Some admissions ...

There is a lot of common ground between the Yes Movement and the Corbyn Camp. But let us be absolutely clear:

• The onus is not on supporters of Scottish Independence to acknowledge and celebrate the social justice credentials of Jeremy Corbyn and his cohorts.
• The onus is on them to admit that they are merely beginning a public debate about social justice we in Scotland have been immersed in  for the last three years, and to celebrate that.

But they won't. They can't. It is impossible.

Because to do so would be to admit that

• They are playing catchup.
• The lazy metropolitan characterisation of the Yes Movement as a baying mob of racist english-hating benefit scroungers is and was a wholly inaccurate and entirely unjustified slur and profound insult.
• The Labour Party does not own the idea of social justice and has no monopoly on solutions.

It would be to admit that they chose the wrong side in the referendum, and if they had only shown up 18 months earlier Scotland would not be governed by a Tory administration with one sitting MP in Scotland. The cavalry is late guys, the show is over.

It would be to admit that their #SNPBad rhetoric is nothing but cynical vacuous tribalistic nonsense.

You can agree with someone even when they don't fully appreciate what it is you agree with them about. Corbyn has impeccable credentials in relation to social justice and anti-war campaigning. But as far as Scotland is concerned, his top and only priority is reclaiming it for Labour. Any progress is incidental to us getting back in our box.

Corbyn and Project Fear 2

Even in relation to issues that are not explicitly about independence, the question of independence drives forward political debate in Scotland by providing a plausible counterfactual against which events and proposals can be evaluated.

As a result politics is more advanced than in England, which currently lags Scotland by about 12 months, if the evidence of Project Fear 2 is anything to go by. Observing debate in England recently from my vantage point of Scotland, one is struck by its almost infantile naievity, with statements that would be immediately rejected as patently ridiculous in Scotland being entertained and given currency in the English media and commentariat as though worthy of serious consideration.

This is brought sharply into focus by the UK Labour Party leadership contest. We see the serious deployment of moves from the Project Fear Playbook which would be considered utterly transparent in a Scotland weary of such cynicism and more than capable of subjecting such moves to withering critical scrutiny. The strenuous efforts to smear the virtually unsmearable Jeremy Corbyn are simply laughable to anyone in Scotland who endured the establishment hysteria that characterised the last few weeks of the referendum campaign last year.

If the UK Labour Party wants to see a vision of their future they only need look north. The tragedy is that the people of England need a credible alternative.

Corbyn lets us prove once and for all we are not "narrow" nationalists ... and more

Corbyn is an opportunity for us to demonstrate once and for all that the "nationalism" of the Yes Movement has nothing at all in common with the narrow jingoistic nationalism of our (and his) British Nationalist opponents. By finding common cause with Corbyn on issues of social justice and worker solidarity, we expose as utterly hollow every accusation of "narrow" or "nasty" nationalism levelled at us by our critics.

But we do more than that. We create the space for us to articulate more fully the idea that the self-determination we seek transcends control of an apparatus of statehood which is merely used as an instrument of oppression and exploitation. We aspire to more than merely being able to appoint the executive committee of the ruling class within our particular jurisdiction.

We show we are motivated by authentic individual human responses which can, for example, see over £10,000 crowdsourced from Scottish Independence supporters to pay the fines of a woman in England convicted of shoplifting a chocolate bar she had stolen because she had not eaten for days due to benefits sanctions. We show we are motivated by sympathy which means we can, for example, welcome those in distress who are fleeing the impacts of climate stress in the forms of drought, famine and war in their countries of origin, rather than resort to the racist vilification we see from the right wing press and the tory government confronted by what they consider a "swarm". We show that the Independence we seek is one that celebrates humanity, rather than wields it as a racist neo-feudal category reserved for the privileged few while repelling foreigners and sanctioning the "lower orders" to keep them in their place.

In the Yes Movement we have been able to share a commitment to self-determination while respecting differences of opinion on other subjects. So we can share a commtment to social justice and worker solidarity with Jeremy Corbyn without compromising our different point of view on self-determination.

The anxiety is that finding common cause with Corbyn suggests self-determination is not necessary for achieving our objectives in relation to social justice, while opposing Corbyn risks legitimising the "tartan tory" slander and renders us little better than his other "red tory" opponents in some eyes. However, this is a false dichotomy, a misreading of the situation.

Finding common cause with Corbyn shows that the self-determination we seek is an enabling rather than a limiting development. It allows us to speak with an authentic voice and therefore we abdicate nothing in offering our support. We want to be free to raise our voice in support of a just cause unhampered by the policies of whatever war criminals happen to be in government in Whitehall or anywhere else, whether or not the injustice that offends us occurs within our borders, whether or not its authors wield power over us. 

The Yes Movement shares many concerns with Corbyn and his followers are energised by the same ground-swell of opinion on these issues. We can support Corbyn on the basis of the influence he can have at Westminster to achieve shared objectives while Westminster still exerts some authority in Scotland, and also on the basis of the more general solidarity with friends, family and colleagues in England, and further afield,  that will remain even once Westminster's usurpation of that authority has ended.

Solidarity and Independence: thoughts on Corbyn in Scotland

The Yes Movement has to find common cause with Corbyn in those areas where there is agreement and an opportunity for progress, and agree to disagree in others.

