Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Constitution

Can Cameron rise above the vacuous on independence debate?

Feb 16

Posted by Jeff in Constitution | 44 Comments

Maybe it’s the media’s fault. Newspapers in this country are not famous for digging into the detail and providing in-depth analysis of a policy or a speech. Left vs right, unions vs Tories or Lib Dems vs Lib Dems will typically suffice for a narrative, so there’s no reason why it should be any different for unionist vs nationalist, even when it is the Prime Minister that is involved.

That said, David Cameron’s speech today is, from the previews available, depressingly vacuous and ever so slightly patronising.

A couple of quotes from media outlets that have been leaked soundbites are as follows:

(Mail):
We are better off together. We’re stronger, because together we count for more in the world, with a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, real clout in NATO and Europe and unique influence with allies all over the world. We’re safer, because in an increasingly dangerous world we have the fourth-largest defence budget on the planet, superb armed forces and anti-terrorist and security capabilities that stretch across the globe and are feared by our enemies and admired by our friends.’

(Sky):
“I am 100% clear that I will fight with everything I have to keep our United Kingdom together.
To me, this is not some issue of policy or strategy or calculation – it matters head, heart and soul. Our shared home is under threat and everyone who cares about it needs to speak out. Of course, there are arguments that can be made about the volatility of dependence on oil, or the problems of debt and a big banking system. But that’s not the point.
The best case for the United Kingdom is entirely positive. We are better off together. Why? Well, first of all, let’s be practical. Inside the United Kingdom, Scotland – just as much as England, Wales and Northern Ireland – is stronger, safer, richer and fairer.”

It is not uncommon for Tory leaders to liken policy debates to wars as they try to tap into the Old Blighty WW2 spirit that they hope still courses through our veins. Churchill was an expert at it and Margaret Thatcher used it to great effect in many a speech in the eighties. David Cameron is, not unsurprisingly given the context, trying to do so again here with his ‘our shared home is under threat’ rhetoric. Alex Salmond the Nazi? That didn’t work out so well for the last person who tried it.

One problem is that it is all too high-handed, too broad brush, when the only way to advance the debate is with detail, facts and figures. The line ‘head, heart and soul’ might have a pleasing cadence to it, and saying the debate in favour of the UK is “entirely positive” may in itself sound positive, but there is no substance there, nothing for Scots to get their teeth into and taste the evidence from.

When Ruth Davidson talks of ‘fantasy figures’ that the First Minister is using to boast that Scotland would be the sixth richest nation, the obvious challenge is to say that at least Salmond is using figures to back up his argument. If the truth is contrary to the SNP’s view of the future, where is the hard-headed evidence otherwise?

If Scotland becoming an independent country is a leap of faith and a step into the unknown, a challenge not denied by Nicola Sturgeon on Good Morning Scotland this morning, then we are as likely to be better off than worse off, safer than more at risk and fairer than ripped off.

Put another way, saying we are ‘stronger, safer, richer and fairer’ doesn’t make it so. I just hope the transcript of David Cameron’s speech today serves up more than his soundbites are promising.

The Independence Referendum: Floating Voters or Flighty Voters?

Feb 12

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Elections, Holyrood | 15 Comments

photo by comedy_nose

A guest today from Dr Paul Cairney, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Head of Department of Politics and International Relations at Aberdeen University.

Say what you like about Lord Ashcroft, but he gets things done with money. While most of us might have been muttering under our breaths about the leading nature of the SNP Government’s proposed independence referendum question, Ashcroft just spent some of his money trying to show how leading it was. His comparison of three questions shows that the wording of the question does seem to have an effect on responses. While 41% agreed that ‘Scotland should be an independent country’ when merely asked to agree, 39% agree when invited to agree or disagree. That figure reduces further to 33% pro-independence when people were asked ‘Should Scotland become an independent country or should it remain part of the United Kingdom?’ (oddly, there were no ‘undecideds’ in these polls, so the remaining respondents go down as ‘no’ votes). We have always known that there would be this kind of effect. In fact, it was more marked when the first SNP Government produced the more convoluted question ‘I agree [I do not agree] that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state’. This wording is one of the few to produce a plurality in favour, presumably because many people will feel that they are not yet being asked to choose (although the latest poll takes us from a slim lead for ‘agree’ back to a slim lead for ‘disagree’). In most other cases, and at most other times, a different wording generally produces a lead for the ‘no’ vote (see the 14-plus different ways to ask the question in chapter 7 here; compare the survey approach with Susan Condor’s work (on English attitudes to change in Scotland), which just asks people what they think – it suggests that they care much less about these issues than forced choice surveys suggest).

