Better Nation

More trains, better trains, better-owned trains, not faster trains

Nov 13

Posted by James in Holyrood, Transport | 9 Comments

The Scottish Government’s me-too announcement of another high-speed plan for the Edinburgh to Glasgow link may sound promising, but it’s really a total red herring. Getting up to 140mph on a roughly 50 mile journey is not exactly efficient, the cost will be enormous, and it wouldn’t be operational for at least twelve years. What’s more, the opportunities to make a clearer difference elsewhere in Scotland’s slowly–recovering rail network are plentiful. Ministers should be considering reopening the Buchan line, for example, or getting moving on Aberdeen Crossrail. Reopening the Edinburgh South Sub to passenger travel is still an extraordinarily cheap option, neglected since 1999.

The Glasgow-Edinburgh route is one of the lines I use most, and, all other things being equal, shaving some time off the journey would obviously not be an intrinsically bad thing: however, it’d be an awful lot more use for me if Scotrail put on a few trains after the current 11.30pm closedown. Even just two more would make a difference: say a 12.30am and a 2.30am. I was at a gig in Glasgow on Sunday night and a whole crowd had to leave before the encores, which is absurd.

Glasgow’s got much better music year-round, but conversely Edinburgh has five weeks in the summer when it should be a magnet for Glaswegian fans of the performing arts. A special Festival-only train back at a minute past midnight and a half-past midnight one on Friday and Saturday nights simply isn’t good enough. Plenty of Fringe events don’t even start until midnight.

The same applies to other routes, too. More trains at a wider range of times. Better trains (power, wifi). Those are the less sexy things that could cheaply improve our network. There’ll be no ribbon to cut, no sense of oneupmanship with Westminster.

If the SNP want something more impressive like that, it’s time to do what 75% of the public want (a number which is enough to get them to change policy on NATO, after all, and I suspect most people use the railways more than they use Trident), do what even some Tories have told me in private should be done: bring the system permanently back into public ownership when they have the chance to do so in 2014.

The alternative is for SNP Ministers to renew the existing franchise in the referendum year. Do they really want to tell the Scottish people that they wish to retain every last mistake of Westminster?

Who stands up for Scotland?

Nov 12

Posted by Jeff in Parties | 26 Comments

Forgive the rather Cybernat headline, but I am taking my lead from a source as independent as YouGov.

Between Oct 10 and Oct 12 the polling company conducted a survey of ~1,000 Scots and asked, amongst other questions, the following:

Which ONE of the following people do you think would be best at standing up for Scotland’s interests?
Alex Salmond 43
Johann Lamont 6
Ruth Davidson 5
Willie Rennie 2
None of these 24
Don’t know 21

I find the above result really quite incredible and there are many talking points to be extracted from this one single question alone.

Alex Salmond
There’s no good reason why the above poll results shouldn’t follow the voter intention party breakdown. But there it is, the First Minister is greater than 700% more preferable as Scotland’s political guardian than his nearest challenger and 300% more preferable than the three nearest combined.

There were no Holyrood or Westminster polling results attached to this poll that I could see but 43% isn’t far off the 44%(constituency)/45%(list) who voted SNP at the last election which suggests a reassuring pat-on-the-back for the First Minister from the people who put him there.

It is interesting to note that Salmond is seemingly not adding to his 2011 support base which, given the derisory results for other leaders, is in a way somewhat disappointing and evidence that he really is a love him /loathe him politician. 43% is, of course, well short of 50% and I probably don’t need to explain why that may be a problem.

Others
Many derided Iain Gray for his lack of profile amongst the Scottish public in the last parliamentary term and one could be tempted to do the same here given Johann’s low figures above. I’m not going to do that but the question of why there is such a disintegration of respect for each of the unionist party leaders from their own would-be voters really does beg to be scrutinised.

The main conclusion that one comes to is that the public believes that Scotland is not currently devolved enough. That doesn’t mean that everyone is suddenly pro-independence, or will be in the future, but the public are watching and listening to the arguments that each party leader is making and, while many still clearly haven’t made their minds up as to what future they wish to see for Scotland, many more are finding the unionist leaders wanting.

