The arrogance and hubris that ends the UK

There’s a very important point which has been raised by Ruth Davidson’s return from maternity leave. It’s an issue she raised which was also raised by David Mundell, and one whose implications have – entirely predictably – not been explored by the Scottish media. Both the Scotland Secretary and the leader of Ruth Davidson for Ruth Davidson’s Ruth Davidson party have insisted that not only should the current British Prime Minister refuse to accede to a demand for a Section 30 order for a Scottish independence referendum, but so also should the next British Prime Minister. They go even further, and have stated baldly that this refusal should continue past the next Scottish elections in 2021, and indefinitely into the future.

This is nothing less than a fundamental and unilateral rewriting of the political understanding of Scotland’s constitutional place within the UK. It is, in effect, a constitutional coup and a direct assault upon Scottish democracy. Ruth Davidson and David Mundell have just told us that it doesn’t matter who Scotland votes for. It doesn’t matter if Scotland elects a parliament elected with a clear and unambiguous mandate for a Scottish referendum, the Conservative government in Westminster will make that decision, not the people of Scotland. Scotland’s votes will be subject to a veto from a government elected by the rest of the United Kingdom. What we’re now being told is that even if Scotland votes for pro-independence parties by a massive majority, it will be vetoed by English and Welsh Conservative votes, and by DUP votes.

Ruth and David’s statements have gone largely unchallenged by that Scottish media that likes to tell us that it speaks truth unto power. Although as we’ve discovered is that only holds when the power concerned is an SNP led Scotttish government, and the truth is a Labour or Tory press release. Yet what their statements represent is a theft of the democratic will of the people of Scotland. Until now, it has always been understood that Scotland is willingly and freely a part of the UK, that it remains so subject to the consent of the people of Scotland – with the crucial implication that the people of Scotland have the absolute right to withdraw that consent. That was the basis upon which the 2014 referendum was fought, it was a point which opponents of independence were eager to agree to.

Yet now we discover that the Conservatives have unilaterally decided that it is no longer the case. It is now no longer for the Scottish people to decide the form of government best suited to their needs. That decision is for the Conservative party to make, and the Conservative party will make that decision as and when it suits the interests of the Conservative party.

It wasn’t so long ago that Ruth Davidson was saying that the Westminster government shouldn’t block a Scottish referendum, even though she personally didn’t want a referendum. Referring to the possibility of an independence referendum because of the outcome of the Brexit vote, in an interview in July 2016 Ruth said that “constitutionally, the UK government shouldn’t block it.” It was only a short while before that that she had stated that the way to get a referendum was for the pro-independence parties to get a majority at the ballot box, and then secure a majority in the Scottish parliament. That’s democracy, said Ruth.

It now appears that Ruth has decided that her party’s veto is more important than democracy, and she’s not being held to account for that undemocratic volte-face by a Scottish media that’s far more interested in gushing interviews about how motherhood has changed her. The British nationalist media in Scotland is not challenging her, not questioning her change of mind, not exploring the constitutional implications for Scotland. It’s not just Ruth Davidson and David Mundell who are undermining Scottish democracy, they’re being helped along by a Scottish media which is increasingly unfit for purpose. Holding power to account doesn’t just mean finding a succession of SNPbad stories, guys and girls.

The fact that Ruth Davidson and David Mundell were both insisting within days of one another that there should be a blanket and indeterminate refusal to allow an independence referendum for the foreseeable future, by the next UK Prime Minister and well past the next Scottish elections, clearly shows that the line was agreed between the two of them. These are not off the cuff remarks in interviews, this is a planned and coordinated strategy. The new harder line is a marked departure from “now is not the time”, a line which although infuriatingly patronising, at least seemed to leave open the possibility that the time would come at some point. The line is now “the time is never”.

A Scotland which is being told by the ruling British party that it is subject to a veto on its desire to ask itself about its future within the UK is not a Scotland which is a free agent. Davidson and Mundell’s shift in stance means that we are certainly no longer in the union that we were told we were a part of in 2014, and that we’ve been told for generations that we’ve been a part of. The Conservative party has now unilaterally ripped up the Scottish Claim of Right. They have destroyed any pretence that Scotland is freely and of its own will a part of the UK. Because if that will can never be questioned or tested, then it does not exist.

By making such a fundamental change to the nature of the UK and to the understanding upon which Scotland is a part of it, the Scottish Conservatives have created a new significant change in circumstances which justifies a new independence referendum. Do we want to be a part of a state in which our democratic will can be so casually brushed aside in the interests of a party which has only minority support in Scotland? That was not what anyone voted for in 2014. That is not what anyone understood as the nature of this so-called precious union, this supposed family of nations.

This hardline new position is born of hubris and arrogance. Arrogance because the Conservatives believe that the only legal route to a referendum is via a Section 30 order, because they have a confidence, perhaps misplaced, that the courts would rule in their favour against a referendum without the order. Hubris because they seem to believe that they will always be able to rely upon votes from elsewhere in the UK to overrule the democratic will of the people of Scotland. It is profoundly undemocratic and it will be their undoing and the undoing of the United Kingdom. This time they have overreached. This will not end well for them.

I have always said that the United Kingdom will be ended, not by Scottish nationalists, but by those who claim to love the union. Ruth Davidson and David Mundell are proving me right.

---

You can help to support this blog with a Paypal donation. Please log into Paypal.com and send a payment to the email address weegingerbook@yahoo.com. Or alternatively click the donate button. If you don’t have a Paypal account, just select “donate with card” after clicking the button.

If you have trouble using the button, or you prefer not to use Paypal, you can donate or purchase a t-shirt or map by making a payment directly into my bank account, or by sending a cheque or postal order. If you’d like to donate by one of these methods, please email me at weegingerbook@yahoo.com and I will send the necessary information.

Please also use this email address if you would like the dug and me to come along to your local group for a talk.

Gaelic maps of Scotland are available for £15 each, plus £7 P&P within the UK for up to three maps. T-shirts are £12 each, and are available in small, medium, large, XL and XXL sizes. P&P is £5 for up to three t-shirts. My books, the Collected Yaps Vols 1 to 4 are available for £11 each. P&P is £4 for up to two books. Payment can be made via Paypal.

Fantasies from the Ruthiverse

Get out the red white and blue bunting. Arrange the Great British patriotically themed street parties. Bake a cake in the shape of a tank. Huzzah and hurrah! Ruth is back to save the union and to tell us that we can’t have a referendum, not now, not before 2021, and not afterwards.

Ruth is angry that Nicola Sturgeon is calling for another independence referendum. In the Ruthiverse this is because the SNP is failing on policing, education, and health. It certainly has nothing to do with a British state which is failing on everything, up to and including basic competence in government, and which has abjectly failed to fulfil the promises and commitments which it made to the people of Scotland in 2014. Oh no.

Ruth wants us all to believe that we’d be far better off entrusting her with control of Scotland’s police, education and health systems, because the Conservatives are making such a fine job of dealing with them in England. If you define “a fine job” as meaning running them into the ground and provoking a crisis on a scale unlike anything we’ve seen in Scotland. Ruth wants to import all the same failed policies into Scotland. In all this she is assisted by her chummy relationship with the Scottish media pack, a media pack which not so many years ago she herself was a part of. For the Scottish media, holding Ruth to account means taking a cheeky photo of her as she poses with a barnyard animal. Anything to disguise the fact that her party is an ethical desert notable only for its opportunism, its ruthless pursuit of its self-interest, and its hypocrisy.

