Interview with Donna Edmunds, Councillor for Lewes, Sussex

Pearl of Tyburn:  Tonight we have Ms. Donna Edmunds from Sussex, England. Thank you for taking the time out for this.

Donna Edmunds: You're welcome.

P.T.:  Could you elaborate a little about your background and work?

D.E.:  Yes. I have a degree in Zoology, and after graduating spent a number of years trying out different careers. Eventually, in 2009 I got a job at the European Parliament with an MEP, doing research and other bits and pieces - writing blogs for him and helping to organise a conference, that sort of thing

I spent 18 months in Brussels, then a year in London working for an MP, then I stopped work to have my daughter, but have run a few projects on the side voluntarily since then. I'm also a councilor on my local District Council

P.T.:  Identity wise, do you see yourself having any particular national/cultural/religious identities? And do you consider yourself predominately English or British?

D.E.:  I consider myself to be equally British and English. My mother is an immigrant (she was born in Ukraine), so I also identify a little with people from an immigrant background - we have Russian dolls in the house, my mother and grandmother speak Russian to each other etc. But I've always felt very English/British, and not at all Russian or Ukrainian.

To me, being both English and British isn't a contradiction. I live in Sussex, which is on the South coast of England, as it's the same thing to me as saying "I'm English and Southern". England feels like a region of Britain that I identify with. So I don't see Scotland as a foreign country, but nor do I feel in any way Scottish (because I'm not!)

P.T.:  So what is your reaction to The Scottish Independence Referendum?

D.E.:  Well, I feel a little sad that there are people in Scotland who feel so strongly about independence that they would campaign so vigorously for a referendum. When I think about our history as a joined nation, I feel just as proud of achievements of Scottish people as I do of people from Yorkshire or Devon or Wales. We're all British, no matter where on the island we live. But if they want independence, that's up to them.

Having said that, if we English got a vote on Scottish independence in September, I'd be tempted to vote for Independence. But maybe I wouldn't actually vote that way when it came down to it. I don't know.

P.T.:  What issues make you lean that way?

D.E.:  At the moment the way devolution has taken place means that the Scottish get much more Government money spent on them than the English do. For example, if you're a Scottish student studying at a Scottish university you don't have to pay fees, whereas an English student studying at the same university does have to pay. That doesn't seem very fair to me.

Also, the politicians in Scotland are very socialist. A (slightly mean) part of me thinks "let them have a go at socialism and see how it works out. They'll come back soon enough when the money runs out" But it's not a very noble way of viewing the whole thing, which is why I say that my emotional attachment to Scotland would probably prevail in the end.

P.T.:  Do you think there is a way of making government assistance programs fairer in all parts of the UK?

D.E.:  Not without reversing devolution. The problem is that all tax money is collected centrally, but then Scottish and Welsh parliamentarians get to set the rules on how they spend their money. It's no wonder that they keep giving their people freebies - all they have to do is demand more from Whitehall.

P.T.:  What do you think of the "historical" connections some Scottish nationalists have tried to make with Bannockburn, the Jacobites, etc.?

D.E.:  I think it's inevitable that they'll use history in that way to make their case. If their goal is to paint Scotland as having been conquered, so that they can claim to be setting Scotland free again, any historical imagery that brings that case to life will be used. I think it's up to those who don’t' want to see Scotland split from GB to do likewise, by highlighting our rich shared military and social history. And of course it must be pointed out that Scotland was never conquered, but the two countries were brought together under James.

P.T.:  Speaking of military, what sort of challenges do you think an independent Scotland would face without the armed forces and general international clout of the UK?

D.E.:  Militarily I don't think they'd face huge problems as a country. I can't see any other country wanting to invade Scotland any time soon. But there's no doubt that they would have a vastly reduced standing on the world stage, and would be unable to play a leading role in major strategic maneuvers - which of course they might be quite happy with, to be honest. The wars that Britain has joined over the last couple of decades haven't been very popular. They are talking about joining the EU though, so they'll have representation in Europe at least.

As for the military specifically, again, some of the Scottish regiments are highly regarded and have illustrious histories within the British army. Would they be dissolved? Would English people serving within them be asked to leave? Disentangling the affairs of the two nations would take quite some doing.

P.T.:  What do you think of Alex Salmond vs. Alistair Darling?

D.E.: Alex Salmond is a very accomplished politician. To even get as far as securing a referendum takes quite some doing. He's clearly charismatic and good at persuading people to back his cause.

Darling, by contrast, is a very workmanlike figure. Even as Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is the highest ranking minister in the Cabinet, he was completely forgettable. I guess they chose him to front the campaign because he's Scottish and has held high office, but he's hardly the most inspirational of people. The whole 'No' campaign has been a bit lackluster, to be honest. So much so that it has occurred to me that they might be trying to lose!

P.T.:  What suggestions would you give to Better Together to improve things?

D.E.:  I think they need to paint a more positive picture of the Union in general, and appeal more to emotions. A lot of the debate is over whether people would be £200 richer or poorer if Scotland went independent. Well, you're talking about overturning 300 years of history and splitting countless families across two countries.

The nature of the debate should be more inspiring than how much money you'll have in your pocket in the short term. A little bit more discussion about how, by working together as fellow countrymen, Scots and Englishmen have accomplished all sorts of major achievements

P.T.:  Many of the people I have interviewed have said the exact same thing. How do you think that can be driven home to Better Together?

D.E.:  I'm not sure, really. It's not as if those sorts of things aren't being said out loud in our media, after all. A lot of people have commented on the uninspiring nature of the campaign. I think one of the problems is that it's not very fashionable to be patriotic at the moment. If you start talking about how Great Britain is people assume you're a bit of a bigot or racist. So perhaps they just feel embarrassed to be making that kind of appeal to emotion.