There has been a meek unwillingness from each of these three leaders to push their individual party’s visions forwards. Johann Lamont personally announced a Commission on further powers but it is barely off the ground and won’t report its conclusions until after the referendum, Ruth Davidson has fallen into line behind David Cameron’s woolly ‘jam tomorrow’ promise of some sort of constitutional change after the referendum (if they still feel like it come then) and Willie Rennie has bizarrely ceded any Devo Max or federal initiative to Ming Campbell despite this quite possibly being the orange bullet that would salvage the Lib Dem’s reputation in Scotland, and Willie Rennie’s.

The Lib Dem leader occasionally states that a federal UK has been his party’s policy for over 100 years, but what have the Lib Dems actually done to advance that policy since the Scottish Parliament was up and running? Not much that I can remember and the party activists will only accept such atavism for so long.

It is particularly strange that all three unionist parties each have constitutional outlooks that are in theory closer to where the Scottish public seems to be right now but none of them can find a way to seize the agenda, elucidate their preferences and make a breakthrough in this area. If they did, and the ball is very much in their court with Yes Scotland visibly flummoxed, then they’d be a lot higher up the charts in poll questions like the one above.

Power wins prizes
To give the unionist party leaders their due, they haven’t had the opportunity to stand up for Scotland as none of them have held a position of significant power. How can they showcase to what extent they would defend the nation’s interests if their job is to hold a Nationalist Government to account?

Well, for me, this is still pretty weak as any of them could, at least in theory, defend Scotland’s interests from the opposition benches just as well as one can from within the Cabinet. Consequently, specifically for Johann Lamont, this poll is a warning that opposition to the SNP, on areas such as universal provision, council tax freezes and tuition fees, are simply not finding their mark within the public. Similar warnings apply to Ruth Davidson and Willie Rennie on, for example, contributors to the Scottish economy and cashing in on Scottish Water.

Scottish Green Party
They really aren’t getting a look in are they? The Lib Dems must be thanking their lucky stars that they still get included in these types of questions, and called upon so regularly at FMQs, when they have a mere taxi cab of individuals at the Scottish Parliament against the Greens’ tandem bike of representation. (suggested photo op for Alison and Patrick there…)

I’m not saying that Patrick Harvie would have rocketed to near the top of this chart had he been included but the Greens at least have something different and relatively radical to add to political debate in Scotland, from proposing revenue raising measures to Land Value Tax, and plenty more besides. They also took a lead in ‘standing up for Scotland’ through being the primary opposition to Donald Trump’s golf resort so they deserve being placed inside the public’s collective mind as a political option. After all, how would a Green voter answer the above question? Presumably acting the idiot with ‘None of these’ (see below).

I don’t know how the Greens are going to push their way into getting the recognition they deserve, but polls like these with an arbitrary limit of party options don’t help.

People are idiots
I’m sorry, that may be a bit harsh, but they are. The question asks “which one” of the party leaders is best placed to stand up to Scotland. The idiotic answer, “None of these”, which 24% of respondents went for, isn’t even an answer and YouGov should really remove it as an option. “Don’t know” is more understandable, if still nonetheless a moronic (moronic being officially preferable to idiotic) option for those that claim to have no clue who is leading them politically and how.

It is despairing that so few people are interested in what happens at Holyrood. That 45% of people are basically saying ‘don’t know’, ‘don’t care’, ‘they’re all a bunch of numpties’, ‘can I go now please?’ just disappoints me so very deeply.

Politics is about going for the least worst option, picking the cleanest dirty shirt, and the longer people mump and moan waiting for things to be perfect then the worse off we all are. (No offence James). It is a two way street though and our political leaders need to strive to inspire as best they can. Salmond is doing his bit and the quickest way for Johann, Ruth and Willie to boost their numbers by taking votes away from ‘None’, ‘Don’t Know’ and even the ‘Alex Salmond’ votes is to do as follows:

(JL) – resist opposition for opposition’s sake and join the SNP in standing up to the UK coalition where genuine cross-party agreement exists on behalf of Scotland, be it Trident, minimum pricing, council tax freezes, UK cuts (their not SNP cuts when it’s a block grant, let’s get serious), tuition fees or free care for the elderly. We’re stronger together and weaker apart, apparently. Also, arrive at a party decision on what type of Scotland you want to live in and don’t look back.

