I keep telling people I’m a non-nationalist for independence, but they don’t believe me. It’s true, though. I never grew up dreaming of independence, nor was it something that I particularly thought about when I first started getting into politics.
My political obsessions were much as they are now: social and economic justice, civil liberties, decarbonising our economy and protecting biodiversity, plus radical political reform.
Over the period I’ve been politically aware, I’ve lived under two eye-wateringly hard-right Tory administrations, one with Lib Dem help, separated by a period of centre-right New Labour rule (your definition of left and right may vary from mine, of course). Each of these governments was unpleasant at its core, although each one achieved at least one good thing. No, really.
Thatcher set up Channel Four: I do think that’s it for her merit column. Tony Blair brought in devolution, a limited minimum wage, and Freedom of Information. Cameron abolished Labour’s plans for ID cards and for a third runway at Heathrow. Major and Blair should share credit for moves to peace in Northern Ireland. Beyond that I’m drawing a blank. You can add you “what have the Romans ever done for us?” comments below.
Anyway, before 1994 my party politics were pretty simple, if naive. You could choose Labour or the Tories, so I thought, and that was an easy choice. Years of Tory rule would come to an end one day, and then it’d all be okay. My Labour vote in 1992 was therefore uncritical and optimistic, and I even remember exactly how depressed Basildon made me. Then the election of Tony Blair as Labour leader in 1994 radicalised me, electorally. It was obvious from the leadership campaign that he was not going to lead a Labour Party of the sort I’d waited for. I also remember being baffled by those who got disappointed after 1997: he did what he said he would do, broadly, and it bore little relation to the Labour values I remembered. I got my disappointment in early.
So over my political life I’ve seen the three largest parties at Westminster all have a go at power. They’ve left us with hereditary peers still in place, and hardly a whisper of opposition to the idea of a hereditary head of state. Fair voting is further off than ever, largely thanks to the Lib Dems’ unforgivable decision to push for a referendum on a non-proportional voting system. The economy is still built on exploitation and increasing inequality, and it’s still reliant on gas and coal and nukes. Endless road-building and airport expansion are supported by all three parties too (with the Tories desperately looking for a way to do a u-turn on Heathrow). Tuition fees get raised, asylum seekers get demonised, nuclear weapons get retained, and stuff gets privatised: these things are true whichever one of the three wins. All three parties claim the mantle of civil liberties in opposition, and all three have assaulted civil liberties in office like a pack of thugs in a back street. About the only place where Westminster has led at all, relative to Holyrood, is on LGBT rights.
They’ve all three failed, and there’s no-one left to wait for. No knight on a white charger, no principled and admirable opposition. Not even Neil Kinnock. Miliband and Balls are signed up to the “there are problems with immigration” agenda, to austerity, and to the current electoral pseudo-democracy. The left in most parts of the UK is stuck with Labour as merely the lesser evil, playing their part in a depressing politics-as-showbiz charade, where the voters who get pandered to by all three are the editors of the middle-market papers and those in swing seats who read them and fear foreigners: hence Ministers sending vans emblazoned with the old NF slogan “Go Home” to drive around ethnic minority areas. It’s fusty, archaic, unreformable, corrupt, racist, nepotistic, and cynical.
This experience gradually ground down my faith that Westminster could be somewhere things changed. Sure, the Greens got Caroline Lucas elected, which is a massive breakthrough, but I’m too impatient to wait a generation for change.
And that’s when I realised I wanted shot of it all. I knew that there wasn’t a single decision on any issue I cared about that I trusted that hulking façade of democracy to make. And I became absolutely certain that independence was necessary. It was the only way to get Westminster out of my life forever. Not for some great love of the SNP (they share some of the policies objected to above) or because independence will be perfect – although Holyrood’s procedures and elections are centuries ahead of Westminster practice.
If nothing else, because it’ll be a shakeup, a chance to bring power closer to the people and a chance to break the corrupt links between the UK parties and big business. And because there’s no alternative waiting in the wings, no real Labour government of the sort I dreamt about in the early 1990s. If Neil Kinnock had won, I might never have even considered wanting Scottish independence.
#1 by Smylers on August 1, 2013 - 9:27 am
Blair’s government made some major museums free admission that previously charged quite a lot.
#2 by James on August 1, 2013 - 9:33 am
Indeed. A good policy, not sure it’s top tier like minimum wage, devolution or ID cards, but certainly another good thing that lot of Romans did for us!
