A stink in the air

So it's been a wee while since I last posted here – the summer has been an extremely busy and exhausting time – but the whole stink that's arisen thanks to the AFA coming out with their recent "statement" seems as good a time as any to dust this old thing off.

The AFA have always been utterly racist and bigoted as an organisation. A change in leadership was never going to change that, so it's no huge surprise that they'd come right out and say something that's racist and bigoted (only surprising in that the previous leadership learned to keep more quiet about it and skirt around it, I suppose). And to be fair, the AFA aren't the only racist heathen organisation out there, they're just one of the more prominent ones. So really, it's just the same shit, different day.

The more disturbing thing that people are up in arms about was a comment from an individual claiming to be CR, saying that CR "embrace the same values" as the AFA espoused in their statement, which, if you haven't seen it, said:

I understand that after something of an outcry in a certain Facebook group, the commenter backtracked and deleted their comment (I'm not a member of the group so I haven't seen what was said), so if you hunt up the post on the AFA page on Facebook, you won't see it there now. 

On the one hand, it's kind of mind-boggling that somebody would come out with a comment like that when Celtic Reconstructionism was founded on firmly anti-racist, pro-queer principles. So is Gaelic Polytheism. This isn't news. And for every group or individual who's spoken out against what was said – including Gaol Naofa – they've all said as much. It's written plain as day in The CR FAQ, which was written by community consensus a good ten years ago now. But then again, there are always going to be people who want to pick and choose the bits they agree with. There are always going to be people who want a folkish and bigoted form of CR, where men are manly and women are womanly (whatever that means), and the women dutifully pop out beautiful, straight, white, cisgender babies in between doing the dishes and making their manly man a bacon (natch) sammich. Swoon. What a wonderful community! (So long as you conform, right?)

I suppose it's easy to ignore or dismiss a particular stance a community has taken when people like this tend to hand-wave things they don't like as being "just modern politics" or whatever. That's usually what I've seen being claimed, and again, it's nothing new. Dismissing something as "modern politics I disagree with, therefore not relevant to me" is one thing, though. I'm not quite sure how these people reconcile their beliefs with the history and the mythology their religious outlook is founded on, because Irish myth (the lone commenter who decided to speak on behalf of CR also claims to be a Gaelic Polytheist) is fundamentally rooted in an origin story where the people of Ireland came from somewhere else – Spain, Scythia, Greece, Egypt, you name it.

And while the myths in question have been very much messed about with to frame them in a more Christian context, the general idea of "we came from somewhere else" is thought to be an original, pre-Christian part of the tale that's very much in keeping with what we know of Goidelic cosmology and so forth. The point is, though, either way the Irish believed themselves to be immigrants, and some of them proudly traced themselves back to very non-white origins (whether that's true or not is immaterial, really; they didn't have a problem with it and that's what counts here), and that also found it's way into Scottish genealogy and origin stories, too. And let's not forget that the Gaels, and Celts in general, also have a long history of emigration and colonisation elsewhere (sometimes by choice, sometimes not so much), so they've never exactly been averse to mixing their genes in with the locals, either.

It's only recently, in relative terms, that this idea of having an "undiluted" ancestry (unsullied by non-white genes, that is – mixing with other white people is just fine and dandy, regardless of culture) has become a thing. In that respect, then, I'd argue that it's the folkish types who're forcing their own modern views onto things, while ignoring some pretty fundamental elements of their own religion that contradict them. The same goes for the stuff about "our feminine ladies, our masculine gentlemen" (who, it was confirmed in the comments I included above, must be totally straight and gender-conforming). We don't see much about non-heterosexual relationships or gender non-conforming individuals in the historical sources, and these are areas of study are only just beginning to take off in academic circles, but we can certainly see that it was Christian influence that introduced an outright condemnation of this kind of thing.

Aaaaanyway. This isn't a lone commenter, out there in the dark fringes. For anyone who's been kicking around the CR scene for any length of time it's just one more example of an undercurrent that's always tried to push its way in. It's a problem that's not going to go away, and all anyone can do is keep speaking out against it and joining in with all the other voices who are saying the same. The groups and individuals who keep quiet about it... Maybe that speaks volumes in itself.

Independence

Delving into politics is rarely a way win friends and influence people (or whatever the saying is), but hey, neither's talking about religion usually...But normally politics is something I stay away from here on the blog. However, after a few conversations I've had with some folks abroad recently, I thought maybe it would be of interest to some readers here if I laid out a general idea of the independence debate that is currently going on in Scotland. Because it's such a loaded topic it can be difficult to get a decent view of things, even from organisations like the good ole BBC when you consider that recently a well-respected journalist likened Scotland's First Minister to Robert Mugabe. To his face...

Oh, Paxo...

After the SNP won a majority in Scottish Parliament last year - against all expectations, given the way the elections work - the referendum on Scottish independence is now finally going to be a reality. In all likelihood the referendum will take place in 2014, although as yet even the date is far from certain. Westminster are lobbying (somewhat half-heartedly) for it to take place next year, no doubt hoping that the sooner it happens the less likely it is that people will vote yes, while Holyrood is resisting those calls. Of course, politics being politics, and folks often tending towards paranoid conspiracies, there are rumblings that the idea is motivated by entirely different reasons than "the sooner the better"; no, 2014 is an important date for Scots, being the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn. In theory, the coincidence with this anniversary and the referendum can only work in the SNP's favour, since they might hope to captilise on a bit of nationalistic fervour as people look back to that fateful and bloody day in Scotland's history - a victory for the Scots against English oppression. 2013, on the other hand, is the 500th anniversary of Flodden, which was an altogether different story. Scotland suffered a devastating defeat there at the hands of the English, and you can bet that there have been murmurings that Westminster is pushing for next year as a fingers up to the SNP...