(RD) – use accurate arithmetic and clear figures to outline why Scotland would benefit from less Government rather than more. Explain and defend Osborne’s decisions in a Scottish context or loudly argue against them. Silence is not an option there.

(WL) – go for it wholeheartedly on extending devolution beyond the status quo, putting into words this apparently long held belief that the UK should be federal. In the absence of any other policy options given the Clegg-Cameron coalition mauling received in 2011, this should be an easy decision to make.

(PH) – keep pounding the SNP on their light green policies and lip-service to climate change despite policies towards oil, cars and roads. Also, keep the radical edge of being anti-Nato and for a Scottish pound under independence.

Some may wonder aloud how any party leader can outdo Salmond when it comes to standing up for Scotland but when it is a person’s job to do so, my sympathy for that plight diminishes as sharply as the polling gradient above. I genuinely hope for better from Lamont, Davidson and Rennie, but, whether they are successful or not, don’t forget Harvie.

And what else was in the poll? Nothing to get excited about, only that Yes Scotland would be ahead by 9% if they successfully persuaded Scots that they’d be economically better off to go it alone…

The omniscandal: or why everyone should just resign now

Nov 11

Posted by James in Culture | 6 Comments

Name me the national institution people still have faith in. Tell me who’s not been scandal-hit, tarnished, tested and found wanted, or had a tired -gate suffix associated with them.

Across all these categories below there are good people, of course, yet in every one the mistakes and problems have been at least partly systematic. Some of the institutions in the frame have been in trouble for a while, but in no case does it feel like progress is being made.

Take politics – even before the MPs expenses scandal only 46% thought they weren’t at it, and that felt surprisingly high. The rule for Tories and Lib Dems appears to be this: fiddle your expenses and be back in government within eighteen months, dodge taxes and suck up to those you’re supposed to regulate and you’ll be promoted.

Equally, all but the most loyal cybernat would have to admit that going to court to protect non-existent legal advice hasn’t exactly boosted confidence. Politics as a whole, despite Euan McColm’s passionate plea today, is still utterly unloved by most people.

And there’s the police. I don’t subscribe to the “all cops are bastards” point of view, not least because I’ve met many who aren’t, but there’s a long list of people who’ve been lied about after their deaths, including the innocent victims of Hillsborough, Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson. We also hear a lot about Leveson, but I’m almost more interested in the outcome of Operation Elveden. Even the Tories don’t trust them: why else impose these absurd commissioners to oversee Chief Constables?

The media are also probably at their lowest ever level in the public eye, with this week’s focus for bile, the BBC, joining the hacking tabloids in the doghouse. Spiking the Savile story strikes me as a worse blunder than taking the word of an abuse victim (and not naming anyone while doing so), but it’s all a massive step up the scandal ladder from calling the Blue Peter cat Socks instead of Cookie.

Bankers and their (de)regulators could also hardly be less well-regarded. Break the system, get bailed out, then invest in the election of a Tory government to ensure the pain is diverted onto the innocent: this has not proved popular. More widely, the expectation is now that the bigger a business you are, the more you fiddle your taxes to pay nothing. I won a $25 gift token at Starbucks because I believed Nate Silver: it’s the only way to get a hot drink off them without feeling complicit.

In short, the people who make important national decisions about our lives have demonstrated themselves collectively unfit. It seems unlikely that any amount of inquiries or token resignations can fix that. What caused it? A national culture of selfish individualism, materialism and impunity perhaps?

Could this possibly be a clearout point, a nadir from which things can recover? Watching a clip of Savile groping a girl live on Top of the Pops, my only consolation is that surely that couldn’t happen again nowadays. Will we get a cleaner politics if the next Denis Macshane knows he’ll be caught? Better financial regulation now the price from last time is so obvious? It’s not clear. Those feel like potentially false hopes, the triumph of optimism over experience.

