Describing Scotland as being 'captive' or 'oppressed' is patronising and insulting to the entire country.
Describing Scotland as being ‘captive’ or ‘oppressed’ is patronising and insulting to the entire country
There are countless times I have heard politics being described as a dirty game, a game to which people make up the rules as they go along. Of course, this isn’t the politics I want to be part of and I have campaigned throughout my adult life to make a better politics.
Working at the grassroots level of politics, you hear members of the public becoming increasingly tired of how the game of politics works, becoming disengaged with mudslinging, sensationalism and quite frankly debate which is far away from their lives.
When the referendum campaigning began in Scotland, there was a difference. People were excited at the prospect of this game of politics being done differently, of going to a debate to talk about an issue rather than be talked at by a candidate.
But somewhere along the way, this difference has ceased to exist, and unfortunately, I can’t help but think we might be talking about something different, but we are doing it the same old way and we are doing the debate and the public an injustice.
I say this for two reasons.
Firstly, there has been an increase in the arguments for an independent Scotland which are painting a picture of ‘the other’ towards the rest of the UK or are pushing sweeping statements which are an inaccurate representation of Scotland. Over simplistic arguments are not only unrepresentative but are an insult to the electorate.
Secondly, there has been an increase of the level of abuse and person attacking going which serves no other purpose for any side, other than to create a mockery out of democracy. The very democracy those in favour of independence use as a reason for voting yes.
I was just one of many who was outraged and disgusted at the UKIP billboards I have to encounter on my way to work telling me that immigrants are coming for my job; and I was proud of those who rallied peacefully outside the UKIP conference in Edinburgh and told UKIP their racism isn’t welcome in Scotland.
But what came quickly after this was an array of campaigners telling me that UKIP wouldn’t exist in an independent Scotland and nor would this type of racism and extreme right-wing sentiment.
This is just not true. Let’s not mask a reality in order to win the current argument. If we do that, we are closing our eyes to real inequality that exists right now and risk ignoring it in the future, regardless of a yes or no vote decision from the public on the 18 September.
North and south of the border there are people who discriminate.
We don’t have to look far to see evidence of just how much discrimination exists in Scotland and unfortunately is finding its way into this debate. Raise you head above the parapet and if they don’t like what you have to say, prepare yourself for an online spewing of hate. That doesn’t sound like the inclusive or ‘different’ Scotland I am being told already exists.
This week, we’ve had an activist Clare Lally speak at a Better Together event and be called a ‘liar’, claimed to be the daughter in law of someone she is not (ironically that was the lie) and smeared against across Twitter – simply for having an opinion.
Then we had JK Rowling tell us her reason for supporting a No vote and she was called a ‘bitch’ and a ‘whore’ (notice the gendered adjectives) and people advocating the burning of her books.
How can those who advocate a yes vote for the sake of democracy be willing to either engage in or remain silent about the suppressing of opinion? Where is the condemning from those at the top taking about fairness and equality in independence or does calling it out take away from the shiny veneer being sold of a different Scotland?
There is also the commentary on the reoccurring idea of Scotland’s oppression. As a feminist and a member of the BME community, this puzzles me a great deal. I have read on a few occasions that Scotland is being oppressed by Westminster and that those who are pro-union are allowing the oppression to continue.
I think we need to take a long hard look at that explanation and I think we need to consider the use of terms like ‘oppression’ or ‘captive’. Oppression is real, it plagues peoples’ lives across the world, it is caused by an imbalance in power and those with power using it against the powerless.
Many, rightly, see the decisions taken by a UK government as unfair and oppressive. The Bedroom Tax or the austerity measures causing people with disabilities to have to prove their inability to work, are wrong, are a misuse of power and a form of oppression. This injustice is being felt by people across the United Kingdom and should be fought.
But it is not an injustice happening to Scotland as a country, it is happening because power is not balanced across the UK. Moving the power locations from London to Edinburgh doesn’t change how that power is used and cannot be what this referendum is about.
I, as a resident of Scotland, since the day of my birth, have felt oppression because of my gender, I have felt oppression because of the colour of my skin, I have felt oppression because of the faith I come from, but I have never considered myself to feel oppressed as a Scot. To draw these parallels is for me is not only disingenuous, but actually to the oppression I have felt and others feel, belittling.
Describing Scotland as being ‘captive’ or ‘oppressed’ is patronising and insulting to the entire country. But even more importantly, it is an insult to those who, in Scotland or across the UK, feel real, damaging oppression.
We are having an historic debate, let’s make our arguments memorable for the right reasons.
Talat Yaqoob is a feminist and equalities campaigner
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
70 Responses to “The Scottish referendum debate is doing the public an injustice”
IndependentMindedScot
Your view of the 1707 act is a very much minority view and shows a real lack of understanding of society and politics. You could equally well argue that because Edinburgh forms only 10% of the Scottish population its destiny is determined by the 90% that surrounds it. The Act of Union was indeed Union – it was two partners coming together for the good of all those who live in these islands. And if you look at the history of the Union and see how much Scottish politicians, engineers, businessmen and others have dominated life in the UK and south of the Solway and Tweed, you could argue that Scots have made England and Wales a subject nation.
The fact that you and I are Anglo-Scots, along with hundreds of thousands of others, who move freely across the United Kingdom without bothering about separate taxes, border controls and all the wasted paraphernalia of nationalism, is proof that this union is a union of equals.
If you really want to talk about one nation subjugating another, go to Tibet or Xinjiang or Abkhazia or Transdniester. Then you might begin to see sense and understand what true subjugation is. The kind of language you are using here both diminishes their very real conflicts and diminishes the serious debate that we should be having about Scottish separatism.
Alan59
Vote Ukip .
Anglo-Scot
I know the points I am making might seem dry and legal but legal realities do shape political destinies. The political destiny of a state is set primarily in its legislature and executive. In the case of the nation of Scotland, it’s political destiny has been set by Westminster – where English votes and agendas predominate. Once Scotland signed up to this deal (in 1707), it legally could not get out. Not even if 100% of Scots wanted it.
You are right that Scots have contributed massively to English life, but this has been in the context of pursuing the political interests of an English-dominated union, not those of a distinct Scottish nation. If that’s what Scots choose, then so be it. But what I see is that majority Scottish perspectives on many UK-wide and world issues have diverged a lot from majority English Tory perspectives for some time. This long-term tension does not make for a happy union.
You say we are in a “union of equals” but I don’t see David Cameron getting round the table with Alex Salmond to discuss UK and world issues as equals. There is no such constitutional forum for this. If there was, it would strike at the heart of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty which is perhaps why it is so difficult for Westminster politicians to come up with a better deal for Scotland than simply more devolution.
I struggled to find a quick definition for subject state online that we could refer to but I’m not seeking to equate Scotland’s constitutional limitations with the problems of the nations you mention. I don’t mind letting go of that label if it causes offence.
Scott Bowie
what happens when we’re dragged from europe by the tory referendum? shall we just come along silently when we could have had our own say in our country?
Mike Stallard
Taloob – next time you are on Question Time, it is a good tip to talk a lot less. Nigel Farage, coming from a very different perspective indeed, made exactly that mistake too. If you sit and look a bit puzzled and then get asked to speak, be brief. You can only make just one point.
Your audience are not after the truth so much as trying to see if they can identify with your point of view, to see if they like you.
In no way, I can assure you, am I a LibDem. But the LibDem lady got it right. If you get it wrong, you confirm all the suspicions of the very bigoted and unpleasant people you refer to in your article.