P.T.:  How do you think it might become more fashionable to be patriotic?

D.E.:  Oh, well, that's a big question! I think if UKIP, which is unashamedly patriotic, do well in the elections next year people might feel more comfortable expressing patriotic viewpoints. On the other hand, those who oppose UKIP have done so loudly and viciously, that people might feel more than ever that they couldn't say anything publically, even if they do vote UKIP at the ballot box.

It's mostly the fashionable London elite and the middle classes who find patriotism distasteful. How do you turn their opinions around? Can you? Who knows?!

This is why I say I wonder whether they really have their hearts in this campaign to keep Britain united.

P.T.:  Can you give me a little summary of UKIP policies?

D.E.:  First and foremost, we want Britain to leave the EU and become a sovereign nation again. We'd like to see Britain start to trade more freely with the rest of the world, and in particular restrengthen ties with the Commonwealth.

At home, we're a classical liberal party, so low taxes, small government, quite socially liberal. Although we have come under a lot of fire recently for saying that we'd like immigration to be better managed and for the total overall number of immigrants entering the country each year to be brought down, which isn't strictly speaking libertarian.

P.T.:  The UKIP did very well in the EU election, didn't it?

D.E.:  Came first.

P.T.:  What kind of power does that give the party?

D.E.:  None really. It makes it a little harder for the other parties to ignore us. For example Nigel Farage (the leader) has said that he will insist on being included in leaders’ debates at the next election. But it doesn't give us any electoral power.

P.T.:  Do you think pulling out of the EU would strengthen unity in the UK?

D.E.:  That's a good question. I don't know really, since devolution has given Scotland and Wales a more separate identity than they had before. I guess a case could be made for Britain being a sovereign nation once again and everyone pulling together to make it succeed. But I don't know how well that would go down in Scotland.

P.T.:  To wrap things up, what do you see in the future for your political career and personally?

D.E.: Well, I recently stood in the European Parliamentary elections in the South East, and missed out on getting a seat - but I am 'first reserve' on the list if anyone drops out, so I'm hoping that at least one of our four South East MEPs will be elected to Westminster next May as I'll pick up their MEP seat.

Other than that, I've just applied for a job heading up the Get Britain Out campaign, which as the name implies is an anti-EU campaign. So I'm sure lots more campaigning and blogging and that sort of thing. And personally, hopefully staying living in Sussex as my daughter really likes our local nursery. Although I wouldn't turn down a job offer in the States!

P.T.:  Do you have any special interests/hobbies?

D.E.:  I do a bit of horseback riding. This is going to sound very sad, but politics is my hobby as well as my career, so I read a lot of political books and magazines - when I get the time. Mostly I'm kept busy being a mother and taking part in campaigns.

P.T.: Hey, it's nice you love what you do!

D.E.: Yeah! I'm very lucky.

P.T.: Thanks so much for taking the time out to do it!

D.E.: You're very welcome. I hope it's useful

Interview with Euan McTurk, Resident of Glasgow

Pearl of Tyburn:  This afternoon I’ll be speaking with Mr. Euan McTurk, Unionist activist. Hello, Mr. McTurk.

Euan McTurk:  Hello.

P.T.:  So could you tell me a little bit about your self, your background, and identities?

E.M.:  I'd prefer not to tell you too much about myself, to be honest. The position I and a lot of other Scottish Unionists are in at this time forces hide our real identities because of the culture of intimidation that has been promoted by the nationalists.

P.T.:  Please speak broadly, then, only as much as you feel comfortable telling.

E.M.:  I'm a born and bred Scot, with Scottish roots going back generations. I consider myself to be Scottish, British and European, the order of which depends on the circumstances!

With regards to religion, I would have to go back at least three generations to find any churchgoers in our family. I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it to be honest, if I did I could probably identify both Catholics and Protestants. However as above, I don't associate myself with either. I consider myself an atheist.

P.T.:  Are you a member of any one of the major political parties?

E.M.:  Yes. The Labour Party. Have been for over 20 years.

P.T.:  Can you say whether you live in north or south of Scotland? As in Highlands or Lowlands?

E.M.:  The West! Glasgow.

P.T.:  "The Rose-Red City as Old as Time...."

E.M.:  Yes. Smells like it too some mornings....

P.T.:  Ah, city life! Give me the country any day!

E.M.:  Or, in the context of what we’re going to be talking about, give me MY country any day!

P.T.:  Yes, and to that point, what is your reaction to The Scottish Independence Referendum?

E.M.:  I see it as an utter distraction from the proper business of Government. The Scottish Parliament currently has one of the lightest legislative programmes going since it was established, all while the nationalists try not to "upset the apple cart" while pursuing their constitutional objectives.

This means that some of the real things that they are charged with delivering on, such as child poverty, such as employment, such as the delivery of public services, are all being neglected. Which they then turn around as justification for pursuing constitutional change!!

P.T.:  As a Labour member, what would you say about the SNP trying to make people nervous about Tory rule in order to advocate independence?

E.M.:  I'm more nervous about the SNP. I don't agree with most Tory policies, but a two-party system needs two parties to work. Labour comes in and improves the offer for the poorest in society, the Tories come in and create the conditions for business to generate the wealth that can be used to support the delivery of services. Each has its place in the electoral cycle.

The SNP are like the cuckoos of the electoral system, preying on whatever policy they think will attract support to their constitutional objectives, but not actually believing in any of them. They are a broad-church of opinion whereby the only thing that they have in common is their chip-on-the-shoulder nationalism. As you might have guessed, I detest them!

P.T.:  What's your opinion of Alex Salmond? And what do you think are his main weakness?

