Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Read Ed? – We should show leader’s conference speeches on prime time

Sep 28

Posted by Jeff in Democracy, Westminster | 18 Comments

Yesterday evening and tonight, football fans all across Europe will have settled down with their cans of beer, pizza boxes, team colours on and watched the people they support deliver hopefully their best performance of the season. Games are played at a convenient 7:45pm and the only barrier to entry is typically having Sky Sports and an interest in football.

However, for the world of politics, despite the lack of barriers, there is no prime time equivalent.

Ed Miliband delivered his set piece speech yesterday early afternoon, arguably his most important of the year. The speech itself had been heavily trailed such that those lucky enough to see it live largely knew what was coming. So, not many people will dig out the footage and watch it in its entirety and certainly very few people, if any, will call in pizza, get their friends round and have a few beers on the go for the occasion.

Most people, probably myself included, will learn of Ed’s speech through the prism of the television and newspaper media. I’m certainly not going to give in to the Labour leader’s game of kiss-chase to see what was said, as it was said, for the same reasons for why I wouldn’t watch games of football in the evening if they had been played during that day.

I believe this is a terrible shame.

The expenses scandal, the tuition fees issue, the too-centralised party structures and so on has resulted in a public regard for politics being stuck in a rut. There is too little access to the decision-makers of parties these days and, even when they do appear on our screens, it is often to deliver well rehearsed lines that have had their life spun out of them. Who can forget let alone forgive Robotic Ed’s delivery of the same line over and over again?

Well, here was a chance for Ed to show that he has some life about him, to cut out the middle man and tell us all something from the heart, with passion, in the hope that we’d sit up and take notice. Hope that we’d fall a little bit in love with Politics again. Just a little bit.

Alas, Ed went with the media-friendly option of remaining largely anonymous to the UK and deprived us of getting to know him a bit more.

The Telegraph can’t say Barcelona didn’t score a goal when they actually did, but it can say Ed Miliband missed an opportunity with his speech when he actually delivered a barnstormer, because barely anyone is going to tune in and watch the delivery to check.

The thing is, Labour even know this is the case. Ed Miliband has been talking for months about how he needs to stand up against the old broken ways of the mainstream media and stand up for Britain and yet here is providing advanced copies to journalists and delivering speeches to their timelines. Furthermore, Sadiq Khan MP told a Fringe event “many of you will wake up tomorrow and be disappointed by the coverage Ed gets”, which makes it all the more bizarre that the message isn’t sent to us directly.

It’s not for me to say how political parties should run their affairs but imagine David Cameron or Alex Salmond or Nick Clegg or Ed Miliband taking to the lectern in the evening and noone knowing what they are about to say, nothing has been leaked to the press. The speech is delivered to sizeable television audiences and a packed to the rafters conference hall. The public discusses the content from sofas in the evening and, who knows, maybe even the next day at work with colleagues. Meanwhile delegates at the Conference celebrate the end of a hard day and head into the hotel bar or local pub, swiftly followed by the party leader, also done for the day, who is welcomed with rapturous applause before he or she does the rounds talking with party members from the top of the tree to the bottom in a scene of general bonhomie.

You can keep your Man Utd vs Basles or your Celtic vs Udineses, that’s your Theatre of Dreams right there, that’s a political Paradise as far as I can see.

So come on, let’s bring back great political speeches. Let’s not just leave it all to Obama. A good place to start is bringing a bit of theatre to proceedings, or even just showing some of them on TV.

Anyway, I might as well go off and watch the end of the Man Utd game now, there’s precious little else on after all…

Communication breakdown

Sep 27

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution | 158 Comments

We seem to have started something… yes, it’s another guest post, this time from Doug Daniel, responding to Tom Harris’s response to Pete Wishart’s original post on an all-party campaign for independence.  Doug Daniel is a senior software developer and (failed) musician from Aberdeen.  He wants Scotland to be independent, and he very occasionally blogs here, but only when he can be bothered.

I want Scottish independence. I’ve been a supporter of Scottish independence ever since I was old enough to understand that Scotland did not enjoy the same nation status as “normal” countries (in other words, I can’t remember not wanting independence), and I’ve been a member of the SNP since 2007, when the idea of Scottish voters plumping for independence suddenly seemed a realistic prospect.

