There are many potentially alarming lines in the world of politics – ‘we need to have a serious conversation about immigration’, ‘owning a gun is just a logical extension of free speech’ and anything equating unlimited political donations with having ‘a voice’.
The Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson has veered into this worrying terrain with his objections to the rule that those living outside of Scotland can only donate up to £500 towards either side of the independence campaign.
I can sympathise with a Scot living away from home and wanting to take part in the referendum but a rich individual complaining of being “silenced” due to donation limits rings alarm bells.
Donating £501 to a referendum campaign (as Alex has impudently done to make a point) is a far cry from the Super PACS in the USA where individuals can swing elections if they spend enough money, but both situations are wrong thanks to the same principle which is simply that in an ideal democracy, every citizen should have an equal say.
There is no doubting that there is a link between money spent and electoral success, if money moves polls then it can certainly move election results but is it fair that Alex Salmond can deposit £1m cheques from Scottish lottery winners and deceased Scottish poets but Better Together can’t cash a £501 cheque from English-based Scots? That’s debatable, but it is at least just as fair as the current law prohibiting donations from overseas benefactors, even from Scots such as Sean Connery.
Some may claim that the SNP is just trying to level the playing field with this rule in advance of the referendum campaign really getting going. My view is that there is nothing necessarily wrong with that.
I’ve often thought it dubious fair play that UK parties could bus in swathes of activists from across the country for single by-elections, at least in theory, so to make a Scottish referendum as distinctly Scottish as possible does have its merits. If that means that anomalies arise whereby Scots living outside of Scotland lose some influence in proceedings, be it through not having a vote or limited donations, then that to me is a price worth paying to ensure that it is the right people making the right decisions.
Some will disagree, and this is one of those prickly referendum issues where an objective solution cannot easily be disentangled from a partisan viewpoint. I want a Yes result in 2014 and, surprise surprise, I agree with the SNP’s argument here that too much money from outside of Scotland would tarnish the referendum process. Those seeking a No vote would no doubt disagree.
It is unfortunate but seemingly unavoidable that interested Scots seemingly take a party view on these issues, issues that shouldn’t intrinsically fall along pro- or anti- independence lines, and yet here we are. Much like devolving broadcasting or fiscal autonomy, it seems impossible to have a discussion on the merits of any single issue without it really being about constitutional positioning.
Alex Ferguson is entitled to a view and a voice on Scotland’s constitutional future, of course he is, but he shouldn’t expect to buy more of an influence than he is entitled to as just one of the world’s 6million Scots who just happens to have money to burn and, well, given he has top billing in the Scotland on Sunday today, I would suggest that he is getting his voice heard just fine.
#1 by Chris on December 16, 2012 - 11:33 am
It was interesting to see in the census figures for England and Wales that Scots are the second highest immigrant group there. I think it was 779,000 Scots born in England so if you like more Scots in England than in any of our cities.
Of course the SNP are being disingenuous, apart from the near-mythical Scots who go to London in their 20s and return hating it and then join the SNP, most Scots in England are happily settled, probably married to English people (in my case Welsh!) and will look upon independence slightly aghast.
On a side note – are you going to change the name of the blog given Alasdair Gray’s outburst? I thought the Better Nation was one that welcomed all, it turns out that Alasdair meant Better equated with less English?
#2 by Don McC on December 16, 2012 - 8:30 pm
I don’t think it’s the SNP who are being disengenous, it’s the Unionists who don’t actually care where the money comes from (they just want to out-spend the yes campaign) and are playing to the gallery over this.
#3 by Naebd on December 16, 2012 - 10:12 pm
That quote is also engraved on the Scottish Parliament! We should shut it down until its been exorcised by a team of Daily Telegraph bloggers.
#4 by Naebd on December 16, 2012 - 10:16 pm
It’s a quote originally by a Canadian – call off the disinfection squad!
#5 by Jeff on December 17, 2012 - 8:28 am
Alasdair appears to have been the victim of a bit of a hatchet job by the dear old Scotland on Sunday. I think Better Nation will keep the name, at least for now…
#6 by Doug Daniel on December 17, 2012 - 9:21 am
He has indeed, although ably assisted by unionists willingly misinterpreting what he said, as well as some pro-indy folk who are a bit too keen to hang fellow travellers out to dry on the basis of other people’s interpretation of their views. It’s by no means the first time either, and it’s becoming tiresome.