The usual conclusion is that we should look at longer term trends, to see if the same question shows more or less support for constitutional change over time. For example, support for independence has, for decades, been about one-third to two-fifths when people are given the option of choosing to retain or extend devolution instead. It may fluctuate, and that fluctuation may be a good story for the papers, but the trends are fairly clear. This is not the argument I want to pursue here. Rather, I think we should focus more on the potential for fluctuation. The referendum will be held on a particular day in a particular context after a particular campaign. Therefore, while the trends will give us a broad idea of public attitudes, they will not tell us what will happen if we witness a ‘perfect storm’ of events that produces a particular attitude on a particular day. I am not suggesting that people will radically reverse their views at a moment’s notice. Rather, I am suggesting one or more of four things. First, some people will be torn between the options and, if not given the comfort of further devolution as a choice, will not know what to do. Second, some people will have a clear idea of what they want, but without doing much soul searching to come to that conclusion. Third, some people will base their decision on a very small amount of information. Fourth, some people will get that information from biased sources and might see things differently if subject to a competing view. Overall, if many people are unsure, or their certainty is based on limited and biased information, it may be possible for a strong campaign – combined with key events – to change people’s minds for a little while. The best example for me so far was the Conservative Government gambit on giving permission to hold the referendum in 18 months. This sort of nonsense could produce all sorts of emotional reactions in the most calculating or ambivalent people.

I want to give this issue more thought than Lord Ashcroft, but I have less money. So, with my colleagues in psychology and physics at Aberdeen, I am developing an online project that probes people’s views about independence and examines how likely it is that those views will change when they are presented with new (or newly framed and sourced) arguments. We will gauge people’s existing knowledge and searches for information, then present them with the chance to agree or disagree with new arguments as presented by different people (on the assumption that they will react differently to arguments presented by, say, Alex Salmond or George Osborne). I need your help. I have a decent idea of the key arguments made about independence so far, and can do a trawl of the papers to make sure. However, I am sure that I have not heard them all. Can you think of pro- or anti- devolution arguments that would not fit into these broad categories (for example, I am not sure where to place the idea that the SNP’s image of governing competence will/ will not affect support for independence)? Or, can you think of some unusual examples in each category?

Economic – e.g. an independent Scotland could not have bailed out the RBS/ the Scottish Government would have avoided the catastrophe; an independent Scottish Government can tailor taxes and growth strategies to Scotland; businesses are happy/ will leave in droves; Scots will be better/ worse off in an independent Scotland

Economic deficits and North Sea Oil – Scotland relies on UK subsidies; the UK relies on Scottish oil

The State – Scotland will be a high tax, high spending country; the Scottish Government will reduce taxes to promote growth

European Union – someone will veto Scotland’s EU membership; we can decide whether or not we want to join; we will have to negotiate our entry or exit; we will have a larger or smaller voice in the EU

The Euro – we will have to join it; we can keep the pound until we choose to join it

Defence – will radically change/ not change Scotland’s role regarding the armed forces and nuclear question; Scotland will lose soldiers and defence contracts

Scotland and the UK – we will have to rebuild Hadrian’s wall and present passports at the border; key relationships will not change

Social attitudes – more Scottish than British? Devolution as a compromise between Scottishness and Britishness? People want/ do not want independence or more powers

History – Scotland as a stateless nation which demands self-government; the UK as a stronger, united country

Constitutional Issues – independence will solve the ‘English question’; the English should have their say; a referendum in Scotland has no legal authority; Scotland will keep the Queen as head of state

International affairs – we will have a small international voice; we will have to recruit a new generation of diplomats

Nationalist journey to independence may be disrupted by Asch cloud

Feb 7

Posted by Jeff in Constitution, Society | 13 Comments

The Asch conformity experiments of the 1950s were a series of studies that demonstrated the power of conformity in groups.