I normally have a glib solution for everything, but today I just have alienation and anger. “Smash the state” is a slogan I also always rejected, because of the value I see in under-loved and under-appreciated parts of the state – social work, refuse collection, education as well as the democratic principle – but the list of parts of it that could use a bit of smashing grows longer by the day.

Lessons from America

Nov 9

Posted by Jeff in Constitution, Elections | 23 Comments

The US election passed with a narrow majority thanks to cries of Yes we Can and Forward from a leader who likes the sound of his own voice. Parallels with Scotland? They don’t stop there…

Ground game
It’s often mentioned how awesome the SNP’s ground game is thanks to their voter ID technology and army of volunteers willing to knock doors and fill in forms to feed the input data. I personally have never fully appreciated how valuable this is until watching wall to wall coverage of the US election in Washington DC this past week which remarked upon the Democrat party’s similar jewel in the crown and explained in vivid detail how this made the difference on Tuesday.

The US electoral map is a sea of red and, at a glance, would suggest a strong Republican nation. The results from the House of Representatives suggest this also with the Republicans taking 242 seats to the Democrats 193. However, in the head to head Presidential race, the Democrats won where it mattered and won big. Huge majorities in concentrated areas were racked up and the thinly spread Republican support wasn’t enough to make up the difference. In DC itself the Democrats won a mind-boggling 91% of the vote. Team Obama knew where their vote was and how to get it out to reach 50%. The SNP and Team Salmond are well placed to do the same on behalf of Yes Scotland, and the US election shows that that can make the difference, irrespective of money spent and unhappy economic fortunes for the incumbent Government.

Christians
À terrific Democrat commentator on CNN, Van Jones, made the fascinating point that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to be openly Christian and a member of his party. The increased secularisation of the US, and the Democratic party, in stark contrast to the bellicose God-loving of the Republicans, makes Christianity rather uncool these days. Van spoke of feeling like he had to come out of the closet in admitting who he is to party colleagues.

The SNP and Greens are not in a dissimilar situation. The parties’ collective view on gay marriage and abortion should not alter for many Christians’ historic and I would say long outdated views on society, but the parties do have a problem if Christians with no quarrel with these policies nonetheless feel uncomfortable being a part of the party.

Scotland has never struck me as being as Christian as America is. There were 26% born again Christians taking part in the US election (76% of whom voted for Romney incidentally). The 2001 census showed that Scotland was 65% Christian at that time. I may not be comparing apples with apples there, but the Scottish Christian bloc is a significant one and there will not be a Yes result in 2014 if they are made to feel excluded from the main parties of the Yes Scotland coalition.

The SNP and the Greens may have a point in feeling (ironically) holier-than-thou on gay rights and abortion, but as a means to an end in terms of winning independence, they may need to think of a new strategy.

Voter alliances
Speaking of coalitions, another point that Van Jones made was that the 2008 Obama coalition of blacks, Hispanics, the young and females stuck together and delivered a 50% return that provided victory against whites, males and the elderly who largely voted Republican.

I’m not aware of any specific studies that have analysed the demographics of those who intend to vote Yes but I would personally suggest that broadly speaking it is white, male and young. The recent independence march in Edinburgh certainly suggested this, though I’m happy to be proved or argued otherwise.

Should Yes Scotland aggressively target this narrow group of Scots, similar to how Obama won 2008 and 2012? Should it try to be all things to all people as Romney tried (and failed) to be? There’s a big strategic call to be made there.

Substance free election.
The most striking aspect of the past week for me was the absence of any discussion of specific policies held by Obama or Romney. This, presumably, was largely because neither had any. The Republicans spoke of taking America back and the Democrats wanted to go forwards but it’s telling that it is only now, post-election, that politicians and pundits are talking about what to do about the fiscal cliff and how the future budget will look.

The lesson for Scotland here is that opposition for opposition’s sake is insufficient to win elections, you have to be for something to beat an incumbent. Obama was fragile on the economy, on jobs and on not delivering the change that he had promised. Romney failed to outline what he was for and consequently, and deservedly, came up short of votes.

