Tuesday, 14 October 2014

UK recognition of Palestinian state problematic, but still a useful stepping stone


The House of Commons has voted by 274-12  to recognise Palestine as a state. The resolved motion (with amendment), delivered in the late hours of Monday 13 October, reads:
That this House believes that the Government should recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel, as a contribution to securing a negotiated two state solution.
The first key point to note here is that this places the UK under no Governmental or parliamentary obligation to help bring about any such Palestinian state. Secondly, alongside re-stating adherence to the state of Israel, it serves to cement the deeply problematic Western posture of a 'negotiated two state solution'.

Taken together, the wording of the agreed motion with its amendment  - “a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution” - acknowledges the symbolic right to a future Palestinian state, but only, in actuality, as agreed to by Israel. In short, the motion can be seen as a protection of the Israeli state, and its right to determine the nature of any Palestinian one. 

Following a similar parliamentary decision by Sweden, Ali Abunimah made the very relevant point that:     
recognition of a Palestinian “state” in a fraction of Palestine actually negates the rights of most Palestinians and conflicts with the Palestinian right of self-determination. While recognizing the “State of Palestine” excites and pleases many who support the Palestinian cause, people should not to get carried away with the aesthetics of “statehood” in what would amount to a bantustan. Instead, I have argued, they should focus on the negative consequences for the right of return and the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel. The main purpose of the so-called two-state solution is not to restore Palestinian rights, but rather to preserve and recognize Israel’s so-called “right to exist as a Jewish state.”
After the Commons vote, Abunimah tweeted:
UK parliament has voted by large majority to #RecognisePalestine state "alongside" apartheid Israel. A vote for partition not for justice.
A logical conclusion.

Yet, for all its flaws, restrictions and inbuilt approval of Israel, there's still something to be gained from this token vote.

As much as it helps protect Israel as a Zionist entity, and maintains the power-serving notion of a 'two state peace process', the actual 'recognition' part also provides another major public relations boost for the Palestinian cause.

As the hostility of Israel and it's alarmed lobby showed, whatever the motion's limitations, this will be seen by much of the world as a defeat for Israel and another significant step towards justice for Palestine.    

As Jonathan Cook (via Facebook) notes:
Okay, it's only symbolic and it doesn't obligate the British government in any way (and I'm highly doubtful a Palestinian state can actually ever be viable on 22% of historic Palestine). But all that aside, the British parliament's overwhelming vote to recognise a Palestinian state is a tremendous victory for the Palestinian cause. The British created this mess with the Balfour Declaration, and this is one small sign that the British establishment and the west more generally are slowly waking up to this fact. Nonetheless, the large margin of victory – 274-12 – chiefly reflects the fact that MPs from the ruling Conservative Party mostly stayed away from the vote, in a reminder that when put to the test most of the political class, like their forebears nearly 100 years ago, will still prove to be a cowardly and treacherous bunch.
 
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.620558[/i
Again, all good comment. None of which negates what Ali Abunimah and others argue. The point here is to take all such views and actions as worthy and collective endeavours for Palestinian advancement.

This 'recognition' certainly goes nowhere near imposing any of the real pressure on Israel - sanctions, divestment, diplomatic ostracism - needed to bring about a just and long-lasting solution; in essence, one that addresses the inalienable rights of all Palestinians to equality and self-determination.    

But support for the motion by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and the thousands who urged their MPs to vote for it also shows that public mobilisation and street action is working.

The basic truth is that any power establishment always has to be fought on many fronts. And this is a huge establishment. Little incremental victories like this help bring the case for Palestinian justice into the greater public realm. It shames other politicians. It gives confidence to Palestinians and those supporting their case. And, despite the motion's protective caveat, it hurts Israel and its allies.

So long as we remain conscious of, as Abunimah reminds us, the still central issue of Palestinian rights, the wider solidarity movement can use this small win as another useful stepping stone in the strategic building of public awareness and exposing of Israel's political protectors.

