By Brotyboy

I went to Gallagher's Bar in Broughty Ferry on Saturday after the match for a drink; singular, since December 5th. There was a team of 7, six of us FPs of Grove Academy. We did a bit of catching up on families, divorce status and Grove's 125th Anniversary a few months back. Then, right out of the blue, from John, "Well, at least the wrong decision wasn't made in September, guys."

John lives in Canada. One of the funniest, most sharp-witted guys I've ever met and true to form, absolutely deadpan.

"How do you mean, exactly?"

"The Referendum."

"You winding me up?"

"No, why?"

I pointed to my Yes badge, still attached to my fleece. It's only ever removed when the fleece gets washed. So, once.

"I can't see what you're showing me. I haven't got my glasses on."

"It's a Yes badge."

"Oh."

John, we were in a pub in the city where 57% of the people voted Yes. What made you so sure that coming out with a statement about the Referendum like that would be greeted with universal agreement?

So I'd like to address not just John, but also Dan, Craig, Dave, Ken and Angus. Here's something for you to think about. Maybe we can discuss it next time we meet up, from a dialectic point of view.

John, I thought that since you'd got some information from the internet I'd be able to converse with you from a knowledge based perspective. But, while you were able to quote the amounts that Scots receive from Westminster compared with the spending on the rest of the UK, you weren't able to tell me that the tax receipts per capita were higher from Scotland, and by a greater amount. You didn't know where Scotland would be ranked in the World in terms of GDP per capita as an Independent country and where the UK would be without Scotland, nor were you able to tell me the relationship between Scottish GDP per capita excluding Oil, and UK GDP per capita. This is the very minimum knowledge base I would expect in order that anyone can make a valued judgement on whether Scotland is a viable Independent country.

John, you also talked about Unemployment as a major concern of yours, and I told you that Scotland was marginally better on this measure than the UK. I made a stab at a rate of 7.2% from memory, which you doubted. Today, I read that it is in fact 5.6% to the UK's 6%, so I apologise for misleading you on the accuracy of my quoted figure; it's actually much better than that.

I suggested that there were many possible grounds on which the Referendum could be assessed, as a political, economic, social or moral decision.

"Why moral?" you said.

Because political decisions need to be based on something other than Thatcherism, otherwise there is "no society"; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Moral Philosophy II was not a complete waste of time!

What I really wanted to know was what you really thought the Referendum was actually about. I was particularly keen to hear an explanation of this from Dan and Craig, as the only prior remarks I'd received had been made after drink had been taken and as I was leaving the pub.

Craig, on that or the previous occasion, when I'd told you that the folk in Charleston where I'd been canvassing had got it, and were voting Yes, you said, "They've not got it."

Then on your last visit before the Referendum you told Anne that you were coming back from Switzerland where you live, for the Referendum, "To vote No."

So, Craig, did you vote? I'm genuinely interested, not in what way you voted, but if you actually voted, and if so, why? If you voted, did you read the leaflet from the Electoral Commission which laid out the rules? Because it wasn't enough to be on the Electoral Roll, as you are because you pay the Council Tax on your late father's house.

There were 3 categories of permitted voters; EU citizens (and Switzerland is not in the EU), Commonwealth citizens (and Switzerland is not in the Commonwealth) and lastly, British citizens, so presumably you've kept your citizenship. But there was a condition attached to each of these 3 categories - you had to be living in Scotland. Okay you've kept your dad's house and you come over here several times a year for a visit, but you moved to London in 1978 if I remember correctly, then to Switzerland in the mid-Eighties, so you're a long time gone.

So I'm interested to know what your thoughts are on the political situation in Scotland, and what you thought the Referendum was all about. Was it about power, was it about nationality, was it about the establishment, was it about class, was it about Austerity, was it about economics, was it about child poverty, was it about jobs, was it about land ownership, was it about foodbanks, was it about Oil and Gas, was it about housing, was it about Trident, was it about defence, was it about change, was it about life chances, was it about illegal wars, was it about the bank bailouts, was it about Scotland's hidden wealth, was it about whisky exports?

The list is endless, and on each of these subjects there is an alternative view to the one which you will have read in the newspapers. If you've never visited wingsoverscotland.com or scotgoespop.blogspot.fr or bellacaledonia.org.uk or allofusfirst.org or read Jim and Margaret Cuthbert's work for The Jimmy Reid Foundation you won't have heard of these alternative views.

Let's remember that the Scottish people were offered a binary choice in the Referendum, but there are at least 4 constituencies in Scottish constitutional politics; Independence supporters, Unionists, Devo Max supporters and people who want Holyrood abolished. If we ignore the last of these categories the other 3 have probably a hard core of 30% support for each, historically. In any poll I've seen, including those carried out after the referendum, where the binary choice was between the status quo and Home Rule/Federalism/Devo Max/Full Fiscal Autonomy there is support of over 60% for the latter, so whatever you think of the economic argument it's either been won by those who believe in Scotland's viability, or it's deemed irrelevant by those who want to stand on their own two feet for better or worse.

Why is this? Well, Scotland has been growing up. We have our own Parliament now, and for the last 7 years a Government which called itself a Government not an Executive and has fought tooth and nail for Scotland. It has stood up for us and now Scotland believes in itself again. The previous Government sent back £1.5Billion to Westminster which it couldn't spend on anything in Scotland. We all know that ain't happening again with this Government.

We've also discovered our collective political strength. And we realise that the UK needs us more than we need the UK.

And Scotland is changed forever. While it is intriguing to imagine what the result of this Referendum would have been had the Labour Party been true to is roots and supported Home Rule, the net result of its willingness to get into bed with the Tories is that it is now fatally flawed in Scotland. Since the Referendum the SNP has attracted over 70,000 new members and the Scottish Greens membership has risen to around 8,000. It is thought that Scottish Labour membership is around 7,000.

So, we now have a Movement, born from a campaign. John, you thought there wouldn't be another Referendum for 35 years. I think you're wrong. I think by 2020 there will be another Referendum. At the latest.

But let's go back to your assertions about Scotland's economic situation, because there's a flaw in your logic. If, as you seem to imply from your willingness to accept the negative aspects of Scotland's current economic situation, Scotland is not viable as part of the Union, how does it follow that it is not viable as an Independent country? The only way this would follow would be if we did nothing different, but that is the whole point about Independence, it is in order to change things.

There are Billions to be saved; from Defence about £1B each year because we won't be sending our soldiers off to kill brown people, from the House of Lords maybe only £30M and from the infrastructure projects which are deemed to be National Projects like HS2, London Crossrail and the London Sewer upgrade at the very least £40B.

Finally, John, there were 7 of us in the pub. Apart from the 2 Scottish trained solicitors, the other 5 of us had all headed off to London to work at some point. I can't think of a better illustration of why Scotland needs its Independence.