In a lovely cosy soft soap interview on the BBC, billed as Ruth telling us how motherhood had changed her, it was all fluffy bunnies and bonhomie. Ruth told us that she wants everyone to come together. Because that’s what the Conservatives are most noted for, bringing everyone together, reaching out across party divides, seeking consensus, and building bridges. And in the exact same way Ant McPartlin is most noted for his contribution to road safety.

It was in very marked contrast to any interview with just about any SNP politician you care to mention. There was no interruption, no insistent repetition of questions, no holding to account, and certainly no bitter hollow laughter at the sheer and utter gall of a Conservative politician preaching about the evils of division. There was no attempt to interrogate Ruth on her change of mind. It wasn’t so long ago that she acknowledged that it was for the people of Scotland to decide when they wanted a referendum. Now she thinks it’s for the British government. It was all terribly polite, terribly douce, and a terrible failure from the BBC. We have Hello magazine for that sort of thing.

However it’s Ruth’s remarks on Brexit that really unmask the intellectual vacuuity at the heart of the Davidson project. Ruth wants everyone, leavers, remainers, Norway plussers, and no-dealers, to coalesce around a common Brexit position. She doesn’t say what that position might be of course, because it doesn’t exist. She can’t even get Scottish Conservative MPs to support her, and they were elected as representatives of the Ruth Davidson’s Ruth Davidson for Greater Ruth Davidson Party. They were, let us not forget, supposed to vote in a bloc to defend Scotland’s interests within the UK. It was Ruth herself who assured us of that.

On Brexit, what she’s really saying for Scotland is that she wants Scotland to put up and shut up and to accept whatever it is that Westminster decides. She has nothing positive to say, no policy initiatives, no concrete suggestions. It’s fine that Scotland has no input on Brexit. It’s OK that we haven’t been consulted. It’s just dandy that the British government has used Brexit as an excuse to undermine the devolution settlement and to rip up the explicit promises it made not to change the powers of Holyrood without Holyrood’s express consent. Ruth is fine with all that because Ruth doesn’t want agreement. She wants submission. Her proposal for dealing with the divisions that she claims so exercise her is to demand abject surrender. Everyone needs to compromise except Ruth and the Tories.

Ruth asserted that she doesn’t want to be Prime Minister, and won’t be throwing her hat in the ring for Conservative leadership. That’s because a remain supporting Scottish lesbian has precisely zero chance of securing the support of the English nationalist reactionary Brexcrementalists who make up the majority of Conservative party membership. Ruth may be deluded about her own capabilities, a delusion in which the Scottish media fully collaborates, but even she recognises that she’s never going to lead the UK Conservatives and will never be prime minister. Instead, she’s focussing her efforts on a goal which is every bit as much of a fantasy. But then it can’t be a fantasy because the Scottish media keeps telling us it’s a serious prospect. And to be fair, it is true that it’s not a fantasy. It’s a bad joke that wouldn’t even grace a Christmas cracker. Ruth wants to be the next First Minister of Scotland.

Realistically, my dug has a better chance of becoming the next First Minister than Ruth does. She leads a party which has already reached its ceiling of support and which is set to lose votes hand over fist because of its mishandling of Brexit and its appalling management of public services in England. We get the English news on the telly in Scotland Ruth, your party made sure of that. We can all see what a poor job your colleagues are doing.

We see the ill effects of Conservative rule in Scotland too, the foodbanks, the increasing poverty, the growing gap between rich and poor. We see the demonisation of the poor and the normalisation of deprivation. We see how the UK has become an international laughing stock, insecure, unstable, and marching blindly into an unknown future where the vultures of the Brexit extremists threaten to sell off what’s left of our public assets and privatise what’s left of our public services. That’s the future you promise us Ruth, and we’re not convinced by your cheery grins and your homely anecdotes about how motherhood has changed you.

Even if, by some miracle, the Conservatives do manage to become the largest party in the 2021 elections, who is going to go into coalition with them? There are not enough Lib Dems, and not even Labour is that stupid. But back in the real world, the Conservatives in Scotland are facing huge losses in the elections to come, and no amount of fantasies from the Scottish media ruthiverse are going to save them.

Ruth is yesterday’s news. Very soon even the Scottish media will have to add her to the long list of saviours of the union who couldn’t even save themselves.

---

You can help to support this blog with a Paypal donation. Please log into Paypal.com and send a payment to the email address weegingerbook@yahoo.com. Or alternatively click the donate button. If you don’t have a Paypal account, just select “donate with card” after clicking the button.

If you have trouble using the button, or you prefer not to use Paypal, you can donate or purchase a t-shirt or map by making a payment directly into my bank account, or by sending a cheque or postal order. If you’d like to donate by one of these methods, please email me at weegingerbook@yahoo.com and I will send the necessary information.

Please also use this email address if you would like the dug and me to come along to your local group for a talk.

Gaelic maps of Scotland are available for £15 each, plus £7 P&P within the UK for up to three maps. T-shirts are £12 each, and are available in small, medium, large, XL and XXL sizes. P&P is £5 for up to three t-shirts. My books, the Collected Yaps Vols 1 to 4 are available for £11 each. P&P is £4 for up to two books. Payment can be made via Paypal.

The way out

There’s been some commentary in the weekend papers to the effect that Scotland isn’t going to get a referendum before 2021, and possibly not after that, because the British government is going to remain implacably opposed to a Section 30 order. They suggest that what Nicola Sturgeon has done with her announcement this week is an attempt to let down the party faithful, because the only way in which she will go for a referendum is with a Section 30 order. Since there is no current sign that the UK government is going to allow one, then we’re never going to have a referendum, or at least we’re not going to have one any time soon.

David Mundell in an interview this weekend doubled down on the refusal from Theresa May, and suggested that no Conservative government would ever grant a Section 30 order under any circumstances at all. Clearly, David is talking way above his pay grade here. Although to be honest David would be talking way above his pay grade if he suggested chocolate hobnobs instead of bourbon creams as the biscuits to go with the tea and coffee at cabinet meetings. Such a profoundly undemocratic stance might play well with the Tory party faithful in Scotland, and the green ink SiU ranters who infest the comments sections of Scottish newspapers, but in the real world it’s an admission that Scotland isn’t in any sort of union at all and is merely a possession of the British state. It would not survive an election in which Scotland returned a strong majority of pro-independence representatives with a direct mandate to negotiate independence.

In his article for the Herald this Sunday, Ian McWhirter dismissed any possiblity that there might be any attempt at UDI, a referendum without a Section 30 order, or a de-facto referendum by turning Scottish elections into a plebiscite on independence in the event of a persistent refusal from Westminster to engage with a Section 30 order. However that would seem to concede that Scotland cannot have a say on independence unless Westminster is disposed to allow it, and if Westminster is never disposed to allow it then Scotland is effectively trapped within a dysfunctional UK forever, no matter what it wants. Ian doesn’t offer any way out of that trap. Certainly diehard opponents of independence want us just to have to put up with it indefinitely. However that is not a situation that Nicola Sturgeon, or any SNP leader, is going to tolerate.

