Better Together: The Facts You Need To Know

I was speaking to a friend of mine a couple of weeks ago and she told me that, after a conversation with a Better Together campaigner (apparently they exist!) she'd decided to vote No. We were out with a big crowd in the pub so I didn't manage to find out the specific arguments that had won her over. But, luckily, my mum got a Better Together leaflet in her paper yesterday entitled The Facts You Need To Know that contains the top ten positive reasons for staying in the UK. I decided to write a rebuttal to each of the ten points and email it to her in the hopes that it'll encourage her to do some more research. But then, I spent about an hour writing it so it seemed a shame not to spread it a bit wider in case it could be of use to anyone else, so I'm posting it below. Of course, you could write a thesis on each of these points and I use some arguments that not all Yes campaigners will agree with (corporation tax, for example), but posting anyway. Feel free to pass on/copy/edit as you will.

1.        A successful Scottish parliament AND a strong UK. This argument really focuses on size; it says that being part of a bigger economy we can be more secure. However, of the top 20 most successful countries in the world 9 of them are the same size or smaller than Scotland. The success of an economy isn’t dependent on its size so much as its structure, its regulation, and the priorities of its government. For a successful Scotland we need more working age people, something we are denied under Westminster’s immigration policies (which are not set to improve after UKIP’s recent local election victories). It is also dependent on taxes which are relevant to the country’s needs – under Westminster’s offer of further devolution after a No vote (if they ever come through with it) we would only be allowed to raise taxes, and those taxes would go straight to Westminster, they wouldn’t be kept by Holyrood to use on specifically Scottish initiatives. We can’t create tax incentives for businesses that way, or give tax cuts to the poor.

2.       Higher spending AND Scottish priorities. This point is simply a lie. The main parties in Westminster (the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour) are all committed to austerity that will mean further public spending cuts and job losses over the next 5-10 years.  Also, at the moment for every pound Scotland sends to Westminster in taxes we only get 70p back to spend on our public services. There is *no way* that a No vote will amount to higher spending in Scotland. There is also *no way* that a No vote can result in a greater focus on Scottish priorities than a politically-empowered Scotland could deliver.

3.       More jobs AND more customers. This claim implies that the rest of the UK would boycott Scottish goods in the event of independence. What a load of rubbish! But practically, the rest of the UK would not be able to create barriers to trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK without harming the rUK economy. It would have a more adverse effect on the rUK than the 2008 recession and would amount to economic vandalism. As for more jobs; I already said that Westminster austerity will lead to further job losses (especially in the public sector) over the next decade. As well as this, the Scottish government will still have its hands tied when it comes to implementing tax structures and other regulations that would specifically improve Scottish job prospects.

4.       Influence AND impact. This point relates to Scotland’s place in the world, both through the UN and the EU. Actually the Tories are talking about holding an in-out referendum on the EU in the next few years so chances are that a No vote could lead to us leaving the EU (whether Scotland wants to or not). This is more likely to hamper Scottish exports and Scottish jobs than becoming independent; not to mention putting a stop to that immigration that the Scottish economy needs to grow and flourish. As an independent Scotland we would have more European Members of Parliament (Scotland currently has the same number as Malta, despite the fact that their population is only half a million) and those MEPs could fight for Scotland’s interests. At the moment those interests are too often sacrificed or ignored as Westminster continues to fight for whatever benefits London and the South East.

5.       More security AND a force for good in the world. This one actually makes me laugh. And then rage. The Westminster government led us to war in Iraq – despite the fact that it was against UN resolutions and the vast majority of public opinion. This led to the 7/7 bombings, the attempted attack on Glasgow airport and the killing of Lee Rigby. The idea that the UK is a force for good in the world is laughable and Scotland would actually be safer once we cut the ties from Westminster’s belligerent efforts to maintain a position on the world stage that was, in reality, lost with the empire. What we *could* do to make the world a safer place is vote Yes, which would (if timed correctly) force the UK to give up Trident altogether since they don’t have anywhere to keep it. Nuclear disarmament is a far clearer way towards world peace and security than trying to be the world police with Westminster. It’s also worth pointing out that defence would be better provided after independence. We currently send £3bn in taxes to the Ministry of Defence but only £2bn is spent in Scotland. SNP policy is to spend £2.5bn on defence so that we would have more jobs and better equipment. We could also have a proper navy, something that Scotland lacks at the moment since all the above water navy is based in Portsmouth (not much good if Scotland was invaded!).  We would be safer on every level with independence. We should be thinking about our place in a cooperative international community, rather than trying to hold on to the supremacy of the British Empire.