All through history, people have strived to be able to communicate with each other better. Strange how the second we became able to communicate across wide geographical spans, we decided to start trying our best to misunderstand what others are saying.
#7 by Naebd on December 17, 2012 - 9:45 am
I hate that aspect of the web – the wilfully misunderstanding mob. All sides do it.
#8 by Iain Menzies on December 16, 2012 - 1:38 pm
I say let him give his £501, or 5 million if he wants.
Dont limit donations….just limit spending.
#9 by Richard on December 16, 2012 - 2:03 pm
Too true, Jeff. I am currently based outside Scotland and, while I feel very strongly about Independence, I recognise that it is the people of Scotland (i.e. those who will have to live with the consequences), and only them, who can be allowed to make that decision. Alex Ferguson, in order to advance his career, has decided to live his life outside of Scotland. He cannot have his cake and eat it.
#10 by Chris on December 16, 2012 - 6:33 pm
But am I right in thinking that the proposed rules only affected Scots in the rest of the UK? No limit on donations from famous tax exiles?
Happy to be corrected if I am wrong.
#11 by Jeff on December 16, 2012 - 7:05 pm
Genuinely don’t know. Hopefully not, and I would have thought that existing UK law would apply in this context which would mean that a certain tax exshile still couldn’t contribute.
#12 by Naebd on December 16, 2012 - 10:03 pm
Nope, you’re wrong.
#13 by naebd on December 16, 2012 - 2:28 pm
Alex got his views onto the front page of the Scotsman website. With the right friends your voice can be heard quite well.
#14 by Grahamski on December 17, 2012 - 8:18 am
Isn’t it typical that with campaign donations, like pretty much every other matter, the SNP’s instinct is to erect barriers between the peoples of the UK?
Alex Ferguson was absolutely correct to tell them to go and take a running jump with their attempts to create borders where none exist.
#15 by Jeff on December 17, 2012 - 8:26 am
The border is just south of Gretna and just north of Berwick Upon Tweed. Dig a map out.
#16 by Doug Daniel on December 17, 2012 - 9:13 am
The “creating borders” argument is lamentable, although you’re by no means the first person to use it. If a border doesn’t exist between Scotland and England, then how on earth does the Scottish Parliament know where its jurisdiction ends?
Not sure how you can support devolution if you don’t even acknowledge there’s a border…
#17 by Naebd on December 17, 2012 - 9:43 am
Will Grahamski be arguing for unlimited donations worldwide for the next General Election, or is this another case of Internationalism in One Country.
It’s weird to me that the no campaign is ahead and yet are worried about being cut off from funding by non residents and non Scots. Can’t their supporters cough up? I don’t think they’ll be too troubled – Ferguson probably spent more on the whole thing than I will over the two years with a single ya boo sucks cheque, and it got him into the newspaper for free.
#18 by Indy on December 18, 2012 - 9:19 am
The decision on independence will be taken by the people who live in Scotland. It does not matter where they come from – if they are on the local government register in Scotland they will have a vote and people who are not on that register will not have a vote.
You can’t vote in more than one place – there is an anomaly with students but that is an anomaly, the general rule is that you can’t vote in more than one place. You certainly can’t vote in a place just because you used to live in it and have a connection to it.
I lived in London for many years, I still have strong connections there and visit frequently but I don’t expect to be able to vote in the mayoral elections on the strength of that. Because, much as I still care about my friends and family in London, I actually live here in Scotland. This is where I work, where I pay tax and where I vote.
All of this is surely obvious. It really doesn’t matter if someone is a celebrity or rich. We need to have a level playing field here. The rules which have been suggested by Yes Scotland would prohibit Sean Connery from donating more than 500 pounds to the Yes campaign as much as they would prohibit Alex Ferguson from donating more than 500 pounds to the No campaign. So it does not particularly advantage the Yes campaign over the No campaign.
I just can’t see any real debate around this.