Monday, 13 October 2014

'We are their hope'. Great resolve at Glasgow rally for Independence

 
An inspiring turnout, fine speeches and a resilient desire for the compassionate, independent society.

Yesterday's Hope Over Fear gathering in Glasgow's George Square heard wonderful, people-centred statements from actors Martin Compston, Keira Lucchesi and Paul Brannigan, Loaves and Fishes foodbank organiser Denis Curran, ex-UK ambassador Craig Murray, Unison's Brian Smith, activist Tommy Sheridan, disabled 'climber for Indy' Lindsay Jarrett, SNP councillor David Baird and multiple others across the grassroots Yes movement.

There was also a stirring array of musical sets from Dorec-a-belle, Indy Girls and many other Yes artistes. 

But for her beautiful defence of the poor, and passionate pursuit of a just independence, I'd like to highlight a particular articulation from the young Yes campaigner Mhairi Black.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyJmDcQf-qU

Those atop the Glasgow tourist buses might have been transfixed by the sea of saltires - and the daring St Andrew-crossed spiderman up on Walter Scott's ugly monument. But, as Mhairi and the communal mood of those assembled helped confirm, the real expression here was not one of stone cold nationalism, but of warm humanity.     

And that's the real beauty of this rising Yes movement. It's engagingly inclusive and leftfield, infused with an overwhelming desire for progressive social change. Alongside Mhairi, almost every speaker prioritised this basic, burning demand for economic justice, real political rights and, with amplified voice, a resounding rejection of Labour's betrayal politics.

After all the pain of 19 September, we can take great encouragement from this vibrant Yes energy and the great new-generational voices for Indy.

For all those still crushed by that vote, particularly those facing another seemingly hopeless winter of ConDem austerity and Labourite abandonment, there's Mhairi Black's assuring words (taken from her mum) to hold on to: 'we are their hope'.
   

Wednesday, 1 October 2014

Indy rising - vowing assertiveness

 



A little re-shaping of the message and
what do do about the messenger
The term 'mission creep' just took on a double meaning in the twisted propaganda stakes.

While a pious US/UK, already responsible for historic mass murder and carnage in Iraq, executes its further messianic deliverance, their past exchequer of death Gordon Brown urges a petition for David Cameron to deliver those 'promised new powers' for Scotland.

If irony's long dead in war politics, chutzpah just expired laughing over the indy issue.

The SNP may make useful capital of Brown's grandstanding. But the Yes movement at large should not be diverted by Westminster's spurious 'vow' politics. It was a cynical bribe peddled in desperate panic. This is just the posturing continued. Why indulge that establishment narrative?

And don't forget how a compliant media helped elevate the late-cobbled 'vow' into 'The Vow'.

A vow is a solemn promise, most often made in the spirit of honouring a trust, securing a bond, affirming love. Why give this sordid gesture the same moral space?
 
Even if those 'powers' are ultimately granted they can never substitute for meaningful, transitional instruments, rights that need to be taken and used to pursue real forms of radical independence.

From the 'noble interventionist' selling of more bombing to the hyped Westminster package, we're forever courted by establishment 'solutions' and 'mediations'. And with perpetual war comes the relentless task of hegemonic persuasion, setting the parameters of debate, keeping the 'options' narrowly defined, holding the public in a state of fear and compliance. 

If these past days have been painful for Yes people, they should also be a time for useful reflection and sharper thinking beyond the sham 'devo debate', giving new impetus to define, construct and hold to our own more confident narratives, rather than remain stifled by theirs. We might even take a little vow of assertiveness on that.


