Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Two MSPs quit as SNP split over NATO

Oct 23

Posted by James in Holyrood | 26 Comments

This morning brings news that John Finnie MSP and Jean Urquhart MSP have left the SNP following the nail-biting and passionately-argued debate at their party conference over NATO. A decision probably thought to be without cost by the party’s Westminster group is proving extremely expensive indeed, and this is a major blow both for the party and, sadly, for the prospects for a Yes vote in the referendum.

First – it takes the SNP group down from 67 to 65 at Holyrood. Will the SNP regret pushing Tricia Marwick as Presiding Officer? A majority of nine became a majority of eight without her, then six when Bill Walker was expelled: now their majority is just two – 63 on the opposition side to 65 SNP, plus the PO’s casting vote. It won’t undermine the referendum bill itself, of course: both Finnie and Urquhart will still vote for it, as will Margo MacDonald, Patrick Harvie and Alison Johnstone.

Second – the pressure will now be on the other MSPs who supported the party’s previous anti-NATO policy. Some of the names are here on the defeated amendment: Sandra White, Marco Biagi, Jamie Hepburn, Bob Doris, Dave Thompson, and Gordon MacDonald. Remember other MSPs backed other options that would have blocked the change or at least postponed it: Christina McKelvie, John Wilson, John Mason and Rob Gibson, notably. I’ll add other names here if people have them. Goodness only knows what calls are being made right now to this list by the leadership. Two lost is a disaster – two more would be much worse, particularly for Angus Robertson, who should have known better than to try and divide his party on the strength of media pressure. The party backed him, narrowly, and he can’t be sacked: but this is his misjudgement, and he probably knows it. But the other pressures are enormous too. John and Jean have set a marker – that’s what a principle looks like, these resignations say: colleagues, do you believe in the principle too? Do you want to be remembered as the MSPs who argued for that principle but buckled when the leadership told you to? Reputations will be made and lost today.

Third – an informal grouping of five anti-NATO MSPs is already possible, including Margo and the Greens. Five seats gets you on the bureau. That challenges the the SNP’s one-party stranglehold on the business of Holyrood – one more departure would confirm that.

Fourth – it’s not coincidence that both John and Jean represent the Highlands and Islands. The strength of feeling in the Highlands and Islands branch has always been substantial: I’ve listened to Rob Gibson play anti-nuclear protest songs on his guitar, and if I were guessing who on that list will be feeling the heat, Rob and Dave Thompson are prominently placed.

EDIT Fifth – I was challenged on why this is bad news for the referendum, and realised I hadn’t explained that. The reason is, sadly, that as far as much of the media see it the SNP is Yes and Yes is the SNP: and the SNP themselves go out of the way to blur that boundary. Listen to the Who Dares Wins crowd telling everyone Scotland will now stay in NATO, rather than saying this is now the SNP’s new policy but that the decision will be taken the people after independence. The public don’t vote for divided parties, which the SNP now clearly are. I want a Yes vote, but hopefully it’s now utterly obvious to the SNP that they need to stop blurring the boundaries between themselves and the broader movement for independence: that movement remains united around the principle that Scots should make all the key decisions that affect them.

Since the bloodbath over selection and Swinney’s leadership in 2003, the SNP have run an extraordinarily tight ship. Four years of minority from 2007 onwards saw no rebellion of any significance whatsoever. Salmond has, for good or ill, commanded his party like a well-drilled regiment. This looks like it could be his greatest test.

None of Scotland’s political parties are fit for purpose

Oct 22

Posted by James in Parties | 29 Comments

Last night’s showing on the BBC of Ant Baxter’s “You’ve Been Trumped” (iPlayer link for as long as that lasts) led to an awful lot of discussion on Twitter last night about the way the SNP, and particularly the First Minister, let down local residents in their haste to suck up to the bewigged billionaire. I even saw a fair few people say they’d voted SNP last time but after watching the film: never again.

The SNP did let down David Milne and Molly Forbes and the rest, of course: I couldn’t disagree. However, I couldn’t let Labour or Lib Dem folk pretend their side were innocent bystanders.

There was also a tone abroad of “so who do I vote for, then?”, which is another fair question. Obviously Greens backed the local residents and their unique ecosystem from the start (that word gets over-used, but it’s true in this case), and I’m always happy to recommend a Green vote.