The fascinating details can be read here but the summary is that, in group situations and despite a contrary clear correct answer, individuals are disposed to providing an incorrect answer against their better judgement if they are conforming with a clear majority view.

From Wikipedia:
Solomon Asch hypothesized that the majority of people would not conform to something obviously wrong; however, when surrounded by individuals all voicing an incorrect answer, participants provided incorrect responses on a high proportion of the questions (32%). Seventy-five percent of the participants gave an incorrect answer to at least one question.

The famous experiment proved that people are more likely to opt for something that they don’t necessarily believe in if a number of people before them, even if they are strangers, opt for that same choice.

This may well be a hint at the battle ahead right up to Autumn 2014.

For Nationalists, the challenge is to persuade Scots to conform to the notion that Scotland as an independent country is merely conforming with a world view of where our constitutional borders should be drawn. It is tantamount to asking the following: ‘Complete the sequence: Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Denmark, Finland,… That’s right. Sc-… Scot-… You can say it to us, everyone else has.’

On the unionist side, the rat-a-tat-tat of conformity is just as unrelenting: ‘Stronger together, weaker apart. Too small, too stupid. Stronger together, weaker apart. To small, too stupid. Stronger together, weaker apart… Say it back to us, come on…’

The above is precisely why I hope that every Scot who is eligible to vote in this referendum takes a quiet moment to themselves, away from the bluster, the blogs and the b*llocks, has a conversation with themselves deciding what it is that they want from their country going forwards and, crucially, that they stick to that decision come what may right up to voting day.

As far as I am aware, every meaningful poll on Scottish independence has shown lower than 50% support in favour of a Yes vote. However, mindful of the Asch experiments, there is a strong argument that these polls unfairly increase the likelihood of the next poll delivering the same result, irrespective of what people may really think on the inside.

There was a time, not so long ago, that to admit that one voted for the SNP was akin to having a stain on your character. You were a narrow-minded, caber-tossing, bagpipe-playing isolationist if you voted SNP and you weren’t allowed to forget it. The SNP has of course largely managed to cast off that reputation when it comes to elections to Holyrood but to what extent does it still exist within Scotland when it comes to the independence question?

When Lord Ashcroft is concerned that there is bias in the referendum process then he uses his money and privilege to publicly highlight this with a useful poll. However, a not dissimilar bias, and a potentially more significant one, exists the other way but there is no poll that will quantify, let alone qualify, the impact of the press, the main political parties and the business leaders with vested interests lining up to instruct the public to conform to their particular view.

Asch has proved that meek conformity will be a factor in this referendum, at least to some degree. We should ignore this at our peril.

The SNP shouldn’t have a monopoly on visions of independence

Feb 6

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution | 42 Comments

A most welcome guest today from Calum Wright, who very occasionally blogs at North By Left. Calum is a graduate of the University of St Andrews and is currently studying towards a Masters at Uppsala Universitet in Sweden. He specialises in early modern northern European history with specific interests in seventeenth century Britain, the history of ideas and political thought.

Monday saw the launch of a broad coalition of those with an interest in the future of Scotland, a coalition which presumably includes everyone in this country and a few more beside. The endeavour is as noble as it is unfocused, attempting to tackle the complex issue of ‘devolution max’, a constitutional conundrum more profound than independence. It is, of course, important that civic Scotland is engaged in the debate at all levels, but I am concerned that on the side of independence the SNP dominates, threatening to stifle all debate.

It is right that the SNP, which has campaigned ceaselessly and imaginatively for independence, should voice their well considered views. But they should not be the only voice, not even, dare I suggest it, the main voice. The mainstream media has so far ignored the Scottish Greens, but beyond the political parties represented at Holyrood there needs to be a pro-independence coalition which encompasses civic Scotland in all its variety.

Of course it can be argued that the SNP is itself a coalition of disparate interests, gathered together under Salmond’s big top with independence as the pole supporting the structure. Under that canvas huddle tartan tories and socialists, traditionalists and radicals, liberals and conservatives, republicans and monarchists. So the SNP is fundamentally unable to articulate a vision of post-independence Scotland partly because it can’t agree on what it should look like.