                 

Monday, 29 September 2014

Foodbanks, bombing and fear - but indy mood still rising

                            Paolo Nutini
                               Iron Sky
George Square, Glasgow,
foodbank collection (27 Sept 2014)

We are proud individuals
Living for the city
But the flames
Couldn’t go much higher

We find God and religions
To bait us with salvation
But no one, no nobody
Can give you the power

To rise
Over love
Over hate
Through this iron sky that’s fast
becoming our mind
Over fear and into freedom

Oh, that’s life
That’s dripping down the walls
Of a dream that cannot breathe
In this harsh reality
Mass confusion spoon fed to the blind
Serves now to define our cold society

From which we’ll rise
Over love
Over hate
Through this iron sky that’s
fast becoming our mind
 
Over fear and into freedom

You’ve just got to hold on
You’ve just got to hold on




[Charlie Chaplin’s speech from The Great Dictator]
“To those who can hear me, I say - do not despair.
The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed -
the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress.
The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they
took from the people will return to the people.
And so long as men die, liberty will never perish...
Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men - machine men
with machine minds and machine hearts!
You are not machines!
You are not cattle!... You are men!
You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful,
to make this life a wonderful adventure....
let us use that power - let us all unite.”
 

The Orwellian state we're in

And we’ll rise
Over love
Over hate
Through this iron sky that’s fast becoming our mind
Over fear and into freedom
Into freedom

From which we’ll rise
Over love
Over hate
Through this iron sky that’s fast becoming our mind
Over fear and into freedom
Freedom, freedom

Oh, rain on me
Rain on me
Rain on me
 

Thursday, 25 September 2014

Indy rising: should we push for a Yes Alliance?

A week on from 18 September and the raw feelings of sadness and bewilderment still prevail. After all the hope and all the fear, how can so many of us not feel such emotions? 

Some say it's just the cut-and-thrust of politics. But more know it's a deeper hurt for the loss of something much more visionary. 
 
Elaine C Smith epitomises the mood:
I am sad that so many in Scotland voted with the rich and privileged and with big business and handed the chance of power back to the British establishment. We have witnessed the full force of the British state in all its glory over the past few months and it has been an unedifying sight....I am also one of the lucky ones. I will go back to a comfortable, happy life and career - I won't be queuing at a foodbank like many of the working poor or worrying how to pay the bills.
Julie Webster, founder of the Maryhill Foodbank, was in tears on Friday, contemplating the lost opportunity to abolish foodbanks in Scotland, and wondering how her clients will now face a despairing future: "Now I feel as if there is no recovery...for the vulnerable groups." (Sunday Herald, 21 September 2014.)

Maryhill registered the highest Yes vote in the whole country, 57%, alongside Provan, with Springburn and other poor and austerity-afflicted Glasgow constituencies returning similar majorities. Glasgow, North Lanarkshire, West Dunbartonshire and Dundee all had Yes majorities.

We should take good heart from such returns, showing the substantial desire for change in areas of most concentrated poverty, from those who have least, and others who see they've nothing to gain from Westminster neoliberalism.    
 
Yet still the disbelief. Did we really waste this chance? Did that great act of bribery really happen?

For AL Kennedy'Establishment representatives approached a savvy, philosophical electorate with threats, insults and bungs.' #the45plus

And what of other key demographics? As blogger Mark Frankland distils it:
It was an epic betrayal of a generation. Scots voted ‘Yes’ all the way to the age of 55. Had the over 65’s been excluded from the vote, then ‘Yes’ would have won the day by 54% to 46%. 73% of over 65’chose the [status quo] because they had been frightened into doing so. The scandalous dog whistle politics of the Establishment got right into their heads and persuaded them to walk away from their grandchildren. They were told that their pensions were at risk. They were told that they would no longer be able to watch ‘Strictly Come Dancing’ and‘Eastenders’. They were told their power and grocery bills would go through the roof.
It's hard being seen-off by the establishment, harder still being beaten-down by parochialism.

Eradicating foodbanks, removing Trident, protecting the NHS and all the other great things this Yes generation aspire to now seems numbingly lost. 

