Sir,

The Guardians editorial on 13 September justifying its decision to

formally support a No vote in the Scottish referendum demands a robust
response. I havent replied to many supporters of the No campaign, but
in your case I thought you knew better.
To be blunt, you misunderstand the rationale for independence. The key
issue for Scots is not as you say a profit/loss analysis of the union but a
desire for self-determination that is evident in communities and cultures
across the globe. Self-determination is not a negative emotion, nor is it
something to be trivialized or lampooned. In a simplistic analogy, I
havent worried that my son has gone to live in his own house where he
buys his own food - hes just grown up and wants to be independent. I
still see him. Strangely I didnt respond to him expressing his desire to
move out by threatening to lock my door or writing him out of my will.
After all, he just wants to make his own way in the world.
I am not old enough to personally remember independence campaigns
by former British colonies but from research know that most of the same
arguments for not becoming independent were made to them. Perhaps
you can take solace that most of those that left have stayed family
members in the commonwealth, and most still keep the queen as head
of state. I can also take comfort that the establishment threats of doom
and disaster didnt take place even for the smallest of them.
Self-determination isnt about isolationism it is a desire to control what is
possible, to allow the creation of the kind of society that Scotlands
people in this case wish. Whilst this could be partially delivered by the
current or extended devolution, sovereignty would still lie in
Westminster, even in a federal state. Only actual Independence will give
Scotland full control of its own resources to develop without veto from
the UK (in actuality South East England) with different ideas and
aspirations.
You see Scotland isnt saying it doesnt want to be part of those bigger
communities that you and Charles Kennedy are talking about. It actively
embraces involvement in larger scale organizations including (probably)
NATO, EU, and UN to name a few. Interestingly the UKIP/Tory view is
increasingly that UK should only join those organizations where they
clearly get more out than they put in. Scotland will be a joiner of clubs
where we can add value, not always getting out what we put in.
Your simplistic dismissal of the cultural, social and political differences
between Scotland and England (in particular) is just not true, no matter
how may polls you suggest. There is and has been for centuries a clear
distinction between Scottish attitudes to communities and social
responsibilities that is more than just superficial. The disentanglement
from UK(English) policies on education, social services, benefits, social
housing, prescriptions, university fees, as soon as the Scottish
parliament could is only one line of evidence of the deep attitudinal
divide between the countries. Whilst we see the same economic rules as
Westminster we are not driven by them as they are.
Major parts of the Scottish political architecture have always been
different, even before devolution. For two examples our legal and
education systems have always been different, more socially equal by
design.
You say that in a week there will be a lot of unhappy Scots no matter
what the result. In fact I predict a healthy majority for independence. The
people who will be unhappy will be Westminster politicians and UK civil
servants who will have to sort out the finances of rUK without Scottish
oil, wind, electricity, gas, fishing, whisky
Not only shouldnt the financial markets be the final arbiters of
independence but there is reasonably full acceptance that the whole
economic system is under severe stress precisely because the free
market doesnt deliver what is meant to, a fair distribution of wealth to
world citizens and its getting worse. Yes Scotland will be buffeted by
financial winds from London and New York, but its distinctly different
political aspirations will at least ameliorate and at best deflect
impositions of neocon free market devil take the hindmost economic
realities.
What has been exemplary has been listening to the difference in tone
and approach from the yes campaign. It has been based on a vision of a
socially fair society with built in safeguards against the whim of reactive
politics including such instruments as a written constitution enshrining
more than basic human rights in law. As Alex Salmond has said the yes
campaign is aiming for a clear majority in favour of a new progressive
socialist country whilst the no campaign is hoping for as narrow as it can
manage vote in its favour.
The assumption you make in more polite terms than George Galloway is
that Scotland should wait for England to catch up with its more socialist
view of the world. Like George you try to shame Scotland into trying to
balance the South East England rush to right wing politics. Not only are
we electorally unable to deliver a left of centre government in the UK,
clearly Scotland has decided that it cannot go on waiting for ever. Also
clearly the populous and thus electorally dominant South of England has
decided that it is happy with a right of centre trickle down economy and a
gradual removal of social institutions such as free NHS and education.
The New Labour experiment showed that even with a landslide election
victory the left of centre Westminster clique were not willing to challenge
the establishment and aspirational working class red lines on what could
or couldnt be changed. Tony Blair changed little that mattered from
Thatchers reforms and added many of todays additional problems
such as out of control academies and hospitals moving towards a pay as
you go service. The impotence of Scotland to the dismantling of its
traditional heavy industries to develop south east based financial
services has not been forgotten. Memories still recall Tory and Labour
arguments about the stupidity/impossibility of subsidizing failing
industries then hearing how crucial it was to shore up bankrupt private
banks that had gambled all of our hard earned money.
Yes, We do dress our cultural differences up in small things sometimes -
accents, tattie scones, stovies, square slice, raw beef ham, tartan, kilts,
ceilidhs, support for a football team that rarely gets to the world cup but
is proudly and gregariously supported - but dont let this fool you that we
are sentimentalists or small minded fools. These are trivial signs of a
deep cultural difference between you and us.
So to conclude, you are entitled to your view, as wrong as it is. You are
particularly wrong to side with the Cameron/Clegg/Milliband three
Amigos, but I hope and believe that my compatriots will overcome the
bullying, scaremongering and downright lies from a biased and partial
press (including shamefully the BBC) and vote overwhelmingly to
become a nation again on the 18
th
September.
Yours sincerely
Martin Kilkie A Scot living in England.

P.S. Dont worry, we will still be friends with rUK probably even
stronger, but will be separate nations - remember we are already
separate countries.