Megan Stamper

Excuse my lack of brevity. It's wholly on purpose.

[meganastamper]

Scottish Independence: avoiding a ‘Yes’ with a bitter taste

I have long been a campaigner for Scottish independence. Via social media, blog posts and the Academics for Yes movement I tried passionately to help convince fellow Scots of the benefits of Scottish independence and why I believed it represented the most progressive, positive and outward looking future for Scotland. However, despite the Yes movement persuading a large population of Scots, including a majority from my home city Glasgow, the independence referendum of September 18th, 2014 was lost. 

Positivity has been hard to come by in UK politics for me since the tears on George Square on September 19th. And negativity has swept onward at pace with the Vote Leave victory and the right wing Tory revolt it inspires. A line has been drawn, yellow to blue, along the Scotland-England border, marking clear the stark division that has long been growing between the two. 

Some might expect, because of this dividing line between Scotland and England, particularly seeing sparks alight for a new independence movement, that joy could be found in the result. Far from it. It is a vote that appears to have come largely from the progress of the ugliest of ideologies; from isolationism, xenophobia and ignorance. No one, and definitely not I, should ever have wanted the route to Scottish independence to come via such negativity. 

This absolutely isn’t the way that independence should have rallied in the polls once more. I’m heartbroken at the choice that I think people have made for the very worst of reasons. Disillusionment, misplaced trust and separatism cannot be the guiding principles of any country I want to be a part of. I continue to think Scotland should be independent but I am gutted that that may be alongside a weaker rest of the UK that has flung itself towards isolation.

From here, I think we must do all we can, as the Scottish cabinet appears to have begun, to reiterate to our European allies that we are fiercely pro-European. We must do all we can to negotiate to keep our place as part of a vibrant and forward-looking political, economic and civic alliance with the peoples of Europe. This to me is a priority above the continued campaign for independence.

And to the future of the Scottish independence movement? There are a clear number of duties and responsibilities going forward. Many No voters appear to have had their hopeful view of continued integration with the rest of the United Kingdom shattered; their hopes of a peaceful and united collection of nations, continuing to be guided in part by Scottish principles, appears to have become suddenly inconceivable on the basis of this new division. 

As England tilts further right we now must endure a Tory leadership contest with a choice of candidates that brings a sour taste to the mouth of most on the Left or Centre of politics. It is now clear that the lurch rightward in much of the rest of the UK appears to continue, despite of the efforts of the SNP, Corbyn’s Labour and the Greens. In many ways we have already tried to enact what a No vote suggested we ought to - to fight from within for a more positive future for the United Kingdom. This was done in part by sending a huge SNP envoy to Westminster in 2015. But the achievement of bringing this positive influence to Westminster has seemed scarcely effective, being all too easily ignored by the ruling Tory party.

The disillusioned ‘No’s join allies on the Yes side in this feeling of helplessness with regards to Westminster with only with a minor delay. However there is a sadness and a bitterness here - a feeling of being misled and perhaps, for some, of being lied to. And bitterness should not be the sole grounds in guiding us towards independence. Yes voters must continue to vocalise the positive reasons for positioning ourselves on this side of the debate. I think this is crucial to avoid Scottish independence becoming just another protest vote attempting to placate the last.

And the main positive? That Scotland’s vote to remain can help strengthen the European project in a time of uncertainty and doubt on its future. Strong and confident support from Scotland for being part of the EU has and will continue to show that we firmly believe in the EU project as one worth fighting for. In a future of continuing instability for the EU, with many far-right movements from other EU countries using Brexit as an opportunity for gains of their own, we can strongly voice our support for continued unity and try to help fight for stability.

As I have written previously, it largely appears to me that it is England that is diverging sharply from the united ideological status quo we once had - veering away from the socially progressive welfare state of post-war Britain. This seemed clear as we watched the biting cuts of austerity and continued as we watched the EU referendum debate be steered by Farage, Gove and Johnson. By contrast, Scotland appears to demonstrate that we are an outward looking country with a progressive vision for the future; a future within a united Europe. That is what we should focus on achieving, via independence or otherwise.

[meganastamper]

Scotland can. Scotland should.

“The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any”  Alice Walker

I believe that Scotland should be independent.

I believe that the fundamental principles of democracy can and would be better served in an independent Scotland. With a Yes vote we would immediately set out on a new path; one which will see the elimination of the unelected House of Lords, where we can move forward with an existing, proven and, most importantly, fair system of proportional representation. Ultimately we would each find ourselves part of a smaller electorate, but one in which individual voices become louder, where the institutions controlling our future move closer and where accountability from those steering the way can be demanded more effectively.

What I refuse to believe is that Scotland has not the people, wealth nor ingenuity to succeed as an independent nation. The pursuit of a fairer and better future absolutely should not be stopped for reasons regarding the machinery or bureaucratic difficulties that are all to often allowed to dominate the debate. While other countries, many less well off, can manage to navigate the supposedly impossible choices and insurmountable difficulties of independent statehood, I see little sense in believing that Scotland is somehow special in alone failing to be able to do so.