That doesn’t mean I’m a dyed-in-the-wool SNP voter (I’ve actually voted for four of the five parties currently represented in Holyrood – I’ll let you guess who the odd one out is) and throughout my life I like to think I’ve taken the time to try to understand why there are many people in Scotland who do not think the same way as I do. I understand them, but I don’t agree with them. So why does it feel like the majority of those who favour the union have never afforded the same respect to those who do want independence?

We see politicians from the three unionist parties talking of independence as “the SNP’s separatist agenda” (so what’s the Green and socialist agendas?), as if it was some evil plan concocted by the wicked overlord Alex Salmond and his cabinet henchmen, the aim of which we will not find out until we’ve been duped into voting for it. By then it will be too late, and we’ll suddenly realise that we’ve been strung along the whole time – it was never about creating a better nation after all, it was just about… Well, I have no idea.

Digging a big trench along the border and erecting a big fence to keep everyone out so Scotland remains isolated from the world? Turning Scotland into some sort of despotic dictatorship, putting Irn Bru in the taps, forcing everyone to eat cholestoral* and listen to The Corries on a loop, while using the oil money to make a big, gold statue of Emperor Salmond? Who knows. I suspect those that use such words don’t know either – they just like the negative connotations of the words “separatist” and “agenda” and use them accordingly.

And this is the problem. When unionists are “fighting” against independence, on the most part I don’t believe they actually understand what they’re fighting against. There seems to be a sense that all those who seek independence care about is getting independence, purely for the sake of getting it. Or perhaps that nationalists think that the second Scotland votes for it, the pavements will be paved with gold, we’ll all be millionaires, and all our social ills will magically disappear. They don’t seem to have considered the possibility that people perhaps view independence as a method for making Scotland better, rather than being the secret ingredient itself.

I’m not sure why this is. Obviously, it’s easy to be against something if you’ve made no effort to understand it, in fact this ignorance is almost as much a part of human nature as resistance to change.

The greatest album ever recorded (this is a scientific fact) has a song titled “Ifwhiteamericatoldthetruthforonedayit’sworldwouldfallapart”, and similarly I do wonder if some unionists subconsciously feel that doubts might start to creep in if they so much as acknowledged that independence might not be the absurd notion they purport it to be. Others have perhaps just listened to the media hype for so long that they feel there is no need to look at the pros and cons of both sides for themselves, assuming that it has already been demonstrated, without a shadow of a doubt, that the (supposed) benefits of the union outweigh any minor improvements independence might bring. I dare say there are some in the political class that quite simply view independence as a threat to career progression.

One excuse I’ve noticed being used increasingly is that unionists don’t view the constitutional question as being very important, implying that they don’t see the need to waste time thinking about it. Those who say this would do well to reassess the situation, because like it or not, there is going to be a referendum in this parliamentary session, so they might need to start thinking about it pretty soon. Besides, one thing the polls constantly show us is that less and less Scots are happy with the status quo, so the constitutional question would need to be answered, even if there was no referendum on the horizon.

I want the forthcoming debate on the constitution to be well argued on both sides. I don’t want people to vote for independence just because of a dearth of reasoned arguments on the other side, just as I don’t want people to stick with the union purely because all they hear are completely unfounded horror stories about what independence will do to Scotland.

I want the outcome of the referendum to be the result of both (or all three?) sides arguing their cases succinctly, and the public deciding which option sounds like the best way forward for the country. I don’t see that happening while many (most?) of a unionist persuasion refuse to try to understand why so many people want independence, other than perhaps pithily putting it down to watching Braveheart a few too many times and making references to shortbread tins. If you don’t make an effort to understand your opposition, how can you properly address their points?

So my question to these supporters of the union is this: why do you persistantly fail to understand why many people in Scotland want independence?

* (see I’m Alan Partridge series 2 episode 5)

Tags: , , ,

A belated welcome for Tory Hoose

Sep 26

Posted by The Burd in Holyrood | 8 Comments

Well, we’ve certainly started a trend.  Group blogs are all the rage in Scotland it would seem, and it was remiss of us to allow Tory Hoose to launch without noting its arrival and welcoming it.

Anything that encourages more intelligent and thoughtful discussion of policy and constitution is to be welcomed.  And the Scottish Conservatives have quite an exciting few months ahead, with a real leadership contest and a lot of thinking to do about its electoral fortunes and how to improve them.  It’s good to see a range of opinion and views being attracted to Tory Hoose’s pages on these matters.  Awfy helpful too that Tory Hoose is providing a portal for all the leadership candidates, with news, views and interviews, as well as details of hustings etc – Labour Hame take note.

