IN spite of some quite heroic efforts by so very many individuals, indy ’14 failed. In hindsight, the likelihood was that it was always going to. It wasn’t going to fall short through lack of grassroots activism, it was possibly doomed before it started by two quite significant factors. Scotland has (effectively) no independent mass media, and we know that the UK media, beholden to empire for its licenses and authorisations (Ofcom etc) will always work to protect its perceived best interest. Coupled to that, the 2014 vote clearly had little (effective) pre-planning or much ability to shift position dynamically.
The first, with a few now notable exceptions, still can’t be impacted, the second can certainly be changed.
It’s the ageing voter who still stymies the independence vote, who skews the statistics in the polls and effectively denies their children or grandchildren from being able to build the type of nation they want to see their own offspring grow up in. As a movement we need to develop a way forwards as we try to shift that extremely substantial and primarily negative block. It clearly wasn’t adequately addressed in 2014, and if we don’t do it now, we may again fail on the backs of our frail.
It’s common knowledge, except perhaps amongst our own, that the UK state pension is about the lowest in the developed world. We also know that older No voters typically lean that way due to financial insecurity or an odd attachment to the days of empire. Surely by removing the financial insecurity aspect we can win over a decent percentage of this block, and possibly open the ears of even more to the real arguments, walking them from a hard, intransigent No to perhaps a soft Yes.
The other aspect that most ageing folk in the UK are not aware of is that we’ve also moved towards having one of the highest retirement ages in Europe.
Instead of documents running to several hundred pages or more, we need to spike the Union guns with simple statements. Drawn from these previously produced volumes, they could be catchphrases like “a better, quality, retirement”, with the guarantee that we’d follow average or future mandated EU levels.
Scots pensioners currently get less than 30% of their previous earnings from the state pension, while other developed countries typically run at 60%+, or as much as 80% in the Netherlands. That’s a staggering deficit. By simply guaranteeing parity with an index-linked average of other nations, adjusting annually in perhaps 25 even increments with inflation calculated in, we could do what’s right, fair and proper while attacking poverty for our elderly.
With a healthy working life for Scots currently in the high fifties, it also seems ridiculous to force assessments on those disabled who have exceeded that yet are still below official retirement age; we could initiate a cut-off for such examinations. These aspects could all be built into a new social contract, which is surely what our nation requires more than hundreds of pages of minutia about how a newly resurrected nation will function.
Give our folk a focus, a glimpse of a better tomorrow. Surely then they will follow the banners unfurled at the magnificent AOUB marches.
Ashley MacGregor
E Kilbride
MICHAEL Fry embraces the gig economy without a thought for the working conditions that it involves (The third industrial revolution is upon us – and it’s about to affect politics, August 21). He’s right to see something new in it, I just wish he’d stop knocking economics lecturers and pause to reflect on the uncertainty implicit in outsourcing.
You only have to look at the cladding issue underlined by the Grenfell Tower deaths to see how outsourcing can involve lack of accountability.
We’re in danger of going further down that road with the Brexit buccaneers.
Cathie Lloyd
Letters, Lochbroom
READ MORE: The third industrial revolution is here and it will affect politics
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with Michael Fry regarding the “third industrial revolution”, and having been to China numerous times over the last few years and witnessed their rampant economic outlook at first hand, I feel there is no erstwhile power on this good earth capable of stemming such an onslaught. And why should there be? Although Mr Fry refers to Catalonia, my area of interest is the People’s Republic.
They have now overtaken both South Korea and Japan in shipbuilding whilst the eight biggest ports in the world are Chinese, not to mention Lenovo computers.
It certainly is a long way from Stornoway to Huludao in the far northern climes yet I communicate virtually daily with staff at Bohai Shipbuilding, where a large four-legged self-elevating rig is in process of construction for a Saudi Arabian client. In other words an “out-sourced” unit for eventual long-term contract with the National Oil Company – the traditional “in-house” policy of company assets now being relinquished to private companies, and thereby delegating both risk factors and financial outlays to a wider national audience.
I am appraised of progress on a weekly basis courtesy of Skype, negating the need to be physically present until such time as the hull is floated out of building dock pursuant to “jacking” trials and so on towards the end of the year.
Furthermore, it will be especially convenient to travel to PRC from October 1, when scheduled flights direct to Beijing from Edinburgh are to be inaugurated. I would thoroughly recommend aspiring itinerants to make full use of prospective non-stop flights.
Roderick MacSween
Stornoway
IT is striking to note Jeremy Corbyn claim that Scottish seats are the “key” to a Labour victory in the next General Election. This is patently untrue. Even if Labour had captured every seat in Scotland in 2017 they’d still have lost the UK General Election. To provide Mr Corbyn with a brief history lesson, in the 20 General Elections since the Second World War only twice – Labour’s wins in 1964 and 1974 – have Scottish seats swung the result. This neatly highlights the fact that, with very rare exceptions, Scotland gets the government England votes for.
Alex Orr
Edinburgh
WATCH: Jeremy Corbyn can’t answer this simple question about Brexit
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here