The SNP have therefore adopted a fairly conservative position, undoubtedly out of a desire not to frighten the horses as it were. However, this cautious approach risks hampering the swell of self-confidence which is growing in Scotland. The likelihood of independence is becoming real, and once this realisation has dawned the lid is lifted on the possibilities it offers. The unionists want to frighten Scots by trying to overwhelm them with this very fact: think of all the new institutions, civil servants, government departments, embassies, laws, legislation etcetera that will be required, they say.

So far the SNP response has been to offer some rough suggestions, which is appropriate given that future policies are the prerogative of future governments, not current ones. But a better response, and one which should involve all pro-independence parties, organisations and individuals in debate, is to say, “Yes, think of all the new things that will be required.” This is a huge change, and one that requires the people of Scotland not to sit in the audience but to take to the stage and participate in. Independence is too important to be left to the politicians.

The monumental implications and attendant possibilities of independence have been grasped by a only few and articulated by even less. Just yesterday a junior defence minister, in response to MPs’ questions about the future of Trident, stated that ‘The government are [sic] not making plans for independence as we are confident that people in Scotland will continue to support the Union in any referendum.’ Many people continue to act as if nothing will happen and many Scots remain pessimistic, burying their hopes of profound change under a traditional façade of cynicism and self-deprecation.

The problem is that the unionists warble on about technicalities and policies which are the right of post-independence parliaments alone, whilst the SNP offers, at least publicly, a timid imagining of Scotland’s future, rhetorically inspiring but ultimately nebulous. Dr Peter Lynch has written on Better Nation that ‘Independence is not a year zero for government or government institutions. Rather it is a case of bolting on new policy responsibilities… onto existing government institutions and organisations’.

This is a rather unexciting prospect. Surely the sine qua non of self-rule is the right to make decisions independently, irrespective of whether they are right or wrong. This includes the right to imagine a new Scotland, not necessarily mimicking the constitutional structures of England nor kowtowing to a fictitious constitutional past. I do not have a bold plan for a utopian Scotland at hand, but I do believe that the debate about Scotland’s future should not stop at the answer to Salmond’s proposed question. Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? Yes. No.

There is more to be discussed, and if the SNP are left as the safe, curiously reassuring arbiters of the meaning of independence we may wake up in an independent Scotland where so much has changed, yet nothing at all. Specific policies are of course the responsibility of future Scottish governments, but I want to see the Scottish imagination awoken as part of a process of shaking off an ingrained inferiority complex and shedding the dependency psyche which the union has burdened Scots with. We should think more in terms of what independence could mean rather than what it would mean.

True independence means having our own currency

Feb 2

Posted by James in Constitution, Economy | 108 Comments

The SNP appear finally to have woken up to the threat posed to the referendum by their support for Scottish membership of the Eurozone – given the incessant diet of Eurocrisis stories – and John Swinney has this week made a brave effort to kick it into the longest grass he could find. Leaving aside the debate about whether an independent Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU, or conversely would be compelled to join the Euro, what would be the best approach to the currency question for Scotland?

There are four basic options. Let’s call them Ireland, Montenegro, Norway and Sweden.

Ireland joined the Euro at the start, back in 1999, and it’s fair to say it seemed like a good idea at the time. Initially the Irish enjoyed an economic boom, built on low interest rates and low corporation tax, but as we know, it proved unstable to say the least. If the good times had kept rolling, it would have been hard to argue with, but more than a decade in the single currency has demonstrated the serious downsides to Euro membership. They surrendered control of monetary policy first, and now, with the new treaty, are about to surrender some control over fiscal policy too. Austerity is biting hard, the bond markets may again try to pick them off the back of the herd, and only the most diehard Euro-enthusiasts see joining their Euro woes as the way forward at this point. To get to this point we would in any case need to operate for a period with our own currency.

Montenegro uses the Euro, having previously used the Deutsche Mark (in the same way much of the former Yugoslavia did, de facto) but is not a member of the Eurozone. They have no true central bank of the form familiar from other independent nation states, and no say over monetary policy, and their fiscal policy is only limited by their desire to join the EU and become a full member of the Eurozone. A country in this position retains the option to start their own currency up (and, as the Velvet Divorce shows, this is easier than might be assumed), but their economic independence is limited to say the least.

