Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Lib Dems – Democracy in action?

Dec 9

Posted by Jeff in Education | 1 Comment

The looming vote on tuition fees is wreaking such havoc on the Liberal Democrats that, even with their relatively small band of MPs, their vote may split four ways. I make that hung, drawn and now officially quartered within seven months of the coalition. Not bad going.          

We have been invited to believe that this splintering of the party vote is a reason for ridicule, a laughing stock scenario that we should all find terribly amusing. Or unamusingly terrible if you haven’t yet been to university.

For me, that ridiculous scenario would have been the mass abstention that was mooted last week and correctly booted into the long grass. How ridiculous would it have been for each Lib Dem MP to not take a position on a tripling of fees? Now, on the contrary, each Lib Dem MP will be scrutinising the proposals in the minutest of detail, drawing their own conclusions and voting accordingly in the full glare of their constituents. Democracy in action and a far cry from the heavily whipped voting that we have known and resented for much of the past decade. What, after all, were we all hoping ‘new politics’ to be with such a large deficit to deal with?

The perfect example of how constrained, kettled even, we have become in our parliamentary expectations is the euphoric joy that was felt in Scotland when Malcolm Chisholm, a single MSP, decided to back the SNP’s proposal of minimum pricing. For a beautiful Holyrood moment, the merits of a motion weren’t seen through the prism of red, yellow, orange or blue but for what a policy was and for what it could do.      

Now, the Liberal Democrats had a pledge at the last election and nothing can change that fact, as many of their MPs, including Goverment members, recognise and can’t reconcile. Indeed, Nick Clegg’s positively pious promise of a new politics so quickly followed by a broken pledge has put paid to his chances of being taken seriously in the near future but, if one was to look past that, then an appealing picture may yet emerge. Why shouldn’t the media allow a party to see a policy from different angles while drawing several conclusions?

I do enjoy the irony of opinion splitting four ways within a party that wants to maintain the three-party cosy consensus through AV but I don’t think any whipped party whose MPs all trot out to vote precisely the same way should criticise too sharply. Labour has been conspicuous in its absence throughout much of this debate, save for the NUS of course.

There is some sort of joyous democracy belying the supposedly shambolic disarray of the Liberal Democrats and if this is what it takes for MPs rather than party whips to hold parliamentary power then maybe a bit of cross-party respect for the Lib Dem rebels, and even those voting in favour, is in order.   

The Lockerbie Wikileaks cable

Dec 8

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 9 Comments

Today’s big Scottish news is that of a mysterious man offering us a parade of treats if we’ve been good boys or girls. No, not Santa Claus but rather the figure of Colonel Gaddafi. Thankfully, no-one took the man up on his selection pack offer in return for sitting on his lap, as the latest Wikileaks cables show.

There has been much anticipation over what these leaks would say regarding the Megrahi debacle, a debacle that has caused much heat and light since the Justice Secretary decided to release the man on compassionate grounds. However, today’s news is something of an anti-climax for those hoping for a dramatic twist in the tale.

The Scottish Government was offered goodies by the Libyan leader but these were clearly rebuffed and the situation was played with “a straight bat” by the SNP.

Perhaps the most interesting quote from the US is this:

“It is clear that the Scottish Government underestimated the blowback it would receive in response to Megrahi’s release and is now trying to paint itself as the victim. The Scottish Government severely underestimated both US government and UK public reaction to its decision… Alex Salmond has privately indicated that he was ‘shocked’.”

It would be a shame if there was to be confusion between being shocked at an overblown reaction and admission that the Government got it wrong. I was certainly surprised at a reaction that dragged on at a Scottish level, UK level and international level. That surprise was exacerbated once the situation moved past the point where most people had agreed that the decision was taken in good faith and that Kenny MacAskill was the right person to make that decision, whether one disagreed with the decision itself or not.

I’ve not read that much about the latest revelations but first impressions are that Scotland comes out of this latest Wikileaks instalment looking robust in its dealings and, as much as one would like to keep discussing the Megrahi chapter in Scotland’s history, is there really much else left to say? Particularly if even Wikileaks can’t fashion a meaningful talking point around this story other than Gaddafi’s unwelcome offers that most people had suspected all along?

