Kids Corner

Current Events

Scotland's Moment of Destiny

ALAN CUMMING

 

 

 

On Thursday, September 18, 2014, my country, Scotland, decides whether to remain a part of the United Kingdom or go it alone as an independent sovereign nation. I have been a vocal advocate of the Yes campaign, and spoke at its start in Edinburgh in May 2012.

Last week, during a brief break from appearing in “Cabaret” on Broadway in New York, I flew to Glasgow to do some last-minute campaigning. The day I arrived, the Yes campaign had taken the lead in a major poll; the outcome is now too close to call. The atmosphere is extraordinary. The whole country is engaged as never before.

There has never been anything so politically important to me. I enthusiastically became an American citizen because I wanted to vote in elections here, but even that pales in comparison to my passion for Scotland’s voting to control its own future.

I wasn’t the only one who felt compelled to speak. Last weekend, Queen Elizabeth II admonished Scots to “think very carefully” about the decision we have to make.

Did you think we needed telling, ma’am?

This is unfortunately emblematic: Scots feel they’ve been patronized and disrespected for far too long, not just by the monarchy, but by other institutions like the BBC and the Westminster government.

This is not about hating the English. It is about democracy and self-determination. Scotland is weary of being ruled by governments it did not vote for. The Conservative Party has virtually no democratic mandate in Scotland, yet too often, Scotland has been ruled by a draconian Tory government from London.

In 1997, Labour held a promised referendum on whether Scotland should have its own Parliament. The country voted overwhelmingly Yes. In 1998, the Scotland Act made devolution a reality -- the opportunity, though circumscribed, for Scotland to make its own decisions and define for itself what it truly valued.

Sixteen years on, the differences between the basic tenets of Scotland and those of its southern neighbors are palpable: Unlike the rest of Britain, Scots still enjoy free higher education and free medical prescriptions. Even as parts of the National Health Service south of the border have been dismantled or privatized, Scotland’s is still intact and prized. There is an exceptional commitment to the arts, too -- most visibly with the formation of the National Theater of Scotland.

The most striking achievement of devolution has been the change in people’s confidence and spirit I’ve seen on visits home. We no longer feel at the mercy of a privileged elite hundreds of miles away. Now, we want to complete that process and take full charge of our nation’s destiny.

So why don’t all Scots vote Yes? Well, change is hard, and scary. Seeing the use of fear as a political tool, it becomes clear why the country is divided and the polls so close. Scots have been told that an independent Scotland may be denied membership of the European Union; the irony of hearing this from a Westminster government that is seriously considering exiting Europe has not gone unnoticed.

Being told, also, by the leaders of all three main political parties that Scotland cannot use sterling after a Yes vote, for no reason other than spite, smacks of the way many Scots felt that Westminster perceived us all along: stupid and easily bullied. Several major banks threaten to move their operations to England if we vote Yes -- but Westminster has put pressure on corporations to talk up anxieties.

Why does the United Kingdom so urgently want to keep us? Obviously, nobody likes being jilted. A Yes vote would represent a crushing rejection of the Westminster political establishment.

The left has tried to emotionally blackmail Scots, telling us that our absence in future general elections would abandon the remainder of the union to indefinite Tory rule. The reality is that every Labour government for decades would have been elected even without the Scottish vote.

The Conservatives know how unpopular their policies are in Scotland, so they limit their exhortations to emotional appeals. Prime Minister David Cameron teared up when he spoke recently of a “painful divorce.” And I thought we were supposed to be the sentimental ones!

Despite all the cant to the contrary, the reality is that Scotland is an economic asset to Britain. Since the 2008 financial crisis, Scotland’s finances have been healthier than the rest of the United Kingdom’s, with relatively higher revenues, lower spending and smaller deficits. Of course, we also have oil, lots of it. And huge potential for renewable energy, besides.

Distilled, the essence of the choice is this: The Yes campaign is about hope for a fairer, more caring and prosperous society; the No campaign says only: better the devil you know. I am an optimist.

Westminster’s leaders, like the rest of the world, may have only just cottoned on, but independence is a step we Scots have been contemplating carefully for a long time. After 16 years of devolution, we don’t need training wheels any more. We can go it alone.

 

Alan Cumming is a Scottish actor based in New York and the author, most recently, of “Not My Father’s Son: A Memoir.”

[Courtesy: The New York Times]

September 18, 2014

Conversation about this article

1: G C Singh (USA), September 18, 2014, 8:04 AM.

Scots should not get distracted, confused or scared by the grotesque campaign of fear mongering, predictions of doom and gloom and financial blackmail from the English elites from London in case the yes vote succeeds. Proud Scots would be well advised not to lose this once-in-a-life-time opportunity and vote like Bravehearts. When King Edward Longshanks invaded Scotland, a rag tag army of Scots under William Wallace fought back but ultimately he was arrested after being betrayed by Scotland's nobles. He was brought before an English magistrate, tried for high treason, and condemned to public torture and beheading. Even whilst being hanged, drawn and brutally tortured, Wallace refused to beg for mercy and submit to the king. As cries for mercy came from the watching crowd deeply moved by the Scotsman's valor, the magistrate offered him one final chance, asking him only to utter the word "Mercy" and be granted a quick death. Wallace instead shouted "Freedom!"

2: Bant Singh (New York City, USA), September 18, 2014, 10:05 AM.

