Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

No second question, but not a defeat for Salmond either

Sep 25

Posted by Jeff in Constitution | 26 Comments

There’s an episode in the West Wing where, in the madness of a crowded rope line, President Jed Bartlet accepts a copy of the Taiwanese flag from a member of the public. Given Jed is such a wily political operator, the assumption is that he did this on purpose to invite the consternation from China and provoke a debate on Taiwan independence. He didn’t, he just made a mistake and didn’t see what someone had put in his hand. 

One has to wonder if that other wily political operator, President-in-waiting Alex Salmond, has played yet another strategic blinder in not getting Devo Max onto the ballot paper or whether he’s simply messed up. 

On the one hand, Salmond has seemingly been pushing for something that he and his party claims to not want but his political opponents do and, in losing ‘his’ second vote, he may well have cleverly won much of the would-be Devo Max voters as future Yes voters by fighting their corner and offering them some sort of change, rather than simply the status quo. 

Further, through this push for a Devo Max option, the First Minister has certainly helped paint Labour as anti-devolutionist and helped sew some internal rancour over whether they should back a second question or not. It’s well worth noting that the Devo Max referendum option has disappeared before Johann Lamont has even started her promised commission on devolution which is (was?) to focus on extending Holyrood’s powers.

On the other hand of course, Alex Salmond has opened his party up to the possibility of a devastating defeat in 2014 with no consolation prize and also opened himself up to ridicule here and now. Unwarranted ridicule that is, but when has that ever stopped the Scottish press. The First Minister was portrayed as wanting something but he didn’t get it. Cue exaggerated terms such as ‘humiliation’, ’embarrassment’ and ‘making chumps’ of those who want Devo Max. (A neat, if rather desperate attempt by Willie Rennie there to try to wrest back the Lib Dem reputation as being the most pro devolution party, though it does indirectly make him sound like Head Chump). 

I personally believe Alex Salmond genuinely wanted that second question, that it wasn’t all just political cross-dressing smoke and mirrors, and that he’ll be bitterly disappointed that a more fortuitous result was not reached during the time that he created for a second question to emerge. However, when someone doesn’t get the first win from their win-win situation, it’s more than a stretch to label it a defeat. Alex Salmond no longer has a legacy-defining backup plan for his circa 2014/15 retirement. That doesn’t really change much for the rest of us.

The quid pro quo for Salmond relenting on his push for a Devo Max option on the ballot slip is seemingly a mercifully straightforward, Westminster-sanctioned, legal framework in which to hold the referendum.

This is all to be welcomed, because the sooner the ultimately frivolous and childishly conducted discussions over how many questions, what the question(s) will be, timing etc are out of the way, the closer we will get to the real debate sparking to life, Scots having constructive conversations about their collective future, politicians on all sides being forced to talk about substance and, most appealingly (and to use another West Wing analogy), the Yes campaign letting Salmond be Salmond, unleashing their prized weapon when he’s at his best – winning votes on the campaign trail. Unless he stuffs up and unwittingly takes a Union flag as a gift at an inopportune time, of course.

So no, it’s not at all clear who the absence of a Devo Max option is a defeat for, and we have a way to go to find out.

To err is Devine..

Sep 23

Posted by James in Equality | 2 Comments

The Bishop of Motherwell is at it again, firing off an intemperate salvo against the abortionists, the gays, the police, the Greens, and Patrick Harvie in particular. Last time he waded in he accused the gay rights movement of aligning themselves with Holocaust victims to project an “image of a group of people under persecution“. As everyone pointed out then, Holocaust victims did include a lot of gay men. But the Bishop isn’t one to let the facts get in the way of a little hatred.

This time, it seems he’s been to Brighton and he did not like it. Not one bit. It’s full of gays and Greens and the kind of police who object to anti-abortionists who harass the public. He started there, with abortion, objecting to the arrests of two “Christians” who waved enormous banners showing aborted foetuses at women going into a BPAS clinic in Brighton, and he compared abortion not just to the Holocaust again, but also to famine, war and the Burma Railway. His argument is actually this, and I quote: “If we cannot face the pictures, how can we conceive of endorsing the reality?”