#3 by Indy on August 1, 2013 - 9:33 am
One minor point – the racist van is not actually driving around areas with the highest ethnic minority populations. It’s driving around the areas that neighbour them. It’s a phenomenon I observed when I lived in London – it’s not people living in multi-cultural communities who become racist, it’s those who live next to them. The same is true in Glasgow I think – if you look at the SDL nonsense of trying to get into Pollokshields, none of them are from Pollokshields, the people who actually live in Pollokshields are not racist but it is people who know of Pollokshields, but don’t live there, who get agitated about the fact that there is a large Asian population.
As I say that is a minor point but it does show that the Tories know exactly what they are doing with this van. It is not aimed at illegal immigrants. It is aimed at racists. And it is not aimed at dispelling any of the myths which feed racism, but reinforcing them.
I should also say that I don’t blithely condemn whole swathes of people in England who fall into the racist trap. It is not necessarily even a conscious choice on their part. The fact is they probably haven’t heard the other side of the story. They certainly wouldn’t hear it from the Coalition and the Lib Dems are complicit in that no matter what they say. Labour’s gutless approach is also sad, as you say.
#4 by Duncan Hothersall on August 1, 2013 - 9:51 am
I am at a loss whenever anyone does this routine about Blair’s government not achieving anything and being the same as the Tories. It is self-indulgent and flatly false.
I recently wrote about someone doing a similar routine at a stall I was staffing: http://dhothersall.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/on-blair.html
Every government fails. Every government always will. But you’d end up with a pretty bleak vision of politics if you only judged by that criteria – and I think this is what you have here. A bleak vision which deliberately ignores the good and focuses on the bad. Like the early days of a better nation? More like the angry bitterness of the fan whose team made the final but lost on penalties. Can’t see the achievement for the final score.
Under Blair’s leadership, Labour delivered the winter fuel allowance, the shortest NHS waiting times in history and we cut crime by a third. We created SureStart, we delivered the Cancer Guarantee, and there were record results in schools. We implemented the Disability Discrimination Act, we delivered devolution for Scotland and Wales and we created Civil Partnerships. Blair’s commitment was critical to the Good Friday Agreement which delivered peace in Northern Ireland. We implemented the Social Chapter, improving working conditions for millions, and we lifted half a million children out of poverty as part of the biggest redistribution of wealth in the UK since WW2. We improved maternity pay and child benefit and created paternity leave. We banned cluster bombs. And yes, we introduced the minimum wage. We trebled the international development budget and led the world on cancelling third world debt. And we introduced the first ever climate change act.
The Tories would have done NONE of those things. There is cynicism here but it isn’t in Labour. It’s in those who are determined to traduce that proud record and dismiss the people who fought for it and won it as being “just like the Tories”. Lazy, baseless, grievance-hunting politics. And fundamentally dishonest.
#5 by James on August 1, 2013 - 9:59 am
I gave you devolution. I gave you the minimum wage. And, with Major, I gave you Northern Ireland. I debated adding in some of the temporary spending boosts, now being unwound, but they’re not structural. Snow off a dyke.
So don’t tell me Labour did anything to radical to improve Westminster, or environmental policy, or inequality, or civil liberties. The first stayed static, and items two, three and four actively got worse.
#6 by Duncan Hothersall on August 1, 2013 - 10:22 am
Westminster was improved by devolution, and by the removal of the majority of hereditary peers from the HoL, and by a number of fundamental reforms making it more accessible – meaning it is even now more accessible in many ways than the hallowed Holyrood with its security pod and lack of cross-party interaction. Was it totally fixed? No. So let’s pretend nothing changed.
Environmental policy was moved on by leaps and bounds from where the Tories left it, with UK leading the way in many global initiatives. Did we solve it? No. Nobody has.
Inequality? You don’t think the DDA, or equal age of consent, or civil partnerships, or the Human Rights Act, or the introduction of hate crime laws did anything to reduce inequality?
We failed on civil liberties. I’ll give you that.
#7 by Dave Boyle on August 1, 2013 - 11:06 am
Ignoring the quite astonishingly awful foreign policy, the biggest charge against Labour was that their entire economic policy (prop. G Brown) was based on not in any way shape or form challenging neo-ilberalism, and instead giving it its head, in the hope of capturing some of the ill-gotten and ill-advised gains for limited amelioration of the consequences of that economic policy. This wasn’t old-style redistribution worth the name, but simply slowing the rate of inequality’s rising.