When is an AV referendum not an AV referendum?

Dec 6

Posted by Jeff in Elections | 48 Comments

It is now exactly five months until Scots head to the polls in early May and the farce of 2007 when voters were faced with a confusing array of 3 ballot slips has been replaced with a situation where voters face, well, 3 ballot slips, the referendum on AV replacing the local council elections.

Potentially adding to this confusion, and perhaps even pragmatically, deviously leveraging it, Bella Caledonia has announced that “an independence referendum will take place on 5th May 2011”, enabling a sort of 4-for-the-price-of-3 offer come May 5th.

The plan, in Bella’s own words, is as follows:

So with this in mind, we, the undersigned, call for all Scots who support our country’s independence to write the word INDEPENDENCE in bold letters across the AV voting slip on 5th May.

Let’s make sure the piles of “spoilt” ballot papers rejecting the British electoral system – and rule from London – are greater than those voting Yes or No.

Now, the needlessly pompous “we the undersigned” notwithstanding, I reckon this is a creative and innovative way of thinking outside the ballot box and is to be applauded for its ingenuity. It shows a very impressive level of commitment and passion for their independence objective and it shows a commendable willingness to not just lie back and accept whatever the state deigns to send our way. It is also unlikely to be much of a success.

For me personally, the independence issue just isn’t a top priority so my options will remain voting Yes or No on May 5th with regard to the actual question on voting systems being asked, not that my scrawling “INDEPENDENCE” across my Camden borough ballot paper would result in much, save for a clutch of bewildered counting staff at 3am on May 6th somewhere near London’s St Pancras station.

My main reason for taking a dim view of this venture though is that I don’t really see what a win would be. I can see how amassing 50% spoiled papers from all of Scotland’s referendum votes would be a massive coup but realistically that is not going to happen. Achieving 2% should really be the extent of anyone’s ambitions here and where would that get the Nationalists? Independence referendums are, as most would agree, a once in a generation affair so I wouldn’t expect Nats would want to use up their only opportunity between now and the year 2030 on something like this. It reminds me of Joan McAlpine’s calls for the First Minister to use a ‘Scottish Statutory Instrument’ to force an independence referendum on Scotland, despite the contrary will of the Scottish Parliament. It’s all just a little too strident and cack-handed to carry the necessary force required to create a new country.

Furthermore, not that I’m necessarily saying that it exists, but any expectation that the SNP will throw its support behind this is surely errant. National referendums should be conducted by Parliaments, as Brian Souter found when he tried to finance a plebiscite on Section 28 back in 2000. Alex Salmond would be dooming his party’s Holyrood chances if he was seen to be assisting in the perceived sabotage of a fair, if limited, Westminster referendum. Indeed, the SNP may be damaged even without any direct involvement, something that I wonder whether the organisers considered before embarking on this plan.

Of course, this is all to overlook the fact that AV would be a small step towards a better system. Scotland returned the same Westminster result in 2010 as it did in 2005. A whole decade where change was only delivered through by-elections is unsustainable and improvement, any improvement, should be too important to hamper. Even the incentive to undermine the Liberal Democrat position within the coalition and force an early General Election by voting ‘No’ would be irresponsible. First Past the Post has had its day and that day was somewhere in the early 1800s.

I don’t really know what May 5th currently means or will mean for Scotland but, call me a stickler if you like, the AV referendum will be entirely a referendum based on the Alternative Vote.

Scottish Civic Nationalism: The Bhangra & Bagpipes Solution

Dec 4

Posted by Guest Blog in Culture, International | 12 Comments

Today’s guest blog contribution is from Humza Yousaf, SNP Holyrood candidate for Glasgow. You can also find Humza on Twitter or Facebook.

