Interview with G. Wright, Resident of Glasgow

Pearl of Tyburn:  I’ll now be speaking Mr. G. Wright of Glasgow. How are you, Mr. Wright?

G. Wright:  Well, thanks.

P.T.:  Could you please explain what your British identity means to you?    

G. W.:  For me, a Scotsman, to be British is to enjoy a unique and special identity.  Most people only have one culture and one history; but we British are lucky to have a share in several other cultures, as well as our own.  I love all things Scottish, but I'd still prefer a Dry Gin to a Whisky, a Shakespeare over a Burns and a St Thomas More over a John Knox.  And despite these things being English in origin - they have become very much part of my culture - thanks to the UK.  This is part of the beauty of the UK - as to be British is to be enriched in this way.

   

P.T.:  What is an analogy that you might use to describe the Union?

   

G.W.:  Our very successful Union is like a family, in that the Nations are close and affectionate of one another, but also distinct in identity and at times rivals.  There is nothing quite like the UK, and - should the worst happen in September, God forbid - there never will be anything quite like it again. For it is more than just a bland Union of Nations - like the EU - it goes way beyond that, via having unity of language and a shared and lively history too.  The Peoples of the UK Nations are not simply mere 'partners', but kith and kin. To be British is to be part of a family.

P.T.:  Do you ever feel like your British identity takes away from or diminishes your Scottish identity in any way?

G.W.:  Unlike some, I do not feel like my British Identity is an unwelcome "bolt on" to my Scottish Identity.  For me, it is a complimentary aspect - not a rival one. Like two luxurious room in a large Mansion. The rooms are not competitors, but each is wonderful and interesting on its own merits. You can flit from one to another, or place them alongside one another. It is fascinating to see how they compliment one another.

   

P.T.:  What do you feel it is to be British, on an international level?

G.W.:  To be British is to belong to a Nation which has done more than any other, over centuries, to shape the modern World.  I think this is shown by the enduring successor of the Empire, the British Commonwealth.  That the vast majority of former Empire States choose to remain part of this family of friends today, is a testament to how the bonds of brotherhood and friendship have ultimately prevailed over conquest and domination.  These friendships are the real legacy of the Empire. 

P.T.:  What did you think of the Commonwealth Games recently held in Glasgow?

G.W.:  The recent Commonwealth Games in Glasgow were a lesson in how blessed we are to be British, to enjoy links and friendship with so many different People and Nations from across the globe.  And the enrichment of Britain, through contact with these friends, was clearly visible - not least by the welcome presence of Men from the Gurka Rifles, at the security points! It may not fashionable to boast of Empire in the modern era, but the size of the British Empire was impressive by any standards. I believe that, one day, historians will talk of the British, the way they talk about the Romans today. And so to be British is to be International. 

P.T.:  How would you answer some of the negative charges made against the British identity by separatists?

G.W.:  Some separatist extremists try to extrapolate neo-fascism from a simple pride in, or admiration of, British identity and the United Kingdom. But in spite of this, many people continue to be proud of their British identities. We are not especially vocal about it - that would be quite un-British indeed - but that doesn't mean its not there. We have just as much to be proud of as Britons, as we do as Scots. One cannot blame keen fans of British culture for admiring the more romantic aspects of an exceptionally rich tapestry of history, as others do with the Romans, etc. As a Scottish Briton myself, I cannot help but share their sympathies!

P.T.:  What do you think has contributed to the antipathy towards the British identity on the part of many Scots?    

G.W.:  Sadly, many Scots today define themselves by what they decide to dislike - be it the English, or the Catholics – instead of appreciating the fullness of their heritage and important historical events. Many Scots think resenting these groups is what it means to be Scottish - it’s very sad. This kind of negative, or inverse identity is a phenomenon I have not encountered elsewhere.

I think in part this "negative identity" explains the verses in The Flower of Scotland which attempt to create a sensation of loss or grievance - rather than pride in our own nation, our anthem is all about whom we dislike and how hard-done-by we feel. The end result of all this is an ignorant and divided society. Most people have no real sense of themselves and are simply unthinking clients of cheap, imported pop culture. And that which is thought of as being genuinely Scottish (kilts etc) is in the main a modern and contrived caricature of an identity. 

P.T.:  What do you think of the claim that the British army used Scottish soldiers as cannon fodder?

G.W.:  The type of Scot who can seemingly see nothing but ill-will and exploitation in the United Kingdom strikes a chord of frustration with me. I hate the "cannon fodder" argument you often hear, about Scots in the British Army. It’s just not true. On the contrary, Scots Regiments have always been an important and illustrious part of the British Army. The Royal Scots were the oldest British Army Unit, till they became sadly defunct. Now it is the Coldstream Guards. And where is Coldstream? That’s right, Scotland! I also strongly dislike the bogus notion that Scotland is an English colony, rather than a partner of the English. It’s just absurd. 

P.T.:  If Scotland were to become independent, what do you think the Scottish people could expect?

G.W.:  I think people would get a shock in an independent Scotland. We would have no G8 seat, no permanent UN Security Council seat, no permanent UN veto, no major EU influence, no major global influence, no nuclear deterrent, no conventional military power, no fiscal control over our own currency, etc. As part of the UK, we currently have all of that. I don't think our coffers would be able to support the large number of public sector jobs the country depends on.

Before recent cuts started 1 in 4 employed by the State in Scotland, compared to 1 in 5 UK wide. And this is before all the extra ones needed if independent. Let’s not forget the many Scots communities, often isolated, who depend heavily on local British bases and military installations to drive their economies. All that would be gone if we split from the UK.

P.T.: What’s your opinion on the currency debate?

G.W.:  Control of our currency is another major issue that ceding throws up. We have to either take the euro (assuming we even got into the EU - not guaranteed) and let the EU control our currency, (that's going really well for Greece right now), or we keep the pound and let the Bank of England control our currency. The Bank of England currently controls our currency, but does so while taking us and our economic circumstances into account (along with the rest of the UK).

Post independence, they would still be in full control, but the Scottish economy would not feature in their considerations whatsoever, as they no longer have any duty to us. This then has grave implications for anything our Government would try to do: fiscal plans, the economy etc. Why would sane person, who was not intoxicated or under duress, freely vote to give up fiscal control of their own currency? If people think seriously, they can only credibly vote no, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens almost "by accident"! 

P.T.:  Can you please give me your closing thoughts, and what you see as the heart of the referendum?

G.W.:  Ultimately, the name of the "no" campaign - Better Together - sums it all up.  Were it not for the UK and its centuries of history, none of the constituent parts could ever have expected to have such an eventful history, or range of experiences and opportunities.    We know from the work place that working together achieves more, and so it is with the UK too. To be British is to have broad horizons.

This whole referendum comes down one major question: do Scots want to be part of a nation which helps to shape the world (The UK), or do they want to be part of a nation which is shaped by the world? No Scotsman worth his salt would choose the latter! Here's to a prosperous + proud Scotland within a happy + strong UK!

P.T.:  Thank you very much for your taking part in this project.

G.W.:  Sure, no problem.

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 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.