But thinking about the bigger picture in discussion with Scott, it struck me that none of Scotland’s parties are properly fit to run this country right now. One day I’ll do a post about the achievements of each and every party, because I do see both sides (even with the Tories), but every one of them has at least one overwhelming flaw.

Leaving aside those not in Parliament right now, and leaving out many many more examples:

The SNP: weakness for the interests of the rich (not just Trump: 1, 2, 3, etc), failures on climate change (1, 2, 3 etc), regressive tax policies (Council tax freeze helps the richest most, LIT would exempt wealth and share income etc), snouts in the trough, Health Minister opposed to women’s rights, quiet u-turn on nuclear power.

Labour: authoritarianism, setting up the market in higher education, illegal wars, spending their lives complaining about the Tories or the SNP not delivering on issues they never delivered on in office, pretending Labour austerity is better than Tory or SNP austerity, snouts in the trough.

Tories: economically incompetent, generally incompetent, greedy and incompetent, blatantly cruel, anti-education, anti-environment, anti-women, most committed to sucking up to Murdoch, the NHS again, snouts in the trough, essentially everything except some of Ken Clarke’s now-abandoned justice agenda.

Lib Dems: snouts in the trough, ready to lionise truly appalling people, u-turns on fees, VAT, electoral reform, climate change, NHS privatisation, etc.

Greens: simply too small, too stretched, and nowhere near the votes we’d need – it’s not plausible to say Greens are ready now to run the country instead of the four parties above. We can’t even afford to stand in the constituencies, for a start.

As a result I think politics here is desperately in need of a realignment of the sort which is commonplace elsewhere in Europe.

In Greece, as the country comes under enormous pressure, the landscape is shifting to try and respond. The centre-right ND absorbed a somewhat more rightwing Orthodox party, SYRIZA went from a minor party to lead the polls, etc. In Italy the Five Star Movement has come from nowhere. In Canada the New Democrats have overtaken the centrist Liberals, and there’s talk of a merger.

Scottish and British politics alike can be characterised as static, stale, partisan, corrupt, and inadequate (although the UK-wide problems are worse: one reason I’ll vote Yes). The revolving doors between government and business twirl far too predictably, and participation withers. Perhaps the referendum, whichever way it goes, will lead to a political realignment of some sort. We desperately need it.

Uncomfortable allies all round on the #indyref

Oct 21

Posted by James in Constitution, Parties | 1 Comment

The SNP make great play of Labour’s cooperation with the Tories and the Lib Dems as part of Better Together. I see why they do it: the Tories are less popular than Labour in Scotland, so tying them together has some strategic logic. And yes, those parties have all formed UK governments I broadly disapprove of, in addition to their support for Westminster.

However, treating the No campaign as a unified block implies that the Yes campaign should be treated the same way. And because the SNP are the largest organisation supporting a yes vote, that blurs the boundaries between the party and Yes Scotland even further.

For better or worse, that kind of thinking now means the whole of the Yes campaign will be seen as pro-NATO rather than pro the people deciding on NATO membership after independence has been achieved. This is bad news.

But it also allows the No campaign to lump all us independence supporters in together as well, to treat us as a homogenous group. That can’t help: for one thing, it’d mean we’re all on side with perjurers. You don’t have to be Alastair Campbell to see the downside there. This would also make me indistinguishable from the independent (ex-Tory but pro-indy) Midlothian councillor Peter de Vink, who’s rabidly anti-renewables, or from the grasping and anti-women Alex Neil. I don’t want to be associated with the SNP’s policies on the economy, social justice, or the environment. Yes Scotland isn’t associated with them – it doesn’t have a policy agenda beyond independence – but this kind of rhetoric undermines that argument.

It also means that my previous mix of feelings when I see cybernat bullying on Twitter has changed. Before, I felt sad to see the tone lowered, but during an election Greens were competing for votes with the SNP a little cynical part of me hoped there might be political advantage in it for us. Now we’re all trying to to get a Yes vote (I include only those Greens who support independence here – perhaps about two thirds of the party, roughly) I feel much more aggrieved. I worry that the “ure no true scotsman if you dont vote yes” approach could drag the whole campaign down.

Now, there are plenty of people outside the Greens who I’m proud to work with to secure independence. I have a lot of respect for many in the SSP, and also for plenty of SNP members, activists, MSPs and Ministers. The very impressive NATO debate made me feel quite strong political kinship with the likes of Jamie Hepburn and Natalie McGarry. I like the prospect of some non-partisan co-operation with them, and with people of no party who support the objective.

