This is a guest post by Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosphers.
The Scottish Stalemate - Part 1
Identifying the adversary.
In this blog I am going to nail my colours to a mast. It is not a major mast in the ship of national affairs nor is it on a significant ship in the fleet of world affairs but it is the mast that I believe can carry the sail to harness the wind that will lead a small suppressed nation to freedom.
Because it has to be my colours that are nailed I have to ease out from under the use of the pseudonym; my name is John Souter - that will nothing to the vast majority but, hopefully, a little to the few – and the cause I support, is the independence of Scotland and its people.
It is not my intention in this article to plead the case for independence or try to garner converts, or sympathisers, to the cause – hopefully I’ll be preaching to the converted and adding my tuppence to the problems the cause has to face, rationally evaluate and the strategies and tactics it has in its armoury to achieve the objective.
The major fact to acknowledge is, we are up against a formidable foe. There is no equality of arms unless you regard sling-shots equal to Tridents. They have had 300 years to define, refine and re-define their strategies in order to create a belief of dependency while nurturing their self serving notion of supremacy and practicing their version of democracy; a version which relies heavily on the distortions of statistics.
Who can argue with the arithmetic; the population of Scotland is around 8.6% of England’s - we’re already a minority; in poll speak we would be classed as “Others.” Whittle it down to the 35% of Scots who, it’s claimed, support independence and minority becomes fringe. A fringe of ignorable quantity, scornful quality and laughable abilities. Summation: no threat. Action: appear to ignore while administering subtle sanctions and disciplines.
But the hypocrisy of the “theys” is, they are the lesser fringe in numbers, even if you include the mercenaries they employ in the media to manufacture their propaganda and the institutions they have created to administrate their policies. Problem is, while they’re less in number, they’re greater in influence.
Perhaps I should define who these “theys” are. They are the Establishment; the power behind the edifices of government, that can skew the democratic process into meaningless rhetoric to camouflage their tyranny. Xenophobia has no place in this argument, though it’s used as a tool (especially power xenophobia) by those who actually practice it while claiming despair at those who truly find it abhorrent. This is not about Scots V English; the people of England are as badly served as the Scots, the Welsh and Northern Irish. Is it possible that this is at the root of their opposition; the fear of an independent and aspirational Scotland leading to a redefining of democracy in England? Is this not the big one; the sceptred’ plot, the gilded gauges of Londonland, their hallowed halls of financial shamanism could be lost, and their modern equivalent of primogeniture shattered?
These are high stakes. Stakes that demand a massive investment of time and resources to cover and, while we should be watchful of the strategies employed to protect them, they are ultimately irrelevant to the goal we’re aiming for. 20th century history presents us with this conclusion, the independence of Ireland, India and a third of the African Continent, amongst others has proved they’ve never won a war on the democratic front.
Time moves on bringing changes and new conditions and threats with it, but in the main these are peripheral to the tenet of democracy; so our efforts must be aimed at creating the strategies that, while they frustrate our adversary, convince and motivate our population.
‘Marvellous,’ you exclaim, ‘Now, why don’t you tell us something we don’t know?’
A fair enough criticism, but if you glance through the blogs you get masses of; it isn’t fair, the English Broadcasting Corp, the Media bias, the Weegie labour clones, the Westmidden cabal, which goes on and on until it morphs into the, “What can we do – What can we do!- wail of despair.
Well I reckon there’s plenty we can do and the first thing we need to do is define and analyse the problems we have to overcome, then identify and adopt the strategies and tactics that will maximise the arms we have in our limited armoury and the effective use of them.
OK, so now we have the outline of an analysis based on one mans opinion. Now we have to identify and weigh up our strengths and weaknesses and discover the arsenal we have at our disposal.
We’ll call it: The Plan, and cover it in part 2 which will be published tomorrow morning with part 3 on Wednesday morning.