Certainly a Section 30 order is, as Nicola Sturgeon herself called it, the gold standard. It means a referendum that is recognised by Westminster, in which the anti-independence parties participate fully, and whose result would be accepted by both parties. That means a result in favour of independence would be recognised by the UK, and equally importantly would be recognised by the international community. However there is also the reality that the more that support for independence increases in the opinion polls, the less likely it is a British PM is going to be disposed to grant a Section 30 order. No Prime Minister wants to go down in history as the British Prime Minister who broke up the UK.

Suppose there’s never going to be a Section 30 order, how do we get out of the trap that opponents of independence tell us that we are in? Ian is correct that there will be no UDI. There are those on social media who insist that the Scottish Government has the right to rip up the Treaty of Union and walk away, making a declaration of independence without any further ado. That’s not going to happen. The reason it’s not going to happen is because there is currently no clear democratic mandate for it to happen. The current Scottish Government was not elected on a mandate to unilaterally declare independence, it was elected on a mandate to hold a referendum should there be a material change in Scotland’s circumstances within the UK. We’ve not had that vote yet. No third country would recognise Scottish independence under those circumstances, and in independence, it’s international recognition that really counts. But worse than that, UDI without a clear democratic mandate would risk the British government taking action to impose its rule on Scotland by force. That is in no one’s interests.

We need a clear and unequivocal democratic mandate which says that a majority of the people of Scotland want independence. There can be no declaration of independence or recognition of Scottish independence until that happens. So ignore the UDI-ists on social media. They are angry and frustrated, with good reason, but they’re not proposing a realistic path to independence.

The next possibility is a referendum without a Section 30 order. Those who say that such a referendum would be illegal are making a political claim, not a legal statement of fact. No one has ever tested the legality of such a referendum in the courts so no one knows whether it’s illegal or not. However the fact that the Scottish government doesn’t seem to have any plans to introduce a court case to test the legality suggests that they have no plans to go down that route. The reason is not so much to do with legality, and more to do with the practical reality that a referendum without a Section 30 order would most likely be boycotted by the anti-independence parties. If opponents of independence don’t participate, it becomes very difficult to ensure that the referendum produces a meaningful result.

If Scotland was a country which had a media which was as evenly balanced on the subject of independence as the population at large, then a referendum without a Section 30 order might be a worthwhile route. We might then have a chance of getting a result that would clearly show that independence would have won even if opponents had participated. We’d have a good chance of a very high turnout. However in order to put the result beyond any doubt, we’d need a result which would show that a majority of the entire electorate wanted independence, and not just a majority of those who turned out to vote as in a normal ballot. With anti-independence parties boycotting the vote, they’re going to claim that everyone who didn’t vote voted no. No normal ballot ever gets 100% turnout, so we’d be up against an artificially high threshold.

Even so, this strategy might still be worthwhile if we had a representative media, but that’s not the Scotland that we live in. We live in a Scotland which doesn’t have a flourishing domestic broadcast media. Worse than that we live in a country where every single print newspaper bar one is opposed to independence. Should there be a referendum without a Section 30 order, even one which had been proven to be legal by the courts, it would be boycotted by the anti-independence parties. All that we’ll hear in the press and on the BBC will be the constant insistence that there’s no point in voting even if you do support independence, because the referendum result won’t be recognised. The vote will be dimissed even before it’s happened.

That leaves turning the next Holyrood elections into a de-facto plebiscite on independence. That shouldn’t be left to the SNP alone. It should only take place with a pan-independence alliance, formal or informal, ensuring that all parts of the independence movement are recognised. Not just the SNP, but also the Greens, and the minor parties as well as the non-party grassroots movement. That would require cooperation and collaboration to ensure that the pro-independence vote is not divided, and a mutual agreement that pro-independence parties and organisations were standing on the sole mandate of ensuring that Scotland has a right to determine its own future, even without the consent of Westminster.

Ian McWhirter ruled this out, as he seemed to believe that it would turn into UDI. However that’s not actually necessarily the case. The real value in turning the next Holyrood elections into a de-facto plebiscite on independence is to create political pressure on the British government that it cannot ignore. A pro-independence result in such a ballot would provide a clear and unequivocal mandate which would allow the Scottish government to ask third countries to recognise Scottish independence and to put pressure on the British government to negotiate. It internationalises the dispute, precisely at a time when the UK will – if Brexit occurs – be seeking to make trade deals and to agree a future relationship between itself and the EU. There will then be immense international pressure on the British government to resolve the situation. This is, after all, not Spain. Successive British governments have explicitly recognised that the people of Scotland have the right to decide for themselves what the political future of Scotland should be.

More importantly, a win for pro-independence parties under such circumstances produces a domestic democratic result which has political effect, it cannot be ignored like an opinion poll can be ignored. It would force the British government to the negotiating table, and would force them to consent to a Section 30 order – because the alternative would be a Scotland which already possesses a democratic mandate for independence. Scotland would then go into an independence referendum having already voted for independence and facing British nationalist opponents who are trying to defend a UK which had to be forced, kicking and screaming, to recognise the democratic will of the people of Scotland. We’d be in an incredibly strong position. We be campaigning against a union that had killed itself and had revealed its true colours as a unitary state which regards Scotland as a province.

What it is important to remember is that we’re not there yet with any of the scenarios detailed above. We have not got to the end of the Section 30 road. This current Prime Minister who is notable only for her instransigence is being predictably intransigent, but Theresa May won’t be around much longer. Given the disposition of the Conservative party membership, she will be replaced by someone who is even more hardline on Brexit than she is. That will only boost support for independence in Scotland.

There will almost certainly be European elections, there may well be a snap General Election and the independence parties are poised to do well. If there is a General Election, the SNP will certainly increase its representation. It could even well end up holding the balance of power.

In those votes it’s hugely important that supporters of independence turn out en masse to support independence parties. It’s only by increasing the number of political bums on parliamentary seats that we can demonstrate that there is an appetite in Scotland for independence and a demand for a referendum. In the short term, the priority is to put pressure on the British state for a referendum. We can do that by continuing to campaign, to persuade, to convert people to the cause of independence, and also by ensuring that pro-independence parties have increased representation in all of the ballots that take place between now and 2021. We can do that by continuing to point out that a British state which refuses to allow Scotland to decide on its own future is a British state which doesn’t recognise Scotland as a partner in a union, but which regards it as a possession.

The crucial point however, is that one way or another, Scotland will have a vote on its future, and we do not require the permission of the British government to do so. There is no trap, only a failure of imagination. There is a way out. The campaign has already begun.

---

You can help to support this blog with a Paypal donation. Please log into Paypal.com and send a payment to the email address weegingerbook@yahoo.com. Or alternatively click the donate button. If you don’t have a Paypal account, just select “donate with card” after clicking the button.

If you have trouble using the button, or you prefer not to use Paypal, you can donate or purchase a t-shirt or map by making a payment directly into my bank account, or by sending a cheque or postal order. If you’d like to donate by one of these methods, please email me at weegingerbook@yahoo.com and I will send the necessary information.