The share of productivity gains in the late 1990s and 2000s which were received by ordinary people fell (as they did across the anglo-saxon world where neo-liberalism held sway) and the response by the Labour government was to do nothing whatsoever to check the house-price boom, because it was this paper wealth increase that made people feel less concerned about the fact that their incomes were, relative to growth and inflation, either stagnating or falling. They could use house-backed debt to supplement these, flipping a mortgage to pay off credit card bills.
It was absolutely essential to maintain this trick that the British housing stock not be meaningfully added to in any way; it was essential that the banking regulation desperately needed was avoided. In these respects, the parties in Westminster were all in lockstep with creating the world that crashed in 2008, and continues to make life pretty shitty – endless outsourcing, privatisation, rent-seeking, young people with no sodding chance of ever owning a property nor living in a secure tenancy which isn’t owned by rentier capitalists.
All of this things were much, much worse after 13 years. Labour signed a faustian pact with neo-liberalism, which blew up and ate them in 2008 when the businesses and banks they had given everything they wanted turned on them,and all this timidity came despite having the two biggest majorities in UK political history. Labour activists cheered as New Labour congratulated itself on having changed the political weather in the mid-00s, by bringing the Tories onto the territory of a strong public sector. That all looks like risible self-aggrandisement in hindsight.
#8 by Douglas McLellan on August 1, 2013 - 11:19 am
I think the argument or perhaps hope is that Labour could have done so much more.
The increase in spending is interesting. What did the borrowing achieve. How much more money does the NHS need to avoid issues like Mid Staffs?
As for locking children up in immigration detention centres…..
#9 by Allan on August 1, 2013 - 11:03 pm
You also forgot the wholesale roll out of PFI/PPP, funding schemes that threaten to bankrupt the English NHS, while it can be blamed for the continuous black hole at the centre of Scottish Education budgets in council’s up and down the country – Thanks a bunch Mr McConnell!
Still, at least we have a government that condemns the use of PFI/PPP… even if they continue to use it!
#10 by PMK on August 2, 2013 - 2:26 pm
Blair’s government became exactly the same as the Tories. In fact, it was more right-wing and authoritarian by the end if anything (illegal wars, actively aiding extraordinary rendition, and identity cards are proof enough). Major deserves most of the credit for the Good Friday Agreement as you know (which is deeply flawed, and has simply frozen rather than resolved the conflict in NI). As for the minimum wage – it has became a neo-liberal mechanism to drive down and keep wages low, sucking more and more people into minimum wage jobs by creating a basic standard which is almost never raised. It also allows marginally better employers to feel virtuous by pay 50p or a pound over the minimum, dragging more and more people into working poverty. That is nothing for a purportedly “left-wing” or “progressive” government to be proud of!
Sorry if calling your Labour jobsworths out hurts, but that is the unadulterated truth. It is “fundamentally dishonest” to pretend that a true Labour Party still exists in this country. If you truly believe the above, the time for some serious soul-searching is now.
#11 by Norrie on August 1, 2013 - 9:53 am
I think there are a lot who think as you do, myself included.
#12 by Colin Dunn on August 1, 2013 - 10:38 am
“Fair voting is further off than ever, largely thanks to the Lib Dems’ unforgivable decision to push for a referendum on a non-proportional voting system.”
That was the final killer for me. Genuinely believe that if even this poor excuse for voting reform had actually gone through many Scots wouldn’t be planning to vote Yes now. Cameron really shot himself in the foot with this one. I finally realised and accepted that Westminster is never going to become more genuinely democratic, and this is as good as it gets – in the UK.
#13 by April Cumming on August 1, 2013 - 11:31 am
This piece is further proof, if ever I needed it, that the ‘undecided left’ who sit somewhere in between the Scotland Act and Indy will be drawn to the latter not by ideological nationalism and the snp but by arguments that speak to more universal values, like this. These arguments could have been articulated through a proper cross-party programme for devolution. It’s a sad failure of democratic process that this didn’t happen. And James, Mo Mowlam should be thanked for Northern Ireland 🙂
#14 by James on August 1, 2013 - 1:30 pm
Mo Mowlam was the best NI Sec in Westminster history, I agree. But the Tories did make a good start on it, even before Thatcher left.