Labour is the main opponent to Yes Scotland and need to learn lessons from their own past and this US election. They objected to free tuition and council tax freezes, were then for them at election time and are now against them again. That’s not going to be good enough for a Scottish electorate that needs to have a strong vision of what devolved Scotland will look like post-2014 before they’ll put a cross beside No at the referendum.

Not that it’s just the unionist side that has lessons to learn. The SNP has so far failed to paint a clear enough picture of independence, specifically Scotland’s relations with the EU. Both sides of the debate are falling short and Yes Scotland cannot expect to win this referendum by default. Both Obama and Romney failed to project a vision of the future and the electorate went with the status quo. Yes Scotland should be mindful of this risk as much as anyone given it is they who want a change to be made.

Symbolism
Abraham Lincoln (bear with me) may even have a lesson for the unionists and probably specifically for David Cameron. While Civil War raged through the United States in Ye 1860s, President Lincoln made the decision to continue with the building of the dome to the US Capitol. His logic was that if the nation could see the seat of power being completed, then the union would endure.

Now, Scotland is not in the midst or on the brink of Civil War, and the UK Government isn’t going to rebuild Westminster, but perhaps using Lincoln’s strategy of building a visible and symbolic British artefact in Scotland over the next couple of years could help win a few votes. It’s too late for High Speed rail, the Green Investment Bank was too small and Salmond already has his grubby workmen gloves on the Forth Crossing but maybe there’s something else that Cameron can build and have filled with pro-British sentiment.

So, plenty of food for thought from the other side of the Atlantic to carry into the next couple of years. The only other thought to add is that a black President still carries appealing power as symbolism. Perhaps the notion of the first Prime Minister of Scotland being female might add the same momentum to Yes Scotland. If only Salmond was to provide a clue that he might be retiring soon….

Scotland in Europe reconsidered

Nov 8

Posted by Guest Blog in Europe, Holyrood, International | 23 Comments

If the First Minister won’t take legal advice on EU accession, Better Nation will get some on his behalf – in this case advice contrary to one of the editors’ perspectives on the issue.

Stuart MacLennan teaches European Union Law at Trinity College, Dublin, where he’s a doctoral researcher. He is a former advisor to Labour on Europe and External Affairs in the Scottish Parliament.

The debate surrounding the question of a newly-independent Scotland’s membership, or otherwise, of the European Union is, to many, a confusing one. This is likely due, in part, to the fact that two parallel debates appear to be taking place. The question as to whether or not a newly-independent Scotland would be a member of the European Union is often confused with the question of whether or not such membership would be automatic. It is the opinion of this author that while a newly-independent Scotland would almost certainly be a member of the EU, it would certainly not be “automatic”.

It is worth noting that there is five recognized means by which a state can be created:

Secession;
Dissolution;
Merger;
Absorption;
Decolonisation.

It is important, in the context of the current discourse, to correctly categorize Scotland, as each category tends to attract different treatment under International Law. Some have argued, quite incorrectly, that Scottish Independence would be a dissolution of the United Kingdom. This would have significant consequences for the remainder of the United Kingdom, as it would have to seek recognition as a “successor state” rather than simply being a continuing state.

There is no precedent, nor any unique grounds, to suggest that the forthcoming referendum could result in the dissolution of the United Kingdom through the repeal of the Act of Union. First, Irish independence did not result in any change in status for the United Kingdom, despite being merged by a similar Act of Union in 1800. Secondly, the s30 Order agreed by the Scottish and UK Governments only “unreserves” the holding of a referendum on “The Constitution” under the general reservations contained within Schedule V of the Scotland Act 1998, leaving the Schedule IV specific protection for the Act of Union reserved. A semantic point, but nonetheless significant in that it appears to be a recognition by the SNP that Scottish Independence would be a secession on the part of Scotland, rather than a dissolution of the United Kingdom. It is the opinion of the author that that Scottish independence would certainly be a secession.

