I CAN’T have been the only supporter of Scottish independence who has reflected on the nature of his belief in the wake of the Ministry of Defence v Chris McEleny.
The SNP group leader on Inverclyde Council took his former employer The MoD to an employment tribunal alleging discrimination. McEleny had had his security clearance withdrawn in 2016 after receiving a visit from your friendly neighbourhood National Security Vetting squad.
READ MORE: Why the Chris McEleny discrimination case is vital for all who support independence
An interesting chat ensued which saw the councillor being asked questions about Trident, Irish politics and his mental health. Curiously, McEleny was also asked his views about Rangers FC, although why this would be a pressing matter for a National Security Vetting squad remains unclear.
In August, a Glasgow employment tribunal gave McEleny leave to press his claim at a full tribunal and last week the MoD were, as expected, given leave to appeal this. Judge Francis Eccles had adjudged that McEleny’s belief in the cause of Scottish independence was a “protected characteristic” under the 2010 Equality Act. Effectively, it amounted to a philosophy.
Like judge Eccles it was clear to me that Chris McEleny’s support for an independent Scotland permeated every fibre of his being. No matter what the economic circumstances of this country or the nature of the government at Westminster he would always support an independent Scotland.
I didn’t form the impression that McEleny felt that an independent Scotland would be an exceptionally brilliant wee country. He simply felt that Scotland, by dint of its identity, history and culture ought always to be an independent country ... a good neighbour to those sharing its borders rather than subject to their legislature in several key aspects of its daily life.
Mr McEleny could thus be considered something of a Scottish Nationalist Ultra. He’ll back independence come hell or high water. I’d also be willing to bet that McEleny would remain steadfast in this belief even if the SNP ceased to be a serious political force after independence.
His joust with the MoD has caused me to consider the extent of my own support for an independent Scotland. Could my nationalism be considered a philosophy?
Or is it simply a preference fuelled mainly by deep unhappiness at the way the rest of the UK has followed a nasty and vindictive style of politics that has at times sought to engender and exploit racism.
Once, I’d have said that my support for an independent Scotland was a preference, something whose roots didn’t extend very deeply at all. I wasn’t unduly distressed on the morning of September 19, 2014. “It’s not as if we’re being occupied by an aggressive foreign foe,” I consoled myself, “it’s jolly old England who speak our language, share some of our heritage and like many of the same things.” There could be a lot worse than this.
I looked forward to the day when an authentically socialist government would run Scotland following independence and we could say cheerio to the SNP for helping us get here. Perhaps we could even get them a wee bouquet of flowers. Then we could set about nationalising the bejesus out of everything, closing down the private schools and taking back the land that was grabbed by a few hundred families at a time when Scotland was vulnerable.
I don’t really know any old Scottish songs and would rather listen to a washing machine with a stone in it than Runrig. I avoid tartan and will never wave a saltire or a lion rampant or sing Flower of Scotland. I care little for the Scotland international football team and less for its rugby team. I don’t really like the SNP: never have. I care for this country’s history though and for the way that it has been slowly exploited by Westminster over centuries, like the boiling of a frog. Thus even many of those who have suffered most from the policies of a hard-right Westminster Government don’t seem to notice and continue to uphold the Union that permits it. The postBrexit apocalypse which will engulf the UK will strike hardest at its most vulnerable citizens. This is always the way of it. And yet again, Scotland will be told to endure it and be mocked for it by the backwoodsmen and grotesques among the Scottish Tories at Westminster.
So now, like Chris McEleny, my support for an independent Scotland has become a “philosophy”. It is a belief that even a very bad day in an independent Scotland will still feel better than the finest day in what modern Britain has become.
Tale from afar proves healing power of football
I AM currently in Canada visiting my extended family in Vancouver for the wedding of a much-loved younger cousin. Today cannabis gets the green light, as it were, across the country.
The debate surrounding the legalisation of dope has, as you might expect, been a colourful one. I don’t have any profound feelings on this issue either way although I suppose I remain fearful about the effects cannabis has on the mental health of young people who take it from an early age.
One tale however, that caught my imagination attests to the unfailing ability of football to settle arguments as well as unite continents. It concerns the large groups of Mexican and Guatemalan immigrants working on a “grow-up” cannabis facility in British Columbia. I only have one source for this tale (although a good one) and thus I would urge a degree of caution in treating it as entirely factual.
It seems that the Mexicans and the Guatemalans don’t exactly get along with each other and that this was causing a degree of tension in their cannabis-growing place of work.
It was also adversely affecting rates of production.
There was only one thing for it: an international football match between both countries to settle the issue.
The match was held in a secret location at night and I’m told that it was a competitive affair. Eventually, the Mexicans won narrowly and thus all Mexican workers were permitted to stay on the site. The Guatemalans were forced to gather their belongings and move to another facility. It may seem unsophisticated and troubling even. But unlike some of the employment practices which will be permitted to run in the UK following Brexit it was civilised and no-one was forced out of a job.
I’m also told that the Mexicans deployed a lot of high balls; the Guatemalans made a hash of their clearances and that the game was played in a very relaxed atmosphere. Both teams tucked into Mars Bars for their half-time and full-time refreshments.
High on thwarting Trump
EVEN before the legalisation of cannabis Canada has always been a chilled country at ease with itself. The forces of the hard right running rampant across the globe and inspired by Donald Trump and Brexit will never really gain a foothold in Canada.
Indeed, you always gain the impression that Canadians take pride in not being ‘American’ just as much as they do in being Canadian. The ones I spoke to love the idea of their country being a constant irritant to the unhinged US president.
A few told me they felt their government might not have been just so enthusiastic about legalising cannabis if Donald Trump hadn’t been in the White House.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel