Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Scotland and London’s 2012 Olympics

Jul 27

Posted by Jeff in Culture | 6 Comments

As you probably know, today marks one year exactly until the British Olympics get underway. No doubt you’re place of work has allowed you to dress up for the day, there are Olympic themes for the afternoon and perhaps you’re excitement runneth over so much that you’ll be heading to Trafalgar Square to boogie on down with Mayor Boris and Lord Seb, impatient for the javelin and Greco wrestling to get underway. 

Or, you know, perhaps you don’t give a rat’s ass. 

The truth is of course, this is the London Olympics rather than the UK Olympics so it’s no wonder that Scots, Geordies, Liverpudlians and Mancunians etc are a bit sniffy at a £9bn party that they won’t see any discernible benefit from, aside from a football game or two. Scots have the option, if they really don’t like it, to vote accordingly in the upcoming independence referendum but, in the meantime, they are going to have to lump it.

However, for me, the world would be a poorer place without a quatro-annual Olympic Games held in it and that opinion alone dictates that a country like the UK needs to take its turn every now and again. So ‘value for money’ and an even geographical gain take something of a backseat. After all, you don’t throw a party in order to make a profit and you don’t congregate evenly across a function’s space. Stratford won a watch for 2012, it is the party’s kitchen and the disco’s dancefloor. North of Gretna is the third bedroom on the left; it may play host to a few exploratory revellers but it won’t be the soul of the party.

The Glasgow Commonwealth Games should provide a natural fairness though question remarks do remain over how fair it is for Scotland to pay for 2014 when there are no Barnet consequentials from 2012. Still, mustn’t grumble 

We’re getting a round in for the world next year and we Scots already have a bad reputation involving long pockets when it comes to that. Let’s not grumble too much about taking part in the greatest show of earth then, even if it is largely just paying for it.

And are we paying for London 2012 with this £9bn or, in a way, for every Olympics since the last one we hosted?     
 

Power from the people

Jul 26

Posted by Malc in Energy, Governance | 18 Comments

In the wake of the Japanese earthquake and the danger it posed to the Fukushima nuclear plant, most of Europe has been reconsidering its use of nuclear energy.  In addition to the European states who have never used nuclear power (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, amongst others) Germany recently has decided to phase out nuclear power.  Poland is due to hold a referendum on the issue at some point soon while Silvio Berlusconi’s intention to re-introduce nuclear as part of Italy’s power supply was thwarted as Italians turned out to defeat the measure in a referendum.

While the previous UK government committed the UK to building new nuclear plants in 2006 but the Scottish Parliament – with a coalition of the SNP, Liberal Democrats and Greens – voted in January 2008 to use planning powers to block the building of nuclear power stations in Scotland, confirming what had been long-held policy positions for each of the parties as the policy of the Scottish Parliament.  While the new Scottish Parliament, given its SNP majority, is likely to maintain its anti-nuclear stance, the UK Government – as recently as October last year – set out plans to build new nuclear plants in the UK, and re-affirmed commitment that in March 2011, post-Japanese earthquake.

However, during discussions on the Calman Commission and contained within its interim report, there was some mention that the Scottish Parliament’s effective veto over new nuclear might be on the table, that the UK Government may be looking for ways of removing this as a means of securing the UK’s nuclear energy future.  Naturally this provoked a heated response from the then-minority SNP government, and the issue was dropped from the final report.

I mention all of the above as the prelude to a fairly radical idea: the Scottish Government should perhaps hold a referendum on the issue of nuclear power in Scotland.

Here’s why:

1)  This is a serious political issue, and one on which the public have a vested interest in deciding.  There are still massive issues with nuclear waste disposal and getting it right is something which extends beyond the 129 MSPs who represent the Scottish public.  It can also be spun as a moral issue – on the same level as divorce or abortion, both of which Ireland has held referendums on in the past.

2)  The Scottish Parliament has signalled its intention to block the building of nuclear sites in Scotland but that block is based only on planning regulations.  Holyrood does not have powers over energy policy, and if the UK Parliament deemed it necessary or prudent to build new nuclear in Scotland, it could over-rule the Scottish Parliament’s decision.  A referendum which showed public support for the Scottish Parliament’s position would give further legitimacy to Holyrood’s decision, a clear mandate from the people on this particular issue.

3)  The fact that energy remains a reserved issue would provide for some conflict with Westminster if it was perceived that the Scottish Parliament were seen to be interfering in an issue which is not within their purview.  However, Holyrood – like Westminster – isn’t bound by any public vote in a referendum.  The referendum, constitutionally speaking, can only be advisory.  If Holyrood were to hold a referendum on this issue it would provide a blueprint for how an independence referendum might be conceived.

4) Finally, such a referendum would bring together elected representatives and activists of all parties and none to support an idea which crossed party lines.  The experience of such a campaign – cross-party, in support of an issue which is bigger than each of their individual goals – would aid preparation for a future referendum… say on independence, where a similar cross-party effort would be required.