Please also use this email address if you would like the dug and me to come along to your local group for a talk.

Gaelic maps of Scotland are available for £15 each, plus £7 P&P within the UK for up to three maps. T-shirts are £12 each, and are available in small, medium, large, XL and XXL sizes. P&P is £5 for up to three t-shirts. My books, the Collected Yaps Vols 1 to 4 are available for £11 each. P&P is £4 for up to two books. Payment can be made via Paypal.

They ain’t seen nothing yet

On the weekend of the SNP party conference, The Times newspaper published a poll commissioned from YouGov which shows that even before an official campaign for independence has begun, while we’ve been subjected to a constant barrage of SNPbaddery in the overwhelmingly anti independence media, support for independence continues to rise. When you remove the 10% who don’t know, 49% of the Scottish electorate want independence, 51% are opposed. There’s a 3% margin of error in opinion polls and this result is within that margin, so support for independence is now statistically tied with opposition.

I don’t know if the poll questioned 16 and 17 year olds, who aren’t able to vote in UK elections or European elections but who will be able to vote in a Scottish referendum. If it didn’t then the true support for independence could be even higher.

The poll also confirmed what Scotland in Union’s shooting itself in the foot poll earlier this week showed, that the SNP are set to dominate Scottish elections and will make substantial advances on their current position. It is possible, albeit unlikely, that the SNP could hoover up four of Scotland’s six seats in the European Parliament. The new poll also shows that pro-independence parties are set to increase their showing in the next Scottish Parliamentary elections, and we will end up with an even larger pro-independence majority in Holyrood. Other polls have shown that if there is a snap UK General Election, the SNP is likely to make huge gains at the expense of Labour and the Conservatives. They could pick up as many as 16 seats in Westminster. So much for peak SNP, so much for people being fed up with talk of independence.

Some might say that even though British politics are in a state of near collapse, that we have a British government notable only for its venal ineptidude which is consuming itself with its short term party interests while the future of the UK more uncertain that it has ever been in the post WW2 era, that it’s shocking that support for independence isn’t even higher.

At this juncture I’d comment on the SNP party conference which is taking place in Edinburgh this weekend, but the broadcast media has decided that the conference of the largest political party by far in Scotland isn’t worthy of live coverage. It isn’t being shown live anywhere on that broadcast media that’s so keen to give us wall to wall coverage of the Tory or Labour conferences, constant Brexit vox-pops from leave voting areas, and Nigel bloody Farage. Yet again, the new BBC Scotland channel was put to the political test, and yet again it has failed. On Saturday afternoon it was showing the snooker instead, a snooker contest which is also being broadcast on BBC2. If the BBC thinks snooker is more important than the political future of Scotland, the only thing that’s being snookered is the BBC’s reputation.

One of the biggest reasons why support for independence isn’t higher is because the media in this country sees its role as speaking truth unto power. It’s just that the truth they want to speak is what the British establishment says it is, and the power that they want to speak it unto is the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. They don’t want to ask the British government why it thinks it has the right to deny Scotland a say on its own future even though the Scottish government has a mandate for a referendum. They don’t ask the British government why it can point to its own interpretation of opinion polling to claim that there shouldn’t be a Scottish independence referendum while at the same time ignoring all the opinion polling that shows that most people in the UK want a referendum on the EU. Nowhere will Scotland’s overwhelmingly anti-independence media hold the British government to account for its double standards.

If you want an explanation as to why support for independence isn’t higher, there you have it right there. Even though half the population of Scotland support independence, we still struggle to get our message across via a media that’s hell bent on silencing us when it’s not trying to defame us as anti-English racists or searching desperately for another SNPbad story.

It’s a media which is determined to depict independence as a purely party political issue, and believes that if it can scream about some perceived shortcoming in an issue which is within the remit of a devolved administration headed by the SNP, then that throws the entire question of independence into doubt. It ignores what ought to be an obvious and self-evident truth, that an independent Scotland will be a democracy, and other political parties will be available. It ignores the fact that even though the SNP is by far the biggest and most influential political party pressing for independence, the grassroots movement comprises people of all parties and of none.

It is then a testament to both the strength of pro-independence arguments and the organisation and commitment of the Scottish independence grassroots movement that we are succeeding in cutting through the constant media barrage. We’re not only maintaining our position, we are making inroads, and we are doing so despite the fact that there is no date for another independence referendum, despite the fact that the media is ranged against us, despite the fact that most people don’t want to engage with political issues until they have a pressing reason to.

Once there is a certain date for a referendum, many more people who are supportive of yes will start to campaign. Many more people who are unsure about the issues will start to investigate them. Those groups which already exist will see a boost in their active membership and will engage in much more activity. Back during the last referendum campaign, the independence movement had to construct itself from the ground up, this time we have a head start. This time we have thousands of activists who are experienced and knowledgeable.

No wonder the British government and the Conservatives are so desperate to prevent a referendum happening. No wonder BBC management is so concerned to ensure that its viewers in Scotland won’t see anything. It’s because opponents of independence have nothing to compare to the grassroots independence movement, and they ain’t seen nothing yet.

---

You can help to support this blog with a Paypal donation. Please log into Paypal.com and send a payment to the email address weegingerbook@yahoo.com. Or alternatively click the donate button. If you don’t have a Paypal account, just select “donate with card” after clicking the button.

If you have trouble using the button, or you prefer not to use Paypal, you can donate or purchase a t-shirt or map by making a payment directly into my bank account, or by sending a cheque or postal order. If you’d like to donate by one of these methods, please email me at weegingerbook@yahoo.com and I will send the necessary information.

Please also use this email address if you would like the dug and me to come along to your local group for a talk.

Gaelic maps of Scotland are available for £15 each, plus £7 P&P within the UK for up to three maps. T-shirts are £12 each, and are available in small, medium, large, XL and XXL sizes. P&P is £5 for up to three t-shirts. My books, the Collected Yaps Vols 1 to 4 are available for £11 each. P&P is £4 for up to two books. Payment can be made via Paypal.

Wee Ginger Dugcast – 26 April 2019

In this week’s edition of the dugcast (because we’re fed up with ducks now), The National’s editor Callum Baird and I talk about Nicola’s big announcement, the failure of BBC Scotland when it faced its first big Scottish political moment, the launch of the SIC’s new Voices for Scotland initiative, and The National’s subscription drive, its commitment to the indy movement, and how you can get a stuffed toy Wee Ginger Dug of your own.

 

---

You can help to support this blog with a Paypal donation. Please log into Paypal.com and send a payment to the email address weegingerbook@yahoo.com. Or alternatively click the donate button. If you don’t have a Paypal account, just select “donate with card” after clicking the button.

If you have trouble using the button, or you prefer not to use Paypal, you can donate or purchase a t-shirt or map by making a payment directly into my bank account, or by sending a cheque or postal order. If you’d like to donate by one of these methods, please email me at weegingerbook@yahoo.com and I will send the necessary information.

Please also use this email address if you would like the dug and me to come along to your local group for a talk.