6.       Lower licence fee AND more programmes. The Scottish government have said that there is no reason for the licence fee to rise after independence. Of course, these things are open to negotiation but the change in price would be negligible. We would also be able to buy in all the programmes we want from the BBC, as Ireland does at the moment. However, this point misses something really important. Scotland really suffers from having an English-centric broadcaster. When you go to Ireland you can see how there is so much more investment in the culture – whether it be arts or sport – and that is partly based on TV interest. We need to have a Scottish broadcaster anyway if we go independent, just so that we can be fully informed of the goings-on at Holyrood and make sure our politicians are held accountable – but spending vastly greater sums of money on Scottish programming will reinvigorate Scottish arts, drama, comedy, sport, films… the list goes on. I think this will create jobs in time, and it will also help us to address Scottish problems by shining a light on Scottish society. Too many people are being left behind at the moment, their stories need to be told so we can think about how to promote integration in our society.

7.       Better universities AND more investment. Our universities are world class and independence will do nothing to change that. Funding goes to projects which will reap the greatest rewards, it’s not allocated on the basis of spite or politics. I actually think independence is a great opportunity to improve the university funding system which, to my mind, has become too market-orientated. We need to protect our citizen’s rights to a free university education and protect the public spending allocated to universities. This has been cut by 10% under the current government and continued austerity, whether under Labour or the Tories, will continue to damage our university sector, costing us jobs and reputations.

8.       Lower fuel bills AND more jobs. Again, this is just rubbish. Westminster shows no signs of capping bills or of building properly-insulated green housing. Taxes on green energy are also based on distance from Westminster, so that the green energy industry in Scotland is stifled. Scotland’s resources are being under-used at the moment but with the powers of independence we can develop these sectors to provide jobs, to help the environment and to have a higher quality of life. I think that a Scottish government, taking account of Scotland’s specific qualities and resources will be better placed to make the most of those resources than a Westminster government for whom we are normally an afterthought at best. We will also have more jobs through the SNP’s childcare proposals as many more child minders will need to be hired. This produces more jobs while allowing more women to rejoin the workforce after childbirth, thereby leading to higher tax revenues and a healthier economy – as well as happier individual women who are not burdened with the full responsibilities of childcare.

9.       A Scottish NHS AND the specialist treatment you need. As someone who works for the Keep Our NHS Public Campaign I’ve watched over the last 8 years as NHS England has been dismantled and prepared for privatization. GPs in England are now debating about whether to charge for appointments, and English patients already paying for prescriptions and eye tests which are free at the point of use in Scotland. The Scottish parliament has managed to protect the Scottish NHS from this marketization so far, but with continued austerity from Westminster I don’t know whether that will be possible in the long term. As for using the English health system, as European citizens we currently have a right to treatment anywhere in the EU so we could still use English services if we were down there on holiday, just as we could elsewhere in the EU.

10.   Keep the pound AND keep interest rates lower. We could also keep the pound in an independent Scotland, whether as part of a currency union (subject to negotiation with the rUK, but likely given that they’d lose 10% of their economy overnight if they didn’t make an agreement) or we could use it informally (with or without the consent of the rUK government).  Better Together claim that an informal currency union or our own currency would make it more costly to trade with the rUK – all the more reason that they should be in favour of a currency union since more costly trading between iScotland and rUK would hurt them just as much as it would hurt us. I would personally be for creating our own currency since that would mean we could make our own monetary policy without consulting the Bank of England, but a currency union is by far the more likely scenario unless Westminster politicians manage to cut off their noses to spite their faces without the financial, economic and business establishments standing in their way. 

Anti-Englishness, or 'what about teh menz?'

As a feminist keeping a weather eye on the independence debate it's very interesting to see some derailing tactics often deployed against women raising their ugly heads against Yes voters as they try to get their points across with little help from the mainstream media - except for the Sunday Herald, we love you!

One can read the 'cybernats' attacks as analogous to dismissal of feminists as loud/angry/unfeminine: 'How dare you disrupt the polite conversation being had between the nice, powerful men? Please do be quiet, your self-expression and attempts at equality/democracy are unseemly.'

But another more interesting analogy is one that I'd like to make here; whenever I hear an argument about anti-Englishness I think about those uneducated knee-jerk misogynists and dedicated trolls who derail feminist arguments with cries of 'what about teh menz?'

