The Day It Became Truly Real


(Fair warning, this is the angriest post I think I’ve done. Just so you know…)

Alistair Darling came to Greenock today. The town of my birth, where I spend many of my days, which is as familiar to me as anything I can think of. He came here, to spread his message. He came here.

He came here with his big vans. “I love my family. I’m saying No Thanks.” “I love Scotland. I’m saying No Thanks.” We love our kids. We’re saying No Thanks.” You’d be hard-pressed to write a more implicitly chilling threat. “You love Scotland, don’t you? You love your family? Then you’ll vote No, won’t you? If you love Scotland, and you love your family, then you want what’s best for them. You don’t want to see harm come to them. You don’t want something… unpleasant to happen to them. So you’ll vote No. There’s a good voter.”

It’s not an argument. It’s not even a meaningless platitude. It’s a ransom note.

Jim Murphy came to Gourock a while back. I missed him, and frankly, I’m glad I did, given the nonsense which has come to pass in recent days. But while I despise the things Jim Murphy has said and done, I couldn’t see the point in bothering. He’s a Scottish MP, after all, whose influence is a fraction of the mere 5% of power Scottish MPs have in Parliament, and currently part of the opposition, so not even in government. He’s irrelevant.

George Galloway is coming to Greenock. I will not be going to his meeting, and I urge all Yes voters to do exactly the same – like all trolls, Galloway gains sustenance from attention. I will happily withhold that from him, starve him of his cravings. He’s a Scottish MP, after all, but as a representative of East Bradford, his influence is even less than the fraction of the mere 5% of power Scottish MPs have in Parliament, and as a member of Respect, not even in opposition to the government, let alone actually in government. He’s irrelevant.*

Alistair Darling is a different thing altogether: not because he has any more power than the other two, not because he has any influence, but for something altogether more personal. There are certainly plenty of despicable figures in the campaign, for which I hold a special level of disgust: Anas Sarwar and his complete inability to tell the truth; Margaret Curran and her frighteningly callous attitude to the First Minister’s life; Ian Davidson and his enthusiasm to impoverish his own constituents. But Alistair Darling is one who I cannot help but truly hate.

This is because I hold Alistair Darling personally responsible for everything which happened since the banking crisis. In September of 2007, a bank run on Northern Rock started. The first time there had been a run on a British Bank in almost 150 years. The UK banking industry was already suffering a liquidity crisis due to the lack of regulation combined with a mortgage crisis in the United States, and thus, it was unable to borrow to cover its liabilities. It was a grave situation. The bank was going to collapse. Alistair Darling faced a choice: should he allow the bank to fail, or should he act to stop it?

Alistair Darling chose to act – by not only authorizing the Bank of England to lend funds to Northern Rock, but by providing an unqualified taxpayer’s guarantee of saver’s deposits. In short, Alistair Darling chose to funnel billions in public money to save the skin of a private company. As a result, the UK’s already huge debt rocketed to astronomic levels. This led the way to a huge crisis of confidence in Labour, already reeling from the Iraq War and the Data Protection scandal, allowing the Conservatives to sweep in – and Darling’s actions gave them the excuse they needed to tighten the grip of Austerity. Welfare reform, the Health & Social Care Act, the privatisation of the Royal Mail and NHS – the massive deficit & debt provided the excuse to devastate public spending under the lie of Austerity, the idea that there is nothing else in the UK’s budget which could possibly be cut to alleviate the UK’s horrendous debt. Labour started it, and the Conservatives capitalised.

The Austerity Lie“We are sticking to the task. But that doesn’t just mean making difficult decisions on public spending. It also means something more profound. It means building a leaner, more efficient state. We need to do more with less. Not just now, but permanently.”

Austerity is only tolerated because the vast majority of people don’t seem to realise what a complete and utter lie it is. Food banks are no longer viewed as a travesty in a supposedly first-world country, they’re just another type of charity. The grotesque injustice of secret courts, extradition and rejection of human rights aren’t abominations, they’re “just part of life now.” Whenever I am asked to sum up why I’m voting Yes in a single sentence or paragraph, I always come back to this simple, inescapable reality of the United Kingdom as it is now:

The United Kingdom is a state where the 1,000 richest citizens earned £155 billion thanks to tax cuts,** while the 900,000 poorest are forced to use foodbanks, all while those richest 1,000’s friends in government claim that “we’re all in this together.”

Austerity is a lie, and remaining in the UK will continue to feed it. And Alistair Darling gave the architects of Austerity all they needed to make it happen. This is why I reserve such burning resentment for Alistair Darling – not because he is inherently evil, but because he has enabled it.