E.M.:  Salmond is a dangerous man who has been in power for too long and now thinks he is untouchable. He is holding his party together on the promise of separation. When that is denied to them on 18 September I would expect the SNP to start a civil war of recrimination, and he will be the first casualty.

P.T.:  What do you think of the Unionist campaign thus far? What about Alistair Darling?

E.M.:  They always had a hard sell. Life is never going to be perfect and people will always have something to complain about. The challenge has always been about selling what we have - warts and all - vs. the rose-tinted pipe dream that promises everything and anything. Gullible people are always going to be taken in by the latter. Alastair Darling is doing an OK job, although he's not the most dynamic. He shouldn't be underestimated, though.

P.T.:  What do you think about historical arguments for and against, regarding historical events like Bannockburn, the Jacobites, etc.?

E.M.:  This is 2014, not 1314. The purpose of history as I see it is to learn from our mistakes, not dwell on them. The Jacobite cause is an example of history being corrupted in that it is often presented as a Scots - English dispute, whereas it was a religiously and politically generated struggle with Scots fighting on both sides. Bonnie Prince Charlie died a drunk riddled with syphilis. He would have made some Leader!

P.T..:  Do you believe there is any place for romantic historical in national consciousness? Do you think Bannockburn's 700^th anniversary should be celebrated at all as a representation of something?

E.M.:  I might have taken a mild interest in the Bannockburn anniversary one time, but the fact that this referendum has been designed to coincide with it has put me off. Bannockburn is a word in a text book that took place 700 years ago and was about an English Lord who wanted to be a Scottish King (Bruce) and who spilled the blood of the common man to achieve his aims. It is a quaint aside and has no bearing on what matters most today - jobs, prosperity and equality.

P.T.:  What historical characters and events, do you think all Scottish Brits should be particularly proud?

E.M.:  I think that's a personal choice for each and every one of us. We've got lots to choose from. As before, history for me is about learning from our mistakes, I'm not one for dwelling on it and certainly not one for hero-worshipping figures from the past, most of whom have been painted one way or the other depending on who was holding the brush!

P.T.:  Do you have any that particularly interest you? And aside from hero-worshipping, any that you admire in some way or another?

E.M.:  Not really. I have a measure of admiration for lots of people, but I can't think of any who are flawless. Whatever they did, it's done and they'll play no further part. The future is in our hands now.

P.T.:  Could you elaborate on the issues of "jobs, prosperity, and equality" in the UK as opposed to a hypothetical independent Scotland?

E.M.:  We currently live and work in a growing economy, one that is the 6th biggest in the world and that can justifiably be described as one of the fastest growing Western economies. That has positive implications for jobs and prosperity. Anything the SNP has to offer is a finger in the wind by comparison. On equality, nationalism essentially has discrimination at its heart.

P.T.:  How do you think the relationship between Britain/Scotland would change with other nations (such as my own USA) would change after hypothetical independence?

E.M.:  It wouldn't be any better. The remainder of the UK would suffer the consequences, too, and would be justifiably upset at having to experience hardships as a result of our selfishness. Negotiations would not be easy. Obama and Clinton have already said that it would be better if the UK stayed together, and they are right.

I can't see us ejecting Trident from Faslane as being appealing to our NATO allies. Scotland would have a minimal defence force and would therefore be unable to join the USA on world peace-keeping duties, etc. As such, we would just be yet another small nation amongst many, and there would be no basis for any sort of "special relationship" with the States.

P.T.:  What do you think about environmentalism and the nuclear issue the SNP seem to have quite some antipathy for?

E.M.:  Environmentalism is a global issue and a perfect example of an issue that nationalism cannot sort. The SNPs stance on nuclear, like many of their stances, lacks common sense and is simply intended to appeal to as many people as possible while bringing them over to their way of thinking on the constitution. Nuclear power deserves serious consideration if we are to keep the lights on.

P.T.:  What do you think the UK represents to the world and to you personally? How would that be lost through independence?

E.M.:  We are one of, if not THE, oldest political and economic union in the world. We have had our shot at being a Superpower, we have one of the world's largest financial centres in the city of London, our armed forces are amongst the most highly regarded in the world, and our culture expressed in terms of our history and comedy attracts visitors in large number. We have a lot going for us, and separation puts it all at risk. As the phrase goes, we are Better Together, weaker apart.

P.T.:  In the end, what do you think the outcome of this referendum is likely to be?

E.M.:  We're on course for a NO Vote. The latest poll published today shows NO leading by 60:40, and that has been fairly consistent for at least the last 2 years. Barring something unexpected, that's roughly where I would expect the result to land in September.

P.T.:  What do you plan on doing as the referendum draws closer?

E.M.:  More of what I've been doing so far! Campaigning, leafleting, posting on social media, that sort of thing.

P.T.:  In addition to your political activism, do you have any hobbies or interests you wouldn't mind listing?

E.M.:  Fishing, snorkeling and sky-diving. And caber tossing. And walking in to people who are texting on their phones on the pavement (sidewalk). I particularly like doing that.

P.T.:  Thanks for all the help with the interview!

E.M.:  No worries.

Interview with “Bonnie Lass”, Resident of the Edinburgh Area

Pearl of Tyburn:  This evening we have with us “Bonnie Lass” from the Edinburgh area of Scotland. Thanks so much for taking the time out to do this.

Bonnie Lass:  My pleasure!

P.T.:  First, could you give me a brief overview of your background and what national/cultural/religious identities you might see yourself as having?

B.L.:  I was born in Scotland and have lived in Scotland all my life. I think of myself as Scottish and not British - if I'm filling up forms, for instance, and am asked for nationality, I always put Scottish. I'm a member of the Church of Scotland, but prefer to call myself a Christian.

P.T.:  Do you belong to any particular political party?

