Scottish independence is a difficult question, but there are answers to be found

As the vote on Scottish Independence draws near, the people of Scotland are being faced with difficult choices. They are being asked to decide in favour of independence and its attached risks, or to reject it for some alternative, lesser, additional freedoms within the Union - held out as a counter offer by the Conservative Party, that Scotland has little reason to trust, having been burned before (Robinson, 2014).

Scotland, on the one hand, is being lectured on the dangers of gambling financially on independence. On the other, it is being given demonstrations of unity - like those happening this evening in London (Nelson, 2014) and the far more controversial Orange Order march on Edinburgh over the weekend (Brooks & Carrell, 2014) - in which they are regaled with stories of sacrifice and bonds of tradition, all calling for a renewal of British patriotism rather than choosing to embrace Scottish nationalism.

Any way it turns, Scotland is being warned that it can't have everything.

Scotland faces difficulties with Britain, primarily over money. While First Minister Alex Salmond has repeatedly expressed a willingness to work with Britain, in a spirit of openness and cooperation even after independence, these overtures have repeatedly been met with negativity.

What currency will they use? Westminster makes the pound sound unlikely. Who pays for what part of the national debt? Westminster will want Scotland to take its share. What about the North Sea oil? Westminster will want a cut. What about the Trident nuclear defence program? Westminster thinks it too expensive to remove from Scottish soil. None of these are simple matters to address (Traynor et al, 2014).

Salmond has also openly stated that he wants Scotland to take a seat within the European Union. Yet it faces difficulties with the EU, as member states do not want to offer any encouragement to independence movements in their own countries. This is a particularly thorny issue at present for Spain, where their has been agitation in the Catalan country for independence (Burgen, 2014).

Citizens of other European states have even moved to offer warnings against separatism. Some certainly feel that the 'velvet divorce', the peaceful disentanglement of the Czech and Slovak republics from Czechoslovakia, might have been a mistake (Seifter, 2014). The argument goes that separation resulted in a problematic loss of identity, prestige and negotiating power on the world stage.

All of these arguments against independence seem to come as, either, careful pragmatisms - averse to any sort of risk - or as a warning against upsetting another nation's interests.

The financial situation is clearly a challenge, but one that can be overcome. By taking it on, there is a possibility of reshaping those finances around provincial priorities rather than trying to eke them out from within those of a separate set of provinces, with their own problems and priorities (Jenkins, 2014).

The entry into Europe is also far from an insurmountable problem, and one that is known from the beginning to be a political creation. It is a conflict of interest with other EU member states, that stand to lose prestige if independence movements within their own borders flourish, that stands between Scotland and a fast-tracked entry into the European fold.

Even the regrets of some over the Czechoslovakian split are based on outcomes that are not systemic to small nation-states, nor the products particularly of separatism. Nationalisms, extremisms, fascisms, and the flawed and simplistic politics of identity; all of these things are a product of difficult times endured by individuals with little support and little hope, in many countries, not just of Europe, but of the whole world.

The question, then, comes down to the matter of difference between union and independence. The primary differences for Scotland, between autonomous government within the Union and sovereign government with independence, will be control over their own economy, and a separation and distancing of the identity Scottish, from the identity British.

With independence they will have a government closer to the people affected by its decisions (5 million people, rather than 60 million), and potentially, in federation with Europe, solidarity with an entire continent rather than just an island. With continued union, there is status quo - security offered by Westminster, and an extension to autonomy.

The ideal of independence is self-determination. That we should be ruled by ourselves alone, and not from some distant palace. The question always comes down to where you draw the line. At 5 million people with a common language and history? At 60 million people with a language or two in common and an intertwined history?

The pragmatic talk against independence has been warnings of dire economic risks, and denouncements of petty nationalism. But it all seems so very unnecessary. It is reasonable that different regions have different needs, and divided can better debate their own, address them and represent them. But that division does not have to be about severing connections and building up walls, and closing borders, between peoples.

Independence can  be about moving the powers over local and provincial lives to the localities and the provinces, and of engaging those localities more directly with federal organisations of a much larger scale - for example, with the EU. A much more local and personal government, involving its people and connecting them with a much wider community. The best of both worlds.

==========
References:
==========
+ Nick Robinson's 'Scotland - Vote No and get something better?'; on the BBC; 8 September 2014.

+ Fraser Nelson's 'UK #unity2014 rally announced: Trafalgar Square, 6pm on Monday'; in The Spectator; 12 September 2014.

+ Libby Brooks & Severin Carrell's 'Orange Order anti-independence march a 'show of pro-union strength''; in The Guardian; 13 September 2014.