But, from the searing sense of what could have been, the mindset alters, the healing proceeds, and we search for new openings. 

The #45 meme has been a welcome palliative. It's helped keep us connected and sustained. But we can't just stay fixated on that reassuring number.

So many of the 55% will come to regret their vote. Many already have, some bitterly. So it can never be about recrimination, tempting as that might be. It's also, most vitally, about winning No people back and driving up those numbers.

The reactionaries who terrorised Glasgow that dark Friday after the vote may never change. We can't, Yes or No, live under their ugly intimidations. But nor should we hate them in return, staying compassionately aware of how such virulence takes ideological hold, particularly of young men.

The much greater concern and disappointment is with the core middle classes who voted No out of base self interest. Many, of course, crossed their No with sincere conviction that this was the better option. But a lot of those class motives were just shamelessly selfish. It's important to note that truth.

But it's also useful to remember that such people are subject to the same climate of fear and wider culture of selfish individualism. The task here is to show that 'better together' actually means mutual regard, ideas of common weal and really caring for each other. People can still be brought around to a more collective way of thinking.
 
And if anyone thought that great Yes momentum is dissipating, what of the unprecedented surge in party mobilisation?

SNP membership has gone through the roof, more than doubling in days. From former Labour stalwarts like Tommy Sheppard to many thousands more just sickened by the result, it's indicative of the increasing desire for independence and mass disaffection towards Labour. Substantial new numbers have also now joined the Greens and socialist parties. That tells us all we need to know about how so many now view Scottish Labour, and Labour at large.

For Gerry Hassan, the SNP handover promises another leftward shift:
The SNP will remain centre-stage post-Salmond and their project of self-governance and independence will reconfigure and re-emerge in a new form, content and language. The party will, under the leadership of Nicola Sturgeon, undoubtedly shift to the left, focus more on the west and central belt, and aspire to win over more Labour voters.
Let's see. If so, it should include an immediate revisiting of the party's untenable Nato position, new tactical opposition over Trident, and a much stronger climate change agenda.

It should certainly, right now - and particularly following Obama's brazen No intervention - be proclaiming an outright rejection of the West's latest interventionist crimes in Syria/Iraq. 

Whatever unfolds around the SNP, I see many, like me, who don't feel comfortable with machine politics, but who are ready to be an energising part of a common Yes movement that doesn't depend upon party identities.
 
That politics is grassroots and free-floating, ever-wary of hierarchies. It's not a negation of parties. It embraces them where they're strategically useful and progressively-minded. Indeed, it's that very positive tension between the Yes street and Yes parties that's bonded this dynamic movement together. Having come so close, having tasted the possibilities of change, many newly-politicised younger people in particular now want the real thing. And they don't all see the SNP and conventional party politics as the sole route to that goal.  
 
So how best now to hold and drive-up that energy? Much reflection is going on within Yes parties and other Yes organisations about new positionings and electoral strategies.

Alyn Smith SNP MEP is in no doubt what needs to come next:
How about an Alliance, a Collective, standing for Scotland at the Westminster elections? Mobilise the Yes vote behind a single Yes candidate and we'll win pretty much every seat. I'm proudly SNP, but under first past the post we only have six Westminster seats, and much as I'd love it, I don't see all the energy of Yes coming to us. Many other organisations deserve to continue; we must help that process and support them to argue our corner in Westminster. How about Women for Independence, National Collective, the Greens, Socialists, Radical Independence and more coming with the SNP under a united banner for the Westminster elections.
We can take a leaf out of the Five Star movement in Italy and the Podemos movement in Spain. They stood not to be politicians but to demand that politicians change how they do business....A common platform will keep the bonds of friendship, engagement and energy going...We cannot go back to politics as usual and the SNP is, after all, not about politics as usual. We do not hold the monopoly on the independence franchise any more - we have to spread that enthusiasm around.
Left-leaning SNP MSPs Joan McAlpine and Bill Kidd have made similar appeals for a Yes Alliance platform.