B.L.:  I am not a member of any political party, but I have voted Labour for many years now (including today at the European elections).

P.T.:  What was your first impression when the Scottish Independence Referendum was announced?

B.L.:  I wasn't entirely surprised, as I thought it had been on the cards for a while. But when it was announced, I realised this would be a big step, whichever way it went.

P.T.:  As a person who sees herself as primarily Scottish as opposed to British, how will you vote in the referendum come September, and what are your reasons? 

B.L.: Well, although I think of myself as Scottish in all things, I will NOT be voting for independence when the time comes.

It seems to me that the UK is a small enough country as it is without being fragmented further. And there are SO MANY imponderables when it comes to independence. Do we get to keep the pound sterling? What about EU membership, and maybe even the need for passports to cross the border into England?

P.T.: What do you think the result will be now that an independent Scotland may be unable to keep the pound? Also, what’s your opinion on Scotland’s overall financial well-being should she become independent?

B.L.:  Many big companies are talking about relocating in England if we became independent because we may no longer have the pound.

I don't know if we have enough financial resources to 'go it alone'. The big cry has always been (since drilling started in the North Sea) "It's Scotland's oil" - but how long before the oil runs out?

P.T.:  What do you think of the Scottish Parliament and other home rule bodies within the UK? And what’s your answer to the claim that complete independence would make Scotland more of a force to be reckoned with on the world stage?

B.L.:  Well, I was delighted when we got the Scottish Parliament as it meant we were able to concentrate on purely Scottish issues, some of which Westminster doesn't know or doesn't care about. But I don't think that independence would make us more a force to be reckoned with.

Having “home rule” doesn’t necessitate independence from the Union. One alternative which is spoken about is 'devo-max', which seems to mean we would keep the status quo but, that the Scottish Parliament would also be given more powers, perhaps in taxes etc. That could be a good alternative in my opinion.

P.T.:  What are you thoughts on Alex Salmond and his independence campaign?

B.L.:  A lot of us wonder if Alex Salmond has some self-interest at heart. Perhaps if someone different was in charge, I would feel differently about it all, but such is the case. The question is how much are people swayed by personalities?

P.T.:  Do you think that celebrities who outspoken on the issue of Scottish independence are affecting are affecting the opinions of the Scottish people at all?

B.L.:  Is it really supposed to sway us? It doesn't alter my views. It annoys me the way that this host of ‘famous’ people - from film stars to comedians to personalities – are stating their views, for or against. For example, Sean Connery is all for Scottish independence, which, of course, is countered by the fact that he doesn't even live here!

P.T.: Now I hear that his Agent 007 counterpart, Roger Moore, is vouching for the preservation of the UK. The War of the Bonds seems to have begun!

B.L.: Oh, dear!

P.T.: Do you think there is something of a different tone in the Scottish nationalist movement of today and nationalists in past generations?

B.L.:  There was a difference in the nationalist cause back when they 'liberated' the Stone of Scone, and now. Somehow they seemed quite different but can't identify quite exactly how. It was more historically based than politically back then, I think.

P.T.:  What do you think about the way that the referendum question is phrased, putting “Yes” for independence and “No” for the Union?

B.L.:  I think it's quite confusing. Even now, when people ask if I'm going to vote yes or no, I sometimes have to say, er....what's the question again?! It's quite loaded making the positive answer the one for independence, isn't it?

P.T.:  Indeed. In fact, I would think it would be more natural for "yes" to be in favor of the status quo.

B.L.:  You're right! Perhaps that's why I get confused. Also....it's such a long time since it was brought up. Is the question do you want Scotland to be a separate STATE or a separate COUNTRY?

P.T.:  Good point. Or, going further, what's the difference between a "country" and a "nation", as it seems that a lot of people identify Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland as "nations" within the "country" of the UK!

B.L.:  I think they did try out several wordings before they decided. There were also all sorts of 'joke' replacement questions circulating, such as "Do you want these mealy-mouthed, penny pinching Sassenachs to take over the education of our wee bairns?"

P.T.:  In the midst of all this red tape and wild gags, how would you have liked to have seen the referendum question worded?

B.L.:  I think something along the lines of "Do you agree that Scotland would flourish as an independent nation?" or "Do you agree that Scotland would flourish keeping in the union?" Although I suppose that would be two questions instead of one.

P.T.:  Well, it could have been linked thusly: "Do you believe that Scotland would flourish more staying in the union, or becoming an independent nation?"

B.L.:  Yes, that sounds good, although then people couldn't answer just yes or no. Of course, I’m not sure if that’s mandatory.  I’ve never been in a referendum like this before.

P.T.:  What do you think of Salmond giving 16 years olds to right to vote in the referendum?

B.L.:  Many of us are also annoyed (and incredulous) that Salmond has given 16 year olds the vote! I mean, they are not eligible to vote in general elections. I feel that many of them will be influenced by 'Braveheart' and Freeeedommm!

However, I did watch an interview on TV with a group of 16 year olds, and I must say they spoke very sensibly and seemed very clued up about it all. They also had a mix of opinions.

P.T.:  Have you watched any referendum debates, live or on TV? If so, what are you thoughts about them?

B.L.:  There was a televised referendum debate on this week in our area. They are holding them round Scotland. I really only put it on to see if I recognized anyone in the audience, and I didn't know a single soul! I think a lot of folk must have been out-of-towners. It went on for an hour, and it was so BORING, I don't think it would make anyone change their mind.

P.T.:  From you interaction with people in your area, how high is the percentage of undecided voters you encounter now?

B.L.:  I don't know the percentages, but a lot of people I speak to still haven't decided. The 'letters' columns in all the papers are full of people giving their perspectives, but again I don't think people would change their mind because of what other people say (famous or 'ordinary'). Actually a lot of us think we will be heartily fed up with the whole thing by September!

