In 2014, on the morning of the Scottish independence referendum, I tweeted this from my now rarely used personal account:
https://twitter.com/ldshrink/status/512487361918558208?s=21
In 2016, when the UK voted in the EU referendum I voted to remain in the EU, and if (when 🤞🏻) we are given a referendum to rejoin, barring some cataclysmic shift in the EU's structure and purpose, I will vote to regain membership.
While obviously being very different votes, with a multitude of conflicting issues at play for people on both sides of the debate, fundamentally the Scottish Independence and EU referenda boiled down to a simple question; should a small member state choose to leave a larger political union?
Given this fundamental question, my position on the two votes appears diametrically opposed. I have not changed my position on Scotland, if they want to leave the UK they should be allowed to do so, and clearly my position on EU membership has not changed either. Ignoring the huge differences between the two votes, how can it be that I can be in favour of independence for one group, while actively voting against independence for another?
Think global, act local
While at medical school, I was involved in an organisation called Sexpression:UK, a student-led charity which aimed to provide sex and relationship education to school pupils. These education sessions were provided by medical students, on the basis pupils are more likely to engage with people closer to their own age on a potentially embarrassing topic such as sex than they would with teachers. Each Wednesday afternoon during term time we would head to a local secondary school and run a sex and relationships session. As fun and awkward at times as you would imagine, I always learnt something from a session and have fond memories of my time in the group.
Sexpression:UK was (is) an affiliate member of a larger organisation Medsin (now known as Students for Global Health UK). As part of my involvement with Sexpression:UK, I was able to attend the 2009 annual conference in Manchester. As well as a great chance to network with other likeminded students from across the UK and beyond, I had the opportunity to listen to impassioned speakers covering a range of issues pertinent to global health.
The conference slogan was Think Global, Act Local. Far from being a slogan unique to the Medsin conference (it even has a Wikipedia page), I believe the conference was the first time I heard the phrase (at least the first time I can recall). The saying struck a cord with me, both for the simplicity and power of the message. Perfectly suited to an organisation which focussed on global health issues while running groups locally to improve health and wellbeing such as Sexpression:UK. Beyond health inequalities, the slogan can also neatly fit to other areas of social activism.
From local to global
While I would not claim Think Global, Act Local is a personal slogan or motto, it certainly goes some way to explain my apparently contradictory views on Scottish independence and membership of the European Union.
Independence movements like that of the Scots can feel like they have more reasons driving them than total supporters. Everyone will have a slightly different view of independence and what it is needed for, and while diversity of opinion makes life all the more interesting, it can make it all the more difficult to achieve the ultimate aim of the movement.
Despite the varied reasons for supporting independence, I don't think it is too much of a stretch to suggest a desire for more local government and decision making is at the heart of many independence movements. Being independent, it can be argued, allows people to make decisions on a more local level. Choosing how to spend public money, what rules and laws to enact, and even what the overarching ethos of a political entity will be feels instinctively to have more legitimacy when those decisions are made by local politicians in local parliaments.
No comments:
Post a Comment