Radical Independence campaigner Cat Boyd makes the same essential non-party case in urging a Scottish Podemos. For Boyd, "thousands of working-class Yes voters [are] looking for a political home", but "won't find it in the SNP nor in Labour". Instead:
we must create a more diverse polity in Scotland with the views of those who want radical redistribution of wealth and power properly represented, not just in Holyrood but rooted in communities. To do this we will look for inspiration from home and abroad. We need to learn from the likes of Podemos in Spain who emerged out of the Indignados movement and is currently unseating the Spanish Labour Party all over the country.
As Boyd rightly says, "It was not nationalism, nor Scottish identity, nor certainly the SNP that powered the momentum behind the Yes campaign. The truth is that the movement for Yes was powered by class politics."

Jonathon Shafi, co-founder of Radical Independence, offers similar views on how best to express his Yes politics: 'Diversity inspires the independence movement. I will vote tactically in 2015, but I don't support funneling the movement into SNP machine'.

And, indeed, while recognising the SNP's core Yes role, why should it alone reap the 'Yes dividend'?

What purpose is served by sending x more SNP MPs to Westminster - even if, as Alyn Smith questions, that could be guaranteed? Holyrood, with PR, is a different issue, where people feel they have a more democratic part in returning parties and influencing policies. But the rationale of the Yes vote is that it doesn't actually trust Westminster, or its party cabal, to deliver. So why participate in it other than to register a clear numerical statement for a Yes alternative? 

Craig Murray has also called, in this vein, for a Yes Alliance approach, emphasising the wider Yes base, thus qualifying Tommy Sheridan's thoughtful appeal for outright support of SNP candidates in 2015.

In short, there can be electoral cooperation here, but it must be based on the recognition of a wider, radical Yes politics. As Cat Boyd reminds us:
The radical left's role now is to ensure they stay part of a movement for the real and radical social change they voted for...It was not a wave of Scottish nationalism that powered the momentum towards a Yes vote: this was a debate about social justice, economic democracy and an opportunity for radical change.
Whatever unfolds over the coming months, the basic issue is how to use such opportunities constructively in advancing the broad movement and definitive case for a Yes.  

The British state's near-death experience will now concentrate elite minds on how best to stifle that rising demand. Returning to the same party-based politics would only be gifting Westminster and the Union an extended lifeline. 

My own reading of all this may be flawed, and I'm open to any kind of corrective persuasion. But in the same good spirit of political engagement we've seen these past months, the potential of a Yes Alliance strategy should now be widely discussed.

In small promotion of that, anyone similarly concerned might wish to utilise this tweet-sized question for wider distribution:
Should all Yes parties contest UK 2015 as #YesAlliance using same populist appeal of Yes movement to win new #indy mandate? #the45

Monday, 22 September 2014

Trident Nuclear Weapons Base Blockaded in Post Referendum Protest

Wonderful, inspiring, relentless. Trident No. Scotland Yes. #the45
 


Trident Ploughshares Press Release

22 September 2014

Trident Nuclear Weapons Base Blockaded in Post Referendum Protest

This morning, four days after the historic referendum Trident Ploughshares [1] and Faslane Peace Camp [2] have partially blocked the north gate to Faslane Naval Base, homeport of the UK Trident nuclear weapons system, sending a strong message that the overwhelming desire of Scotland to be rid of nuclear weapons must be honoured.

Five activists have locked on to each other while displaying banners that read Scrap Trident and Scotland YES Trident NO. Traffic waiting to enter the base is backing up causing gridlock at the roundabout close to the gate.The action followed a hundred strong protest at the base on Saturday after the referendum delivering the message: YES or NO Trident Has Got to Go.

