I have noticed an interesting theme develop over the past few weeks which has involved non-Nationalists complain about the look an independent Scotland would have under the SNP’s referendum plans. 

The objection goes that Salmond is claiming to offer choice with one hand but only offering a Scotland that keeps the monarchy, keeps the pound and keeps EU membership with the other.

For me, this is a bit like a Rangers fan complaining about the Celtic lineup before an Old Firm match.

If it’s clear which side of this argument’s line one is on, then why busy oneself with the free choice of what the other side is pushing for?

Further, how precisely would Scots get to decide on the monarchy, on the EU, on NATO, not to mention whether we should be independent or not, via one single question? 

It is difficult to tell if complainants are merely posturing or genuinely can’t tell the difference between a referendum that decides once and for all on the nation’s monarchy, currency and the extent of European involvement and a referendum, as this one in 2014 shall be, on whether we as a nation should decide on these issues for ourselves rather than merely as one small part of a larger country. 

One example was a fine argument had with David Torrance in the pub, unquotable only because I can’t trust my memory one minute to the next let alone two days after, but another example was a robust Twitter exchange with Labour’s mightily impressive Michael Marra. Examples of Michael’s position include:

“in order to be credible you have to argue for independence”

“no fiscal Indy, no monetary Indy, no military Indy, no head of state Indy. No Indy.”

“either have the balls to argue for real Indy or we talk about things that really matter”

It’s not for the SNP to dictate what an independent Scotland’s currency or EU membership should be, as I’m sure most in the party would freely accept. Even the current pressure on Alex Salmond to outline what our Defence force would look like is unwarranted. 

Salmond is the First Minister of a devolved Scotland, we don’t know who the first Prime Minister of an independent Scotland will be, if that day comes to pass. These issues would be for he or she to decide after fresh elections and after a negotiated breakaway from the UK. 

Of course the SNP is trying to push as wide a view of independence as it possibly can in order to fit as many Yes votes into its big tent, broad church politics as possible. What, in short, is wrong with this approach? Why is it for the SNP to dot every i and cross every t of how Scotland will be post 2014 and for decades to come? After all, the SNP might not even exist once its mission is accomplished.

Labour, or any party, pushing for Salmond to flesh out this detail are inadvertently weakening their own position by making it appear that they do not have a policy that they would wish to push for. To cede the position is to cede the argument.

For me, the best way to advance this referendum debate is for each side to pick their own position on any related issue and advance it as best they can. Salmond is wryly trying to advance nameless persons’ Devo Max argument on their behalf while trying to unscrupulously gain from doing so and, as pointed out, non-Nats are trying to paint what actual Nats should be arguing for. 

Maybe proponents of independence and members of the SNP are angry that abolishing the monarchy and shunning the EU are not on the agenda in the near future but it is not the business of unionists to stir that particular pot. Nats are free to raise this issue with the party they are a part of and/or join or create a different party in order to champion the views that they hold so dear.

Argue for what you believe in, make your case and we’ll see what the result is, and where Scotland wants to go next, come 2014. 

Everything else is just noise.

James Wallace, the London-based Scot who is calling for the coming referendum to include all Scottish expats with his Let Wallace Vote campaign, has garnered remarkable coverage to boost his profile. James’ logic is as follows:

“If I was living in America, I could vote for my Scottish MP in the Westminster elections, but living in London I would be unable to vote on the independence of my country. My vote will be taken away from me without me having any say about it.”

Labour MSP Elaine Murray has picked up the campaign and run with it as far as Holyrood, leading a member’s debate on the issue yesterday.

However, the idea that people living outside of Scotland, people who may well never return to the nation, should have a say on Scotland’s constitutional future is dumbfounding. There is an element of people wanting to have their cake and eat it here, and such people will hopefully be told in no uncertain terms to dry their eyes.

To move outside of any country and take yourself off the electoral register, whatever the circumstances, is to forfeit your right to have a vote. There may well be a rule that one can vote in Westminster elections 14 years after you have left the UK but two wrongs do not make a right and what Mr Wallace is calling for here is most certainly wrong.