And instead of that proper open process, we got another charade: Calman. Airguns and landfill tax and giving some income tax while taking the same amount away. So useless.
#15 by Brian Ross on August 1, 2013 - 12:06 pm
Excellent article, well put together. Rings very true and chimes with a lot of people.
#16 by Welshguy on August 1, 2013 - 12:52 pm
Maggie established S4C. Gwynfor Evans did have to go on a hunger strike first of course.
#17 by Iain Menzies on August 1, 2013 - 4:41 pm
You could have said all that is just five words you know…..those being ‘I am very left wing’.
#18 by Allan on August 1, 2013 - 11:09 pm
Glad to see someone else saw all of Blair’s disapointments coming around the hill, though I think the moment I felt that i couldn’t vote for Blair was his we jaunt to Australia to meet the Dirty Digger, i think Brown’s pledge on income tax kind of hardened my view. Mind you, i never got the “Red Ed” stuff, the guy was as much at the centre of New Labour as his Brother while Brown was a key architect of New Labour.
#19 by Macart on August 2, 2013 - 8:15 am
Good piece James, enjoyed it.
People have come to the decision to vote YES next year for many reasons, be it disillusionment with Westminster politics, point of principle or economics and by that I mean shear bloody desperation. Some, like myself, maybe even a mix of all three.
Simple fact of the matter is the Westminster system of government hasn’t worked. If it had would we all be wondering just WTF happened to this UK of ours in the past forty years? Why do we have such disparity between rich and poor? Why are one in three kids born into abject poverty? Why did we stop making ‘stuff’ and grow more heavily reliant on a finance sector with no breaks and political patronage? Worse – why were we happy to let it happen in the first place?
Independence is tabula rasa. I say wipe the slate clean because we can do and be better this time. We can have a parliament based on popular sovereignty, a constitution, a prioritization of spend not based on world projection and geo politics. We are not, repeat not, going to mend Westminster’s ways and it has no intention of changing. So if its not for changing? Well we have a pretendy parliament that wants to stop pretending and do the job it was always intended for, being a parliament for the people of Scotland.
#20 by David on August 2, 2013 - 12:52 pm
Major took away the middle tier of government in Scotland. Plus point.
Effectively Blair/Dewar put it back.
#21 by Colin Dunn on August 2, 2013 - 2:34 pm
Thanks James. A good and thought-provoking article. I find it sad that the whole capital ‘N’ nationalist thing gets dragged into this debate. The vast majority of Yes supporters I know are, like you (and me), ‘non-Nationalists’. They simply want self-determination and better democracy and Yes seems the best and quickest way to get it.
#22 by mike cobley on August 2, 2013 - 7:22 pm
“It was the only way to get Westminster out of my life forever.”
I share your antipathy towards the succession of rightward lurching governments we’ve had, but I can promise you that independence will not rid Scotland of the influence of a corrupted and undermined Westminster. To think so is naive. Sorry, but the only way to solve the problem of the corruption and anti-democratic undermining (brought to you largely by the City of London and all its taxhaven demons) is to face it, fight it, defeat it. Independence will only make the rise of authoritarian corporate hegemony all the more certain.
#23 by Richard Cain on August 3, 2013 - 4:21 pm
Please explain.
#24 by Juliet on August 3, 2013 - 9:07 pm
I don’t disagree with anything in the post but I do think it over-simplifies and neglects the role RUK will always have, regardless of independence.
I am still undecided as to Yes or No, and a lot of what you say about Westminster’s failings send me towards Yes also.
But then I remember how much hope I had in John Smith as Labour leader and I wish we could remind Labour about those principles without them telling us they would have lost without Blair.
And I think about how I will still desire the reforms we currently seek around UK democracy even if Scotland is independent. But I’ll be persuading a foreign country, albeit a neighbour. And I understand the good neighbour argument, but I’m not sure that works.
And mostly I wonder if this is how our energy is best spent. Really.
#25 by James on August 4, 2013 - 5:52 pm
In terms of how our energy is best spent, I’d agree. I’d have liked to see a Scottish government do everything it could on climate change, inequality and civil liberties before making the case for more powers. I also agree that I’d still like to see Westminster reformed: but might not a radically reformed Scotland be an example to the rest of the UK?