Gaelic maps of Scotland are available for £15 each, plus £7 P&P within the UK for up to three maps. T-shirts are £12 each, and are available in small, medium, large, XL and XXL sizes. P&P is £5 for up to three t-shirts. My books, the Collected Yaps Vols 1 to 4 are available for £11 each. P&P is £4 for up to two books. Payment can be made via Paypal.

Things which are predictable

Well no one saw that coming, he said in a voice dripping with sarcasm. David Lidington,Theresa May’s bag-man, came to Scotland today because the UK government felt that a spot of patronising was in order following Nicola Sturgeon’s announcement yesterday. David wanted to let us know that the British government is not going to grant a request for a Section 30 order, adding for good measure that the 2014 referendum had settled the matter for a generation. So that’s you telt, Scotland. Tories that Scotland didn’t vote for know better what Scotland wants than you do.

I’ve said this before, but it’s an important point which the British media in Scotland and in the rest of the UK is hellbent on ignoring, a Scotland which has to ask permission in order to ask itself a question about its future within the UK is not a part of any kind of union. If it is true that Scotland cannot ask itself what sort of nation it wants to be without the permission of a Conservative Prime Minister that Scotland didn’t vote for, and that Prime Minister refuses despite the fact that the Scottish Parliament has a mandate to put the question to the people, then there is no union, because there is no consent.

The fact is that the people of Scotland voted for a Scottish government which promised a referendum on Scotland’s place within the UK should there be a material chance in circumstances. That decision was ratified by the Scottish Parliament which voted for a referendum. The SNP then won the General Election in Scotland in 2017 by any definition of the term. The fact that Ruth Davidson’s Ruth Davidson’s Party Vote Ruth Davidson increased its seats is irrelevant. It still lost. So there have been not one but three democratic ratifications of the will of the people of Scotland to have a say about their future.

The change in circumstances has occurred. Scotland is being taken out of the EU against its will, and moreover that’s happening without Scotland being given any input into the kind of Brexit that the British government plans to deliver. Even worse, the British government has used Brexit as an excuse to unilaterally undermine the devolution settlement. This is not the UK that Scotland voted to remain a part of in 2014. Now that British government is insisting that it will refuse to allow the people of Scotland to have a democratic say about this markedly different set of circumstances in which Scotland finds itself.

You cannot on the one hand assert that Scotland is a partner in a union, a member of a family of nations, while on the other hand insisting that the largest part of that supposed union has, solely by virtue of its size, an effective veto on whether the other parts can ask themselves about their role in that supposed union. Because that’s precisely where we are now. You don’t get to preach the virtues of union while you act like Scotland is a possession that you alone have proprietary rights over. If the British government is insistent that it will not consent to Scotland having a say on Scotland’s future, then the British government is conceding that the UK is not a union at all. It’s a prison. It’s a hostage situation.

We’re also hearing the constant mantra that a referendum without a Section 30 order would be a wildcat referendum, or illegal, or somehow illegitimate. That is not true. The only truth is that no one knows whether an independence referendum without a Section 30 order would be legal or not, because the matter has never been tested in the courts. Anyone who insists that it would be illegal is voicing a political opinion, not making a legal statement of fact. But if that is the opinion that someone is voicing, then they need to be asked just what sort of “union” they believe Scotland to be a part of, because it’s clearly not anything that permits Scotland to ask questions of itself without the permission of a Prime Minister Scotland didn’t necessarily vote for.

In any event, there is absolutely no legal prohibition on pro-independence parties turning any future Scottish election into a de-facto referendum on independence. One way or another, Scotland will have a say on its own future, and it does not require the permission of Theresa May or a Tory – or Labour – government to do so.

Right now we have a British government whose sole strategy is the fervent hope that it can persuade enough MPs to change their minds in order to get Theresa May’s Brexit deal through Parliament. It’s a hope that was already forlorn months ago, and everyone who is not Theresa May recognises that it’s now hopelessly forgone, forfeited, forfallen down a stank and never to be retrieved. The only people who are allowed to change their minds in the UK are MPs, and not even when there’s any meaningful change in circumstances. Hypocrisy, thy name is Tory.

Of course the real reason that the Conservatives don’t want another Scottish referendum is because they are terrified. They know that there is no guaranteed majority in Scotland for remaining a part of the UK. They know that with every passing year, the demographics turn even worse for them. Let’s get real here, if the Conservatives were convinced that a Scottish independence referendum would result in a substantial majority against independence, they’d be the first to be demanding one happened as soon as possible. Then Ruth could pose on a tank as the saviour of Britain. The real reason they don’t want a referendum to happen is beause they’re afraid of the result. Which makes them both hypocrites and cowards.

Back in the real world, it makes absolutely no difference what Theresa May says. Her premiership hangs by the most slender of threads. She is not going to be the Prime Minister very much longer. She has zero authority and even less credibility, even amongst her own party members. So really, who cares if a prime minister who is notable solely for her intransigence has decided to be intransigent. She won’t be around for much longer, and likely neither will this Conservative government – nor will Theresa May’s so-called precious union. It has been destroyed by British nationalists themselves. The end of the UK is as predictable as Theresa May’s refusal to cooperate with a Section 30 order.

---

You can help to support this blog with a Paypal donation. Please log into Paypal.com and send a payment to the email address weegingerbook@yahoo.com. Or alternatively click the donate button. If you don’t have a Paypal account, just select “donate with card” after clicking the button.

If you have trouble using the button, or you prefer not to use Paypal, you can donate or purchase a t-shirt or map by making a payment directly into my bank account, or by sending a cheque or postal order. If you’d like to donate by one of these methods, please email me at weegingerbook@yahoo.com and I will send the necessary information.

Please also use this email address if you would like the dug and me to come along to your local group for a talk.

Gaelic maps of Scotland are available for £15 each, plus £7 P&P within the UK for up to three maps. T-shirts are £12 each, and are available in small, medium, large, XL and XXL sizes. P&P is £5 for up to three t-shirts. My books, the Collected Yaps Vols 1 to 4 are available for £11 each. P&P is £4 for up to two books. Payment can be made via Paypal.

Support The National’s 10,000 steps campaign – and get your own Wee Ginger Dug!

TODAY WE HAVE 5813 SUBSCRIBERS

The National launches ‘10,000 Steps’ Independence Campaign

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has declared that indyref2 should take place before 2021 – and Scotland’s only pro-independence newspaper is going into campaign mode. We need to make sure we’re in as strong a position as possible to influence the national debate – and here’s how you can help.

We want to achieve 10,000 subscribers as quickly as possible – and for every 1000 that we sign up we will pledge to invest in the paper and boost the campaign for independence.

Right now, we have 5813 subscribers in print and digital – and it’s growing fast. Here’s what we’ll commit to launching when we hit our ambitious targets.

6000 SUBSCRIBERS

We will produce a new series of monthly supplements targeted at No voters

Building on the success of our landmark publication of the full McCrone Report earlier this year, we will work with experts to produce a fact-based supplement every month about the case independence which Yes groups and individual readers can use to convince No voters.

Support us with a subscription.

7000 SUBSCRIBERS

We will hire a full-time video journalist to produce viral videos for the Yes movement

Explainers about politics? Easy to digest short videos about why independence is good for Scotland? We’ll be able to hire a full-time video journalist to create content which will be available for all Yes groups and social media users to share.