Brian Quail, a member of SCANA and Trident Ploughshares and one of the blockaders said “We campaigned for a YES vote because an independent Scotland would have thrown out nuclear weapons. But the result of the referendum does not mean that we have to accept the continuing UK policy of relying on these weapons of indiscriminate slaughter. On the contrary we know that the vast majority of Scots, including those who voted No, reject Westminster ’s plans to replace Trident, as do a simple majority of people UK wide. And just as the independence referendum has opened up a national debate on constitutional issues it also calls into question the replacement of Trident, a decision that will take place in early 2016, following the next general election.”

Janet Fenton from Trident Ploughshares and Scottish WILPF said “We must now channel the energy of the YES campaign and the clear rejection by 1.6million people of Westminster politics as usual into policy changes. If the parties continue to disregard the will of the people for disarmament of these horrific, useless and expensive weapons there is bound to be a resurgence of vigorous opposition to them, including renewed nonviolent action like ours today. We are here today to send a strong message that we will not rest until we see the end of Trident and the abolition of nuclear weapons.”

The blockaders are Jane Tallents (07778276833), Brian Larkin, Mary Millington, Jean Oliver and Brian Quail.

ENDS

Contact: Leonna O'Neill 07596902461

Contact for Photos: Douglas David Shaw: 07713 918940

Notes to Editors

[1] Trident Ploughshares campaigns for the disarmament of the UKs nuclear weapons. For further information see:www.tridentploughshares.org.uk

[2] Faslane Peace Camp has maintained a continuous protest against Trident nuclear weapons outside the Faslane Naval Base since 1982. For further information see: www.faslanepeacecamp.worpress.org

Sunday, 21 September 2014

Indy not gone, still in the making

I found it hard to open the curtains on Friday morning, feeling just numb and dejected.

It's felt like a wake, a weird bereavement-like emotion, the sense of a beautiful opportunity lost. One of my first thoughts was that Trident is now staying where it is. The establishment had won. Somehow the realisation of that just felt crushing.

But life has to go on. Down on George Square that morning a lot of Yes people just wandered around, lost and subdued, talking about the result, and where this massive energy might possibly go now.

John Harris and a cameraman from the Guardian, maybe having overheard some of it, came over and interviewed a few of us for a film piece. We talked broadly about the great Yes movement and how it had lost to fear and a massive establishment network that used every last, shameless intimidation to get its way.

Many voters were instictively for No. But while a great debate was had, it wasn't any true exercise in democracy. No had a political-business elite, threatening banks and financial houses, Cameron's supermarket friends, big oil's policy lobby, and a host of other well-connected interests who knew precisely how to alarm and blackmail people.

How the City and its global friends would have cheered when that first Clackmannanshire result came in. Money talking, the voice of the foodbank underclass put firmly back in its place.

And, of course, it had every part of the media, notably the BBC. None of that issue is going away. A campaign is also now mounting around Yes social media for a mass licence refusal.

For Tariq Ali, No's 'victory was made possible by a Project Fear that required a media campaign of ferocious intensity that even Goebbels might have admired.'

Respects to the Sunday Herald for at least standing its Yes ground.
 
Seemingly aware of all this, John Harris said in his own piece to camera that he too would have voted Yes had he lived here. Commendable. But when I asked them both about the Guardian's own disgraceful support for No (the camera now conveniently inactive) both insisted that the paper should not be criticised, denying that its No declaration had any significance, and that the small editorial circle is not the voice of the Guardian at large. Much better criticising the BBC, they thought.

But why, I persisted, did this 'crusading organ' feel the need to join all the other No establishment media at all? It could have taken a position in favour of Yes. Instead, just as it had protected Blair and postured over wars and 'liberal interventions', it sided with the powerful. Still, they argued, it didn't matter.
 
But it does. The enduring lesson of blind-eye journalism, even from its 'critical' elements: don't bite the hand that feeds.

Later that afternoon, while people still floated around talking, some being soothed with songs and guitars, an ugly Loyalist Unionist crowd, coordinated via social media, was forming at the far end of the square.
 