Norway remains fully independent, having rejected EEC (as was) membership in a 1972 referendum. They run their own currency, and retain complete fiscal and monetary freedom (aside from any bowing and scraping to the markets they feel obliged to engage in). Through membership of the European Economic Area they gain access to EU markets as if they were members, and must comply with almost all single market requirements. The downside here, clearly, is the Norwegians have no formal input into those rules, and, oddly, they are required to contribute more than a billion Euros towards social and economic cohesion funds despite being ineligible for any funding in return.

Sweden is a full EU member, but has retained the krona despite being notionally committed to Euro membership, and despite not having an optout. As yet, though, they haven’t even gone into the ERM2 convergence zone, the essential next step if they were to join the Euro: and in 2003 moves towards the Euro were rejected in a referendum. The country’s economic policy is largely in domestic hands, both monetary and to a lesser extent fiscal (hence the decision to stay out of the latest treaty, or at least not to be governed by it while outside the Eurozone), but either way they retain all the advantages of EU membership.

John Swinney’s preferred short- and medium-term option, retention of the pound, has no direct current parallels in Europe, but the closest comparison is with Montenegro, with the Bank of England playing the part of the European Central Bank. We’d have no control at all over monetary policy, without even MPs at Westminster to lobby the Chancellor or any reason why Scottish interests should be considered by the Monetary Policy Committee. We’d have no true central bank, no ability to consider policies like quantitative easing.

it’s all the currency downsides of the Union with none of the input. It sounds reassuring, though: “we’ll retain the pound”. Not scary. No change. Like “we’ll retain the Saxe-Coburg Gothas“. But no amount of flannel from Mr Swinney about hopes for “lengthy and solid agreement with the Bank of England” alters the fact that any such agreement would have to be entirely on the Bank’s terms. It’s not even clear why that’d be better than adopting the strict Montenegin approach and just circulating the Euro.

The Irish example is perhaps even more unappealing, for reasons that have become obvious to to the SNP as well. For me, this leaves only our two Scandinavian neighbours as possible role models. Personally I’m still on balance in favour of EU membership, although the way the Eurozone crisis has exacerbated the Union’s centralising tendencies is gradually putting me off. For now, it looks like those in the EU but not in the Eurozone have the best of both worlds, but there may come a time when true independence outside the EU was clearly in Scotland’s best interests. Sweden for now, in other words, but with an eye on Norway.

Don’t make the discussion about Scotland, and leave aside the economics for now. Just ask Family Fortunes contestants what the characteristics of an independent country are. It seems likely that having your own currency and your own head of state would be pretty high up their list, whatever the experience of living next to the Eurozone and in the Commonwealth may tell us. It’s not a bizarre and outlandish thought.

And that’s the kind of independence I want. One where Scotland genuinely runs her own affairs. Plenty of other small countries have their own currencies – in fact, apart from Montenegro and Eurozone members, that’s the norm. Let’s do the same (and let’s have no Queen on it either: the idea that a new and notionally progressive state should choose the hereditary principle is surely absurd).

The Nats have a decent starting point. Yes: London’s control over our economy doesn’t benefit us. Yes: it’s remote and undemocratic. Yet Swinney’s plan would leave future Chancellors at Westminster and the Bank of England in charge of Scotland’s economy, while actually reducing the influence we have over them. And he’s still retaining the option of handing those policy levers over to the even more remote and undemocratic European Central Bank.

This economically incompetent position feels like it’s driven by focus group, like so much of the SNP’s trimming and tacking, motivated by a desire not to alarm the public who the SNP presumably believe care more about what the money in their pocket looks like than they do about the actual economic merits of a particular position. It’s a soft spot for the Unionist campaign to attack, though, and surely won’t hold up to intense scrutiny during a referendum campaign. Time to reconsider.

Note: this is my position, not Scottish Green Party policy, which remains to oppose membership of the single currency and to support independence. Technically that could mean support for either an independent Scottish currency or, ironically, John Swinney’s approach. I have no doubt that this will be discussed at Conference prior to any referendum.