Support us with a subscription.

8000 SUBSCRIBERS

We will launch a Unionist fact-checking and rebuttal service

We’ll examine dodgy claims by politicians (and the media) and get to the truth to make sure that undecided voters can’t be deceived in any way by “Project Fear II” (you know it’s coming…)

Support us with a subscription.

9000 SUBSCRIBERS

We will hire a digital journalist to work with Yes groups on local stories

We all know that the best way to convert voters to independence is to focus on issues which matter the most to them. As a national newspaper, we’re often focused on the big issues – but we’d love to employ a journalist who can work with Yes groups to create articles with a local focus. This could be “10 reasons to vote for independence if you live in Aberdeenshire” (for example).

Support us with a subscription.

10,000 SUBSCRIBERS

We will deliver a free glossy magazine outlining the benefits of independence to every town in Scotland

To celebrate reaching this milestone, we commit to producing a one-off glossy magazine about the positive case for independence, printing 100,000 copies and delivering them to every town in Scotland. This will be an invaluable resource as we gear up for the big vote.

Everything we produce for this campaign will be available online after it appears in the paper for Yes Groups to print off and distribute.

Support us with a subscription.

PLUS: We’ll also send you a Wee Ginger Dug!

Support us today with a subscription – find out which offers we are running (and how to claim your FREE Wee Ginger Dug cuddly toy!) today by clicking HERE.

We have work to do

As Nicola Sturgeon prepared to make her statement on independence to the Scottish Parliament, a spokesscoffer for Downing Street put out a statement saying that the Prime Minister has “bigger things to deal with” than the future of Scotland. Well, if we’re that unimportant she won’t mind if we leave then, will she. I don’t know about you, but Scotland’s future is my top priority as it should be for everyone who lives in Scotland, and the fact that it’s so casually dismissed by a British Prime Minister is all by itself a pressing reason for independence.

The statement, so long awaited, so keenly anticipated, so important to the constitutional future of Scotland, so crucial for the shape of Scottish politics for the next couple of years, was ignored by the BBC Parliament channel and wasn’t broadcast live on BBC Scotland. BBC Scotland only broke into the coverage of the snooker it was sharing with BBC2 after the speech was over. This was the first big political test for the new Scottish BBC channel, and it failed. The statement wasn’t broadcast live on BBC Scotland, BBC1, BBC2, BBC Parliament, or BBC News. Clearly, the BBC agrees with Theresa May that there are bigger things to deal with. Bigger things like cheesy quiz shows, the snooker, and property porn. This constant marginalisation of Scotland is precisely why the need for independence has never been more important. The only place to see the speech live was online on the Scottish Parliament’s website.

The First Minister started her statement by noting that the existing devolution settlement is inadequate. This has never been more evident. Devolution is not able to protect Scotland from the malignities of Conservative austerity. It cannot protect Scotland from the injustices of Conservative immigration policies. Most importantly of all it can’t defend us from Brexit or even allow Scotland to have any say at all in determining the shape that Brexit takes. The existing devolution settlement can be brushed aside by Westminster when it suits the British government of the day, and that’s exactly what Theresa May has done. This British government has unilaterally changed the foundations of the devolution settlement, and has done so not merely without consulting the Scottish Parliament but against its directly expressed will.

Nicola Sturgeon correctly pointed out Brexit has exposed a deep democratic deficit at the very heart of how Scotland is governed. She pointed out that devolution in its current form is inadequate and the status quo is broken. That status quo has been broken by the British government and the British state. The chaos and confusion of Brexit was not inevitable. It’s been brought about by what she described as the “toxic combination of dishonesty and incompetence” which is now what passes for policy and strategy at the highest levels of British government.

Even now, as the UK has been given a brief respite from the deadline of ejection from the EU with no deal, Conservative politicians are far more interested in jockeying for position within their own party and seizing the leadership from Theresa May. Short term party interests rule. The wider interests of the UK as a whole are a secondary consideration. The interests of Scotland don’t even register.

Back in 2014, opponents of independence promised us a glorious future of stronger, better devolution within a safe and secure UK that was firmly a part of the EU. That’s now been destroyed, by British nationalists themselves. Nicola pointed out that not only is the future of the UK more uncertain and less secure than it has been since WW2, but devolution is also at serious risk of going backwards. In Brexit Britain as Conservative governments scramble to do trade deals they will seek further centralisation and the hollowing out of the powers of the devolved parliaments.

She then went on to say that the Scottish Government will introduce primary legislation within the year to allow a second independence referendum, and pointed out that a section 30 order was not needed for that legislation. There’s no point asking for a Section 30 order from a Prime Minister who might not be in office at the end of the month, leading a government that might fall at any moment.

However the First Minister acknowledged that the agreement of the UK government would be needed in order to remove any doubt about the legality of the referendum. Once the Bill is passed it would only require the transfer of power at a later date via a Section 30 Order to proceed to a vote on independence. She wasn’t so clear in her statement on how to get that agreement. Nicola believes that pressure from Scotland will ensure that the British government realises that it has no option but to allow Scotland to have its say. That British government won’t be one headed by Theresa May, so Theresa May’s refusal to engage with Scotland is as irrelevant as she is.

The crucial point is the determination that Scotland must have a referendum on its future within the lifetime of this Scottish Parliament. It is Scotland’s only escape route from the chaos and insanity of Brexit. And if it doesn’t then independence becomes the only question facing Scotland in the next Scottish Parliamentary elections. Those will then be elections fought against opponents who have proven themselves to be British centralists and not supporters of any sort of UK union at all, they will have proven themselves to be opponents of Scotland having a say in its own future. That’s not a good look if you’re trying to persuade Scotland that it will be a respected partner in a family of nations. If there is no agreement on a Section 30 order, the next Scottish elections become an effective plebiscite on independence. An effective plebiscite in a nation that has been told that it’s merely a region of a diminished and chaotic Britain.

An important announcement was the setting up of a Citizens Assembly so that there can be wide consultation and discussion about the kind of country that we want to be. With Westminster’s chaos and crisis this is exactly what we need, a reborn and reinvigorated Scottish Constitutional Convention searching for collaboration, consensus, and . Scotland is seeking a calm and measured assessment of its future, and seeks to present detailed and well thought out plans on how to get there. This is exactly the opposite of Brexit, an ill-defined and nebulous proposition which has been hijacked by the populist right for its own ends.

Nicola concluded, “What I hope we might all agree on after these past three years is that serious change is needed. To those who believe independence is not the right change, I say bring forward your own proposals.” And to be fair, Murdo Fraser has indeed brought forward his own proposals. He wants a Tory version of the federalism fairy. Unfortunately no one listens to Murdo, not least his own party.

The acting leader of the Tories, Jackson Carlot, predictably replied that a referendum would be divisive. If that’s all he’s got to say then he’s as well saying nothing at all. Scotland is not disposed to take lectures in divisiveness from the party that has given us Brexit. Brexit is divisive. Ending freedom of movement is divisive. Another EU referendum is divisive. Another UK general election is divisive. European elections are divisive.

