Sugar with that sir? Or would you prefer Independence-Lite?

Well I have to start off with a confession. I have my coffee with skimmed milk and sweeteners not cream and sugar these days. I have enough trouble with my waistline without adding to it unnecessarily. But the coffee – well it’s full strength coffee – from a pod – made in a fancy coffee machine. And ever since my daughter got that coffee machine at Christmas I’ve forsaken coffee of the powdered variety. The real stuff wins every time.

I’m sure you can all see where this is going, and indeed you’d be correct, but first let’s get to grips with this astounding piece of Scotsman journalism, from which all that was missing from the title were the wearisome words “accused of”.

And when I read several paragraphs in that Jim Sillars was involved, along with some dubious polling of “1000 SNP members” by the professor, well I have to say my thoughts were “Here we go again”. I may be wrong but I’m pretty sure I haven’t given the SNP permission to share my contact details with any professor. But then I wasn’t asked any questions. Funny that.

However much the Scotsman would like it to be the case, Jim Sillars is no more representative of the SNP leadership nowadays than I am. He was an inspiration to me and many other activists back in 1988, as we battled against huge Labour majorities in the west of Scotland, and I have many happy memories of that campaign in Govan, but it is a whole different world to the one that concluded a few days ago. Jim is very much a voice of the past and from where I’m sitting has proved unable to move on as we have, to a different politics of the 21^st century.

I’m quite happy to nail my colours to the wall. I’ll call them red. You can decide what you want to call them. Cerise? Crimson? Cardinal? Wikipedia lists 52 shades of red  after all.

I’m in favour of full blown Norwegian/Danish/Finnish/Austrian/Czech/Irish/New Zealand type independence. I just plucked some random countries out of thin air. Perhaps I should have included Montenegro.

All smallish countries who don’t fall short of what anyone would define as full independence in a 21^st century context. They have their own armed forces, their own social security systems and pension schemes, their own television channels. Some have their own currencies, others share one. They have their own governments, with their own policies and oppositions, who have theirs. They have elections with fair voting systems. They have Presidents or Kings and Queens. They have seats in the United Nations and on other International organisations. The ones with coastlines are in charge of the oil and gas deposits and the fishing grounds that lie within their territorial waters. They have their own foreign policies, and contribute to international aid.

But of course they’re not random as you probably realised. Every one of them has at some stage in its history, some more recent than others, been a part of a larger unit.

But do you hear a clamour to return to the old ways? Bring back the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway! Let’s be swallowed back up by Russia! The Austro-Hungarian Empire wasn’t such a bad thing! Come back Slovakia all is forgiven! Need I go on?

I really don’t see all this as difficult. And interestingly neither now do a lot of people.

Ian McWhirter wrote an article the other day in which he commented that an independent Scotland would be welcomed into the United Nations and become a successor state in the EU. Not earth shattering stuff to Nationalists of my ilk, but what was more interesting was that those two were taken as read. They would happen if we became independent. They weren’t up for debate.

And that alone is how much the debate has moved on, no matter how much the Scotsman would like to pretend it hasn’t. We’re actually debating what kind of Independence we’d like. But it’s not “Independence-Lite” I can assure you!

The other day at work out of the blue, in the middle of an IT training session, one of the two English trainers, with no knowledge of my political background, asked when I thought Scotland would become independent and the word “soon” was used in that context. There followed a fascinating discussion in which they both agreed that when we do (there was no debate about if) the border posts are likely to be on the English side of the line, and that there was no reason why we wouldn’t be financially viable. They even agreed that it was indeed strange that if we were subsidised by England that voices from south of the border would be so vehemently opposed to us going our separate ways.

That whole conversation could not, in my view, have taken place literally even 2 months ago. We even covered Trident, and here is where I really lose the plot with Sillars and the Scotsman. I’m sorry but Trident is not up for negotiation. It’s as simple as the Russian soldiers moving back home from Eastern Europe. Trident will go. Period. I’m happy to discuss when but there’s no “if” in the discussion.

And when the Scotsman article mentioned English “agreement” for Scottish Independence, I have to say I was almost one window down. But then I calmed down and remembered that they, like much of the Labour Party, have not come to terms with 2007 never mind 2011.

The debate has moved on, and to return to my analogy it’s not about whether we’re having instant or real coffee – there is no debate: real wins every time. The debate is about whether we’re having cream and sugar, or skimmed milk and sweeteners, with it.