Humza Yousaf

55 years ago this week America’s civil rights movement was catalysed by one granny who refused to be shoved aff the bus or even relegated to the back. The result of Rosa Park’s historic stance was not only the dismantling of many barriers between communities but began the formation of the melting pot, which in turn we have developed into modern-day multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism was once a concept we looked up to but it has now become one of the dirtiest words on the European continent. Just last month Chancellor Merkel pronounced it had ‘utterly failed’ when addressing her Christian Democratic Union colleagues. Funnily enough, she decided to keep quiet on that one while the country’s football team, made up of a part-Ghanaian defender, Polish striker and a midfield maestro of Turkish origin, went on to reach the semi-finals and come 3rd in this year’s World Cup.

Germany is not alone – observers of European affairs will note, with increasing anxiety, that an extreme right-wing, xenophobic tidal wave is sweeping across Western Europe, with Muslim populations particularly under the spotlight.

Belgium has become the first European country to implement a nationwide ban on the face veil worn by ‘at most’ 215 Muslim women in Belgium, according to the Belgian Institute of Equal Opportunities. It is difficult to comprehend why there is a furore spreading across Europe concerning this mundane black piece of cloth. It is, no doubt, a symptom of a much deeper malaise concerning the role of immigrants, their apparent refusal to integrate and the loss of ‘traditional values’.

With deep and severe cuts forthcoming, the debate regarding immigrants and the role they play in society will continue to rage on and worryingly may increase strain in already volatile communities. It is the very nature of the debate, which is centred on the identity and loyalty question, and how this is presented, which is fanning the flames of racial intolerance.

It was 20 years ago that Norman Tebbit declared the cricket test as an apt means of gauging a community’s loyalty to the state, many of us think that times have moved on – but in some cases Tebbit’s sentiments are more prevalent than ever.

We are a people obsessed with defining each other’s identities. Are you Muslim or are you Scottish? British or Pakistani? Such unhelpful categorisations ignore the reality of a multi-ethnic Scotland and UK, where identities are a lot more fluid and unrestricted. This is perhaps demonstrated if I take my own example. As an Asian Scot born in Glasgow to a father from Pakistan and a mother from Kenya, I went on to marry my wife, Gail, who is a White Scot born in England to an English father and Scottish mother. I would challenge anyone to accurately define the identity of any children we may have in the future. Will they be ¼ Scottish, ¼ Pakistani, ¼ English etc? Are we really happy to simply reduce people to fractions?

In the UK the debate about race equality and multiculturalism often finds itself manifest in the heartlands of middle England and, more often than not, is won and lost in London. However, little attention is given to Scotland’s multicultural landscape which has its own unique challenges and, more importantly, offers some of its own very fresh solutions.

While not being complacent about racism and intolerance in Scotland, we have to question why, time and time again, the BNP and Scottish Defence League have been rejected by Scots. I firmly believe that our notion of civic nationalism, as opposed to ethnic nationalism, creates an atmosphere of inclusiveness which makes us less hostile to one and other.

Whether it is the British National Party or France’s National Front, the concept of nationalism is being dragged through the mud until it resembles almost nothing of its true form. This is not helped by political posturing by some within the Holyrood bubble, where the word ‘Nationalist’ has been used (often derogatorily)  to describe only one political persuasion.

The late Bashir Ahmad, Scotland’s first Asian MSP and a man respected across the Scottish Parliament chamber, explained the concept of civic nationalism in the simplest and most concise manner:

‘It is not important where we have come from; it’s where we are going together, as a nation.’

Although most comfortably propagated by the SNP, they do not claim to have possession over civic nationalism. It is a concept which is interwoven in the fabric of our nation, we will all be familiar with the age-old saying that in Scotland ‘we’re a’ Jock Tamson’s bairns’.

This forward-thinking and progressive notion does not attempt to define people’s identity but rather, allows them to define themselves, if they feel it necessary. The result? Black and ethnic minorities living in Scotland are just as likely, in some cases more likely, to define themselves as Scottish than their white counterparts (see Hussain and Miller).

As a nation we have accepted that people can be Indian-Scots, Polish-Scots, Scots-Irish and not have to choose one over the other. Even our cuisine reflects this with cheese, chips and curry sauce mixing in perfect harmony to create a culinary delight to be found in any West of Scotland takeaway!

