Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Holyrood

MOTW: Titanic Sinks. Houston Man Lost at Sea.

Apr 13

Posted by Kirsty in Holyrood | 13 Comments

Between Leo and Kate in 3D, Julian Fellowes’ Downton-by-the-Sea and the frankly bizarre cruise holiday, it’s been hard to avoid the 100th anniversary of the ill-fated maiden voyage of the Titanic this week.

Despite recess, it has of course made an appearance in motions laid at Holyrood. And while the combination of John Mason, religion and parochialism doesn’t normally score points in Better Nation’s esteemed consideration of such things, this week it’s a little different.

Of course, it has all the trappings of a WMOTW – shameless local promotion with scant politics, cobbled onto an opportune global news story. But for some reason I’ve found Mason’s commemoration of John Harper, a Scottish pastor en route to Chicago who lost his life while saving others, a poignant little piece of social history, deserving of note. My black unionist heart must be melting.

I’m sure with the end of recess, normal crap parliamentary chat will resume.

Motion S4M-02610: John Mason, Glasgow Shettleston, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 12/04/2012

Remembering RMS Titanic, 100 Years On

That the Parliament notes that 15 April 2012 marks the 100th anniversary of the sinking of RMS Titanic, considered to be one of the deadliest peacetime maritime disasters in history, which is believed to have resulted in the deaths of 1,514 people; understands that John Harper, a Baptist pastor from Houston, Renfrewshire, who was en route to preach in Chicago, died trying to help others on the ship; considers that memories of Mr Harper live on at what is now the Harper Memorial Baptist Church, but was originally the Paisley Road Baptist Church, where he became the pastor in 1897; notes that the church will host a Titanic Weekend event to mark the anniversary, and remembers with sadness all of those who lost family and friends in this tragic moment in history.

Supported by: Bill Kidd, Margaret Burgess, Sandra White, Adam Ingram, Dave Thompson, Stuart McMillan, Mike MacKenzie, Richard Lyle, Humza Yousaf, Dennis Robertson, Roderick Campbell

It’s the Economist, stupid

Apr 13

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 123 Comments

To see ourselves as others see us.

If that’s often the aim then The Economist has done Scotland a big favour this week with a shocking front page that I personally find insulting.

In jibes that are more common from Clarkson’s slack jaw, our nation ‘Skintland’ includes ‘Grumpians’, ‘Edinborrow’ and the Isle of ‘Barren’. How we laughed.

The odd thing about this front page is that the article in the magazine itself is reasonably balanced, speculating with facts and figures about oil reserves and considering the scale of economies in this difficult economic climate, and concluding that Scotland could very well make it on its own quite comfortably.

However, Scotland will now be ridiculed in newsagents and office desks across the UK. As I said on Twitter last night, this is the main reason why I will be voting Yes to independence.

This is one silly picture of course but it’s symbolic of a much wider issue. I moved to London a couple of years ago and have been genuinely surprised by the lazy stereotypes down here, the rejection of Scottish currency, the ‘jokes’ that we are unintelligible, the assurance that we are scroungers and the sheer ignorance regarding Holyrood and FMs past and present. If we’re not a valued member of this team then we will happily leave and front covers such as this from the Economist will only hasten that departure.

What really struck me about the fierce Twitter debate last night was how quickly the SNP politicians and members lined up to castigate the Economist while Tory, Labour and Lib Dem members, and journalists, were keen to brush it off as just a joke and nothing to get in a palaver about. Well I disagree, you’ve got to make a stand against the perpetuation of scurrilous myths.

The thing is, there’s no reason why this should be an SNP vs unionist issue, no reason at all. The Economist’s decision should be just as offensive to either side. However, there is an almost Pavlovian reaction from the SNP’s opponents to unthinkingly take an opposing view to them, whatever the issue. Remember George Foulkes complaining that the SNP was making things better and doing it “on purpose”, that the Saltire livery on Scotrail trains was too Nationalist even though it was Labour’s idea? They have to learn that being on the SNP’s side and Scotland’s side at the same time is ok once in a while.

I appreciate that Scots are no angels and anti-Englishness can be vitriolic at times. That’s not really my problem if I’m not the cause of it but I do take great exception to being Scottish and having to put up with front pages from journalists that should, and I’m sure do, know better.

I largely enjoy London, I’m looking forward to the Olympics and even The Royal Family is growing on me but, by jolly, there are days when Autumn 2014 can’t come quickly enough.

Non-nationalists for independence

Apr 11

Posted by James in Constitution, Holyrood, Westminster | 46 Comments

The Jolly Roger flyingDuring a recent discussion thread one of the commenters admitted to not knowing what the difference is between a nationalist and someone that supports independence. Given it was Jeff, I promised to explain my position, which is, as the title suggests, in favour of independence but against nationalism.

Crudely, there are romantic arguments for particular territorial boundaries, and there are pragmatic ones. The arguments for and against independence can both be divided in this way. If someone believes that larger nation-states carry more clout on the world stage, that the costs of implementing Scottish independence outweigh the benefits, and that the Westminster system is the most efficient form of democracy ever devised, for example, they are certainly a unionist but not necessarily a nationalist of any flavour. Those are pragmatic positions, and their merits can be debated.

