3 weeks on and I, along with thousands of others across Scotland, am still raging at the referendum victory that was, for the most part, stolen from us by an army of imported politicians and newspapers who don’t seem to know which country they are supposed to talk to.
But the blame doesn’t solely lie with them, we are at fault also for not having tackled some crucial issues right off the bat and I thought I would perhaps list some of these issues and reflect on what could have been done better.
Communication with the elderly
A lot of the yes campaign was carried out on social media, and while this is an effective way to reach a good portion of under 65s, it’s not so great for reaching older folks. How many grand parents do you know who even have access to a computer at home?
Yes there was a lot of leaflets that were pushed through people’s doors, and maybe they had a positive influence on some but I can’t help but wondered if they actually answered people’s questions. What may have been more effective would have been to set up a call centre people can call and have their questions answered. From my perspective when the campaign started, I waited and waited for yes campaigners to come knocking at my door. They did so eventually about 2 weeks before polling day and none of us were home. Had I relied on that to have my questions answered I might still be waiting.
The white paper did in fact answered most questions but I don’t know anyone (myself excluded) who actually read the whole thing. The wee blue book was a very effective attempt to correct that, but it was distributed via unofficial channels and was perhaps slightly too late coming out
Make plans that require negotiating with Westminster
There’s no denying the whole currency affair was a shambles. Although the Scottish Government plan was solid and they stuck to their original idea, because it relied on Westminster to agree to a currency union it was going to be demolished (and surprise surprise, it was) right from the start.
So what’s the alternative you ask? All the options have been debated, all with pros and cons. My personal favourite is to set up our own currency but I’m no economist and wouldn’t know how to reassure people that they would get the same, or better, salaries, savings, pensions and so on. The currency union was meant to provide a reassuring continuation to people’s habits when it comes to money. Maybe the “Panama option” would have been the best.
The point is, there needs to be a solid plan to reassure people that they wouldn’t lose out financially in an independent Scotland with un-arguable plans. What those are, I’m not quite sure.
Communicate more effectively with the International community
For some reason various countries and world leaders were allowed to voice their objection, usually in a subdued manner, to Scotland leaving the UK. I learnt last night that the people of Scotland have a right to self determination as written in international law. As such the likes of Barusso, Obama or Clinton should have kept their thoughts to themselves.
But the fault also rests with us for not being more communicative with the EU, NATO and the United Nations on this specific subject and get guarantees from them that Scotland would be recognised as a nation.
And then there’s the international press. Having kept an eye on French newspapers, the only time they reported on Scotland’s referendum was to more or less parrot some of the lies and threats you’d see in the Guardian or other unionist papers. It was clear none of them had people here to write more informed news pieces, instead relying on a team of translators and editors (apparently plagiarism is fine if you’re a journalist). Maybe have a strategy in place to reach out to world newspapers like the New York Times, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, El Pais at the very least would have provided fairer coverage and better support from the international community.
Scottish vs British
I’ve always seen “Britain” as a landmass similar to “Scandinavia”, only nobody holds a Scandinavian passport. Ask the Norwegians, Swedes and Danes if they’d be willing to group together and form a new country called Scandinavia and they’ll laugh at your face.
But for many British people, Britain is a country, despite the fact that the name of the country is actually The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Effectively “British” is a convention similar to “American”, just as you don’t say “United Statesians”, you wouldn’t say “United Kingdomite” (or something). And so with this same convention, people of Northern Ireland aren’t technically British. Yes it’s all very complicated but the point is independent or not Scots will always be British if they want to call themselves that, just as Norwegians are Scandinavians too.
But the issue of national identity is one which runs deep with some people. The white paper made it clear that people of an independent Scotland would retain their British passport and nationality but for one reason or another this issue never made it to the debates or the newspapers.
—
These are but a few of the issues we need to work on to convince a majority that an independent Scotland is the best choice for the country to go forward. Independence will happen one way or another. This isn’t a threat, it’s a promise. It’s the path we are on, maybe this year was too early but you can be certain we will get there eventually.
Google+: View post on Google+
Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.