P.T.:  How do you think people might be affected emotionally, since Scotland and England are very much intertwined at this point? What about those with families and jobs that transcend the border?

B.L.:  I don't know. As I said before, there are so many imponderables. Of course, there must be people very close to folk from across the border. You know David Cameron appealed to people in England to phone up their Scottish friends and say "We want you to stay with us!"

P.T.:  What do you think of that method he suggested? Have you or anyone you know received said "calls"?

B.L.:  Well, no one in England has phoned me! I thought it was a bit silly really and counterproductive, trying to force an outpouring of “love” that no one has brought up before now!

P.T.:  I think Mr. C. was trying to imitate something that went on during the Quebec Independence Referendum, when the people of Canada basically pleaded with the people within Quebec to remain a part of the country.

B.L.:  Oh, yes, I think someone else told me that.

P.T.:  I'm not sure if it helped directly, but the result did turn out favorable for them, and Quebec is still part of Canada to everyone's benefit, as time has revealed. But it was quite a close vote!

B.L:  I do wonder what the general English reaction is. I wouldn't be surprised if they think we should just get on and make up our own minds. Or maybe a lot of them would be happy to 'get rid' of us. Have there been any polls in England to ask that?

P.T.: Yes, there have been. Generally, 60% in favor of the union, 20% against it, and the rest not caring either way. Personally, everyone I know in England would be heartily depressed to lose you! So you are "loved" by some “southies”!

B.L:  Well, that's nice!

P.T.:  What do you think about the system allowing only those currently living in Scotland to vote?

B.L.:  It seems a bit odd. After all, I have several friends who were born in Scotland and now live in England, so they can't vote; but people born in England who live and work in Scotland can!

P.T.:  It does sound strange, especially since the "trans-border" commuters have the most to gain from the union in concept and reality. Lots of them have relatives north or south of the “dividing line”, as well job commitments.

They feel very much connected with the place as a part of their "country" and see their Scottish friends and relatives as "compatriots" But this is just one of the many complications in trying to "segregate" people who have been so intermixed by being considered one people for so long!

B.L.:  Yes, I agree. I think there are a whole lot of complications raising their heads now, which originally weren't thought of. The really worrying thing is that, whatever the outcome of the vote, it will (presumably) be irreversible.

P.T.:  Actually, some are predicting that if the pro-independence party loses by a slight margin, they may try to launch another independence referendum in as soon as two years!

On the other hand, should the pro-union party lose by a slight margin, the "Yes" people are insisting that we better shut up and sit down or else be branded as enemies of democracy!

B.L.:  I’ve often thought the worst result would be almost a dead-heat, but I hadn't heard that about another go in two years time...aargh!

P.T.:  The suggested “Round 2” for independence is speculative, mind, but some of the "Yes" people are definitely pushing for it, and the “No” people worrying about it, and most average people just dreading having to go through another neverendum in their lifetimes!

B.L.:  Yes, I don't think I could bear to go through it all again! I think it's important to emphasize that 'we' (I mean my friends and acquaintances) are NOT talking about it all the time! Perhaps come September we will, but at the moment we are just getting on with our lives.

I don't know how strongly people think about it just now. For instance, I know my sister is going to vote yes for independence and has a badge saying so, but she didn't ask me how I’m going to vote, so I didn't say!

P.T.:  What's your random prediction of the outcome in September? My guess, at this point, is that the union will win, but only by a slight margin.

B.L.:  I think marginally that the status quo is the one most people seem to think will win, but that’s just my (uninformed) opinion!

P.T.:  To wrap things up, could you tell us a little about your personal interests, hobbies, and goals in life?

B.L.:  I am passionately interested in local history and in collecting oral history from older people, and have written several books on this and hope to do some more. I would like other people to look back at their own local history roots. One of my immediate goals is to get the book I'm working on (people's memories of their working lives and daily living) finished and out in the public domain. It is SO important all these memories don't get lost when the folk go.

P.T.: I agree. History and heritage is so important to development of culture and all the good things in life.

B.L.:  Yes, that's it. It's very encouraging to me that you (at your age) think like that because more often it's when folk get older that they get interested in their heritage.

P.T.: Thank you for that! In addition to being a preserver of local heritage, do you have any other interests or goals in addition?

B.L.:  Well, I also have a passionate love of cats! In the area of goals, as a great granny, I am grateful to find I am still alive the next morning! My goals SHOULD be to exercise more and leave the car at home but never seem to manage this very well (blame the Scottish weather)!

P.T.:  You have a good enough excuse! Scottish weather blamed, lol! Thank you again for agreeing to let me interview you, “Bonnie Lass”, and I look forward to catching up again in the near future.

B.L.:  Speak again soon!

Interview with Calum Crichton, Student at The University of Strathclyde

Pearl of Tyburn:  Tonight we have Mr. Calum Crichton coming to us from Glasgow, Scotland. Thank you for being with us, Mr. Crichton.

Calum Crichton: My pleasure.

P. T.:  First, could you tell me a little bit about your personal background, and if there was any particular political/cultural/religious or other prevailing identity you grew up with?

C.C.:  Certainly. I was born in Manchester, England, to Scottish parents, and lived there until I was 7 years old. After my parents split-up, I moved to Glasgow and have lived here ever since. I am 22 now.

I would say I am a Protestant, but I do not really practice the religion as such. It's such as I believe, and that's it. I have always been proud to be from Glasgow; and I've always been proud to be Scottish. But at the same time, I've always been proud to have a British identity too. I have never seen any conflict with this.

P.T.:  You sound you have a very well-rounded sense of national identity. Do you think having been born in England contributed to a feeling of cross-border Britishness for you at all?