G C Singh ji, I completely support the Yes vote in Scotland and I urge all the Sikh-Scots to vote Yes as well. I was utterly disappointed when Sikhs in Quebec did not vote for independence. Their vote could have tipped the balance in such a close vote. It's clear that the world is changing and national boundaries that were created by the retreating colonial powers in the last century are being challenged. Just yesterday, the Kurds in Iraq gave notice to the new Iraqi government about their desire to secede if they could not reach an agreement in 3 months. I'm pretty sure other nationalists would follow in France, Spain, Italy, and Belgium soon. This brings us to the 800 pound gorilla in the room -- the nationalist movements in India. I can see India getting carved up into four or five independent states in the next 30-40 years and each one being more prosperous than the whole. Deccan states -- Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnatak, Telegana, SeemAndra. The Cow Belt -- states: UP, MP, Bihar, Chattisgarh, Jarkhand, etc. The Far-Eastern states: Mehghalay, Arunachal, Mizoram, Nagaland, etc. The Western states: Gujrat, Maharashtra. The Eastern states -- Bengal, Orissa, Assam. The Northern states -- Punjab, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal, Uttarkhand, Delhi.

3: Sunny Grewal (Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada), September 18, 2014, 12:35 PM.

@2 Bant Singh ji: It is a very good thing that Sikhs did not vote Yes during the Quebec referendum. The Sikhs have certain protections in a multicultural democratic Canada that the Quebecois would snatch away in an instant if Quebec ever became a country. In regards to Scotland, the Scots should decide if they want to be a part of the UK and essentially a world power, or become independent and forgotten. I highly doubt many people will care about the decisions of a maritime country with a population of barely 5 million.

4: Rup Singh (Canada), September 18, 2014, 12:58 PM.

If all that it takes is a 'yes' vote by your own people to become an independent country, please take this opportunity to be free. Your coming generations will be grateful.

5: Sunny Grewal (Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada), September 18, 2014, 2:07 PM.

We should not be looking at the situation of Scotland as a mirror to the problem in Punjab. The UK is a democratic country which is not in the process of asserting its own national identity by suppressing the identity of its minorities. It is absolutely true that the English in the past had dominated and destroyed the cultures of the non-English people in the British Isles, however that is not the case today. Scotland can be free and independent in or in association with the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the same cannot be said for the unique culture, religion and language of Punjab in India.

6: Manbir Banwait (Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada), September 18, 2014, 6:42 PM.

First of all, if Scotland votes for independance, then so be it. If not, then so be it. This is a Scottish matter. As for Bant Singh's comments that he was "utterly disappointed" when Sikhs in Quebec did not vote for independence -- What has Canada done to the Sikhs? Gurdwaras stand tall and free, Sikhs have turbaned representatives in the Federal and Provincial Governments' cabinets, and the nation is probably home to the 2nd or 3rd largest Sikh population in the world. Encouraging economic turmoil in adopted countries, countries that have opened their borders to us and our ancestors is nothing more then a dagger in their back.

7: Bant Singh (New York City, USA), September 18, 2014, 7:07 PM.

Rup Singh ji. Well said. Sunny ji, I'm not so sure that the Quebecois would snatch away minority rights in an independent Quebec. The anti-Sikh policies that some far right Quebecois tried to adopt are unjustified and abhorrent. However, I don't think the mainstream Quebecois supported it which is why they were quickly snuffed out. I also don't believe Quebecois have a greater propensity to be anti-Sikh than the average Canuck. If the Quebec Sikhs had made their collective decision clear, we could have won concessions for our 'Yes' or 'No' vote. The problem is we Sikhs failed to leverage the power of our vote either with the Quebecois or the Canadians. Sikhs are a minority in every country we live and I don't think that statistics would change for a few generations. The only power we have especially in a democracy where every vote counts is to vote as a block. The sooner we realize that the better off we'll be. As far as the Scots are concerned, if they want to be separate and safeguard minority rights and not indulge in any ethnic cleansing campaign, I say more power to them. After all, state boundaries are mere man-made lines on a map, they're not God given. The Partition of Punjab and subcontinent are cited as an example of why national boundaries should not be altered by those governments. The national boundaries are the sacred cow in those countries and no discussion is tolerated. Period! End of story. Instead India's partition should be an example of how partitions should not be done. The trauma of the partition that the politicians exploit was due to the blood letting and ethnic cleansing. They use the threat of violence to prevent people from even thinking that secession is a viable and perfectly honorable option if the people are not satisfied with the current form of government.

8: Kaala Singh (Punjab), September 19, 2014, 3:02 AM.

@2: The Sikhs in Quebec did the right thing by voting for a united Canada. There is no comparison between UK and Canada on the one hand and India on the other. Canada and UK are truly democratic and progressive countries where everybody's rights are protected. Quebec and Scotland will not gain much if they separate. They already enjoy a lot of freedom and nothing has ever been denied to them. Quebec even has a separate representation in the UN. Regardless of what the separatist leaders say, both Quebec and Scotland will face economic and social problems if they go their own way. The above is not the case when we talk of India, which in less than 60 years of existence, instead of integrating its minorities and giving them a fair deal, has crushed them, destroyed their places of worship, carried out genocides and economically choked them. That is the reason why all ethnic minorities want to go their own way. Do you really think India will really allow a referendum in Kashmir, Punjab, Assam and North East, Tamil Nadu and South? This is because they know the results. The very fact that Canada and UK allow a referendum shows that they are real democracies. As the referendum in Quebec was defeated, I have no doubt it will be defeated in Scotland, as much of Scotland's progress has been due to its association with the UK.

Comment on "Scotland's Moment of Destiny"









To help us distinguish between comments submitted by individuals and those automatically entered by software robots, please complete the following.

Please note: your email address will not be shown on the site, this is for contact and follow-up purposes only. All information will be handled in accordance with our Privacy Policy. Sikhchic reserves the right to edit or remove content at any time.