For anyone unfamiliar with the 'what about teh menz' argument, people who hold this viewpoint argue that feminist discussions should be redirected to talk about the problems faced by men. So, if you're having a conversation about unequal pay, for example, a 'what about teh menz' man will enter the conversation to claim that entry level jobs (such as waiting tables or being a secretary) are easier for women to get. What about the problems men face?! These people seem incapable of understanding that a conversation among women about feminist issues might not be the best place to unpack the pros and cons of masculinity. It is the job of the patient feminist to explain gender relations to this interloper, backed up with reports, facts and figures. Or she can tell him to get lost, do his own research and stop whining once he realizes he's being a massive tool.

In the regularly resurrected straw man of anti-Englishness the Bitter Together campaign have found their 'what about teh menz'. Let me explain how I see these arguments as analogous.

In the UK being English is a more privileged position than being Scottish. Or Welsh. Or Irish. We can probably zero in further and argue that being Thames Estuary English and the accent that comes with it is the most privileged background for a citizen of the UK to occupy, geographically. Thames Estuary English people are the implicit audience of BBC broadcasts (as opposed to those of us who get 'the news where you are' - not where the BBC is in London, presumably), and many broadcasts are delivered to them in their own accents. This is the default state in the UK, the assumed citizen, as men occupy the default gender under patriarchy.

One might ask whether the privilege of being a Thames Estuary English person applies in Scotland. Well, there is significant evidence for this. Alasdair Gray was lambasted for his comments about the 'colonisation' of positions by English people and I think that his point holds some truth (even if some people feel that an artist using a metaphor to discuss a heated political issue is wildly inflammatory). Listen to episode 65 of the Scottish Independence podcast featuring George Gunn, he makes a similar point. It isn't surprising that English privilege is still alive and well in Scotland; the Scottish cringe is well-documented and it's easy to imagine an English candidate coming across as more worldly-wise, more confident. It's probably easy to feel more confident when you've grown up nearer the centres of power, when your culture hasn't been sidelined as parochial. It's also worth remembering the ridiculously low life expectancy in parts of Glasgow, even compared with areas of similar deprivation in England.

And then we hear Better Together complaining about anti-Englishness from the Yes camp. I am yet to come across any of this sentiment, despite my many hours of following the #indyref hashtag on Twitter or the many new people I've met on Facebook and irl through the campaign. That's not to say such sentiments don't exist, they absolutely do, but these feelings are more often than not confined to the football pitch. James Foley and Pete Ramand point out in their book Yes: the Case for Radical Independence that English-born people are the largest 'minority' group living in Scotland but yet there is very little evidence of physical violence against them when compared to the number of racist attacks against people of other nations.

For Better Together to imply that Yes campaigners are bullying English people or stoking hate against them is as childish and dangerous an argument as those men who argue that their problems and needs should be at the foreground of feminist debate. In both cases the privileged party has to realize that, for once, it isn't all about them. Just as feminists need space to discuss the issues most pertinent to women, Yes campaigners - and Scots in general - need to use the space opened by this referendum to discuss our problems and how they might be solved, whether or not we get a Yes vote in September. Anti-Englishness should and must be called out if we come across it, but when it is being used as a pawn in Better Together's campaign strategy (assuming they have one) it should be dismissed as the dangerous nonsense it is - and as an attempt to silence a group whose needs have been too often marginalised in the past.

You know you're a child of 1985 when... (Or, my political autobiography)

My granny used to be a big fan of the old sitcom Keeping Up Appearances. It was about a woman called Hyacinth Bucket (pronounced 'Bouquet') and the main joke of the show was that Hyacinth was a working/lower middle class woman who pretended to be upper class. I think my old Irish granny liked it because Hyacinth was always pulled up on her bullshit, either by her down-to-earth relatives or through her own blindness and her need to put on airs. Of course, Hyacinth also represents a certain kind of person; the aspiring Tory. While Hyacinth isn't wealthy enough to benefit from any Tory policies (save, perhaps, buying her council house on the cheap), you can imagine that she might vote for them as a kind of social pretension - another sign that she was one of the 'top' people.