Most important of all, in all of this, is what the referendum question will actually be. Probably not this:

Although I for one would fully support it...

But there are two main options being mooted. The first option, and one that the Scottish government favours, is a simple yes/no vote, for or against independence. The second option, and the one that Westminster favours (but which the Scottish government is open to agreeing to), is offering three choices - yes, no, and the option to support 'devo max.' This latter choice would result in more powers being devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and is effectively one step short of full independence; Scotland would remain a part of the Union, but it would otherwise basically be able to govern itself.

There are pros and cons to both choices of wording. A simple yes/no vote carries with it more risk of people voting no. In order for the yes vote to succeed, voters need some assurances that independence will not be a disaster for the Scottish economy, for one, and there are a lot of issues that will need to be resolved before independence could possibly go ahead. Political rhetoric is doing a good job of capitalising on the public's uncertainty at the moment, and while there is currently unprecedented support for independence according to the polls, it's a much different matter when people are actually faced with having to make a binding decision. It's a risk, and the public might bottle it, but at the same time the level of support at the moment is unlikely to drop significantly over the next few years. If anything, as long as the Tories are in power in Westminster, it works in the SNPs favour because historically Scotland has never been a Tory stronghold. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, knows this, and his own stance on the matter has changed dramatically in recent months, taking on a very conciliatory and friendly tone. You can bet that once the date is set and things start hotting up, things are going to get ugly. Dirty tricks campaigns will be the norm; in fact, they already kind of are, with ridiculous hyperbole being bandied about.

The devo max option is far more likely to be popular, some commentators think. It carries with it less risk for Scotland's political and financial future, and so as the safer option more people are likely to vote for it. But then again, it's ultimately a half-measure, and (more importantly) in a referendum that offers all three options, devo max will potentially split the polls and give the no vote an advantage, with the yes vote potentially being divided between 'yes' and 'devo max' it might give the 'no' vote the advantage. It can only go in Westminster's favour, and of course they know it.

A successful yes vote for independence won't suddenly mean that Scotland leaves the Union, and, in fact, there is some controversy over that proposed phrasing of the question. Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minster, wants to ask: "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?" Which doesn't articulate much in the way of what will happen if people actually say yes. It's early days yet, though, and once the question is set, whatever the outcome there will have to be lengthy negotiations. Only if those negotiations are deemed to be satisfactory would independence then happen. There are a lot of details that need to be dealt with and negotiated - what happens to the army, for one (the army is a big employer in Scotland), how the national debt is divided up and who is responsible for what, who gets the oil, the issue of independent Scotland's place in the European Union (and how that would affect the remainder of the UK, of course), as well as currency, and so on. Of course Westminster will be particularly reluctant to give up on the oil in the North Sea, but one of the biggest issues is what to do with the UK's nukes. The only place they can be legally kept in the UK is in Scotland, because it is the only part of the country that has a low enough population density. We here in Scotland aren't too keen on been lumped with the nukes, though, and we'd would love to get rid of them, thanks. Independence means we could do that, but then Westminster will have the problem that having to find somewhere else for them, or face deal with the implications as far as its place in NATO is concerned. Oh dear.

Of course, even if there is a yes vote - or a vote for devo max, even - there is no guarantee that Westminster will honour the electorate's decision. Part of the devolution agreement between the UK and Scottish government is that ultimately Westminster reserves the right to overturn anything that Holyrood legislates for Scotland. There is a possibility - albeit a remote one - that Westminster could declare the referendum unlawful and ignore the result, and it's business as usual. This would be an extremely risky move on Westminster's part, and potentially political suicide as well, but there are some folks who grumble and say it's not unheard of. In the 70s there was a referendum on devolution which, although it received over 50% of the vote in favour of setting up a Scottish Assembly, was ultimately deemed to have failed because voter turnout meant that over all support was less than 40% of the electorate as a whole. The decision by Westminster, being based on a technicality, was controversial.

So there's a lot at stake. From England's point of view, in particular, there are rumblings that they should get to vote on the referendum as well, since Scotland's independence will affect the rest of the Union. It can't be democratic if everybody doesn't get a say! They cry. Perhaps they should inform themselves about, y'know. History...(Some of us reply). Wales and Northern Ireland tend to sit on the sidelines in all this, quietly munching popcorn and grinning smugly. Then again, there are those south of the border who grumble good riddance to those ungrateful Scots. After All We've Done For Them. Etc etc. In amongst all the rhetoric, there is the mistaken belief in some quarters that Scotland takes far more from the British taxpayer than it gives, and that as such England will be much better off without the lazy, drunk, Scottish benefits scroungers to support. I am grossly over-generalising, of course, but you'd be surprised at the strength of feeling from certain parts of the British population.

Scottish independence has a lot of implications for the remainder of the UK and its political and economic standing worldwide, and of course these are very important issues for Scotland as well, since what goes on across the border will likely have an impact on us too. This is a good source of scare tactics, of course.

All in all, we live in Interesting Times. The next few years are not going to be easy as far as getting to the referendum is concerned, and Westminster is genuinely worried about the prospect. In an effort to woo the Scottish voters the government are currently discussing the option of Devo Plus; giving Holyrood more powers but stopping a little short of Devo Max. The aim basically being to make it seem like they care, and to give the illusion of working with the Scottish Parliament and with Scotland's interests at heart. Unfortunately for Westminster, with the spectre of the 80s and Margaret Thatcher still looming large in the Scots' consciousness, it's not something that the population will be easily convinced about.