If, however, they believe that Britain has a splendid history, that Britishness is important to their identity, and that we therefore belong together, they are a British nationalist. It sounds unpleasant, because of the association with the British National Party, but it’s really no more logical nor any less savoury than Scottish nationalism. Nationalists believe in flags and anthems and symbols of collective identity. Unless it’s the Jolly Roger, I’m broadly against flags. Any form of nationalism is like a faith position, and it is hard to debate sensibly with a person who adheres to one of them.

Similarly, Scottish nationalism has independence as an end in itself, an emotional objective irrespective of any other political changes. Patrick and I once took a drink with an SNP MSP who shall remain nameless. Patrick asked what their campaign priorities would be after independence, and got the memorable reply: “what do you mean?” Another round of pressing still failed to elicit any secondary policy objectives, like perhaps tackling poverty, or even apparently an understanding of the question. Eventually the answer came that they’d leave politics – job done. That’s nationalism in its purest form, and it frankly baffles me.

Personally, I came to support independence as a pragmatic position, entirely devoid of any nationalist sentiment – only the 90 minute version has any effect on me. I look at Westminster politics and despair. I no longer think it likely that we will in my lifetime see an end to corporate politics there, or a fair electoral system, or a party of government opposed to privatisation, or a government prepared to make a positive case for immigration and honouring our asylum commitments. Obviously Labour started small, and the Greens couldn’t have a better bridgehead in the Commons than Caroline Lucas, but the inertia (at best) and copycat neo-liberal politics seen at a UK level is frankly beyond depressing.

So I don’t want to be offered an independent Scotland which would reproduce Westminster at Holyrood, something where the constitution won’t be written by the people, without a choice over an elected or a hereditary head of state, or where money politics still rules. I want to see independence for something, for a purpose. I want to see a fairer Scotland, one that relies on wind and wave, not oil and gas, one where money stops being wasted on motorways and is diverted instead into public transport, and one where politics is cleaned up and opened up. The list is enormous, and in general it’s what you’d see if you merged the last Green manifestos for Holyrood and for Westminster. Only a referendum on a truly democratic independent Scotland gives me any hope that I’ll live in a country like that.

The irony with this, of course, is that plenty of people who get called nationalists – SNP members, or even SNP MSPs – are not nationalists by this definition, or not just nationalists at least. Like me, they want independence for a purpose: some to deliver a version of social democracy, others to continue down a neo-liberal path. The leadership recognise the ideological and emotional strands in the pro-independence camp too, and so they use rhetoric that mixes nationalism and pragmatism, designed to have a broad appeal beyond the flag-wavers.

Another example further from home provides a footnote. Consider the 18th century American campaign for independence and the colonists’ famous slogan “no taxation without representation”. This was not a nationalist position, although it was part of the ideological foundation for a war for independence. It’s a pragmatic political position, and if George III had had any sense he’d have offered them representation. Who knows how that would have turned out? Similarly, if the unionists had been smarter and hadn’t blocked the assembly plans in 1979, who knows whether independence would seem so essential now?

Will Tory voters stop going tartan?

Apr 8

Posted by James in Elections, Holyrood | 33 Comments

The idea that Scotland’s a decisively more left-wing country than the rest of the UK is at least in part a myth, perpetuated largely by the marked disparity in the Tory vote share north and south of the border, combined with the associated myth that the SNP are a left-wing party now.

In 2007 and again in 2011, it’s clear that many natural Tories voted SNP. Some did so, especially in 2011, because the SNP’s position on taxation was just as right-wing as the Tories. Many many more did so, especially in 2007, simply because the SNP could end Labour’s hegemony at Holyrood. Others no doubt saw a kindred spirit in Alex Salmond, despite his leftwing views on currently reserved matters like defence and international affairs.

The deal was always this – we’ll vote for the most credible party to the right of Labour (to be clear, I don’t regard Labour as left-wing any more either), but in the unlikely event you ever manage to bring your referendum forward, we’ll vote no. I’m sure some business types have genuinely come round to independence, especially given the SNP desire to race to the bottom on corporation tax, but for most I suspect that remains the deal. Run Scotland, Mr Salmond, unless and until the Scottish Tories get their act together.

But what about the SNP majority now? No-one expected that, not the over-exposed Mr Curtice, not the swathes of new SNP backbenchers, not the Great Puddin’ O’ the Chieftain Race himself. And certainly not the Tories who went tartan, who now face a referendum which they must fear losing, given the relative quality of the leadership and the relative campaigning nous on both sides.

Might tactically-minded Tories out there not now wish to pull the balance back in the other direction, take any opportunity to bring the SNP back to minority levels? The Nats proved they could run a competent minority administration – in fact, their period of minority was probably the most competent in Holyrood’s history.

If Bill Walker resigns as an MSP (and Kate’s right, he should), what happens in Dunfermline? Bill won with a narrow 590 majority, and the by-election dynamics would be entirely different. If it’s a seen as a local vote for against independence, Labour would have to be pretty confident even if John Park doesn’t contest it, as Kate suggests. That 590 majority looks even smaller when you consider the almost 8,000 combined Tory and Lib Dem votes from last year. Sure, the Nats’ election machine remains the most formidable ever assembled in Scotland, but this is not natural Nat territory.