+ Ian Traynor, Katie Allen, Tom Clark, Claire Phipps, Terry Macalister, Robert Booth & Ewen MacAskill's 'If Scotland votes for independence: the key questions answered'; in The Guardian; 9 September 2014.

+ Stephen Burgen's 'Catalans to demonstrate and demand right to hold referendum'; in The Guardian; 11 September 2014.

+ Pavel Seifter's 'Czechs and Slovaks were better together'; in The Guardian; 9 September 2014.

+ Simon Jenkins' 'Scottish independence: A yes vote will produce a leaner, meaner Scotland'; in The Guardian; 4 September 2014.

Principle, compromise and the politics of the status quo

If there is anything that any political establishment does not like, it is an unflinching unwillingness to compromise. If you won't deal with the establishment and its priorities, you will find yourself frozen out to the fringes.

Considering the fact that politics demands so much of those who take part - expecting them to leave idealism at the door - it isn't too much of a surprise that people's interest in the political arena drifts away. Nor that others encourage people to walk away (Brand, 2013).

Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats are only the most well known to have been faced with this difficult dilemma.

Clegg and the Lib Dems, by choosing a tawdry compromise - compromise itself being a virtue, not a vice, when attempting to achieve all of the best things without any of the worst - and accepting a coalition with the Conservatives, made a pragmatic choice: to get things done, within the system presently in place, and risk the ire of their slighted support on the left. That choice has so far only burned them.

In 2010, with a potential coalition looming, more than one comparison was made between Clegg's situation and that of the former Labour Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald.

Ramsay MacDonald, Prime Minister in the 1920s and 30s, chose to defy his party and form a multi-party national government to deal with the Great Depression - following the stock market crash of 1929. MacDonald and Labour found that, restricted as they were in their views to a classical economic approach and balanced budgets, they were unable to respond to the crisis.

MacDonald would not listen to the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, who suggested that the country aught to engage in deficit spending - using the cheap credit available to nation-states - in order to cover financial commitments and stimulate a recovery. As unemployment rose drastically the Labour Party split, unable to resolve their differences.

The King encouraged MacDonald to form a National Government - a coalition between all three major parties, in the national interest - to manage the crisis. By forming a government with the Conservatives, however, MacDonald was labelled a traitor and expelled from the Labour Party.

MacDonald paid the price in infamy for making practical compromises with the establishment, in order to achieve his aims. Other have instead paid a price for refusing to compromise their principles.

Louis-Joseph Papineau was the Speaker of the Assembly for Lower Canada, the French-speaking predecessor to the French-Canadian province of Quebec. He would not deal with the British Empire's unelected, and unaccountable, colonial governors, who he felt were allowed to run rampant and ruled through their Chateau Clique.

Papineau was amongst the leaders of Parti canadien, and the founders of its successor Parti patriote, combining Canadians of many backgrounds form French and Irish, to English. He was opposed to British commercial exploitation of Canada and Canadians, led boycotts against British goods and campaigned for responsible government in Canada - government and economic policy accountable to the people.

His resistance ultimately led to open rebellion, which he had opposed at the Assemblée des six-comtés when other had spoken of revolution. Despite not taking part in the rebellion, his arrest was nonetheless ordered, and was forced to flee into exile. By the time his name was cleared, and he was able to return, the country had already changed drastically. The Canadian provinces had been unified, as part of attempts to assimilate the French-speaking population, and the issues of the day had moved on.

Carlo Cattaneo was another who found himself frozen out. Cattaneo - a writer, as well as founder and editor of Il Poletecnico, a journal committed to the positive sciences, to interdisciplinary work and to practical applications - was a federalist and republican in 19th century Italy.

Cattaneo supported the Italian states in their fight for an unified Italy, against the various interfering outside forces. However, when the campaign was brought in line with the ambitions of King Vittorio Emanuele II of Piedmont-Sardinia to become King of Italy, Cattaneo would not go against his federalist and republican principles, by supporting a monarchy, and so withdrew.

By doing so he maintained his principles, but was not involved directly in the shaping of the new Italy. The game of politics does not always, however, reward you any better for trying to work within the bounds of the system than working outside of them.

Millicent Fawcett, leader of the Suffragists, discovered this in her long campaign for women's right to vote. Her long association with the Liberal Party, even with adamant support from many of its most learned members and thinkers, did not manage to advance her cause.

Fawcett, and her Liberal MP husband, were considered to be Radicals and supporters of individualism, trade unionism and other liberal causes, and were active in the Liberal Party. With her husband's death she withdrew for a while, before returning to public life in the role of the leader of the NUWSS (National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies).

Despite her personal connections to the Liberal Party, the Liberals persistently avoided dealing with the issue of women's suffrage. Much as the Liberals managed to drive away the Trade Unions by failing to address the causes close to them, they drove away Fawcett's Suffragists by failing to listen and act.

