THE great Scottish journalist Neal Ascherson wrote a typically thought-provoking piece earlier this month in the Sunday Herald, titled, Why Scotland must act as an independent nation. It garnered the usual plethora of comments in response, from both sides of the independence argument, more measured than usual, perhaps because of the esteem with which the author is held, and the subtle way he framed his argument, more philosophical and less didactic than most writings on this vexed subject.
I don’t wish to be drawn into that particular argument as there are more than enough able contributors, while too few focus on my main area of interest, the wellbeing of people regardless of how they vote on any issue. However Ascherson’s commentary reminded me in tone and stance of the great American philosopher and activist Henry David Thoreau. Rather than say Scotland should act as if it was independent, Thoreau argued that each of us should act as if we were what Thoreau proclaimed we already are, sovereign in our own right.
Thoreau went to jail for not paying his taxes in 1846 because he refused to support a US government which would not abolish slavery and which had deliberately created an incident allowing the US army to march into Mexico and eventually seize an enormous part of Mexico’s territory (around 15 per cent of the present day America).
However it was not Thoreau’s going to jail that mattered to him – ironically a friend paid his taxes for him so he was released after one day. What concerned him was the principle. Always follow your conscience, and when, as sometimes must happen, your values and those of the state clash, you should not meekly accept the authority of the state, but oppose it in whatever way you can.
This is the opposite of what we currently accept as democracy, which is in effect, the tyranny of the majority, at best – more often the tyranny of whoever won the most seats. But again I want to state I am not looking at this from a political perspective so bear with me.
From this experience, Thoreau grew more and more involved in supporting the anti-slavery movement. In 1848 he delivered a series of lectures, one of which when printed became known as Civil Disobedience. It was to have an enormous impact on history, with Tolstoy, Gandhi and Martin Luther King all directly citing his influence on their thinking and strategies.
In the essay version, Thoreau says we are personally disgraced by immoral actions of our government, even if we never voted for them or didn’t support the particular policies with which we morally disagree.
What does this have to do with mindfulness? Everything. We do not live in a vacuum. We are part of our local community, which is part of wider society. Regardless of political persuasion, the government which runs our affairs, at local, Scottish, British and for the next year or more, European, do so in the name of us all.
Mindfulness has a three-fold stage of thinking. The first is to notice in each moment what is actually going on. The second is to do so with a particular alertness for thoughts or actions that may be unhealthy or unacceptable. The third is to think clearly and calmly in order to make the most of each moment. Where a moment recognises injustice, unfairness, unpleasantness, harm or suffering whether self-created or caused by someone or something outside of yourself, we should act in order to minimise the hurt or harm, and in its place create what we consider will result in a better outcome.
So using as a template Ascherson’s urging that Scotland should act as if it is already independent, I would say that, with clarity, calmness and compassion, we should all act as if we, as individuals, family members, work colleagues, friends, neighbours, and yes, citizens, were sovereign, and we should try to find ways of expressing our fundamental disagreement with any action, whether by people or institutions, workplaces or governments, when such disagreements occur.
We need to act in accordance with this reality, that each of us is already independent.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here