There is of course a political side to this, with the thinking being that a majority of the 800,000 expat Scots would vote for the union and one could argue that that is why Elaine Murray is pushing the issue so ardently. I don’t really know where this logic stems from though as I see quite clearly Scots’ ‘Scottishness’ coming to the fore when they move away from home, largely due to a mix of pride of how we are viewed around the world and also as a defence against crass generalisations made against us (are you having that deep fried, bunch of scroungers, unintelligible etc etc).

We do live in a global world and people are moving further and further afield to get an education, get jobs or to settle down. I know this all too well, living and working as I do in London right now due to the limitations of certain courses that Scotland provides. Not getting to vote in the independence referendum would be annoying if a return to Scotland doesn’t take place before Autumn 2014, but there will be no sense of injustice on my part.

They say that decisions are taken by those that are in the room and that logic needs to apply for Scotland for this decision on its future. A referendum is a collective opinion at a certain point in time and if Scotland means that much to you, then you’ve got over 2.5 years to get yourself back there to make your opinion count.

Or, err, not.

Despite a slightly cackhanded Guardian interview  Ed Balls’s Fabians speech did not, in fact, commit Labour to supporting every Tory cut as they made it.

What he committed to was Labour opposition to the ill considered, economically illiterate, counterproductive Tory plan to reduce the deficit by whatever means they could see.

He also committed to doing the right thing

“Which is why Ed Miliband and I have argued for a global plan for growth, with clear medium-term plans to get deficits down, but stimulus now to avoid a global slump too.”

Is he capitulating to the ill informed, ineffective, counter productive Tory and Lib Dem deficit reduction plan?

“George Osborne and David Cameron took it as read that deep and immediate spending cuts and tax rises would at least serve the goal of deficit reduction – no matter how much Labour warned that going too far, too fast would be bad for borrowing as well as for jobs and growth.”

Don’t think so.

Does he have a direct, specific criticism of the Coalitions economic strategy or is he just whining?

“On the surface of things, cutting EMAs and the Future Jobs Fund saved money and reduced borrowing.

But  at what cost? How much more will it cost our society and our economy to leave those young people long-term unemployed and
unproductive; they and their children receiving benefits rather than paying taxes and contributing to the national wealth?”

Ok, yeah. The man’s got a point.

Is he betraying the public sector and capitulating to George Osborne?

“But George Osborne’s economic mistakes mean more difficult decisions on tax, spending and pay. It is now inevitable that public sector pay restraint will have to continue for longer in this parliament.

Labour cannot duck that reality. And we won’t. Jobs must be our priority before higher pay.”

Nope, don’t think so. He’s recognising that Osborne’s economic ineptitude is doing serious, long term harm to the economy and that preserving employment over wage rises has to be the priority compared to job losses for some, pay increases for others. Tiny American flags are neither here nor there.

He goes on to advocate dispersing the agreed increase in public sector wages such that those at the bottom of the pay scale get a significant increase while those at the top see nothing. Seems reasonable to me. There’s then a great deal of talk about the need for pay reform at the executive level both inside and outside the public sector.

The only really significant thing in the Guardian interview was the he said no Shadow Cabinet member should commit to reversing particular spending cuts 3 and a half years hence. He didn’t say “Labour accepts all Tory Cuts”, Jim Murphy followed  strategy last week when he opposed some defence cuts and accepted others.

2015 is a very long time away. The Tories and the Liberal Democrats  are doing untold harm to the economy with their ill judged, misconceived and counter productive austerity program. Labour would do things differently, and opposes the current cuts program – as evidenced in their support for the #spartacusreport led opposition to the welfare reform bill. However, unless something incredibly unexpected happens any incoming government in 2015 will find itself with an irrevocably damaged economy and an ongoing deficit.