The blog obviously has a contribution to make to the debate around Scotland’s constitutional future – though, for the moment, that seems to be raging on this here blog space.  But it would be good too, to see Conservative thoughts on big policy ideas and measures being debated – there is a wide spread of opinion in the Conservative party that has all too often been hidden.

The way to create a Better Nation is to tip all the views out, debate them and dissect them, to see what might work.  So, some views from the traditionally Wet Tory wing – whom Margaret Thatcher tried and failed to kill off – as well as the very right wing of the party on things like council tax freeze, preventative spending, minimum pricing, current enterprise and employment stimulation measures and higher education would be good.

Though, of course, we don’t promise to agree with any of it….

EXCLUSIVE: Ruth Davidson – why I’m proud to be Scottish and British

Sep 26

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Ideology | 61 Comments

Writing exclusively for Better Nation, Ruth Davidson, Glasgow MSP and Scottish Conservative leadership contender, sets out her political beliefs on identity and the constitution.

One of the more specious claims made by a number of Nationalists is Unionists can’t make a positive case for the Union.  That’s just nonsense.  The Union between England and Scotland has led to the most peaceful and prosperous times in our two nations’ history.  So here are just a few reasons why I am proud to be Scottish and British.

Firstly I have never understood people who say you have to choose between being British and Scottish.  It is like arguing you cannot be passionate about your club and national football team.  Or even that supporting Andy Murray is incompatible with supporting Andy Murray in the Davis Cup.  It is just absurd.  Our identities are created by a number of factors, not just one narrow element. So I am proud to be Scottish and proud to be British.  I know I am not alone in this.  Millions of Scots instinctively recognise they can retain their Scottish heritage without rejecting the modern United Kingdom.

That dual-identity is at the core of my political beliefs.  I am proud to be a Unionist.  I believe Scotland is better off as part of the United Kingdom.  We have more influence over our future, as well as other parts of the world.  We are part of one of the worlds largest economies.  We are part of a cultural relationship with our closest neighbour which has made both nations better off.  Most of all the United Kingdom is greater than the sum of its parts.  As a country we have worked together against some of the greatest tyrants and threats the world has known, and we continue to do so.  That shared history, and shared success means people can be proud to be British.

Or as Annabel Goldie said recently: “I want the best for my country – and for me the best is being Scottish and British and working together for the good of us all.”

Yet despite being in this political and economic union, we have still been able to maintain our own sense of nationhood.  The Church of Scotland, the Scottish Legal System and of course the Scottish Parliament, are all examples of how we have national institutions which help to ensure we can be Scottish, while also accruing all the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom.

There are other institutions which manage to combine the two as well.  Look at the British Army.  Despite three hundred years of integration, there are Scottish units with their individual identities, but who work together to create one of the most efficient and effective forces in the world.  And look at the Scottish soldiers, seamen and airmen who serve in the Armed Forces.  They do that because it serves both their nation, and their state.  That role is one of protection, but also a chance to help make a difference in a wider arena

Because it isn’t just Scotland and Britain as entities that benefit, it’s individual Scots as well. By being British citizens it’s possible for Scots to be able to make a real difference across the world.  There is nothing to stop a Scot from joining the army, or the Foreign Office where they can affect international politics.  The United Kingdom is still a major power, one of the world’s largest economies, a permanent Security Council member, with one of the most effective diplomatic and military corps on the planet.

Scots influence the direction of a great nation.  That is something we would lose if we lost the Union.

Unfortunately, small independent nations don’t have that influence.  Look at the impact of the credit crisis upon Scotland and Ireland.  In Scotland our banks were recapitalised by the UK Government.  That protected jobs, protected the savings of millions, and ensured Scotland was spared the economic disaster which engulfed the (regrettably named) Arc of Prosperity.  The Irish Banking sector was also bailed out, but much later, and without the guarantees which RBS and HBOS received.

The reason why we are better off is simple.  Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, and that means the United Kingdom owes duties towards Scotland.  Our security and our economy are guaranteed.

Of course there are issues where one part of the Union has done better than another.  That is an argument for politicians to stand up for Scotland, not to give up on a partnership which has brought enormous advantage.

I am a Unionist because it is part of my identity.  It provides me, and every other Scot with amazing opportunities to change the world.  And being part of the United Kingdom allows us to be part of a greater country, one which is better able to face the threats, expected and unexpected, economic and security, which face us today.  Scotland and Britain benefit from the Union and I am very proud to defend it.