I bring her up because you can recognise this kind of aspiration in a certain kind of No voter. There are some No voters I've spoken to who don't really seem to care too much about the nitty gritty of fiscal autonomy or self-determination. They're merely voting No because they think of themselves as a certain kind of person, defined against the type of person they imagine a Yes voter to be. For these people the Project Fear propaganda is working in one respect; they believe that Yes voters are all football hooligans, Braveheart facepainters and cybernat bullies. The Hyacinth No voter is not that type at all, oh no, and they'll vote No just to differentiate themselves from the type of reactionary meat heads they imagine in the Yes camp. They don't want the Yes voters messing up their nice neat houses with their risks and their wacky ideas about self-determination. Not all No voters fall into this category, due to the Catholic relative conundrum, but they certainly are a factor.

I've spoken to a couple of these No voters and they're very surprised to find out that I'm voting Yes; I think because they consider my level of education and ability to speak in full sentences incompatible with their ideas of how a Yes voter should behave. So I thought I'd write another blog about my #IndyReasons, this time as a political autobiography rather than a list of benefits I imagine we'll get from independence. The Yes side has been characterised as zealous, almost evangelist, in its beliefs. Hopefully by showing my working readers will see that the passionate position I currently hold has come from years of thinking about politics, both rationally and from the gut.

I'm 28 years old. My life has been influenced by a series of important public events and all have contributed to my voting Yes on September 18th despite having no desire for independence until the referendum was announced and on the table.

The first big public event I remember was Dunblane. I was in primary school and some radio stations had headlines like 'Gunman opens fire in Scottish primary school', so most of the parents I knew suffered some kind of trauma that day that us kids didn't really understand. Some of the mums cried, others had white, drawn faces. We didn't really understand, but I think most of us, if questioned, would be committed to gun control for the rest of our lives. I wonder if the anti-Trident sentiment of people my age might have been influenced by our early education in weapons of mass destruction.

I remember the death of Donald Dewar, but I didn't understand his significance.

September 11th was the first event I watched repeatedly on the news. From then on I followed international news carefully, I saw the fallout. My first march was the march against the Iraq War in Glasgow on the 15th of February 2013. The hope of that day, the power of such a large gathering, stayed with me long afterwards but our voices went unheeded. The irony of bombing a country in the name of democracy while ignoring that level of public opposition was not lost on me. I always knew I could never vote Tory; after the bombs fell I knew I could never vote for the Labour party.

The years following were marked by small blips of hope now and again - I was naive enough to think that Gordon Brown might improve the party, and cheered him when his comment about 'that bigoted woman' came out at the 2010 election - but he soon apologised to her and disappointed me yet again by kowtowing to the xenophobic consensus of Westminster.

I was one of those taken in by Nick Clegg's performance in the pre-election debates and voted for the Lib Dems. Their coalition with the Tories, the introduction of student fees and the abandonment of their proportional representation pledge all meant that I had another party that I could never vote for again. Even the thought of having given them my vote made me feel a bit dirty afterwards.

Meanwhile in Scotland the SNP were protecting the health service from privatisation. I remember the day after prescription charges were abolished; I had a really bad case of asthma, possibly brought on by an allergy or an infection. I went to the doctor, walking slowly as it was difficult to breathe, and got a prescription. I didn't have any money, but when I told someone at my local library they checked online and told me the prescriptions were free. I went to the chemist, got my inhalers and breathed more easily. I think many people in Scotland have been breathing more easily ever since this policy was introduced.

I voted for the SNP at Holyrood because of socialist policies such as these. I have no one left to vote for at Westminster, and I see people down South trying to champion Labour, as if they intend to offer up anything different from the austerity and market politics we've had for so many years, and I feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for them because, short of revolution, they have very little to hope for from their political system. I don't see how England can change in the near future - but in Scotland the referendum has offered us hope. I finally have something I can vote for that I really believe in unreservedly, something that can finally shake up the politics of the whole UK, an intervention that has been needed for a long time.

This is why I might seem over-zealous or evangelist in my longing for a Yes vote; for the first time in my political life there is real hope on the horizon, hope of the once-in-a-lifetime variety. Of course it's emotional, of course we're passionate - this is our future.

What Do Women Want... From Independence?

The coalition government's attitude to women amounts to an attack and aims to put women back in the home with no way out. Whether this is a conscious ideological decision, or a cumulative effect of various insensitive policies is uncertain; but I've long realised that it's a waste of time trying to figure out whether coalition ministers are evil or just deeply stupid - it's much more useful to spend energy fighting them, rather than trying to understand them.

