Scotland will only be a better nation if we learn from mistakes of the past

There is a paradox at work within the Scottish independence movement which, basically put, is: how can one form of nationalism be a bulwark against ultra-nationalism? I and probably many others are currently suffering from what I can only describe as a kind of brain freeze, an overload caused by the dubiously created, multivarious negative complexities of what should be, in essence, a simple exercise of firstly gaining independence and then implementing a new society within which the stated aims for more equality, justice and a more robust democracy are the foundations for a new constitution based on the needs of all of the people who were born in this country or who have made this their home.

READ MORE: Ruth Davidson tells Lords that Unionists are making the case for independence

Ranging across the full spectrum, from politicians to the rest of us, a free Scotland has to effectively demolish the shibboleths that have held us in thrall to a polarisation of power, wealth and advantage which in some instances go back to the year dot and which are trumpeted as being the only way. Some politicians and their parties, and other institutions such as royalty, are so wealth- or/and power- oriented that it seems to have become inevitable and normal that they become corrupted. This is bandied around and within the many guises such as maintaining a healthy GDP, economic policies, banking regulations, superiority or exceptionalism, security both at home and overseas, as if it was quite normal to pit ourselves against other countries and yes, even against ourselves.

Admittedly this has been the case for thousands of years as civilisation after civilisation rose, came to fruition and then collapsed. The United Kingdom is no exception, it is not exceptional in the same way as all of those previous cultures thought they were but, in the end, crumbled, literally into dust in some cases either through being overpowered from superior outside forces, through internal hubris and corruption or climate change. This is the true history of the world, and all of those references to how we led the world through great thinkers, innovation, inventing this or that first, actually mean nothing when we take into account all of the planet's historical developmental arc followed inevitably by destruction over countless years.

READ MORE: Scottish Budget includes pledge for 'necessary' indyref2 planning

If we are to build a new country – and that literally is what we have to do – then to follow all of those mistakes of the past is a guaranteed recipe for a disaster. It’s waiting, and is as inevitable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

The American abolitionist and social reformer Frederick Douglass made a speech in 1852 arguing that the fourth of July celebrations meant basically nothing to him or his fellow slave inhabitants, as it was merely hypocritical rhetoric targeting the poor, the marginalised and powerless with meaningless buzz-words. His speech “What, to the slave, is the fourth of July?” was powerful then and should be now, when he said “are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us?” I would argue that an independent Scotland needs to take meaningful cognizance of those sentiments expressed 169 years ago.

We can either create a new all-inclusive independent Scotland based on equality and justice or go the way of the old, which will be merely disguised as a new opportunity, but following the same tired pathways and tokenism which compound injustices across the spectrum and in reality change nothing.

READ MORE: 145k people demand rethink on citizenship clause in Nationality and Borders Bill

In order to succeed in this I would like a whole series of new conduits created to enable a more meaningful democracy in which all people are offered ways to engage with each other and with all other agencies including the government. As it stands now, individuals have both perceived and real obstacles which limit their ability on all levels to engage with the morass of complicated arrangements across politics, community, justice, equality, social security and many more areas, which appear to inhibit communication and engagement rather than furthering the absolutely democratic aims of a truly inclusive nation.

A new independent Scotland with all of the above which aims at breaking with the old, destructive and tired traditions obviously has firstly to disengage with and show the reason why a state like the UK, which cannot or will not change its habitual machinations, will inevitably be brought down along with everything connected, while still hanging on to the tired old cliches churned out on a regular basis in an attempt to prop up or cover up its very real failures.

In what appears to be another paradox, I believe I have laid out the reasons why there is no point in attempting to convince undecided voters to put their marker on a ballot paper for an independent Scotland. Why would they do that if their perception is that nothing would change in their individual or community lives?  We have all heard the retorts: why bother to vote, it means nothing to me, politicians are all the same, bankers are just greedy (a euphemism I’m sure), the world just keeps on getting worse, what chance do we have, nothing changes.

READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon calls Boris Johnson 'corrupt' and calls for him to resign

All of the above responses actually have historical merit. People have been convinced to vote for various politicians or parties based generally on dubious promises or just outright lies. What else can they do? Some potential voters of course do nothing, just do not bother because voting lies outside their frame of reference. However, when the counting is complete many look forward to maybe a marginally better way of life for themselves or their family, but this is mostly wiped out following the aftermath of an election and the reality of national politics and economics, in which further burnouts are expected following the reality of very dodgy decision-making and promises not met and which appear to re-alienate vast numbers, quite rightly proving again that the very political machine or philosophy underpinning it has let them down again.

Other sections of the public, however, seem to have a tribal instinct based on family or class-based voting patterns or/and historically dubious claims and will vote in exactly the same way the next time around.This changes nothing either on a local or national basis but merely maintains the status quo across the class-ridden society. This therefore should be the first item on the agenda for independence, ie how this new country will truly be different. If this can’t be explained to the undecided, then why would they bother to enter into a new social contract? Why would they engage in a new social activism if all of the conduits are stymied by the deliberate narrowing of available avenues for discourse?

The arguments above are the reason I believe why many people will vote/or not vote for change, because they just don’t believe that anything meaningful will happen and so will stick to what they believe they at least have a current handle on, even though they know it will be unchanging but at the very least they will be semi-comfortable with, for they are accustomed to being let down time and time again.

WATCH: Nicola Sturgeon takes Douglas Ross to task over the future of oil and gas

On another level an undoubtedly moral reason why many resist nationalism is that it has in the past, and so will in the future, polarise and compromise the ability to attain far-reaching internationalism, which has always included the absolutely ethical sentiments for world peace, food for all, water and energy and the subsequent abolition of weapons of mass destruction, not forgetting a cooperative increase in our ability to lessen the ravages of climate change. In the latter example, if we cannot achieve this then the other aims seem superfluous for there will be no-one left.

Nevertheless juxtaposed with these aims are the beliefs that this will lead to a concomitant increase in empathy between all people living within their own cultures across the planet. On the surface these arguments are difficult to counter on an intellectual level, because who doesn’t want all of the above securities for all the world’s peoples? Well, and here’s the rub, unfortunately there are many so-called leaders who are quite happy with the opposite state of affairs, that same status quo as it were. Some of those” commanders” are operating within the boundaries of our little conglomeration of islands and we know who they are, whether they be in politics, finance or other state or private agencies. Privilege is the basis of their philosophy, has been and will remain so as long as we the people allow them to maintain this position.

Tom Nairn, in his book The Break-Up Of Britain, argues that the political parties of Britain including the Labour and Liberal parties,while seemingly arguing for a change of the old guard and system of government, in fact are firstly enthralled and then subsumed by hundreds of years of pomp and circumstance and so only tinker with the outer edges of the leviathan and then become part of it. Detractors to this position are labelled alarmists and even enemies of the state and are targeted by new legislation which in reality is aimed at ensuring the continuity of the structure.

So what should a new independent Scotland look like? How do we convince the No voters, the Unionists, the internationalists, the undecided and the cynical, to kick into touch the politics that have brought us all to what appear to be hundreds of years of so-called democratic development but in reality still retains all the trappings of what is still a nation of haves and have nots?

Well, firstly we have to ensure that those parties whose raison d’etre is the goal of independence and ultimately equality are held accountable to their promises of that future and are clear in the mechanisms to achieve this. But more importantly, to prove to everyone that the arguments I have raised in this letter are not just possible but are a priority in a vision of a democratic, independent all-inclusive Scotland, a new covenant in fact. If that can be shown then it is bound to have an impact on the undecided.

A newly created independent country for me is a place where I awake in the morning feeling glad to be alive and knowing that the other five-and-a-half million citizens feel the same – not burdened by poverty, insecurity or isolation but knowing irrefutably that they are part of a larger, caring country which foregoes polarisation, elitism and the blame culture.

Alan Hind
Old Kilpatrick