Of course, the latter point could (would) be regarded as clear constitutional game-playing – especially as playing politics with a serious political issues such as energy and nuclear power would (rightly) play poorly in public.  But for the first two points above, a referendum may be a good idea – it would provide the public with a say on a key issue which will determine our energy future, and (if the public were opposed to new nuclear) it would strengthen the Scottish Parliament’s hand when dealing with Westminster on the issue.

Anyway, its just an idea.  But it seems like a logical one, since its what has happened in other places.  An idea – like so many of mine – which is unlikely to go anywhere though.

In defence of a Scottish Defence

Jul 25

Posted by Jeff in Defence | 31 Comments

One of the few strong attractions of independence for me is the chance to backpedal on our island’s collective delusions of grandeur and to better reflect Scottish thinking in our policies – that we don’t rule the world with either a carrot or a stick. I did a calculation in a recent blog post that if the UK reduced spending on defence to Scandinavian levels, putting confidence in the UN/Nato, then we would save £24.4bn a year. Scotland’s share of that saving would presumably be around £2.4bn each year.

So I was initially dismayed by the SNP’s reaction to the closure of Leuchars and Kinloss as air bases. We pay too much for Defence relative to other nations of our size and we can’t have it both ways, we can’t seek to save money from no longer being the world’s policeman while protesting about cuts in Defence. Maybe this ‘grudge and grievance’ charge against the SNP stacks up after all.

However, that dismay lifted when I read Jennifer Dempsie’s excellent piece in the Scotland on Sunday. Jennifer makes a compelling argument in favour of a Scottish Army in light of the disproportionate level of cuts and under-spend that Scotland has suffered via the Defence Budget in the past decade.

If people are blinkered to make comparisons between Scotland and England when there’s a whole wide world out there then I for one am equally guilty in regularly citing Scandinavian countries as the perfect place for Scotland to copy, though recent events alone show that they are not insulated from the most unimaginable of horrors. On defence spending however I do believe that they have the right balance in terms of GDP spend and how safe the citizens seem to feel, particularly given how likely (or not likely) an attack on the peaceful Scandinavians would be. Would Scotland be as at risk of a repeat of the Glasgow Airport attacks if it was visibly moving away from the imperialist Britannia of old? We can’t know for sure but there are further benefits that would accrue from such a move.

The UK spends 2.7% of GDP on defence while Sweden spends 1.2%, Norway 1.6% and Denmark 1.4%. Jennifer stated in her article that “the Royal Norwegian Air Force operates more than 117 aircraft from seven airbases, the Royal Danish Air Force, which operates more than 111 aircraft from three airbases, and the Royal Swedish Air Force, which operates more than 187 aircraft from seven airbases.”

Scotland paid too high a price for forays into Iraq and Afghanistan without a sizeable Allied force and Scotland still pays too high a price for holding nuclear weapons in our waters. The numbers above prove beyond reasonable doubt that we can operate more than one measly air base in an independent Scotland if we rearranged our priorities away from playing the world like a board game, away from army boys wanting ever shinier toys, to a more peaceable, Scandinavian model where we involve ourselves in foreign missions in lower numbers and with a broader European/global consensus as to when action is necessary, while still maintaining a strong proud record of air defence and knowledge.

Based on a Scandinavian model, a Scottish defence budget would be less than the Scottish share of a UK budget and consequently would provide hundreds of millions of change leftover after keeping Leuchars and Kinloss as the air bases that the local community wants them to be.

With the debate around independence bizarrely focussing on Britishness in recent weeks, leading to Pete Wishart’s welcome rebuttal on Better Nation the other day, I can only hope that the public doesn’t lose sight of the facts and figures that shows what the pros and cons of a separate Scotland actually are.

David Torrance: The politics of national identity

Jul 23

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Ideology | 8 Comments

Better Nation is delighted to welcome David Torrance in a guest post, in part responding to Pete Wishart’s from yesterday, but also positing ideas and opinions of his own. David is an accomplished author, journalist and broadcaster, and will be known to many BN readers. He tweets @davidtorrance and  blogs at Mugwump.

David TorranceOn one level, Pete Wishart’s recent blog (“Proud to be British in an Independent Scotland”) was a fascinating restatement of what “independence” means in the early 21st century. He would “be happy to see any number of shared institutions being called British” after independence (my italics), while speculating that it could even “give Britishness a new lease of life”.

Yet on another, the politics of national identity, Wishart appears almost as confused as he claims Britishness is. Surprisingly, he concedes the geographical dimension almost straight away (why? It’s integral to so much of the argument, not least in terms of oil), while focusing his attention on Britishness “as a cultural idea”. “No one has ever come up with a convincing definition of Britishness”, concludes Wishart, “because there probably isn’t one.”