The coalition have threatened to scrap the Public Sector Equality Duty (which aims to protect women and minorities from discrimination in the public sector) by characterising it as nothing more than red tape, a stance criticised by the Fawcett Society. The Fawcett Society have also produced a report on the impact of the coalition's austerity agenda on women. Reduced public services, the attacks on disabled and unemployed women who often have caring responsibilities to deal with while trying not to be sanctioned; these things badly impact the mental and physical well-being of women across the UK.

On top of this, last week a report by HMIC showed the extent of failures by police forces in England and Wales when dealing with domestic abuse. Domestic abuse is being treated as a non-crime in a society where women are struggling to make ends meet in their present situations, never mind as they try to exit a relationship, or rebuild their lives and the lives of their children. At the same time the Department of Work and Pensions have announced Universal Credit as part of their evil/ridiculously ill-thought-out welfare reforms; this means that one payment per month would be paid only to one member of a household. So while in previous years women in abusive relationships, or women in relationships with men suffering addiction issues, could rely on child benefit payments and their own job seekers allowance to put food on the table, that can no longer be the case under Universal Credit. When two people on benefits are in a relationship and living together they must decide on a single claimant. This surrender of fiscal autonomy would be challenging to people in a healthy relationship - in an abusive relationship we can guess who that claimant would be and the consequences could be grave. This renders women on benefits financially dependent on the man of the house, a sickening consequence of Ian Duncan Smith's plans.

The signs are that many of these problems in Scotland could be eased or eradicated by a move towards independence. We would be able to formulate a more ethical welfare system, hopefully one that takes account of the need for autonomy in romantic relationships and recognises the rights of people on benefits to have such relationships without having to give up their financial independence. Policing, already devolved from Westminster, has been recognised as more sensitive in tackling domestic abuse and a move towards a more socially just society could mean more funding for domestic abuse services, as opposed to the severe cuts taking place under the austerity agenda. Also, the Scottish government's policy on childcare has become a flagship policy of the independence debate and will result in more women with the choice to work, more women with financial independence.

The choice would seem to be a clear one for Scotland's women, but yet polls show that women are far less likely to vote for independence than men. The reason for this is not obvious. Some, including Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, argue that this is because women care more about their children's future than fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants patriotism. But even so, when one looks at the evidence it seems that the children of an independent Scotland will have child care and early years support; they can rely on a safe, nationalised healthcare system; their society will be more equal and more fair than it would be if we remained in the union.

I suspect the opinions of women might be more unionist (for many the default position in the debate) because they have less access to the facts. Women with caring responsibilities, with jobs, and with little time to spare scouring the internet for the facts on independence might be less likely to hear the message that screams loud and clear from alternative media - this is your chance! Seize it with both hands!

A breakdown in the polls seems to show that uncertainty is the greatest differentiating factor; women are more likely to be uncertain about the risks of Scottish independence than men. Again, this could in part be caused by women having less time to access alternative media, though a full analysis of the psychology of women and 'certainty' in a patriarchal society would be interesting. For the purposes of this current debate it might be worth simply remembering that we all know one thing's for sure - if you want something done properly, you have to do it yourself. Grassroots involvement and direct engagement are the keys to making people feel empowered and to making them confident in their own ability. If we have that confidence then we will be sure of independence's success, and sure of our power to weather the risks. It's not about appealing to women as a special interest group, it's about equal involvement.

Feminist Fights and the Independence Debate

I'm an academic and English Literature is my main area of study (but another post on the English/Scottish Literature difference at a later date!). As the referendum debate has developed I started to realise that I hardly know any Scottish history, I'm so unaware of the culture of this country I call home. So, in an effort to remedy this I picked up James Robertson's And the Land Lay Still (2010). It had a 'As heard on BBC Radio 4' sticker on the front and, as someone still very much infected by the cultural imperialism of 'Britain', that was enough to convince me it was to be my window into this strange world we call 'Scotland'.

Honestly, I couldn't have made a better choice. The novel takes its title from an Edwin Morgan poem and consists of a series of stories that, together, build up a picture of twentieth-century Scotland. For someone who had never heard of the 'tartan Tories' (that was the SNP's nickname back in the day), the Scottish Liberation Army blowing up post boxes (really!), or that Margaret Thatcher voted to support a woman's right to choose it's been a history lesson in the form of a massively engaging literary novel.