At that point decisions will have to be made as to how best to go forward, reversing cuts that have been in place in for 4 or 5 years is not necessarily the best way to go at that juncture. The spin that’s been applied to this, particularly in the Guardian article is ineffective – trying to wear a scratchier, more uncomfortable hair shirt than the Tories and Lib Dems is ineffective and not where Labour needs to be in terms of narrative. Those who already agree with the Tory, Lib Dem and SNP cuts agenda will agree with it regardless, those who who could be convinced by a Labour alternative won’t be convinced by the mealy-mouthed Guardian interview and won’t read the text of his Fabians speech.

Good idea, bad politics. Which is unusual for him.

(Note to cybernats: because the SNP are accepting the Tory cuts program in Scotland rather than raising revenue to ameliorate them you should haud yer wheesht)

I don’t think I fully realised how badly Joan McAlpine had messed up with her “anti-Scottish” line on Twitter, which was raised in Holyrood yesterday, until she was ingloriously name checked by Douglas Alexander on BBC Question Time. Douglas went on to hector Nicola Sturgeon, asking if she agreed with Joan, in an unedifying spectacle that I fear will be replicated on all sides of the debate, up and down the party structures of SNP and Labour (and beyond), all the way out to autumn 2014.

For those who don’t know the context, the relevant parts of the transcript from the Scottish Parliament are shown at the bottom of this post.

This of course is the flipside of the ballyhoo that comes around when a politician calls the SNP xenophobes or their party conferences hate fests; it is the perfect situation to whip up as much fury and as many headlines as one can to do down the other side. The point that Joan McAlpine was trying to make was wholly separate to what “anti Scottish” as a standalone phrase actually means, but she uttered those words and the rest, as they say, is history. One could argue it either way but they’d be getting precisely nowhere as a result. I guess this is the risk that Alex Salmond has always faced when so many untried and untested amateurs fell into the Scottish Parliament on that crazy night in May. This won’t be the last such occasion where a storm is created over little more than clumsy wording.

I’ve read some more of the transcript from yesterday, not something that I often do, but the standard of debate in general is woeful, even fist-bitingly embarrassing in parts. You can read below the shameless, unnecessary bragging from the SNP about a few hundred new members and there was the charge from Kezia Dugdale that the SNP wants votes at 16-17 for the referendum but hasn’t brought forward legislation at a council level before John Swinney gently pointed out that that power is reserved. Awkward. My personal favourite was this one though:

Humza Yousaf (SNP): I commend the Scottish Labour Party for bringing up today’s debate. What subject could be more important than Scotland’s future? Although I cannot support the motion because of its obvious flaws, it is at least an attempt to engage with the debate, which is a refreshing change from the usual apocalyptic, scaremongering and fear-driven negativity that seems to come from Castle Grayskull.
Patricia Ferguson (Labour): Labour members pointed out to me that Mr Yousaf got his analogy slightly wrong. Castle Grayskull was not some kind of dark, louring place that people took their inspiration from; it was the place where the good guys got their power. If Labour is being associated with Castle Grayskull we are quite happy to accept that.

The main surprise that yesterday’s debate had in store was just how often Twitter was mentioned, primarily used to take errant messages and bash an MSP over the head with. It’s just so lousy. I know that we tried manfully to keep a Worst Motion of the Week debate going (and still intend to, watch this space) but if the poor standard of debate has percolated down into business-as-usual in the chamber itself, then there is not much to be done.

As to ourselves here at Better Nation, we have been informed on many an occasion by numerous people that they’d rather not write a guest post or rather not leave a comment as they don’t want their head bitten off by ‘cybernats’. For me, this is all wrapped up as part of the same problem – MSPs unable to act like mature, constructive professionals in the Parliament parallels the inability to hold a calm, considered debate online (I mean, goodness, just witness the Scotsman comments section; a tar that we have supposedly been brushed with sadly, rightly or wrongly).

