same as Mark and just lumping everyone who opposes you in order to cook up a theory.
#13 by Mark McDonald on February 14, 2013 - 2:10 pm
Of course, if you had read the article properly, you would have seen that sourced the quotation which Doug then helpfully re-emphasised for you.
If you wish to insult me for being a list MSP, and cast aspersions on the people who are branch secretaries/treasurers then that is up to you.
That you choose to excuse the rhetoric of the No campaign as if it doesn’t matter is telling.
#14 by Doug Daniel on February 15, 2013 - 1:55 pm
I love the fact that my opening sentence was completely accurate.
#15 by Gryff on February 14, 2013 - 2:05 pm
Is this a good place to point out something that has been bothering me?
Scotland is not a small. I’m happy to give no opinion as to whether it should or should not be independent, but if it was independent it would not be a small country.
Politicians and punters in both the Yes and No camp regularly talk about Scotland, and like sized nations as small, but it just isn’t true.
Take a list of the countries in Europe, or in the world and you’ll find Scotland squarely half way down, smaller than some, and bigger than others. But being smaller than the UK as a whole does not make Scotland small any more than being bigger than Vanuatu makes it a superpower, if Scotland is small, why isn’t the UK, being less populous than the US, Russia, China, India, Nigeria etc. Being a mid sized independent country has certain challenges, but so does being a mid sized devolved country.
Trivial point perhaps, but I do think it effects the psychology of Scotland, and it is good to get that off my chest.
#16 by Aidan on February 14, 2013 - 2:59 pm
Your assertions about Iceland are simply untrue. Iceland isn’t recovering well, inflation is at 5%, twice the rate in the UK, having peaked at a rather eye watering 22% in 2009 and remaining in double digits until May 2010.
per capita GNI fell, from a comparable level with the UK in 2007, further, faster and for a more prolonged period than it did in the UK (see Google Public Data).
#17 by Chris on February 14, 2013 - 3:02 pm
Type your comment here
Mark, I realised afterwards. The Bangladesh remark put me off from reading the rest of your article.
As for Membership Secretaries and Treasurers, I’ve been those too. As you know it is a job for the enthusiast where lack of political judgement is not a barrier to doing it well.
But because the first point made is unsubstantiated (found any source yet? I then have to decide if the rest of the points are substantiated and if I can be bothered looking for the substance behind the points made. What were these aspertions cast on Togo and Namibia? Were they of the same nature as Bangladesh or is there a substantial point being made?
If you had written a reasoned and balanced article about how both sides should refrain from unfair comparisons with other countries and if that had led you to conclude that the No camp were worse than the Yes camp then you would have won a lot more respect.
#18 by Ken on February 14, 2013 - 5:00 pm
Chris,
From First Ministers Questions 7 Feb: Johann Lamont:
“On Monday, however, the Deputy First Minister said that, within 15 months of the referendum, we could be like Namibia or Togo. Does the First Minister feel that he is in touch with the real priorities of Scots?”
Yes, taking a list of countries out of context and naming those two specifically was clearly meant as a compliment to both Namibia and Togo, while also I note members of the Serbian Assembly (another small, independent country) were invited guests in the gallery. Very stateswoman-like.
As a citizen of a small, independent country, located to the West of here – when I heard that comment, my eyes narrowed and I thought ”WTF does that mean? Are you looking down your nose at us because we’re small, or because we’re independent?”
Aidan – Iceland actually is doing better than you think. http://www.statice.is/Pages/1390
GDP 2011 growth of 2.6% (expected similar in 2012)
Unemployment rate 2012 (16-74yrs) 5.6%
Inflation expected to drop under 3.5% in 2013
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-03/iceland-keeps-main-rate-unchanged-as-inflation-seen-receding
#19 by Alasdair Stephen on February 14, 2013 - 6:36 pm
Donald Dewer made the Bangladesh comment during a debate back in the early 90s (maybe late 80s). I was in the audience. He said, yes Scotland can be independent, in the same way Bangladesh is independent. Probably one of the ‘Big Debate’ programmes that were on at the time.
#20 by Allan on February 14, 2013 - 6:59 pm
“At these European summits, you see all the key players moving around, the French, the Germans and the British. But where are the Danish? They’re nowhere. It’s not that Denmark is not significant, but it’s not as important as these other nations, simply because of its size.”
Obviously either that’s a lie or the said official is so oblivious to the truth…
In reality, the key players in the EU are the French & the Germans and… er… nobody else really. No-one takes any notice of the British, after Iraq and especially after Cameron’s hissy fit in December 2011. We might be heard if (if) we vote for independence but to be honest whatever Germany & France say happens is normally what happens. That won’t change no matter what Salmond, Sturgeon or any one else thinks.
#21 by Don Francisco on February 14, 2013 - 8:36 pm
Sorry to say it, but what absolute drivel. I’m struggling to care about what he thinks some people have apparently said about other countries, or how this somehow undermines the No campaign.
Fantasy too though;
“I want us to take our seat at the EU top table, alongside the Danes and the Irish, and any other nation the No campaign wishes to insult. We may not have size on our side, but it isn’t about how loud you shout, it’s about what you say.”
Sorry, these countries at the top table? Do you honestly think any except the biggest countries has any say on what happens in Europe, whether their ideas are good or not?
The point is you shouldn’t care that Scotland is small and insignificant on it’s own. We are small, so what? We are part of a trade federation and have little control over how it operates, like many others.
#22 by EphemeralDeception on February 14, 2013 - 8:59 pm
Talking other countries down just to score a point is short sighted and childish at best and could create a diplomatic incident and impact foreign relations at worse.
However the article start with McCrone. The suppression of the McCrone report represents a three decade long organised campaign by UK ruling parties to successfully deceive the entire population of Scotland and the rest of the UK. The continued lies and deception for over 30 years and at each and every GE concerning the economoic impact, value, quantity and longevity of North Sea oil is beyond belief.
Compared to insulting other States this decpeption is, or should be, unforgivable. How anyone in their right mind can think that we are in any way ‘together’ in the UK is a mystery to me. No matter how risky Scottish independence may be I could never, not even contemplate voting to stay in a union governed by people that treated our nation as dirt, smugly repeating the same lies over and over on one hand while extracting and exploiting an ‘extra regio’ fortune on the other.
This was not an isolated incident just to score a point and insult another nation, it was betrayal and theft on a national scale. Not the same league at all.
#23 by Longshanker on February 14, 2013 - 9:55 pm
Has anyone actually taken a look at the 30 countries referred to by Alex Salmond regarding the 16 months timetable.
At least 13 fell into dictatorship, insurrection, war, violence, economic deterioration, coup, counter coup and schism after society destroying schism.
It’s been pointed out to me that Mr Salmond was only alluding to the time it took them to become independent, but surely that can’t be separated from what happened afterward.
So, clearly, if we should aspire to the heady heights of Eritrea, Timor Leste or Mali, then when it comes to buying into the Yes campaign’s vision, I’ll give it a miss.
Regards
#24 by Glenn on February 15, 2013 - 4:49 pm
Chris at # Did no one ever tell you that anything other than one question or exclamation mark is wrong, vulgar and hints at someone not quite as clever as he or she thinks.
Something else that, perhaps, you are unaware of, if you are sincere in stating that: ” I’d hoped for a forum of reasonable debate here…” then it is better not to place the statement in the middle of a condescending diatribe almost certainly guaranteed to put off anyone who would may have wished to engage you in that debate?
Just a thought…
#25 by James on February 15, 2013 - 5:30 pm
Well, that went well. [comments closed]