I feel passionately that we should step out into the world, not better than, but finally equal to the other independent nations of this earth. Having shaken off that self-defeating habit of thinking so little of our abilities, we should learn to lead by example. With a Yes vote we will elect governments the majority living in Scotland wish for, enact the policies we believe in. Finally, we may say, loud and clear, to the world listening intently as it will be at the penultimate stage of this debate, ‘this is the way Scotland believes a wealthy and socially progressive nation can and should run itself’. 

I think it is clear that the majority of people living in Scotland believe in the benefits of free education, of a publicly funded NHS and of socially progressive welfare policies. Many of such ideas originated in a post-war United Kingdom. However, it appears to me that England is the one diverging sharply from this united ideological status quo. By contrast Scotland has shown, even while tied to the purse-strings of a government the overwhelming majority of Scots did not vote to elect, that we continue to believe strongly in such things and, crucially, that they can be afforded even in times of economic difficulty. With control of one-hundred percent of spending and taxation powers we will show that these things, and more, not only can continue to be possible but should be expected of a wealthy and forward-looking nation of this 21st century.

Scotland can. Scotland should.

Megan Stamper University of Glasgow University of Cambridge

[This piece was written as a contribution for the Student Voices project, a student chapter of the Academics for Yes group. For more information and instructions on how to contribute your own piece see here]

[meganastamper]

Have you ever looked on a map ???? Denmark cant do a shit about this, as it's not happening in Denmark.. THOUGHT WITHOUT COMPRESSION ?? Look in to the subject and then write please

Congratulations on failing to read my post. That is one of the first points I make.

[meganastamper]

Have you witnessed how they actually allocate the spinal cord and how long it takes? I have. They have to saw through their skin to get to it with knives. And whilst it is thrashing about, it is no easy task. So to say it dies in 30 seconds after the spinal cord is cut may be correct, but it takes alot longer to 'allocate' the spinal cord successfully. There is also evidence there has always been a surplus of whale meat and in these islands as it is not the staple diet it once was.

There have been systematic measurements taken of the time till death by NAMMCO: http://www.nammco.no/webcronize/images/Nammco/970.pdf.

In times when both the traditional whaling knife and sharp hook were used the time till death was measured from the first use of the hook and the average time to death was 65.4 seconds including 29.3 seconds to secure the whale and 36.1 seconds to cut the spine. 

Now by law only an unsharpened hook may be used to secure the whale or dolphin before any cut to the spine. This is not believed to injure the animal. Furthermore with the introduction of the spinal lance, first tested and used from around 1996, time to cut the spine has reduced to 1-2 seconds.

I've personally seen no evidence of meat lain to waste but would be interested to see this if you could provide me with a link.

[meganastamper]

Can you provide sources where you got the information for the pilot whale/Faroe Island article? The message in that article is great. Slaughterhouses and factory farms in the US are horrendous and people should be more outraged by THAT instead of this simulated slaughter hyped by the internet.

After a number of requests for sources I've decided to add these to the end of the article. Hope that helps. Thanks for your message.

[meganastamper]

Dear Megan, many thanks for your useful article. Small correction! The long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas) is actually a dolphin. It's in the dolphin family (Delphinidae). It also socialises with other species of dolphin. You can check my source on Wikipedia :) (Can't post a link here, annoyingly)

Yes, I know but it's not called a 'Calderon dolphin' it's called a Pilot Whale. That's the correction I've made.

[meganastamper]

Megan - check this out "The long-finned pilot whale, sometimes called Calderon Dolphin, is one of the two species of cetacean in the genus Globicephala. It belongs to the oceanic dolphin family, though its behavior is closer to that of the larger whales"

Yes, and wikipedia gives no source for this assertion. I have found no other source which uses this name other than in relation to the Faroe island hunt. To me it appears to be used rather cynically to try and foster deeper sympathy out of some nonsensical idea that ‘calderon dolphin’ sounds cuter and more worthy of empathy than ‘long-finned pilot whale’.

[meganastamper]

I just read your Pilot whale article... Pilot whales are actually dolphins. And Calderon dolphins is what they are sometimes known as in Spanish and Portuguese I understand. They are also classified as data deficient by the IUCN, which is not the same as "not endangered" (if you believe in the precautionary principle).

Conclusions on the threat from the Faroe islands hunt from the IUCN can be found here. They say: "the IWC, ICES and NAMMCO have concluded, that with an estimated subpopulation size of 778 000 (CV=0.295) in the eastern North Atlantic and approximately 100 000 around the Faroes (Buckland et al. 1993; NAMMCO 1997) the Faroese catch is probably sustainable."They are known as the 'Calderón Negro' in Spanish and as far as I can work out the term 'Calerdon dolphin' is incorrect.

[meganastamper]

Not really a question, but just wanted to say well done on dealing with the terribly badly researched and written article regarding the "dolphin slaughter in Denmark". Its similar to a post I made for my friends to read regrading the truths of this event, after having seen the original article popping up in my news feed. The real wonder is how they find this morally replant and barbaric yet still eat mass produced meat from the super market and don't get the hypocrisy- Clay

Thanks Clay. It was really intended for my fb friends initially. Surprised it's gotten such a wide audience.