So we’re on the way. The conditions for a ensuring that there is successful vote on Scottish independence have never been more favourable. We have something to work towards. But we have a great deal to do. There is pressure to build. Coalitions to form. Consensus to seek. Alliances to make. Persuasion to produce. Campaigning to plan. A future to create. We have work to do. We’re going to be busy.

At this crucial time in Scotland’s history, it’s more important than ever that we support Scotland’s only pro-independence newspaper.  And now, if you subscribe to the paper, you can get your very own stuffed toy Wee Ginger Dug.  It’s worth the subscription for that alone!  Find out more here – https://www.thenational.scot/subscribe/

---

You can help to support this blog with a Paypal donation. Please log into Paypal.com and send a payment to the email address weegingerbook@yahoo.com. Or alternatively click the donate button. If you don’t have a Paypal account, just select “donate with card” after clicking the button.

If you have trouble using the button, or you prefer not to use Paypal, you can donate or purchase a t-shirt or map by making a payment directly into my bank account, or by sending a cheque or postal order. If you’d like to donate by one of these methods, please email me at weegingerbook@yahoo.com and I will send the necessary information.

Please also use this email address if you would like the dug and me to come along to your local group for a talk.

Gaelic maps of Scotland are available for £15 each, plus £7 P&P within the UK for up to three maps. T-shirts are £12 each, and are available in small, medium, large, XL and XXL sizes. P&P is £5 for up to three t-shirts. My books, the Collected Yaps Vols 1 to 4 are available for £11 each. P&P is £4 for up to two books. Payment can be made via Paypal.

Listening respectfully to trans people and feminists

I’ve tried to keep out of the debate on transgender self-identification. It doesn’t seem to matter what you say on the subject, you’re guaranteed to piss someone off. So it is with considerable trepidation that I publish this piece.

Much of the heat in the current debate centres around a dispute between some trans activists and some feminists about whether transwomen should be allowed in women only spaces. This has become an issue because the Scottish Government is proposing to make changes to the law to allow what is called self-identification.

At the moment, if a person wishes to change gender legally, they have to satisfy a medical panel that they have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, have undergone gender reassignment procedures, and are successfully living as their chosen gender. Self-identification would replace that with a statutory legal declaration of gender. This is because not all trans people want to surgically alter their sex organs (sometimes because they wish to retain the option of having children), and because some trans people don’t feel that they belong to either traditional gender. More importantly it’s because they believe that the right to define one’s own identity is a fundamental human right.

Self-identification has already been introduced in Ireland, Portugal, Malta, Belgium, Norway, and Denmark and several other countries, where it has not provoked any great problems, however there are many people who have grave concerns about introducing it in Scotland. It is very much a live issue, and it dominates social media where the debate is especially bad tempered, and that’s in a medium which was never noted for being good tempered in the first place.

There is a much wider argument here, but essentially the aspect of it which is generating so much bad feeling is an argument about what it means to be a woman. I might be gay, but I’m a cisgender man who has always been quite content with his gender identity.  As a cisgender man, as a cisgender gay man, it’s not my place to leap in with solutions to that particular question. My life experience offers me no special insight. It’s not my rights which are affected.  It’s not my place to dictate answers. That would be the height of cisgender male privilege. My proper place is to listen with respect and to learn from those who are directly affected by this debate, and that’s what I’ve tried to do and will continue to do.

What I do know is that as a gay man, I fought during the early part of my life for the right to define myself, and not to be defined by the stereotypes and prejudices of others. So I have immense empathy for the struggles of transgender people who likewise are fighting for the right to be able to define themselves. It seems to me that the right to define one’s own social identity is a basic human right and it should not be conditional on having to prove one’s case to a panel of doctors who may or may not be sympathetic. It would be hypocritical of me to assert my own right to define my own identity, but to deny that same right to others.

However I also see women, many of whom are lesbian, who have struggled and fought for women-only spaces, spaces in which women can be safe from the prejudice and violence inflicted upon women by men. Their perception is that those safe spaces are threatened by individuals with male bodies who only need to declare that they are women in order to be admitted into places where men have no business being.

So I am torn and upset to see two groups of people I always regarded as my allies fighting one another in what has become a bitter and bad-tempered dispute.

There is a distinction to be made between gender and sex. Sex is biology. There are certain intersex conditions, such as chromosomal disorders, or individuals born with ambiguous genitalia, but these cases do not contradict the basic truth that a mammal’s biological sex is determined by its chromosomes and that mammalian chromosomal inheritance determines important aspects of body shape and form as well as genitalia and reproductive role. Humans are mammals, and like other mammals our biology relies upon two reproductive sexes, female and male.

In most mammals, if you inherit two X chromosomes you are of one sex, the one we traditionally call female. If you have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome, you have a different biological sex, the one we traditionally call male. Pathologies aside, biological sex is a binary. It is quantum, in the sense that it exists in one state or another. Strictly from a biological point of view, a developmentally and physiologically normal mammal cannot be a little bit female and a little bit male. You have to be one or the other.

(Interestingly, other kinds of animal do it differently. Some insects only have an X chromosome, and are female if they inherit two X chromosomes and male if they inherit only one. Birds, some fish, and some other insects and some reptiles, have a W and a Z chromosome. Birds with two Z chromosomes are male, birds with a W and a Z are female. In this respect they are the opposite of mammals, in that it’s individuals who have two of the same sex chromosomes who are male, whereas in mammals having two identical sex chromosomes makes you female.

Crocodiles, turtles, and some other kinds of fish don’t have sex determining chromosomes at all. The sex of crocodiles is determined by the temperature of the eggs in the nest. Warmer or cooler temperatures make more of the eggs produce female hatchlings. Intermediate temperatures produce males.

For some fish, like clownfish, changing sex is the norm. A school of clownfish consists of a group of males and a dominant female. When the female dies, the most dominant male changes biological sex and becomes female. This would have made Finding Nemo a completely different movie. In some other fish species, like wrasses, the sex change is from female to male.)

Gender is different from biological sex. Gender is the cultural superstructure which humans impose upon biological sex. Gender is the set of social expectations and social identities which human cultures require persons belonging to a particular biological sex to adhere to. Animals have biological sex, but they don’t have gender and cultural expectations of gender norms. Animals act according to their instincts.

Humans also act according to instinct, probably more often than we as a species would be comfortable acknowledging. However what is characteristic of humanity is that we refract our instincts through cultural expectations and we are self-aware. We can, and do, divert, subvert, alter, and suppress our instincts according to cultural expectations. To do so is quintessentially human. It’s what distinguishes us from other animals. Our self awareness means that we are conscious of our biological sex and the cultural and societal expectations which are imposed upon it in a way that animals are not.

Unlike biological sex, as a cultural construct gender is not necessarily binary. There are cultures which recognise more than two genders. Some Native American cultures recognise two spirit people, who are traditionally neither solely male nor solely female, but are believed to embody both genders. Gender can, and does, exist along a spectrum. If we accept that gender is a spectrum, that means it becomes a legitimate question to ask at which point on the gender spectrum does a person become welcome in a women-only space. I don’t pretend to know the answer to that question.