So, getting to the overarching point of this post, and in a bid to stymie any further unhelpful ”anti-Scottish” or “xenophobe” slurs and ensure that the intended positive, non-partisan nature of this blog strives (or should I say is revived), the comments policy that was created recently will be more strictly enforced going forwards. We generally enjoy the rough and tumble of the comments section but content is king and if there is a point that any reader would dearly like to make, we all believe that a guest post with space to develop a point is often a better way to contribute to the debate than to leave a longer comment, so please consider this option if you do check this website regularly, or even just occasionally.

This isn’t a Nationalist blog, it isn’t a Unionist blog and it isn’t even a Green blog any more as we once passed it off as; it is a Scottish blog, and, as should be the case in the Scottish Parliament despite Joan McAlpine’s assertions, views are not illegitimate just because of where they lie on the Union-independence spectrum.

.
.
.

Joan McAlpine (SNP): Will the member take an intervention?
Ruth Davidson (Conservative): On the idea of reasonable argument—yes, absolutely.
Joan McAlpine: Since David Cameron’s intervention in the referendum debate, 300 people have joined the SNP. How many people have joined the Conservative Party?
Ruth Davidson: We are in the middle of a very big membership drive, and I would ask anybody who has an interest in centre-right politics to join the Conservative Party.
Let us talk about that reasonable debate, because there is an ugly side to the argument that has been made in recent days, and it has come not from the Prime Minister but from the very member who has just intervened. I am sad to say—it probably says more about me than it does about anyone else—that I follow Joan McAlpine on Twitter, and I know that she has tweeted that Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are “anti-Scottish”. That type of ignorant, petty nationalism is an insult not only to us but to Scots up and down the country. I know the difference between patriotism and nationalism, and I do not doubt for one moment the desire of all patriots and nationalists to do what they think is best for Scotland. However, the narrow opinion that the only true Scots are those who believe in separation is demeaning to those who peddle it and an insult to the majority of people who live here. Ms McAlpine’s intervention is a sign of how the SNP mask can slip: a sign of SNP members’ desire to play the politics of grudge and grievance, to complain when they do not get their own way and to act as if they own the hearts and souls of all Scots and as if only Alex Salmond can speak for Scotland.

(later)

Joan McAlpine: As for the Conservative group leader’s assertion that those who suggest that what is happening is anti-Scottish are somehow narrow in their politics, I make absolutely no apology for saying that the Liberals, the Labour Party and the Tories are anti-Scottish in coming together to defy the will of the Scottish people and the democratic mandate that they gave us to hold a referendum at a time of our choosing, which, as the First Minister said, would be the latter half of the parliamentary session. The sight of those parties cosying up on the sofas of various Scottish television studios will really alarm the people of Scotland.

Neil Findlay (Lab): I think that the member should seriously consider what she is saying. Given what opinion polls suggest is the view of the vast majority of the Scottish people, is she suggesting that they are not patriotic and do not love their country? If she is, that is an utter disgrace.

Joan McAlpine: I did not address my comments to the people of Scotland; I addressed my comments to the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, who—thank goodness—do not represent the people of Scotland and were in their entirety outpolled by the SNP last year, as the First Minister said.
The anti-independence parties stood together against Scottish democracy yesterday in Westminster. That will be no surprise to the people of Scotland, because for four years between 2007 and 2011 those parties stood together to stop a referendum. Now they want to dictate the terms of a referendum. They want to exclude the young people of Scotland from choosing their future, but their elderly Labour peers down south say that they should have a say, even though they do not live here. The electorate told Labour what they thought of that strategy last May, but Labour seems to have learned nothing.

(later)

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative): I am a proud Scot and an elected member of this chamber and I have every right to be an active participant in this debate, which is what I intend to be. The claim by the SNP that those who vote SNP have some additional pride or more moral authority, or a birthright to speak on behalf of the people of Scotland, is offensive. If you spoke against someone who was gay, you would be homophobic. If you spoke against someone who was black, you would be racist. If you say that people are anti-Scottish because they belong to a different political party, that is a form of political racism, which is absolutely disgraceful and has no part in our politics. I suppose that, in the words of the Deputy First Minister, I should be relaxed about that type of remark, because it is what will win the argument for those of us who believe in the union.