[meganastamper]

so from not eating meat to trying to minimise the spread of knowledge of a slaughter under the banner of food cultivation! Megan you have lost touch. imagine everyone hungry did this- have you written this to gain publicity or would you pick up a hook? and why a hook not a gun if you want to talk about morality.

I would like to believe I could kill any animal I am prepared to eat. I am just lucky that I don't have to.

[meganastamper]

Calderon dolphin is generally not used in English but it is used in other languages, like Spanish, to refer to what we call in English a pilot whale. Pilot whales are in fact dolphins, not whales. The person who wrote the article is obviously not English, so maybe you can forgive them a few mistakes. Your article, as well as the one you criticise, also lacks clear proof or reference to the facts of the killing of these animals, so doesn't really do much to counter their story.

I know they're dolphins, I didn't say otherwise. The use of another language's word for the species is hardly helpful or correct.

[meganastamper]

Hi Megan, good article however just a quick comment - they're not Short-finned Pilot Whales, they're Long-finned Pilot Whales. Facts - check ;-) ...

Corrected, thanks very much!

[meganastamper]

That Anon was pretty flared up and I don't believe in insulting people for no reason. FYI however saying you turned your back on vegetarianism because "ultimately I do not believe that the slaughter of animals itself is wrong" is going to get you some abuse because that is an awful statement especially when you are more then well adapted than the residents of the Faroe islands to live a cruelty free lifestyle, there's really no excuse for what you said there.

If you're going to condemn it as an awful statement you should at least give some reasons. I'd say it's certainly not immediately obvious why the death of an animal which has had a happy life and isn't aware of the meaning and consequence of death is wrong. I personally got to this conclusion after a lot of thinking on the issue and would like to think its a considered and reasoned stance. I agree it will make me enemies online, most opinions will, but there certainly hasn't been any response yet to make me question my beliefs on the issue.

[meganastamper]

Vegetarian ? fuck you, your scum defending this atrocity... there's no concious behind the violent death of any being, I don't care if it was their only means of food... murder is murder. Personally I don't know why I'm even debating this with you, you're just seeking attention like every other Schitzophrenic... you don't really give a shit as long as someone's 'debating' with you, I'm going to stop and not give you the satisfaction... enjoy death, lets hope its as painful as these poor animals.

Only answering this to show people and give them an idea of the ridiculously offensive and inflammatory responses to this story.

[meganastamper]

The Pilot whale is often called the Calderon dolphin. The authorities in the Faroe islands clearly state that these whales are not fit for human consumption due to high levels of mercury. The hunt is mainly carried out for 'cultural, traditional' reasons, not for food. So your article is innacurate too.

No they are erroneously called Calderon dolphins. And while the islanders choose to eat the meat and none is wasted I maintain that it is not done for superficial cultural reasons.

[meganastamper]

Regarding the article you wrote about the 'Dolphin slaughter' in 'Denmark', I thought I was reading my own post! I said pretty much the same things to everyone posting the article. People see the blood and 'Dolphins' and immediately jump on the angry train. I like to think I try and read up on things as much as I can, being of scientific mind I like to find out the facts before reaching a conclusion. :)

Yeah, you're right, definitely not as easy to decide whither it's right or wrong when you know more. I'd add just one note, confusing though it may be a pilot whale is indeed still a dolphin. ;)

[meganastamper]

Hi Megan, I agree that people jumped on this story but I also can't help but feel that a lot of the defenses for it seem pretty flimsy. While one can't really take them that seriously these days I was wondering if you had read the seashepherd article on "Countering the Rhetoric of an Apostle of Whale Slaughter"? It is obviously one sided in it's own way but does also provide a lot of evidence that these hunts are pretty horrendously handled and in no way a vital form of farming for the Faroes.

The eating of meat is vital for life in very few parts of the world. It’s likely such reasoning can be seen to dismiss as inhumane many of the worldwide mass slaughter of animals for human consumption. Such reasoning seems likely to demand that a large majority of the world’s population become vegetarian. Maybe so, and as I mentioned in the article, I fully admit that this may be a fair conclusion to draw, but then one must admit that the slaughter of whales on the Faroe islands is one very minute portion of a problem on an entirely different scale.

The local self-sustainability of the Faroese population is important to them as it is to many in the world. To try to be self-sufficient and not rely on expensive food imports which may travel many hundreds of miles does not seem wholly unreasonable. It certainly doesn’t seem entirely logical to demand they instead import meat from land-mammals which have been reared elsewhere with standards of animal welfare that are possibly unknown and very-likely entirely outwith their control.

The emphasis on the intelligence of these mammals is also a little unfair. Cattle, pigs and many other animals reared for slaughter are intellgent sentient creatures, capable of forming complex social structures and feeling emotions such as happiness, pain, fear and anxiety. To argue the hunt is wrong on this basis again has huge ramifications.It’s a complex issue but to me at least it’s clear that theres no obvious, clear-cut answer as is incorrectly suggested by the thousands helping to circulate the articles I’m responding to.