Heavy reliance has been placed upon the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, in particular by the SNP. It is worth, at this point, making a few cautionary notes about the Vienna Convention however. First, the Convention is principally concerned with decolonization – with “successor states” being colonial powers and “newly independent states” former colonies. The International Law Commission wanted to insert a category of “quasi-newly independent states” to deal with secessions in the non-colonial context, which would apply more specifically to cases like Scotland, however France and Switzerland objected, not wanting to encourage separatist movements within their own territories.

Secondly, the European Union has shown scant regard for the principles of International Law in the past (it began with Van Gend en Loos v. The Netherlands, and just spiralled from there).

Finally, a mere 22 states have ratified the Vienna Convention, only six of which (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, & Slovenia) are presently in the EU. However as the SNP’s arguments are firmly rooted in the application of the convention, it is therefore necessary to give it further consideration.

The case on which the proponents of automatic EU membership relied hinges on Article 34(1) of the Convention, which states:

When a part or parts of the territory of a State separate to form one or more States, whether or not the predecessor State continues to exist:

(a) any treaty in force at the date of the succession of States in respect of the entire territory of the predecessor State continues in force in respect of each successor State so formed;

On that basis alone Scotland would surely accede to all of the United Kingdom’s treaties upon independence. However international practice would suggest otherwise. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, only Russia was deemed to succeed to most international instruments. Furthermore when Pakistan separated from India, the United Nations (hardly a difficult club to gain membership of) admitted Pakistan as a new member and recognized India as a continuing member – a practice which has been followed in every subsequent case of secession.

International practice was recognized by the International Law Commission in its commentary on the Vienna convention:

In many organizations, membership, other than original membership, is subject to a formal process of admission. Where this is so, practice appears now to have established the principle that a new State is not entitled automatically to become a party to the constituent treaty and a member of the organization as a successor State, simply by reason of the fact that at the date of the succession its territory was subject to the treaty and within the ambit of the organization.

This practice was therefore recognized in Article 4 of the convention, which states that:

The present Convention applies to the effects of a succession of States in respect of: (a) any treaty which is the constituent instrument of an international organization without prejudice to the rules concerning acquisition of membership and without prejudice to any other relevant rules of the organization;

(emphasis added)

It is clear, therefore, that both customary norms of international law, as well as positive international law, would not see an independent Scotland as a continuing member of the European Union.

However, it has also been suggested that EU Law is different from all other instruments of international law, because it purports to be directly effective. In particular, it has been suggested that the “EU citizenship” rights enjoyed by Scots would continue by virtue of the doctrine of direct effect. This is quite incorrect. The concept of “EU Citizenship” is often confused with citizenship of Member States of the European Union. While it is the case that the Treaty of Maastricht establishes the concept of citizenship of the European Union, it is by no means clear that such citizenship exists independently of citizenship of the Member State. One cannot, therefore, rely upon EU citizenship rights as somehow creating or continuing EU membership – they are the product of a state being a member of the EU, not the cause.

EU Law is, of itself, only directly effective by virtue of EU membership. It is not a super-sovereign authority that is effective without the consent of the governed (Member States). EU Law is only effective because the authorities of the Member State give effect to it (through the courts, administration, police, etc.) even if the legislation itself originates from Brussels. Without its own means of enforcement, the purported “supremacy” of EU Law over a territory is dependent upon continuing membership and acquiescence of Member States. Membership, therefore, marks both the beginning and the end of the direct effect of EU Law. It is, therefore, a fallacy to suggest that the direct effect of EU Law over the territory of Scotland exists in perpetuity.

Of course, the foregoing discourse is merely one of European and International Law – perhaps the sort of discourse that might be contained in legal advice from the Lord Advocate to the First Minister. Given the body of evidence that suggests that Scotland would not be a continuing member of the European Union, it is perhaps hardly surprising that the Scottish Government has not sought formal legal advice on the matter.

That is not to say that just because Scotland would not automatically be a member of the European Union, that it would not be a member at all. International law is inherently intertwined with international relations. It is the opinion of the author that – while not a continuing member of the European Union – Scotland would find itself in the position of a candidate state that satisfies all of the accession criteria. In that circumstance, it is entirely possible that immediate accession could be achieved through negotiation. However such matters of European politics are beyond the scope of this discussion.

Work as if you live in the early days of a