Some feminists argue that misogyny and the oppression of women is based upon women’s biology. Men oppress women not solely because of gender roles and culture, but because of the basic facts of biology.  You could say that, in Marxist terms, men are seeking to control the means of (re)production. A woman always knows that her child is her own. A man has to take someone else’s word for it. The male insecurity created by mammalian reproduction is the basic motor underlying the patriarchy in societies all over the globe. It’s what has driven men to dominate and control women. Male violence against women, rape, intimidation, aggression towards women, is a serious problem in all human societies and cultures.

It is true that transgender procedures cannot alter a person’s chromosomal makeup. A person born with an X chromosome and a Y chromosome will retain them in the nucleus of every cell of their body throughout their life, irrespective of any surgeries, hormonal treatments, or behavioural changes that they make. It is also true that a person who was assigned male gender at birth and socialised as a male will continue to possess the advantages of male socialisation even after she has transitioned and lives as a woman. Males are socialised to be more aggressive and assertive, more physical, and more demanding. Habits formed in early childhood tend to persist throughout one’s life.

That said, gender dysphoria is very real and profoundly distressing to those who are affected by it. Gender dysphoria is the persistent belief that a person’s body does not match their gender self-image. In the early 1990s, I worked for a community organisation in London, and met a client who was so distressed and upset by their male body that they had attempted to amputate their own penis. Clearly, a person is not driven to such a painful, potentially lethal, and mutilating step unless the alternative of continuing to live in the wrong body and wrong gender role is even worse.

People who live with gender dysphoria can find relief with transgender surgeries and procedures. These procedures bring their body into alignment with their self-image, and allow them to live as the gender they have always believed themselves to be. Compassion dictates that we have a moral obligation to support them to do so and to respect their choices.

Not all trans people feel the need to undergo medical procedures however. Trans surgeries are excruciatingly painful, invasive, and can have serious complications. No one should be forced to submit to medical procedures which permanently alter the body if they do not want to. Neither is it appropriate for others to question their motives for not undergoing them. People have a right to keep such intensely personal decisions private.

As well as the mental torture of gender dysphoria, which can lead to suicide and self-harm, transgender people also have to live with appalling discrimination. Being a gay male in a working class community in the West of Scotland in the 1970s was a walk in the park compared to what trans people have to deal with. Transgender people are subject to violence, to discrimination in the workplace, and to societal rejection. And just like the violence that women are subjected to, that violence is most commonly at the hands of men.

As a species whose defining characteristics are self-awareness, culture, and the capacity for self-reflection, there is a very good argument to be made that amongst humans, a person’s self-perception (particularly if it is a persistent and lasting perception that first appeared in early childhood) is far more important than biological sex in determining gender identity. In that crucial sense, transwomen are women, transmen are men.

Obviously, we are dealing here with two groups of people who have been marginalised. Transgender people and women both suffer discrimination, prejudice, and the effects of male violence. That’s one reason why the current debate is so heated and – at times – bad tempered. Those involved in it and directly affected by it feel strongly that it’s not just their rights which are at stake, it’s also their personal safety and very sense of self.

As I said at the beginning of this piece, I am not going to pretend that I have any answers. Nor do I think that it’s appropriate for a cisgender male to offer any. However I would plead that we all treat one another with the compassion and respect with which we would like to be treated ourselves.

It does no one any favours to denounce women who have concerns about male bodied individuals who self-identify as women entering women only spaces and to call women who are raising their concerns in a polite and respectful manner “wankers”. It does no one any favours to insist on using male pronouns to refer to transwomen. Irrespective of what you believe a person’s gender to be “really”, it’s just out and out rude and disrespectful and guaranteed to close down meaningful conversation.

Existential questions of identity, of self, and of gender are not going to find answers when we are all screaming at one another, slagging each other off as misogynists or transphobes, or being so entrenched in our own positions that we are unable or unwilling to seek common ground. We all need to respect one another, to honour each other’s experiences, and to learn from one another. That’s the only way that we ever as a society have any chance of reaching an understanding that satisfies everyone’s concerns.

For my own part, I recognise that I still have a great deal to learn, and if this article has angered anyone it can only be because I still have much learning to do. I’m going to continue to listen and to learn, respectfully.

---

You can help to support this blog with a Paypal donation. Please log into Paypal.com and send a payment to the email address weegingerbook@yahoo.com. Or alternatively click the donate button. If you don’t have a Paypal account, just select “donate with card” after clicking the button.

If you have trouble using the button, or you prefer not to use Paypal, you can donate or purchase a t-shirt or map by making a payment directly into my bank account, or by sending a cheque or postal order. If you’d like to donate by one of these methods, please email me at weegingerbook@yahoo.com and I will send the necessary information.

Please also use this email address if you would like the dug and me to come along to your local group for a talk.

Gaelic maps of Scotland are available for £15 each, plus £7 P&P within the UK for up to three maps. T-shirts are £12 each, and are available in small, medium, large, XL and XXL sizes. P&P is £5 for up to three t-shirts. My books, the Collected Yaps Vols 1 to 4 are available for £11 each. P&P is £4 for up to two books. Payment can be made via Paypal.

Grouse moors, land reform, and power

Grouse moors, land reform and power: how members of the Scottish National Party can change the face of Scotland

A guest post by Max Wiszniewski

The membership of the Scottish National Party in recent times, have stood on the side of progress. The SNP grassroots have been instrumental in moving Scotland forward, towards many progressive policies, including land reform, which is why Revive is thrilled to have the opportunity to meet members this week for the first time.

Revive: the coalition for grouse moor reform will be hosting a fringe meeting this Saturday at SNP conference in Edinburgh to highlight why radical action on Scotland’s grouse moors is vital to building the Scotland we aspire to live in.

Almost a fifth of Scotland is managed for grouse shooting. Estimates vary between 12-18% but we don’t really know how much as we don’t yet have an accurate picture of what our land is used for.

In any case, the fact that such a huge amount of our nation is used for the benefit of so few, shows the scale of this problem. The Scottish Government has taken some important steps but while less than 500 people own over half of Scotland’s private land there is much work to be done.

Far from being the wholesome image of Scotland’s countryside that the industry would have you believe, Scotland’s land is scarred and burnt which damages the environment, while hundreds of thousands of animals die every year – all to maximise the number of grouse to be shot for the amusement of very few people. Its economic contribution is also much, much lower than you might believe for the land it uses up.

Revive is a coalition made up of social justice, environmental and animal welfare groups who have come together to tackle these issues in order to benefit Scotland’s people, our wildlife and our environment. We know that grassroots activists like you will be key to that and we’ve already started a movement with over 10,000 people signing up to Revive.

If you are going to SNP conference this Saturday it would be great to see you there but if not and you’re interested in working with the Revive coalition please consider signing and sharing this pledge for radical reform.

Many thanks,

Max Wiszniewski

Max Wiszniewski is Campaign Manager for Revive. Revive is a coalition of like-minded organisations working for reform of Scotland’s grouse moors. The coalition is made up by Common Weal, Friends of the Earth Scotland, League Against Cruel Sports Scotland, OneKind, and Raptor Persecution.

Facebook Event/SNP conference link: https://www.facebook.com/events/524722338057249/

Twitter: @ReviveCoalition

Website: https://www.revive.scot/