Because co-operation on an issue doesn’t entail unity on all the others. Caroline Lucas worked with Douglas Carswell on STV, despite being at the left and right ends of the Westminster spectrum respectively. And don’t forget the devolution referendum. Were the three party leaders above really indistinguishable because they wanted a Scottish Parliament in 1997?

It does no-one on either side any favours to lump all their opponents in together, and it cuts both ways. I doubt it helps the cause to tell a Labour-voting waverer that her party is indistinguishable from the Tories.

It’s a pompous hope, perhaps, but it’d be great to see all those campaigning on the referendum working under these two broad umbrellas while recognising the diversity of of our own views and the other side’s views too. The referendum is a simple question: should Westminster have a continued role in making decisions about Scotland’s political future? Whatever the result, those other diverse views will be put to the test at the next election, not during the referendum.

Indyref Tactical Voting

Oct 19

Posted by Jeff in Constitution | 19 Comments

In my former blogging life under the SNP Tactical Voting banner, I thoroughly enjoyed considering counter-intuitive votes that would ultimately lead to a preferred result for the voter. For example, voting Lib Dem in a constituency to try getting an extra SNP MSP in on the regional vote, all to Labour’s detriment. Real high brow stuff.

Looking down the psephological line we have European elections (straight PR, boringly worthy) and an independence referendum (simple Yes/No), so there’s no scope for any tactical voting.

Or is there?

My thoughts on this were pricked into life when a friend stated quite decidedly that independence would be a bad thing for Scotland, but he was going to vote Yes anyway. I know, my gast was at a flabber too. What is he thinking? Well, hear him out.

His view is that, because Yes Scotland are going to lose so convincingly (his words, not mine), he thought that a narrow win for the No camp was in Scotland’s best interests rather than a good old fashioned humping. So, he will do his best to get it as close to 45%/55% as he can, with his one vote. Scots, and the SNP, can still hold their heads up high and not be the laughing stock of the country.

It’s an interesting theory and it makes one realise that there are really five distinct results from this coming referendum, with five distinct outcomes:

A clear No win (say, 57%+):
Forget the hanging chads and missing ballot boxes in Glenrothes, this is a referendum result that isn’t too close to call. The SNP would have to conclude that it has made its best independence arguments and failed, pushing back any subsequent referendum for a generation.

The constitutional debate in the run up to the Holyrood election would turn to Devo Max vs the Status Quo and the various permutations in between and outwith. There would also be a decade where devolved issues can be focussed on and flexed within the current powers of the Scottish Parliament. There is no way of knowing whether the SNP or Labour would be the dominant party over this decade with Scots already confirming that they are impressed with how the SNP manages devolved Scotland, so the referendum could be quickly forgotten to Nationalist benefit.

A narrow No win (say 51%-57%):
The No’s have it by a nose. Despite the agreement reached between Cameron and Salmond, the scope for objection, obfuscation and obstinacy would be considerable with turnout, polling station issues and minor legal transgressions all coming under the spotlight and being challenged either directly or indirectly by the SNP. Stormy calls for a rerun would be made but would largely hinge on the result of the 2016 election. There would be a high risk of a crushing Holyrood defeat for the SNP if they were seen to be sore losers by a public who wanted to move on.

An effective draw (say 49%-51%):
In many ways the nightmare scenario. Significant pressure would be on Salmond or Cameron to publicly and clearly concede defeat if they had just missed out. However, realistically neither side would truly accept the result if they lost by such an excruciatingly narrow margin.

If 49% of Scots want to be part of the UK or independent, then that is too sizeable a bloc to ignore going into either new future. The risk would be an unsettled period for Scotland stretching into the decades and a further referendum, be it to rejoin the UK or on independence, would be inevitable.

The Scottish economy would suffer from the political instability and even a descent towards, if not fully into, Irish style factionalism could be possible. The public may decide to vote a strong majority into Holyrood to manage these downside risks, be it SNP/Green or Labour/Lib Dem, with stability emanating from that mandate. There would, of course, be further complications if Lab/Lib were the first Government of an independent Scotland after such a wafer thin margin or SNP/Green the next Government of devolved Scotland.