C.C.:  It might have done so, but I was very young when I moved to Scotland. In all honesty, I cannot remember most of my time in England. I've just thought, ‘yea, its great being Scottish - but I love saying I'm from the UK too.’ My passport has always said British citizen, and I'm proud and comfortable with that.

P.T.:  I feel similarly about being a Marylander and an American. I know it's different in the general feeling here in the USA. The union takes precedence in most people's minds to the individual 50 states. But it was not always that way. Obviously, in our Civil War, the union almost split up, and Maryland was on the border. Hence, she was one of the states that made special efforts to assert her sense of independence during the war.

I think that fits, since Maryland was always had a unique individuality since the time the Catholic Lord Baltimore introduced religious toleration for all Christians here. I'm very proud to be a Marylander, especially given my Catholic heritage, but I am also equally proud to be American and happy that my state is part of the union.

C.C.:  I think that it’s good you have multiple identities. That's a strength, not a weakness. And that's how I feel, too.

P.T.:  So how did you first became involved in Unionist politics? And aside from being a Unionist, do you belong to any mainstream (or otherwise) political party yourself?

C.C.:  Through studying Finance & Economics at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, I began to take an interest in current affairs, because my studies helped me understand topical issues more. Obviously the referendum is a major issue in Scottish politics just now, so I have taken an interest in the subject.

I am not a member of a political party, but I take a high interest in politics. I vote as I see it, although on most issues I agree with the Conservatives. If there was a general election tomorrow that's who I'd vote for. But no party has a monopoly on perfect policies.

P.T.:  How did you locate and get involved in writing for “Open Unionism”? Also, are you involved with Better Together, the official pro-union campaign in Scotland?

C.C.:  As for OU, I was invited to join pro-UK groups on Facebook where we chat about the campaign. Through one of them I met Henry Hill and became quite friendly with him. I showed him my own blog, and he asked if I'd like to write something for “Open Unionism”.

As for campaigning with Better Together, I have not really, no. I mean, I support their cause and I will campaign for the UK at BT events. But I do not work for Better Together if that's what you mean.

P.T.:  Being a student of economics and finance, what are some of things that have convinced you to support the NO campaign in the upcoming referendum?

C.C.:  Well, I think there are 5 main reasons why I will vote NO:

POINT 1: Being part of the United Kingdom allows Scotland to maximize the potential of its human and natural resources.

POINT 2: Scotland's opportunities to engage with the international community are far greater as part of the United Kingdom.

POINT 3: The fiscal challenges lots of developing countries face can be better faced by pooling and sharing our resources across the United Kingdom.

POINT 4: Scotland has the best of both worlds as part of the United Kingdom.

POINT 5: Scotland has strong cultural and emotional ties with the United Kingdom that are not worth throwing away.

P.T.:  Regarding your first point, what human and natural resources are enhances for Scotland within the UK? Aren't the Nationalists campaigning under the banner of making more natural resources available to the Scottish people?

C.C.:  In relation to my first point, here are 3 examples:

a) Scotland receives 13% of UK research council funding; yet we have 8% of the population. We get this funding because our universities are world class - but it's something that would be lost if we separated because our universities would not longer get UK funding. 

It's the perfect example of how we get the best of both worlds. We can be proud of the fact that we have our own parliament that has control of our education system. But d'you know what? We can also be proud to be part of the larger UK education & research network. That helps Scotland get the very best out of its education system and its students.

I can particularly relate to this point. I went to primary and secondary school here in Scotland; I did my undergraduate in Scotland; and I am doing my postgraduate in Scotland, where one of my courses is funded by the ESRC, a UK research council. Now I have this funding, but I do not want future generations of Scots to miss out on this opportunity.

b) In order to encourage investment in the North Sea the UK government has committed to decommissioning tax relief of £35 billion. This massive cost is spread across a population of 65 million in the UK as whole, rather than just 5 million in Scotland. It means that every single drop of oil can be squeezed out of the North Sea at the lowest possible cost to the Scottish and UK population.

c) Given renewable energy is generally more expensive to produce, to incentivize production. To help companies meet the additional cost, the UK Government provides a green energy subsidy to energy companies.

Around one-third of the UK's renewable energy is generated here in Scotland, but all 26 million households across Britain pitch in - not just Scottish households. In line with Scotland’s 8% population share of the UK, Scottish consumers contribute around one-tenth of the cost of the green energy subsidy. However, Scotland’s immense potential means we receive around one-third of total British investment.  That is a good deal by anybody’s reckoning.

P.T.:  You purport that Scotland is able to have more clout in the international community as part of the UK. But some would insist that being an independent nation, in and of itself, would make Scotland more of a force on the world scene. Your thoughts?

C.C.:  I don't think so. We can currently punch above our weight internationally as part of the UK. Let's look at what we have now, and what we know for a fact:

If we want to engage with advanced economies and emerging markets, and engage with countries on global issues such as tax avoidance: the UK is a member of the G7, G8, and G20. An independent Scotland would not be.

If we want to improve global financial regulation: the UK is the 4th largest shareholder in the IMF. An independent Scotland would not be.

If we want to tackle global poverty: the UK is the 4th largest shareholder in the World Bank, and has the world's second largest aid budget. An independent Scotland would not be.

If we want to enhance global security: the UK is a permanent member of the UK security council and is part of the 'five-eyes' security arrangement with the US, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. An independent Scotland would not be.

If we want to tackle climate change and encourage business investment around Europe: the UK has the same number of votes as Germany in the European Union. An independent Scotland would have less than Greece, in accordance with its population size.