Now I wouldn’t quibble with this assertion, far from it, but Wishart singularly fails to – although it is implied – articulate a definition of “Scottishness”, which presumably he believes exists. “Cultural Britishness is then a rather curious construct that can be almost anything, and usually is,” he writes, “hence the mom and apple pie attributes usually associated with Britishness when people are asked to define it.”

I would apply the same critique to Scottishness, for dwelling on national identity for any length of time inevitably steers political debate into a cul-de-sac. Once you move beyond constitutional definitions, it’s all – frankly – a bit meaningless. Yet the SNP retains a peculiar fascination with trying to pigeonhole people as “Scottish” or “British”, the recent census (which classified Scottishness as an “ethnicity”) being a case in point.

Wishart then offers a generous – and actually quite convincing – definition of Britishness (“great historic cultural achievements…pride in our victories in the wars we fought together”), but then spoils it by labelling this “the social union” which, of course, is a relatively recent Nationalist construct. “Our gripe”, explains Wishart, is with the “current political arrangements within the United Kingdom”. Doesn’t it occur to him that those “political arrangements” were central to the cultural achievements and wars he rightly lauds?

In my mind, John P. Mackintosh hit the nail on the head when he spoke of many Scots seeing themselves as Scottish and British, also arguing that with this “dual nationality, there is a simple alternative if the pride in being British wanes; just be Scottish. It is an ‘opt out’ solution which allows each person to imagine the kind of alternative to the disappointment of being British which he or she wants.”

As polls demonstrate, more and more Scots are opting out, although that doesn’t necessarily mean they want independence. Which brings me back to my opening point: Wishart says independence will facilitate “the opportunity to define a new Britishness, one based on equality and mutual respect”. Elsewhere in his blog he refers to “moving towards independence”. In doing so, he’s simply echoing a recent speech by Alex Salmond, but why, I wonder, don’t they just say “independence”?

Pete Wishart MP: Proud to be British in an Independent Scotland

Jul 22

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Ideology, Society | 47 Comments

Being technologically challenged, I don’t know how to post this as being from a “guest”.  Hopefully one of the boys will appear at some point and sort it…. meantime, not from the Burd but from someone much more eminent and sensible, Pete Wishart.  Pete is the SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire and is also the SNP Westminster spokesperson on all things constitutional, cultural and related to media, international development, home affairs and sport.  You can follow him on Twitter @PeteWishart.

Probably one of the most passionate debates we’re going to have in the run up to the referendum will be around the whole idea of identity and Britishness. Like many proud nationalists I have struggled with the idea of being British and have never described myself as such. But what will happen to the whole concept as Scotland moves towards independence and can the idea make a comeback and even become respectable in nationalist circles?

Firstly, I suppose Britishness is as much about geography as it is about identity and history. Coming from Perth in the northern part of the island of Greater Britain I am as much British as someone from Stockholm is Scandinavian.

It’s when we try and add the other bits that we start to get into the difficulties. If Britishness is to work as a cultural idea a shared story as well as a shared geography has to be constructed. And that’s the hard part. No one has ever come up with a convincing definition of Britishness because there probably isn’t one. And the concept has to be almost constantly rewritten – remember Gordon Brown’s clumsy and excruciating attempt and Michael Portillo’s recent nonsense about “anti-fanaticism”? Cultural Britishness is then a rather curious construct that can be almost anything, and usually is, hence the mom and apple pie attributes usually associated with Britishness when people are asked to define it.

But there is absolutely no doubt that people indeed do feel and identify themselves as British, even in Scotland. For me Britishness is so much more than the usual confused descriptions. For me cultural Britishness isn’t one thing but is the sum of the 300 years journey that we have enjoyed and endured on this island. It is what we have achieved and secured together in this partnership. It is about the great historic cultural achievements from the industrial revolution to our great rock and pop bands. It is about pride in our victories in the wars we fought together and the collective sense of shame in our historic crimes of colonialism and slavery. Britishness is in fact the social union, and being British belongs as much to me as a proud Scottish nationalist and Scottish patriot as it does to anyone from England.

Our gripe then isn’t with cultural Britishness, the social union, but with the current political arrangements within the United Kingdom. As civic nationalists we want the powers to grow our economy and make our own specific international contribution. We want to complete the powers of our Parliament and take responsibility for our own affairs. We have no issues with the past and our British inheritance is a crucial part of our own Scottish story.

Britishness will exist in Scotland long after we become independent. In fact I think that it could well be enhanced with independence. With independence we will get the opportunity to define a new Britishness, one based on equality and mutual respect. Britishness will still be all about our shared history and culture but it can also be about the new positive relationship we will seek to build.

I would also be happy to see any number of shared institutions being called British and it could and should be the brand name of our new enhanced and equal 21st century partnership. Who knows maybe independence can give Britishness a new lease of life.

So there you go, that’s me, British and proud of it in an independent Scotland.

Tags: , , ,