A narrow Yes win (say 51%-57%):
This would probably cause more consternation than a narrow No win by simple dint of the establishment being more UK-focussed. The negotiations for an independent Scotland would go ahead but would be a difficult, truculent affair, with impasses likely and legal challenges as to the settlement of assets/liabilities unavoidable. It would be a trying time for public and politicians alike and gaining outside assistance from friendly allies – the European Union or the United Nations – couldn’t be ruled out.

A clear Yes win (say, 57%+):
Negotiations would still be testy but the margin of victory would hasten Cameron and Salmond’s desire to get to a position where rUK has moved on and Scotland is getting on with creating its new future. A compromise settlement would be reached eventually and even former staunch unionist parties would adapt to the new landscape and amend their policies and vision accordingly. Scotland would have more politicians, domestically and, soon enough, at the European Parliament. The standard would take time to improve and plateau with the more established and experienced SNP personalities likely to have a clear run at laying the foundations of the new country.

So they are the possible outcomes, where does the tactical voting come into it? Well, probably only if the polling doesn’t change dramatically between now and 2014.

If the polls in the lead up to the referendum suggest a close run thing then all Scots, my friend included, will simply vote the way they truly believe, be it Yes or No. It’d be the same, one would think, for narrow victories either way.

Similarly, if the Yes vote is considerably outnumbering the No vote, it is difficult to imagine the Yes camp wishing to ensure that the victory is only a narrow one.

However, as outlined at the start of this post, the converse could be true. Some latent national pride within would-be No voters might rise up to give a sizeable consolation Yes tranche that makes the final scoreline look more generous for Yes Scotland, if ultimately still a losing one.

Despite there just being one question, not only is there more than two potential outcomes at this referendum, there are also more than two ways to use your vote.

Who cares what the SNP thinks about NATO?

Oct 18

Posted by James in Constitution, Parties | 9 Comments

Okay, I do. But not because it’ll directly determine whether an independent Scotland would be in NATO. Changing policy would be a bad sign on that front, admittedly, but then so too is existing Tory, Labour and Lib Dem support for Nato.

In the event of a Yes vote, the Yoonyonisht Consphirashy will presumably not pack up their bags for Westminster and leave Scotland in the SNP’s hands. They’d stay to fight the elections to an independent Holyrood, and they may well win, just as Churchill won the war but Attlee won the peace.

The problem, as SNP MSP Marco Biagi rightly points out today, is that there’s a “false narrative that voting Yes means endorsing only the SNP vision of an independent Scotland.” Of course it doesn’t: if it did, I’d run a mile. I have a decent amount of common ground with them on health, justice, and even equalities, but I don’t want to live in a tartan tax haven built on burning all our oil and emptying the North Sea of fish as quickly as possible.

Marco’s fighting for an SNP that sticks to its guns (sorry) because they’re his party and that’s the policy he still believes in, not because he believes that decision can possibly be set for an independent Scotland by Alex Salmond before the Scottish people elect MSPs the next time.

It’s part of a wider problem, one that Jeff addressed here last month. Winning a referendum on the principle that those living in Scotland should make all the key political decisions is one thing: I think a cross-party and non-party campaign can do that. Winning a post-independence election on what to do with the full powers of a normal independent state: the SNP machine has form at general elections.

However, wherever a non-SNP voter who’s open to independence (remember: it can’t be won without them) accepts Marco’s “false narrative”, they are more likely to vote No depending on their attitudes to the SNP leadership and SNP policies. The referendum cannot be won without at least a clear division between the two things: assuming the party don’t accept Jeff’s logic above.

The First Minister should stand up and state clearly during the debate that the SNP won’t determine whether an independent Scotland stays in NATO: the Scottish people would do in the first post-referendum election. It’d be a brave move, and it’d reduce the importance of a debate is being billed as, to quote Marco again, “a leadership defeat or a U-turn“.  More broadly, every time an SNP politician is asked a question that presumes they’ll win that post-indy election they have an opportunity to explain that the Scottish people will be sovereign, not the SNP.

Putting the distance between the wider Yes campaign and the party which delivered the referendum can reduce the risk to the Yes campaign of losing the support of some of those people who’ve long wanted to leave this nuclear alliance. The same goes for the monarchy, the currency, the BBC, and tax rates: those are arguments I hope the SNP lose in an independent Scotland, or positions they change their mind on, but we need to get there first, and that means narrative clarity about what’s being offered.