Despite the obvious inclination to view Yes and No as opposing forces, I prefer to think more as a spectrum. Yes Scotland have a handy wee graphic, where a prospective voter places their inclination for or against independence on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being “I don’t think Scotland should be an independent country,” 10 being “Scotland definitely should be an independent country.” So rather than No being opposites, I view it as a gradient from 1 to 10. It makes talking with No voters far more relaxing to me, as I’m fully confident that everyone is capable of moving along that scale – and precedent has shown that it’s very much a one-way street. Hence how I can have perfectly temperate conversations with staunch No-voters – they aren’t the enemy, they’re on the same scale as me or you or anyone else, just on different ends. If there is an enemy here, it’s Westminster, not my fellow Scots. I can laugh and joke with people on “the other side.”

But the reality of a No vote is something far more serious. And, to go all William Lloyd Garrison, I am going to speak without moderation, for I truly believe in what I’m going to say. It something that actually frightens me as I contemplate it. And that is this:

To vote No to independence is to vote to enable, facilitate and encourage evil.

Hyperbolic? Understand I’m not necessarily talking about some quasi-religious, supernatural Spirit of Evil here: no Chernabog atop Bald Mountain, no moustache-twirling Hades, but the terribly banal, mundane sort of evil which we’ve seen time and time again. Evil is not something people are – Evil is something people do. People are not good or evil – people do good or evil. And much evil is being done by the UK government, its allies, its servants – and we are all contributing to it.

Consider: the UK government’s policies have been underwritten by North Sea Oil for decades***, and by Scottish revenue before its discovery. Ergo, Scots have contributed their money to all the decisions made by the UK. When the UK government embarked upon the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Scottish oil revenue paid for it. All the cover-ups were facilitated by the money we pay. Every bullet put into the skull of a human being in another country whose only crime was being in the wrong place and the wrong time was put there with Scottish money.

We cannot change this as part of the UK, otherwise we could have changed it already. The UK’s socialist period in the immediate postwar years proved to be an anomaly for the British state, for within a few decades, it reverted to type: class division, racial scapegoating, and vast inequality. There’s a reason World War I is lionised – it’s because it was the last war where class division was still considered proper and right, where people knew their place. All that Red Clydeside nonsense was soon snuffed out. We cannot change Westminster – but we can stop enabling it.

With a Yes vote, we can stop sending billions of Scottish taxes to Westminster, knowing that it will be spent on weapons of mass destruction, illegal wars, immoral legislation, and silencing appalling scandals. It won’t stop war, it won’t stop evil – but at least we will stop contributing to it. And if an independent Scotland’s government does evil, we will be in a position to take it to account – something that simply cannot be done within the United Kingdom.

You can choose not to buy products from an evil company that operates in your country. You can choose to avoid the work of an evil artist that performs in your country. But only a Yes vote can ensure you do not pay tax to an evil government that runs your country. And for all the good the UK government has done in the past, there is no question of the breadth and depravity of the evil it has done over the centuries. I do not want a single pound of my taxes to go on the toxic white elephant at Faslane, not a penny to go to illegal wars, not a scratch to facilitate massive tax bonuses to the rich while the poor starve and freeze – and I will be damned if they are going to force me to choose between funding that government and leaving the land I love.

All this occurred to me when Alistair Darling came to Greenock. He represents everything I find hateful and loathesome about Westminster. And as a Labour MP, he represents the true horror: that it doesn’t matter whether Labour or the Conservatives get in, for the result will always be the same. How many more people are going to suffer and die while we wait for England to wake up? Only by depriving the UK of its oxygen do we have a chance to change things.

No voters are not evil. Voting No is not evil. But voting No is voting to allow evil to continue governing our lives. It is a vote that ensures every millionaire who received a tax break while pensioners freeze to death in an oil-rich country had their pockets lined, in part, by us. It is a vote that ensures every person who died within six months of losing their disability benefits was facilitated, in part, by us. It is a vote that ensures that every bullet that takes an innocent’s life was paid for, in part, by us. Voting no is hoping the thug who beat you into this life-threatening condition will show some sort of mercy on you. Independence is not a panacea to cure all ills: it is CPR, a morphine injection, a shock from a defibrillator. A fighting chance to bring our broken soul back from the brink of oblivion.

*Many thanks to the comments pointing out Mr Galloway being Scottish and an MP, but not one of the 59 MPs for a Scottish constituency, hopefully the paragraph is clearer now.

**Thanks to Stefan for prompting the clarification, see comments.

***Thanks to Tim Ward for prompting the clarification, see comments.


107 thoughts on “The Day It Became Truly Real

  1. thorblogson says:

    You disagreed with Northern Rock being bailed out. How did you feel about the Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS being bailed out? If they had been allowed to go bust that would have cost tens of thousands of Scottish jobs.