The left wing critique of Scottish Independence has relied heavily on the idea that the Union is a mechanism of working class solidarity which would somehow be impossible otherwise. But it is not, and never was, a case of "either/or" with respect to Independence and Solidarity. In fact Independence and Solidarity march side by side. This is our chance to show that meaningful solidarity is not only possible, but once unimpeded by the exploitation encoded by the Union, more likely.

The false dichotomy of Independence or Solidarity is exposed by Yes voters who support Corbyn. The workers of Leith more easily raise an Independent voice in support of the workers of Liverpool because it means they no longer have to wrap their tongues around New Labour's neo-liberal shibboleths.

Independence means our allegiance is to ideas, not policies, and fellow feeling is unfettered by squalid accommodations made at Westminster.

It is precisely because the Yes Movement has released the energy and created the sophisticated, engaged and informed electorate in Scotland, whose equivalent is now seen among Corbyn supporters in England, that this is possible. As Lesley Riddoch has observed in today's Scotsman, these are the English voters who wanted to know how to join the SNP in the run up to the general election in May, and have finally found an English anti-austerity equivalent available to them in the form of Corbyn.

In her maiden speech Mhairi Black articulated the widely held sense of frustration with Labour by comparing "weathercocks," that point any way the wind blows, to "signposts," which remain true regardless of temporary expedient. Corbyn is the latter, his opponents and critics the former. In her speech she exhorted Labour to "oppose, not abstain". Again, Corbyn seems to be ready to step up to the mark. Corbyn is Labour that the SNP can work with.

The worst case scenario? Corbyn fails to secure the leadership of Labour as the contest descends into a shambles and Labour is utterly discredited for a generation. Under these circumstances the Yes movement can hold its head high knowing that at least it tried to achieve common objectives in a constructive manner and will escape the wreckage without taint or injury.

Or Corbyn succeeds, but even a reinvigorated Labour Party capable of meaningful co-operation with like minds on the SNP benches remains ineffective. At least we would know we tried, and failed through no fault of our own.

The best case scenario? Corbyn succeeds, and, together with the SNP, Plaid Cymru and others, successfully participates in the frustration of a doctrinaire and destructive Tory regime. This does not demonstrate the redundancy of Independence, any more than getting what you wanted in a restaurant for once demonstrates you should always let your partner order from the menu for you.

What is does demonstrate is that Solidarity is not only possible, indeed it is more likely to succeed, because of, and not despite, the Independence movement, which has liberated 56 seats from the grip of Corbyn's opponents and populated them with MPs more able to pursue a progressive agenda.

The Gaelic Medium Workplace - Obair tro Mheadhan na Gàidhlig

Gaelic Medium Education (GME) - Foghlam tro Mheadhan na Gàidhlig (FTMG) - has been very successful in Scotland, with GME schools facing growing demand for places and the most recent census returns suggesting the decline in the language may have been halted as the reduction in the number of older speakers is finally being balanced by an increase in the number of younger speakers supported by GME.

However, as a keen advocate of support for the language, I personally find myself utterly demoralised when I go into shops and places of work, especially in areas which are considered to be among its heartlands, to find myself addressed in English as a first resort rather than Gaelic. What motivation can a school pupil find to pursue studies in a language when they will not use it to conduct business once they complete their education?

The answer is GMW - the Gaelic Medium Workplace. The natural extension of GME is the Gaelic Medium Workplace, or Obair tro Mheadhan na Gàidhlig (OTMG). This is required as a continuation of the support provided by GME.

A scheme should be set up to support businesses who choose to undertake their daily activities using the Gaelic language.

Boardroom, back-office and shop-floor work would be conducted in Gaelic. Client-facing interactions would use Gaelic as a first resort unless the nature of the business required otherwise. Business-to-business interactions between participants in the scheme would be conducted in Gaelic. School leavers from Gaelic Medium Education would be able to use the language of their studies in the workplace, contributing to its vitality and relevance. A business could be accredited as a GMW.  

This scheme, of course, would have to be arranged so as not to confer any commercial advantage to a business making the choice to participate. However, the scheme is necessary to prevent such businesses from suffering a commercial disadvantage as a result of this choice. It is not a matter of providing incentives but of removing disincentives. The scheme would face insurmountable opposition if it was perceived to be giving preferential treatment. It would have to be clearly a voluntary option, elective rather than unavoidable. However, the "equality of respect" required for the Gaelic language in law, and the implementation of Gaelic Language Action Plans by local authorities as a result, could easily be enhanced by the inclusion of support for GMWs.    

So, for example, provision could be made to support lessons for existing staff and new hires without the Gaelic, and other areas where the operation of a GMW would incur additional costs relative to current practice could be addressed. Public procurement of products and services that included Gaelic content could including operation of a GMW scheme among the criteria on which bidders are scored. It is not about offering Gaelic a bigger slice of the pie. It is about making sure businesses where Gaelic could be spoken - in the Western Isles for example - don't have to ask in English for the snaois they are already entitled to.

When I walk into a shop in Stornoway I want to be addressed in Gaelic whether I speak it or not, and GMW is the only way I can see of achieving this.