If we want to establish fantastic opportunities for our businesses: the UK is the 6th largest economy in the world and has one of the largest diplomatic networks in the world, with over 270 embassies and 169 UK Trade & Investment offices globally promoting Scottish businesses. This allows our firms to be part of a country with an unrivaled reputation of unique skills and a strong legal framework; it allows our businesses a truly global reach and an unparalleled network to tap into; and it allows our firms to promote their products, their services, their ideas, in every single part of the world.

We know for a fact that an independent Scotland would not have this vast resource to offer. The Scottish government is proposing only 70 - 90 embassies and only 26 Trade & Investment bodies.

P.T.:  What are some of the other "best of both worlds" aspects you enjoy as a Scottish Brit in the form of national institutions?

C.C.:  Loads of things. Bank of England (BoE), British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), National Health Service (NHS), Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMR&C), Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (D&VLA), National Savings and Investments (NS&I), Trade & Investment (T&I), etc. The list is endless.

P.T.:  It seems as if many of the Nationalists seem the emphasize the Scots having to share their resources with England and the rest of the UK, but deemphasize the fiscal burden the rest of the country helps bear, lightening the load on Scotland. Is there a blind spot here for Alex Salmond and his supporters?

C.C.:  Well, I believe that pooling and sharing resources is a positive concept. But Nationalists want independence at any price. I respect that, but it is not an ideology I share.

P.T.:  In a brief summary, what do you think is the Nationalists' main reason for seeking independence "at any cost"? Is it emotional idealism, political opportunism, love of Scotland, hatred of Britain, pride, guilt, or a little bit of each?

C.C.:  I don't know because I'm not a Nationalist, but I believe it is mostly emotional idealism. Nationalism means the emphasis on national goals, not international goals. It means restricting sharing sovereignty with other nations as far as possible. I think this is a negative concept in a globalized world. And I don't feel my Scottish identity is oppressed by being part of the UK. I like what we achieve together in the world.

P.T.:  It's interesting to think about the word "nationalist" as used in other contexts, such as in Germany during the World Wars or in Britain and France during their Imperial Expansion projects or America with her "Manifest Destiny".

Most of the time, the inward-looking, nationalistic cult resulted in disaster and atrocities against those who didn't "fit the mold." It became a religion of the state, and a religion of intolerance. The worst case of this was Nazi Germany. Do you think the Scottish Nationalists should be wary to "look and learn" from past nationalist projects gone awry?

C.C.:  I'm not accusing them of wanting to start WW3, but what they should take from history is that nationalism is regressive and creates borders where none exist. That is still true today, which is why I will vote NO. I see nothing positive or progressive about turning our back on a country that we have helped to shape and enormously contributed to; of walking away from people with the same values as us.

P.T.:  I'm not accusing them of wanting to start WW3 either, but I do think that the nationalistic ideology, starting out relatively innocently, can sow seeds of a dangerous mindset. Especially when "my country -- right or wrong!" is adopted. Or "do such and such at ANY cost", etc.

From my own interaction with Scottish Nationalists online, many of them seem quite unstable in their manner of arguing their (comparatively insipid) points and seem determined to turn the issue into a personal battle, trying to paint their opponents as "fascists", "elitists", etc.

C.C.:  Yes, I get that too. For Nationalists it’s about focusing on the few differences we have - not the many things we have in common. It's about making out that Scots are fundamentally different to English, Welsh, and Northern Irish people; that we have superior values, which is false.

P.T.:  The lack of common courtesy is really quite unfortunate. I think I have interacted with only one truly polite Scots Nationalist, a person about whom I could actually say, "Hey, he's not so bad. We disagree, of course, I think he's using bad arguments, but he seems like a decent guy. I can respect him for himself, if not for his beliefs."

But the divisive attitude the “YES” campaign is grounded in strikes me as being deeply repulsive and, I dare say, morally wrong. Many of them go at it with animosity akin to someone trying to break up another couple’s marriage. Frankly, I think their activities can succinctly be summed up as treason against their country, even if they don’t acknowledge the UK as such. The facts still stand on their own.

C.C.:  They don't view it that way. They think a NO vote is a vote against Scotland.

They think you are anti-Scottish if you vote NO. In fact, an SNP MSP actually stood up in parliament and said people who vote no are "anti-Scottish."

P.T.:  Do you think they really believe that, or are they just pushing it to goad people into voting their way?

C.C.:  No, I think they actually believe it.

P.T.:  Why would they actually believe that, considering the evidence against such an assertation is overwhelming?

C.C.: Because they are nationalists.

P.T.:  Meaning, they just can't see past their own perspective on what they think is best for Scotland, even when many of their own countrymen disagree?

C.C.: Yes, exactly. For example, I fundamentally disagree with independence. I think it would be bad for Scotland and the rest of the UK. Hence, I will vote NO. But I can respect that people disagree, and that independence could be the democratic will of the Scottish people. If that's the case, I would want us to make the most of it.

P.T.:  If that should happen, would you stop considering your "British"? Emotionally, where do you think that would leave many Scottish Brits?

C.C.:  No, I would not stop being “British”. I mean, I was born in Manchester, England, so I guess I've always been proud to have multiple identities. But certainly, for everyone, the feeling would not be the same. The UK is the main entity associated with being British.

P.T.:  Judging from the data coming in at this point, which side on this political battle do you think is more likely to win, and what are your reasons?

C.C.:  Hmm, it's hard to say. I'm not sure. There are many variables. But I believe the case for Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom is positive and strong. And I am confident that Better Together will win on the day.

 P.T.:  I see on your blog that you recently attended an interview with First Minister Alex Salmond in Glasgow. What are some of your thoughts about him personally, his intents, and his ability to argue his case?