So there can be no doubt Scotland and Scots benefit enormously from being part of the Union.  I will never back down from defending the United Kingdom from separation.  But it shouldn’t be the only focus of Scottish political discussion.  I want to move the debate on.  That is why once the Scotland Bill becomes law I think we need to stop discussing political process and start talking about real issues.  That doesn’t mean there can never be any change in the devolution settlement afterwards, but it does mean we should work with the powers we have before evaluating whether more, or fewer powers are required.

I want this to be the decade when Scotland moves on from discussing devolution to making devolution work.  I want to use the powers the Scottish Parliament has to make my vision of Scotland a reality.  That means supporting families.  It means supporting aspiration, and encouraging entrepreneurs.  It means ensuring our streets are safe, our schools are the best, and that everyone receives the best healthcare available.

Scotland faces huge challenges over the next decade.  It is up to politicians to work on facing these real challenges, not engaging in unnecessary discourse.  Scotland deserves better.

As a Conservative, I am an optimist. I believe we can overcome the challenges Scotland faces.  But there is no doubt it will be easier to accomplish as part of a strong United Kingdom.  That is why I am proud to be Scottish, Conservative, and Unionist.

 

Tags: , , , , ,

EXCLUSIVE: Tom Harris, calling all parties to the unionist cause

Sep 25

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Parties | 97 Comments

In yet another exclusive guestpost for Better Nation, Labour leadership contender, Tom Harris MP, responds to Pete Wishart’s call with one of his own – and he doesn’t pull his punches. 

What are the chances of an all-party campaign for “No to Independence”?

Well practically zilch, if we are to listen to Pete Wishart, writing on this site on Friday.

It would seem that he and the SNP have set themselves up in a bizarre contest to be the keenest defenders of separatism, and in that defence they will be steadfast. But why have they allowed themselves to be so entrenched on the nationalist side of the debate, and is there any prospect whatsoever of them even entertaining the notion of Scotland continuing as part of the UK…?

You get the idea. Such is the arrogance of the SNP post their impressive Holyrood victory in May, that they are filled with scorn for anyone so dim-witted as to disagree with the central driving force within Pete’s own party.

Labour, writes Pete in that patronising tone that might have well been patented by the SNP, has a “proud tradition” when it comes to constitutional change. Well, that’s nice of him, eh? Scottish Labour Action was an excellent example of “free thinking” on Scotland’s constitutional future, he writes, patting Wendy Alexander and Jack McConnell on the head and offering them a lump of sugar. So why the poverty of thinking on the issue now?

Well, Pete, I have the answer to that one: it’s because SLA achieved their aim. Remember that? Remember when the Scottish Parliament was opened in 1999? Come on, it must at least ring a bell!

In calling for Labour Party members to support a pro-independence campaign, Pete ignores the fact that there are many, many more SNP voters who support the Union than there are Labour voters who support independence. And yes, Pete, you’re right that no-one joined the Labour Party to protect the Union; they’re a bit more concerned about the economy, poverty, inequality and progress – you know, important stuff. None of these issues is at the top of SNP members’ list of priorities – without their obsession on constitutional issues, they have no guiding mission.

That’s the difference between the politics of identity and the politics of progress.

Labour and all the other unionist parties, says Pete, risk irrelevance in a “new Independent Scotland” (although he doesn’t quite explain what is “new” about turning the political clock back 300 years, but I’ll let that one go) by not getting on board the independence bus now.

Do you see what he’s doing here? In the week that the SNP government were obliged to talk about what they’re most uncomfortable talking about – budgets, services, the economy – Pete wants us all to move back on to the nationalists’ ground – the constitution. Just as the media and much of Scottish business are beginning to suspect that the future being shaped by Alex Salmond isn’t quite as rosy as they had been led to believe, Pete wants us all to close our eyes, click our heels together three times and imagine that he was right all along to talk about the “inevitability” of independence. I wonder why?

To Pete (and, I assume, his attitude is entirely typical of his fellow SNP members), everyone of all parties and of none accepts that independence is as right as it is inevitable, but that only the SNP are honest enough to admit it.  Nationalists are true and honourable, unionists are dishonourable and base.  We’re all nationalists, if only we were brave enough to look inside ourselves and admit it.

The alternative – that some Scots genuinely believe that we’re better off in the UK than out of it – isn’t even considered by him as a possible alternative.

Memo to Pete: you’re wrong. Prepare for a fight.

Tags: , , , , ,