Note that this isn’t an argument about when life begins or the relative rights of the unborn versus the mother. It’s nothing more than this: “if you’re too squeamish we might be able to put you off”, an purely aesthetic assault. Now, I’m pretty damn squeamish. I fainted the only time I gave blood and was told never to come back. When I last went in to hospital for an operation, I certainly couldn’t have faced the pictures. The factual reality of the operation, though, I absolutely endorsed.

Where would this aesthetics-based campaign approach end? Would it be OK for Jehovah’s Witnesses, who oppose blood transfusions, to stand outside blood donor centres with gory placards? Should everyone eating meat be obliged to look at massive posters of calves being shot in the head? The Catholic Church, it turns out, has had a bad habit of covering up for paedophile priests. Should the statistics about that be waved as 7-foot banners in the faces of innocent churchgoers every Sunday? I think not.

He then went on to lambast the Greens for another Brighton issue, the disciplinary measures against Cllr Christina Summers. She voted against a Labour motion on equal marriage, which is what the Bishop thinks she got done for: no, far more importantly, she broke a direct pledge to the party members who selected her and to the public who elected her. “To seek to coerce loyalty to the party above loyalty to individual conscience calls to mind the worst kind of totalitarian politics,” the Bishop said.

Hardly. She can do what she likes with her conscience – which coincidentally includes harassment outside abortion clinics. But in the Bishop’s Big Book Of Rules there are ten which are always described as pretty important. Being against gay marriage isn’t in that list, but there is one which talks about bearing false witness. Is no-one in the religious hierarchy concerned about her dishonesty? It is apparently a sin, if my reading’s correct.

We just ask for candidates to be honest with the membership and to adhere to the party’s principles. They sign up to that, as Cllr Summers did, and then they get held to it. It’s hardly the “worst kind of totalitarian politics“. Does the Bishop really think that being expelled from the Brighton and Hove Green Councillors Group (not the party, mind, nor the Council) is akin to being sent to the gulags or having an attempt made to exterminate your entire people?

Next, the truth about the Green Party. “For years it has operated under the cover of ‘saving the planet’ while publicly playing down its anti-religious faith, anti-democratic agenda.”  I wouldn’t say we’re anti-democratic. We’re not perhaps as good at winning elections as others, but that still feels a bit of an unfair characterisation. Bad at fundraising: that I’d accept. Also, we’re not anti-faith – I know many wonderful Greens who believe in God – but it’s true that we are very much against the bigoted arguments that masquerade as faith in certain quarters.

But what does marriage equality have to do with climate change? We hear that a lot. Well, enabling the first and trying to tackle the latter is consistently about building a better planet to live on. It doesn’t seem very complicated to me. But Greens should only campaign on one issue as far as the Bishop is concerned. I await his attack on the SNP, who have operated for years under the cover of the quest for independence while publicly playing down their real aim – a minimum price per unit of alcohol. The Bishop needs to understand that all political parties cover a range of policies. And that means, to paraphrase Patrick Harvie’s comments to the Sunday Herald, if he wants to vote for a party which agrees with him on really not liking the gays, it’ll be down to UKIP versus the BNP.

Coming oot and Conditional Patriotism

Sep 23

Posted by Jeff in Constitution | 31 Comments

I’m not gay. Not that I’d think any less of myself if I was, although my fiance might be less than impressed by such a revelation.

Despite not being gay, I recall always being quite taken with Will from the excellent US comedy Will & Grace. Here was a man who was down-to-earth, calm, run-of-the-mill but doing well for himself and, for desperate want of a better word, normal. And gay.

Such was (and still is sadly), the lamentable portrayal of LGBT individuals on TV and the wider media that this character was terribly intriguing for those twin pedestrian reasons – gay and normal.

I daresay a comparison could be made to the mental image much of the public has (and certainly the media’s regular portrayal made of) those who intend to vote Yes in the referendum in 2014. How many minds have wondered, or mouths spoken out loud even, ”You support independence? You? But you’re normal’.

