Our government said it would not tolerate a power grab, that it would not stand for Scotland being taken out of the European Union against the democratic will of the Scottish people. It has had mandate after mandate to move forward with independence. It had the support to resist the British state over Brexit. We watched as the United Kingdom staggered from one constitutional crisis to another – and in the end we got sweet feck all. Don’t shoot the messenger! Don’t discount what I’m saying just because it hurts your feelings. It hurts my feelings too.
In 2014 we saw ourselves as a small nation in a David-versus-Goliath fight. Realistically, in the beginning we did not expect to win. One theme repeated frequently at the time was that we just wanted to be a nuisance, that we wanted to have a bit of craic, upset the apple cart, and maybe – if we got lucky – give the English political establishment a bloody nose. We saw ourselves as a pesky younger sibling trying to make a point. But something changed. At some point in August 2014 it dawned on us that we might win – that we had a real shot of securing independence.
Stuart Campbell came remarkably close to saying this in his recent interview with Alex Salmond when he said “we will all grow old and die before we have a second referendum” if we continue on with this policy of asking and asking ad nauseam permission from a British government which we have effectively handed the power to always say: “Now is not the time.” Ultimately, what this means is that the independence movement in Scotland and its political leadership are pinned down in their constant reference to England – to the will of Westminster and the English state.
Scotland’s independence is a question of justice, and no injustice can last forever. Having come to see the nature of the injustice of British rule, we have come to know that final defeat is impossible. No matter how many defeats – no matter how crushing, in the end Scotland will be free. Our efforts now are not so much a contest against unionism. The union is already dead. Our competition is against future generations of the independence movement. We must rob them of the glory by ensuring that freedom is won in our generation, to our glory and immortal memory.
Listening to people in the “grassroots” of the independence movement, as opposed to those who have styled themselves the political, cultural, and intellectual leadership of the movement (the kites and the crows), we hear other objectives. There are those who want independence “for their children and grandchildren,” “for the future,” “to end austerity,” “to put power back in the hands of the Scottish people,” and so on. This is not the independence envisioned by Sarsfield, the leaders of 1798, nor indeed Ireland’s campaign for Home Rule.
Earlier today, in an effort to clear things up, I contacted the Russian Embassy. Other than snorting at my question the chap in the Press Office asked only: “What the ‘Chuckle Brothers?’” before saying he could not make a comment on the issue. Obviously, the Russians are finding this nonsense has hilarious as the rest of us. An hour later the Embassy tweeted an image of the suspects beside an image of the of the UK military clean-up operation in which the experts are kitted out in serious looking yellow hazmat suits and oxygen masks. Russians just must be hardier souls.
Yes, you read that right. According to the unionist media in Scotland a “civil war” erupted in the SNP last Friday following the resignation of Alex Salmond. It didn’t matter that no one in the SNP and no one in the wider independence movement noticed the outbreak of hostilities; fake news is just that – fake news. Yet, to mark the occasion – even as the BBC’s political editor Brian Taylor, “journalist,” tried to downgrade the fictitious infighting to “turmoil” – independentistas took to social media to juke it out with the hashtag “#SNPCivilWar.”
What Hassan is doing, in effect, is imposing the political division he would prefer to see realised – the class division. There are those with education who know what they are doing because of where they were born into in society – “the more pragmatic,” and then there are those who are emotive, driven by passion and blind faith in a charismatic leader. This is why I have described his comment as both superior and sneering. Hassan’s “philosophical” gripe is that the movement appears to have transcended his class-based assumption...