She ultimately resorted to switching their support to the Labour Party, in protest at having campaigned for and supported a party, within the system, and not received their wishes for reform in return. While ultimately successful, it took extraordinary circumstances for the establishment to listen, let alone to grant reform, even where it was sensible, just and supported by members of the establishment itself.

In the face of reason and progress being stifled in the defence of a status quo that crudely bundles progress together with extremist forms of change - from the chaotic, to the militant, to the reactionary, the fascist, and the totalitarian - is it really any wonder that people are disaffected by politics?

Is it much of a wonder that they feel voting to be only an endorsement of a broken and corrupt system (Brand, 2013), and that they promote resistance to it?

Political systems need to be adapted to end these kinds of crude resistance to reason and progress. There have to be a better ways of resisting tyranny than to stifle campaigns for social justice and social welfare. If, within our present political systems, we cannot move forward and make our world better, then our next step has to be reform - lest our brightest minds and best ideas are suppressed in the name of an institutional mediocrity.

==========
References:
==========
+ Russell Brand's 'Russell Brand: we deserve more from our democratic system'; in The Guardian; 5 November 2013.

+ Tom Clark's 'Nick Clegg and the ghost of Ramsay MacDonald'; in The Guardian; 9 May 2010.

+ Will Straw's 'Lib-Con coalition? Only if Clegg does a Ramsay Mac'; on Left Foot Forward; 26 April 2010.

Doctor Who is showing us how Enlightenment and Romance are intertwined

With the advent of the 'no flirting' with the companions era of Doctor Who, the character of Clara is being forced to adopt a new role alongside the Doctor (Guardian, 2014).

In just two episodes, Clara's new role is already looking to be multi-faceted. Friend. Confidant. Carer. Counsellor. Human Liaison. Ethics Advisor. Teacher. Not just a companion. All of these new roles give us some clues about the nature of this new Doctor, too.

As Clara typifies the role of the Romantics, so the Doctor is playing the role of a product of the Enlightenment. Emotional intelligence, compassion and a caring connection to life, versus rational intelligence, cold and practical. However, Doctor Who has also shown us subversions of that same notion. By breaking these characters out of those moulds, the idea that these characteristics belong to some mutually exclusive personality 'types' is shown to be flawed.

When the Doctor's connections with his companions are loosened, he appears to be less human. By removing love and romance, by making him colder, more calculating and detached, he is loosed from what are seen as the quintessential human preoccupations. That is, emotional attachment and compassion.

He becomes more Gallifreyan, more of a Time Lord - his manner, his logic and fascinations become colder, less caring, and less romantic. He comes to embody all of the most deeply embraced stereotypes of an enlightenment thinker. Those stereotypes are, however, as flawed as their opposite; that of the warm, passionate romantic, embracing nature rather than devising machinery to control it.

It is not necessary to think of these characteristics - cold, romantic, practical or compassionate - as part of polarised and mutually exclusive personality types. In fact, Doctor Who has gone out of its way to remind us that it is not one or the other, but rather both working together in unison that makes us well rounded people.

The Doctor has been seen trying to teach an appreciation of beauty to a Dalek, and a love for Roman Philosophy and a capacity for logical thinking. We have seen before in Doctor Who that the Doctor's romantic nature, and his rational nature, all as one whole, have been what has set the Doctor aside from his own people. He cares. As a constant reminder of this, and its importance, he travels with companions who care.

The Doctor and Clara - with dinosaurs in Victorian London, a clockwork man with dreams of the promised land, and Daleks with thoughts of beauty - remind us that the Romantic-Enlightenment divide is false. It is necessary to have all of these characteristics in order to be well rounded. Rationality cannot overlook emotion as a factor, an important factor. Neither can Romanticism overlook the importance of understanding how the world works, even as we appreciate and connect with it.

We need tangible reminders of the impact of actions on living beings, to stop ourselves from drifting out of touch with the world. We need to avoid distancing ourselves from the world behind a wall of technology and pragmatic practical mechanical thinking. Likewise, we need to be able to understand the practical mechanics of the world if we are to appreciate it fully. Clara and the Doctor's new dynamic is subverting the old notions, and showing us just how much emotion and rationality depend upon one another.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Guardian's 'Doctor Who: Peter Capaldi promises 'no flirting' with sidekick in new series'; 27 July 2014.

+ Steven Moffat's 'Doctor Who: Deep Breath'; from Doctor Who Series 8; on the BBC; 23 August 2014.

+ Steven Moffat's 'Doctor Who: Into the Dalek'; from Doctor Who Series 8; on the BBC; 30 August 2014.