It’s easy to be pro-UK at the moment, expected even. The Olympics were a veritable slam dunk, the Queen has somehow conjured up some credible goodwill despite her constant crabbitness and London’s deep pockets have saved our wayward banks for which we are to be eternally grateful, or until after the referendum at least. It takes a strong nerve to say out loud and against expectation that you’d rather Scotland was its own country.

And yet, the more one looks at the polls and the more one considers the lay of the independence campaign’s lands, the clearer it is that more of the silent Yes voters are going to have to speak up to win the referendum. They don’t have to dress up like Braveheart, put on a funny voice or act in any way different to how they acted before, but, like gay Will, they do need to make their presence known. Come oot, if you will.

Margo MacDonald convinced me of this fact when she said yesterday “If a third of Scots believe in independence, then every one of us has two years to persuade another Scot, and we are home and dry” Well, we can’t be leaving it all to the tartan loonies, can we? And let’s be honest, there was a fair few on display streaming down the mound yesterday, mercifully outnumbered by families, refined couples and friends out having a good time and calmly making themselves known.

The problem in coming oot and getting people to join us in that regard (my Yes colours are pretty firmly labelled to the mast) is that there seems to be an irrationally deep-seated intransigence to even considering anything other than the status quo. I don’t mean genuine disagreement, which is to be very much welcomed. I mean a hard-headed ‘No!’ that carries no rhyme nor reason.

Take, for example, a very brief chat I had with a kilted worker in one of the Royal Mile’s finest kilt hire stores. Having noted that he was wearing Scots Nationalist tartan, I gambled with a bit of small talk, lost and was left thoroughly, thoroughly confused:

Me: ‘I see you’re wearing the Scots Nationalist tartan?’

He: ‘Aye’

Me: ‘You’ll be sad that you’re missing the rally then?’

He: *tut* ‘I don’t think so. If this country ever gets devolution, I’m leaving’

Now, where to begin. You work in a kilt shop, are clearly passionate about tartan, you’re wearing the Nationalist tartan infact, but if we ever get devolution independence, then you’re out of here? I never said anything of course, just gave a non-committal blank look and we parted ways. Sorry Margo, my ‘one’ will have to be somebody else.

We’ve heard similar rhetoric before of course, homeruleophobia I’m minded to call it.
Michelle Mone made the really quite ludicrous and pointedly public assertion that if Scotland were to be independent then she would take her Bravissimo bra company down south (effectively sacking on the spot those hundreds of workers who wouldn’t want to relocate from Glasgow).

I can understand any Scot being ardently pro- or anti- independence and I can equally understand any Scot being easy-oasy on the subject, but there seems to be a conditional patriotism at play whereby certain unionist Scots will only support and play a part in Scotland if they get their way, irrespective of what the democratic majority may decide. It’s not much of a team spirit if you ask me.

That conditional patriotism doesn’t seem to exist on the other side of the debate. Scots who have longed for independence have made do within the United Kingdom for 300 years with a quiet resolve and relatively little fuss, particularly if you look at other scarred and charred countries around the world. Or over the water, even.

I’m not even necessarily criticising those seemingly proud Scots who would nonetheless reject their nation if it were independent, I’m just striving to understand them. Conditional patriotism; it eludes me, but it’s out there.

Not that people stepping back should stop others from stepping forwards, and that was my take away from yesterday given a turnout that was high when set against expectations but low when set against an electorate. The enthusiasm of a relative few can go a very long way. One wonder how many would turn out for a Better Together No rally? I bet even the conditional patriots would stay at home.

So, there may be an immovable, implacable unionist object in the way, but that’s no reason why more and more Yes voters shouldn’t come out and help try to build an unstoppable force. And if that force is to be beaten, let’s hope that it was the mountain of counter-arguments that was insurmountable, rather than the limitations of our collective ambition and imagination. Or even just deep-seated prejudice against an imagined enemy, much like homosexuality, that has been battled and largely beaten before, with as much help from the quiet Wills of this world as the louder, colourful protests.

I couldn’t make yesterday’s march despite briefly walking against and alongside it on two different occasions. I’m already looking forward to next year’s though and standing proud, if not terribly loud, as a part of it.

Does the Finance Secretary have any clothes?