Civic nationalism is something we can all be proud of as Scots. We have moved away from obsessing over each other’s identities and instead focussed on how different communities can and do contribute to our society – we have, in essence, shifted the nature of the entire debate.

Perhaps Chancellor Merkel would care to turn her head towards Scotland’s direction and in doing so she may well hear the vibrant sound of bhangra and bagpipes – confirmation that, despite its challenges, multiculturalism is thriving and continuing to evolve.

Tags: , , ,

The Inevitable Conclusion of Devolution

Dec 3

Posted by Malc in Constitution, Education, Westminster | 37 Comments

I’m surprised it has taken this long.

This week the Welsh Assembly’s decided to allow Welsh Universities to charge up to £9,000 for tuition fees (as UK Government policy) but pay the difference between that which students currently pay (£3,290) and whatever the university charges – but for Welsh students only. The key points of the policy are:

  • Welsh universities will be allowed to raise their fees up to £9,000 from 2012-13.
  • All Welsh students living in Wales will get a grant to subsidise the difference between the current and future fee (anywhere up to £5,710 depending on what the university charges).
  • This also applies to Welsh students who study in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland, as well as those who stay in Wales.
  • This will be paid for by the Welsh Assembly Government.

Naturally, accusations of racism are at play.  The Daily Mail excels, suggesting “apartheid” on fees and arguing that students were being “punished for being English.”

Now, they may have a point. One definition of “racism” (which I believe their newspaper front page used to describe the policy) is “Discrimination or prejudice based on race.” In this case, that would, I suggest, apply. Welsh students will receive the grant and they’ll take no real hit on the pocket. English students – who may be studying at the same university, taking the same courses, sitting next to the Welsh students paying £3,290 – will not be eligible.  That is discrimination on the basis of nationality.

However, where I think the Daily Mail is wrong is the fact that they blame the Welsh Assembly Government for this. Devolution was intended to allow Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to govern themselves in the areas devolved to them, and to make distinctive policy in those areas where they disagreed with what the UK Government decided. And we’ve already seen examples of it. Scotland, for example, led the UK on the smoking ban, introduced Free Personal Care for the elderly and changed university fees to a graduate endowment, latterly scrapping that as well. Wales has introduced free prescription charges – a move which Scotland will follow – and now decided that universities should not cost their students more than they do at the moment. In short – devolution has done as intended. It has allowed the devolved nations to operate differently in areas where they have legislative powers, to develop distinctive policies for their respective populations and, more recently, to protect their population from the upcoming rise in tuition fees.

But that’s not the only reason I don’t think they can be blamed. Take a look at the House of Commons. It is a UK Parliament, it is true, but only 59 MPs come from Scotland, 40 from Wales and 18 from Northern Ireland. Which means there are 533 English MPs in the House of Commons (650 total seats minus 117 non-English seats).  Of those 533, the Conservatives hold 298 – a majority over the opposition English MPs on its own. When you add the 43 English Lib Dem MPs, there are 341 English MPs on the government benches against 192 in opposition (191 Labour plus 1 Green).

The point I’m making? Even if all of the MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (including government MPs – 12 Conservatives/ Lib Dems from Scotland, 11 from Wales) vote against the tuition fees rise, it will still be carried by ENGLISH MPs voting for it. This isn’t foundation hospitals or the original top-up tuition fees debate, where the Labour government relied on their Scottish and Welsh MPs to vote in favour of something which was only to be implemented in England. English MPs are voting for this – and will carry it themselves.

So let’s not blame the Welsh Assembly Government or the Scottish Government for deciding to do something which will benefit their own students. This is the natural and inevitable conclusion of devolution – different policies for different parts of the UK. I’m honestly surprised it has taken the English this long to realise that they are getting shafted by the system.

But its not of our doing – so don’t blame us.

PS – Also – don’t blame me for the map above not including Northern Ireland and including Cornwall. I thought it demonstrated my point pretty well but I’m not responsible for drawing it!