C.C.:  Normally in TV interviews or in First Minister's Questions, Salmond comes across as really smug, a big opportunist, and generally an unlikable person. But he has an extraordinary ability to articulate his case very well to appeal to voters.

Yet in this interview on Friday night Salmond was away from the TV cameras. The interview was a discussion, not a situation where one question after another was fired at him. So he didn't need to think about beating his opponents or providing witty answers.

He actually came across as quite a likable, charming character.

P.T.:  That's an interesting dynamic. I think our President Obama varies in the way he comes off in interviews. Sometimes he can be arrogant and insensitive, sometimes funny and rather likable.

When you say Salmond has an extraordinary ability to articulate his case to voters, what exactly do you mean? What points does he particularly emphasize or deemphasize, and how does he handle the question of dual identity on the whole?

C.C.:  Hmm, good questions. Well.....you would have to watch clips of him. But basically when he gets asked a tough question he always attacks the opposition. And quite often finds statistics or quotes to back up his view. Misleading quotes and statistics, I might add, for the informed voter. But for the average voter it appeals to them.

On the question of identity he says it's not dependent on the constitution. But I do not buy this. Recently a former SNP leader was in the press emphasizing the need to attack British identity for the SNP to win. Salmond wants to break up the United Kingdom, the main foundation British. He tries to avoid the question of identity because many Scots are comfortable with being seen as British too.

P.T.:  In essence, he’d either have to be extremely naive to disassociate Britishness with the constitutional reality of the UK, or a liar, plain and simple, trying to rob people of their identity without letting them know it. Ultra "identity theft", wrapped up in the pretty paper of political rhetoric.

C.C.:  That's it.

P.T.:  What do you think would happen if he went up against David Cameron in televised debates? Which one of them do you think would gain the upper hand, with appearance, personality, debating skills, and all the other accessories needed to clinch live, TV broadcasted debates?

C.C.:  The scenario won't happen. David Cameron refuses to debate with Salmond, and rightly so. The debates would have defined the referendum. David Cameron does not have a vote in it. If Cameron was debating Salmond, he would lose.

This is not because Cameron’s not a good debater - he is, and could possibly beat Salmond. Cameron often does very well in Prime Minister's Questions against Ed Miliband. But Cameron is English, and he is a Conservative. Salmond would only use the opportunity to try to turn the referendum into a false debate about current UK government policy, not the real issues.

Salmond thinks an English Tory coming to lecture Scots would make people vote YES. Cameron knows this, so he’s refusing to debate him. The debate, in the end, is among Scots. Alistair Darling is leader of the Better Together campaign, he is Scottish, and he has a vote in the referendum (unlike Cameron). So Salmond should debate Darling.

P.T.:  Hmm. Sounds like "Call-Me-Dave" has definitely made a call on this one, although Salmond will probably make a big fuss about him "refusing" to debate. Does this mean that there are no official debates planned yet? Even with someone like Alistair Darling?

C.C.:  Yes, Salmond is making a fuss. Strategists at the SNP and Yes Scotland have been desperately wanting a debate for the reasons I outlined. They would only use it as an opportunity to make the referendum seem like an election choice between David Cameron and Alex Salmond. But Cameron is not stupid, so has ruled it out time and time again – correctly. Hence, no debates planned.

But I reckon Salmond and Darling will go head-to-head before the vote at some point. Remember, Alistair Darling is a respected and clever politician. He used to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He's not normally a witty person. He's not got a range of snappy comebacks like Salmond. But whereas Salmond relies on bluster, Darling is calm, rational, and often sticks to the facts. He's probably the only Labour politician who has had his reputation enhanced since the financial crisis.

P.T.: We would hope calm and rational would naturally win over witty and blustering.

The only problem is, from experience over here, the last presidential election 2012 saw just the opposite result, based on the footage of the vice-presidential debate, at least!

C.C.:  The thing is, though, a referendum is different from a general election. People know that. In an election people vote for the character normally, because they know they can change government in 5 years (or 4 years in the US case). But with a referendum that has an irreversible consequence, people want to know the facts.

P.T.:  True. But I would have hoped Americans voting in an election for the highest offices in the land would have taken a look at Biden's hysterics and shied away from wanting him one step away from the presidency! So people are generally unpredictable. I do hope the referendum "logic" holds in the UK, though.

C.C.:  So do I. But as you say, people are unpredictable. So we must campaign hard for every vote.

P.T.:  Do you know what BT is doing with regards to getting Unionist voters to the polls? I ask because that's another thing that basically sunk the Republican campaign for the presidency (which I continue to refer to merely because it was the most recent major exercise of the voting process we experienced here).

C.C.:  Yes, Better Together has a lot of activists who will be out talking to people and getting people out to vote NO on the day.

P.T.:  On a personal note, where do you see yourself going in the future, regarding your political involvement in Unionism as the referendum gears up and your own career?

C.C.:  As the referendum draws closer, I’ll be doing lots of campaigning around Scotland. With regards to my own career, I'm not sure what that will be yet! Let me get my masters out the way first, and I'll decide after that. Maybe I'll go into politics in some way, like political research or something.

P.T.:  Aside from your political fascination, what are some of your other interests/hobbies? How do you like to spend your free time?

C.C.:  Apart from politics, I obviously enjoy socializing with friends and doing the usual stuff like nights out, cinema, etc. I normally go to the gym 3 xs per week, and I also attend Krav Maga and Filipino Kali martial arts classes. I like loads of things though. I enjoy meeting new people and experiencing different cultures - taking myself out my comfort zone, ya know? 

P.T.:  I do indeed. And I have so enjoyed getting to learn more your own Scottish/British culture from you! Thank you so much for the interview, Mr. Crichton. It's been a real pleasure, and I do hope everyone works out for you personally and politically.

C.C.:  Pleasure; any time.