    • alharron says:

      I disagree with *any* bank being bailed out. RBS in particular, given that the bailout has resulted in the public purse losing even MORE money since:

      RBS and HBOS were bailed out, but that hasn’t prevented tens of thousands of job cuts since 2008 – 40,000 in RBS alone. The job cuts were coming one way or another: the problem is that in saving those tens of thousands of Scottish jobs (and even more in the rUK), *millions* have suffered as a result of the increased debt, banker’s bonuses and subsequent public sector cuts.

      Yes, I readily accept that people would’ve lost their jobs and many would have lost their savings in the event that the banks haven’t been paid out. Bailing out the banks has IMPOVERISHED the people of Britain, and the banks are continuing their reckless path. Look at Iceland to see how that immediate shock of letting the banks fail has resulted in a recovery the UK could only dream of.

      • Stuart Clark says:

        just to clarify

        if the banks had not been baled out , and you let them fail presumably

        Would the depositors in the bank lose all their money ? or would you have provided some cover for their savings ?

        And If the Bank fails , it must sell all its moorages , or offer the people who have mortgages with it a chance to buy their houses , or pay the shortfall ?

        Presumably they must reportage with another bank

        But if they can,t get a mortgages , (banks may be unwilling to lend , when all around are collapsing )

        Well what would happend to the folk who had not paid off their houses and the bank sold them in a fire sale to recoup their losses

        would the inhabitants be homeless ?

        the idea of letting banks fail , appeals to me , Just want to clarify if you have any caveats .

      • alharron says:

        Would the depositors in the bank lose all their money ? or would you have provided some cover for their savings ?

        I would pretty much have done what Thomas G. Clark suggested here:

        And more here from David Malone:

        In short, “yes, in addition to completely restructuring the nature of banks.”

        But then, I’m no banker or economist, that’s plain to see. All I see is that the bank bailout didn’t really seem to have the desired effect of stabilising the economy, and it’s a pretty bitter victory to have saved hundreds of thousands of people’s savings when the result is that millions became impoverished in the subsequent years.

      • Stuart Clark says:

        Thx for replay I am trying to read all that , never saw no mention of actual case studies

        what would happen to people who had not paid their house mortgage off ?

        The House does not belong to them , till its paid , the Bank owns it , and the bank has lots its money honoring other commitments

        the bank is forced to sell its properties , cash in its bad loans

        So id the inhabitants cant raise the cash to pay off the mortgage , ie they may have the money as savings in another bank , but if all the banks are failing then they might lose their savings as well

        So they have to have the ready cash , or go to WONGA ? , por lose their house

        that’s how repossessions work

        So you get a house worth 120k with a Mortgage , but for a cahs buyer at an auction its worth 30K

        And the people paying the mortgage , doesn’t matter if its first year or 23rd year , they will lose

        And the depositors who saved the money , for the bank to lend then they will lose

        Unless yous et up some Govt scheme to rehouse the people , and a scheme to protect savers

        In Scotland alone 2/3rds of property is owner occupied , and half of that is mortgaged

        (According to Shelter )

        And 50% of Scots have savings in a bank

        So there is going to be big pain for substantial 5 of people no matter what ( my guess 25% )

        virtually wiped out , their lives work and savings gone

        question is , is that preferable to “Austerity ” , and anemic growth for 10 years ?

      • alharron says:

        Well, as I said, I’m no economist, but I’m pretty sure there’s a way of making sure people don’t go bankrupt without essentially giving banks carte blanche to go back and keep on doing what they’ve been doing with practically zero repercussions and ridiculous bonuses.

  2. Asty Taylor says:

    Aye, really well written. Well done!

  3. Hugh Wallace says:

    Reblogged this on Are We Really Better Together? and commented:
    The United Kingdom is a state where the 1,000 richest citizens earned £155 billion thanks to tax cuts,** while the 900,000 poorest are forced to use foodbanks, all while those richest 1,000’s friends in government claim that “we’re all in this together.”

  4. jaq says:

    I am a YES voter but even stronger after reading this. I was aware of most of it but had not really thought of it in the way you verbalised it. Thank you and I hope you have opened somw other voters eyes too.

  5. Angus Thomson says:

    Hope you don’t mind but I used your quote, The UK is a state…………..
    on my facebook timeline. this is an excellent blog and it’s a big YES from me.


  6. Thank you. That was a great way of describing the situation and i hope that all of the no voters that read this change to a yea

  7. Ricky says:

    It really frustrates me how Westminster is of the attitude that the people of Scotland can’t stand on our own two feet and survive without them!
    Treating the people of Scotland like children and threatening to take our toys of us and lock us in our rooms if we misbehave ( take the pound from us, build a wall and boarder controls ) do they not understand that Scotland has grown up now ?? We have more than paid our way for keep and board, it’s time for us as and adult nation , to make our own way in life , and get away from the domineering Westminster parent! we can now earn our own money, take control of our own lives,forge and mould our own future, instead of waiting to see what pitifully pocket money Westminster will allocate to a token Scottish government …..

What're your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.