As it swelled with Union Jacks, sectarian insignia and Nazi salutes, part of the baying mob swirled around and charged into the rest of the square. Caught right in the middle of it, we saw Alex Thomson approach with other camera crews. 'Make sure you get this', I said'. 'I will', he replied. Alas, he didn't, his tweets seeming to convey something of a minor sectarian-fuelled disturbance. And despite Cameron Buttle more readily reporting the mob's "coordinated" charge through the square, the BBC headline led with this disgracefully distorted framing: 'Police separate rival groups in Glasgow'.
 
Prudently, we left, passing the Loyalist hordes now coralled by the police, even their flag-draped cars left abandoned in the street. Like others, we later saw online evidence of them roaming through the city centre, dispensing their hate and violence. A dismal spectacle. And they had warned what carnage would likely have come from a Yes win.

Small consolations occur. A majority of Glasgow said Yes. Dundee and West Dunbartonshire also delivered Yes majorities.

But there's so much still to be faced. How do we overcome the sheer might of that establishment network? Or the unpalatable truth that a substantive rump of an incriminatingly quiet middle class voted out of base self interest? When the alarming spectre of NHS privatisation and TTIP effect deepens, I suspect many will come to regret what they've done.

And what too of that residual left element who campaigned in the halls, streets and online for a No, the most deluded notion of 'class action' we're ever likely to see?

And if they were lacking in strategic understanding and political intelligence, a self reflective note too on the dangers of over-expectation, even when tempered by hope rather than certainty. 

Many will say we've still gained new powers. But 'Devo Vow' was a trick, the already predictable backtracking so apparent. 'Devious max', more like. The continuing, core truth, as intimated to Harris, is that without independence we can't make that real transitional change. We can't build the actual alternative society, the true economic change so many want to see.

All of which has only intensified determination for a Yes, particularly amongst a newly-politicised youth.  

As Irvine Welsh asserts:
Though defeated in the poll, the independence movement emerged far stronger – from the narrow concern of a bourgeois civic nationalist party, to a righteous, vibrant, big-tent, pro-democracy movement. The referendum galvanised and excited Scots in a way that no UK-wide election has done. Like it or not, unless they come up with a winning devo max settlement, every general election in Scotland will now be dominated by the independence issue.
Which takes us into new political scenarios.

The Westminster system was rejected by almost half the electorate, so it's only logical that any new Yes movement should continue to reject its legitimacy.

So much now has to be considered. But it seems to me that there are two broad options for channeling that political energy in the immediate future.

The first is to campaign for mass non-participation at the next UK election, with a high number of abstentions serving to nullify the UK state's political authority.

Right now, I feel strongly disinclined to vote in a Westminster election ever again, 'disenfranchising' myself from an institution, a system, I simply no longer recognise.

The second option is to embrace, expand and mobilise the gathering case for a formal Yes Alliance, one that includes the same broad Yes parties and organisations.

Of the two, the latter may have the greater appeal because, as with Yes Scotland, it drives people to actually create something - electoral numbers - which would stand as another notable demand for independence. But any such entity won't go anywhere unless it encapsualtes that same Yes street, rather than just Yes party, dynamic. 

A big debate over all that will now unfold. Hopefully, another great politics of assertion.
 
And our little healing will continue. It's been helpful being around family and friends, standing in Buchanan Street, and around George Square again yesterday, saying our wee bits, urging others on, taking sustenance from each other, the true mark of community.

Whatever happens, at least one thing's for sure: this beautiful, organic movement for Yes is going on, the collective effort gathered around an emerging #45 identity.
 
On this lovely Sunday afternoon, after all the tumult and disappointment, there's the sun-warming reminder of what Yes has actually achieved, and the assurance of a newly-adapting movement. It's international peace day (my birthday), and I feel peacefully gifted by this inspiring statement from National Collective: How We Won and How We Will Win.