Sep 20

Posted by Aidan in Holyrood | 12 Comments

by Mark McHugh

At the time of the last finance bill, the first in the history of Holyrood which necessitated a reduction in overall spending, there was a lot of noise made about the moves to protect capital spending.

This was predicated on the idea that, in a recession, government should spend on infrastructure projects. Which is true, from an empirical perspective, as far as it goes.

But, and there’s always a but, that’s not the whole story. As the man said “I’ll think you’ll find it’s a bit more complicated than that”.

It’s true that there’s an important role for government spending to play in mitigating the worst effects of an economic downturn through capital spending. When businesses and individuals are reigning in spending and reducing aggregate demand it’s important that the government does as much as it can to avoid what Keynes identified as the paradox of thrift.

It’s also true that the best way for a government to increase the amount of demand it puts into the economy is through capital spending. It’s a very efficient transmission mechanism between government and the private sector and, provided they’re properly considered, the end product of capital investment continues to benefit the country after the recession ends.

Simply, it’s better to pay people to build cycle paths and schools than it is to drop bags of cash from helicopters.

But, I told you there was always a but, that’s not what the Scottish Government did last year.

What happened was that John Swinney diverted revenue spending into the capital budget, essentially relying on the increased efficiency of the transmission mechanism to boost the Scottish economy.

That might work for a year, but the differences in how government spending on services and on infrastructure affect aggregate demand aren’t that large and will even out over time, there’s no real difference in the levels of fiscal entropy. When Keynesian economists argue for increases in government capital spending they’re typically arguing for an increase in the total spent, not in one aspect of spending at the expense of another.

There’s also questions to be asked about whether what’s classed as capital spending really represents a better long term investment than revenue spending. The short term effect of the decision to prioritise, say, duelling the A9 instead of providing college places for thousands of young people is probably negligible but I’m not convinced that building more roads is a better bet for the future than teaching people.

We’ll see what the finance bill proposes soon enough, but I’m not optimistic it will offer more than smoke, mirrors and platitudes. A truly bold budget would use the powers Holyrood has to actually increase government spending rather than shuffling money from column A to column B.

SNP and Labour – parties led like it’s 1999

Sep 19

Posted by James in Parties | 1 Comment

At Westminster, the two and a half main parties can all make an argument for relative youthfulness amongst their leaders. All three men were born in the late 1960s, making those of us born in the early 1970s wonder what we did with our lives. Policemen look a lot younger than they did, too. But I digress.

The Prime Minister is a relative grey-beard now. He’s marginally the oldest of the three, first elected to Parliament eleven years ago, and having run his party since 2005. His deputy and the Leader of the Opposition were both first elected in 2005, and all three come across as more youthful than any of their predecessors since Blair faced Hague.

Closer to home, the Tories and the Lib Dems both abandoned any sense that you need Holyrood experience to lead a Scottish party: both Ruth Davidson and Willie Rennie won their regional seats for the first time the same year they took over at the top. She’s the youngest on this list, but even Rennie is slap bang in the middle of the Westminster leadership age bracket. Green co-convenor Patrick Harvie has been at Holyrood significantly longer – coming up for ten years now – but he’s still not 40 (where’s next year’s party, Patrick?).

Conversely, the SNP and Scottish Labour are both led by politicians born in the 1950s, people who have been in and around leadership roles in their parties for a very long time. Johann Lamont chaired her party’s Scottish Executive Committee almost two decades ago, and Alex Salmond became his party’s leader the first time round in 1990. Both were first elected to Holyrood as part of the first cohort in 1999, although the FM took his ball to Westminster for the Scottish Parliament’s second session.

Why does this matter? Surely we needn’t sign up to the cult of youth? Of course not. One’s late 50s are a perfectly reasonable time to lead a political party, and experience still counts for a lot. But Holyrood, especially in the dinosaur head-clash between Labour and the SNP, has a sour partisanship that I believe is worse even than the mood at Westminster. Both these leaders have spent two decades glaring at each other across a narrow ideological gap (ignoring the constitution). Could this be an aggravating factor behind this petty-minded debating style? It seems unlikely that the tone could be lifted until these parties are no longer led from the 1999 intake.