I love by-election drama, and I think Bill has a moral responsibility to let his constituents be represented by someone who’s not a wife-beater, but if I wouldn’t be surprised if the SNP leadership were saying “Go!” in public and desperately hoping in private to keep their effective majority exactly where it is today.

Edit: I’ve taken the other Bill Walker out, the former Tory MP. The coincidence in naming amused me, buy think I meant Nicky Fairbairn anyway and I don’t want to associate the Tory one with domestic violence.

WMOTW – The cut of the GiB

Apr 6

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 13 Comments

The SNP is usually adept at picking its battles so, in relation to the winner of this week’s Worst Motion of the Week, perhaps Marco Biagi MSP is too wet behind the ears to know when it is best to quit while one is only slightly behind. Or, perhaps young Marco is being put out to bat as a sacrificial lamb but, either way, a call to “make GIB a Scottish Company” can only ever fail in today’s climate.

The Green Investment Bank was recently placed in both Edinburgh & London and renamed the ‘UK Green Investment Bank’, for obvious Nationalist fox-shooting purposes. Many may grumble that this was a political decision but that, I’m afraid, is Westminster’s wont. The message from the coalition is clear – ‘here are some jobs and investment opportunities that would not be of the same level if Scotland was independent. Vote Yes in 2014 and we’ll take those jobs and that money back to London’.

The referendum is not going to be won and lost over 70 jobs and £2bn of renewable investment but this was a rare example of a union dividend coming Scotland’s way and the SNP’s posturing of calling for a UK Government to place a UK institution in Scotland, less than three years away from an independence referendum, is foolishly drawing attention to this UK benefit and, on top of that, has always sounded a bit childish.

Anyway, here is the motion (and a Lib Dem amendment to it):

Motion S4M-02542: Marco Biagi, Edinburgh Central, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 29/03/2012
Make GIB a Scottish Company
That the Parliament welcomes the recent announcement that the Green Investment Bank (GIB) is to be based in Edinburgh and considers that this is in recognition of the tremendous strength of Edinburgh as a centre both for financial services and the new green industries; understands that the new Edinburgh-based GIB is registered with Companies House at an address in London; considers it important to have the GIB headquarters in Edinburgh in more than just name, and calls on the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to transfer the company registration to Edinburgh once a suitable venue for the GIB has been identified in the city.
Supported by: Bill Kidd, Annabelle Ewing, Stuart McMillan, John Finnie, Adam Ingram, Christina McKelvie, Mike MacKenzie, Joan McAlpine, Kevin Stewart, Angus MacDonald, Maureen Watt, John Mason, Jean Urquhart, Mark McDonald, Bill Walker, Roderick Campbell, Kenneth Gibson, Dennis Robertson, David Torrance, Margaret Burgess, Linda Fabiani, Fiona McLeod, Bob Doris, Dave Thompson, Gil Paterson, Christine Graham

Motion S4M-02542.1: Liam McArthur, Orkney Islands, Scottish Liberal Democrats, Date Lodged: 30/03/2012
Make GIB a Scottish Company
As an amendment to motion S4M-02542 in the name of Marco Biagi (Make GIB a Scottish Company), leave out from “that the Green Investment Bank” to end and insert “by the UK Government that the UK Green Investment Bank (GIB) is to be based in Edinburgh and considers that this is in recognition of the tremendous strength of Edinburgh as a centre both for financial services and the new green industries; recognises that the headquarters of the GIB will be located in Edinburgh, with the main transaction team based in London, in order to enable a greater commercial reach nationally than could be achieved from one location; believes that basing the GIB’s corporate headquarters, asset management and administrative functions in Edinburgh and its transaction team in London will harness expertise across the country to deliver a strong and successful GIB for the UK, make Edinburgh a centre of excellence for green investment and provide a welcome boost to the city’s economy, and looks forward to the GIB playing a vital role in the UK’s drive toward a sustainable and green future.”

It was an easy riposte for Liam McArthur really, let’s be honest. The UK GiB is an example of London and Edinburgh working as a team, stronger together, weaker apart etc and Scotland being given something and wanting more is not the type of behaviour that is suited to a nation arguing to be mature enough to stand alone on the world stage.

Independence will inevitably involve compromises, and looking to nab UK institutions before the referendum is called rather than gracefully accept the forfeiture is unbecoming of the otherwise typically positive approach adopted by the SNP. If an independent Scotland wants a Green Investment Bank, it can build one. End of. If rUK wants to keep its bank in a foreign country, that’s its decision.

If the 2014 referendum results in a No vote, then by all means call for the UK GiB to be based in Scotland if that’s where the headquarters are but simultaneously looking to move away from the UK while calling for its institutions to be based here seems hypocritical or naïve.

Furthermore, the call is so easily countered by the opposition that a frustrated silence is surely immeasurably preferable, not that silence tends to be preferred over an MSP’s opportunity to submit a below-par motion.