Anyway, what has this got to do with feminism and the independence debate? Well, the connection between the two has been in my mind for months but not expressed in any of the many blog posts or newspaper articles that I read. Until I came to this passage in And the Land Lay Still:

"A conference was held in Glasgow, in the theatre behind the Mitchell Library. A Saturday in July 1983. Three weeks earlier Margaret Thatcher had won her second General Election, routing the Labour Party under Michael Foot's leadership. The conference organiser had a big question for those attending: 'Which way now for the Scottish left?'...But on the day some were even unhappy about that designation. They felt that the adjective somehow betrayed the spirit of the noun it described. Someone was selling copies of a poster that said SCOTTISH WRITERS AGAINST THE BOMB. On it were the names of dozens of writers opposed to nuclear weapons on the Clyde. An argument started. 'Oh, you can't say that.' 'Can't say what?' 'If you say "Scottish writers" you're excluding other writers who are also against the Bomb. That's parochial, that is.'... A fight almost broke out." (And the Land Lay Still, 530-1).

Anyone reading who hasn't had much experience of feminist spaces might still be scratching their heads as to why I've just quoted this slab of a passage, but I think if you've spent much time in feminist spaces (particularly online) you'll be more than aware of similar debates. This passage is set in 1983, but some of the same debates are happening now, as we face the referendum. And, I think, we who have cut our political teeth in the world of feminism are well placed to tackle these kinds of issues, given that we spend a lot of our time thinking about them.

The equivalence, in this passage, of Scotland with 'parochialism' is very much what feminists are accustomed to experiencing when they support women-only spaces, or anything-only spaces, in feminism. There is a lack of understanding on the part of mainstream thought. Surely, if you're fighting for a cause, you want as many people as possible to follow you? This is how we think under a democracy, where numbers are everything. It's the same when someone picks a campaign to work on. There are always those voices asking how you can focus on Page 3 when FGM is such an issue? Or, what's the point of having a woman on a bank note when two women a week are being murdered by their partners?

But sometimes, numbers aren't everything. Sometimes the exclusion of dominant (male) voices can be conducive to that. The same goes for other feminist groups, who choose to restrict their membership by race, or colour, or political affiliation or whatever. There's not just strength in numbers, there's strength in having people around you who understand.

And sometimes, you see an issue where you can make a measurable difference. And maybe it's not going to destroy patriarchy by the time you're done, but you can achieve something, however small, and build on that success. And the wonderful thing is, your campaign does not damage other feminist campaigns with different messages. It makes them stronger.

The other thing to recognise here is the potential for a multiplicity of voices and positions. As well as SCOTTISH WRITERS AGAINST THE BOMB, or 'Feminists for Independence - no men allowed', there is plenty of space for other groups to be formed. WRITERS AGAINST THE BOMB and 'Mixed Gender Feminists for Independence' will also garner a wide following, and can do so without stepping on each others toes, but with mutual support and respect.

This is one of the things that the feminist movement has in common with the independence movement. In grassroots organisation we understand that 'different' doesn't have to mean 'in opposition to'. Realising and expressing our identity doesn't mean we want to crush or silence the 'other'. We make our own spaces, but we also try to make space for others. This is what I think people miss when they ask the SNP to come up with all the answers, to promise (and sign on the dotted line) what will happen if we vote Yes. You can't really blame people for this, when you're accustomed to decisions made through party politics you expect to choose things from a menu rather than get in the kitchen and roll up your sleeves - you also expect to be lied to, so that whatever a politician promises you'll never be satisfied. We should all realise that no one can promise us anything, and certainly no one can make us believe - if you want something done then you can take the first step towards making it happen. Start a campaign, knock on some doors, start a Facebook group or a conversation with someone you suspect is on your side. You will find support, there's a whole country out here to help you out; sometimes you just have to be the first one to raise your voice and say what needs to be done.

Feminism and Scottish Independence - 6 Months to Go

This post is the one in which I explain what kind of things you can expect from this blog over the coming months. I'm a feminist campaigner and an academic. I'll also be voting Yes in the coming Scottish referendum. There are many thoughts about these topics all over the internet, but I haven't seen some of my own positions reflected in the debates as of yet, to the point where I've finally decided to put my reputation where my offline mouth is and start to write some of them down. I'm going to write about what feminism has to teach us about the Scottish referendum, and the future of an independent Scotland. Feminist campaigning and activism has taught me a lot (although I'm by no means an expert!) and I want to put those two worlds together to see what we get. I haven't heard enough from feminists on the topic of independence, though I know many Scottish feminists are fellow Yes voters - so I'm going to give some of my observations here. You almost certainly won't agree with everything I write - but the internet is a big, beautiful diverse place and you're welcome to write your own blogs representing your point of view if you feel the need. Here we go!