Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Is Andy Murray up for grabs?

Jul 8

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 7 Comments

In case you are in the most remote part of the UK right now, you’ll be well aware that Andy Murray takes to Centre Court today aiming to be the first British man to win the Wimbledon singles title in 76 years.

As unseemly as it is to daub party colours over any apolitical sports star, the number of Google hits SNP Tactical Voting used to get linking the tennis ace to a certain Nationalist political party was nothing short of extraordinary and, as far as I’m aware, entirely without base.

Notwithstanding, it is difficult to not view David Cameron’s decision to raise a Saltire above 10 Downing Street as partly political as well as patriotic. With twenty million people expected to be rooting for Andy today in front of the tv, it is inevitable of course that politicians would seek to muscle in and identify themselves with that aspiration and success.

We are still two years away from the referendum and I suspect most Scottish sporting and tv celebrities will go out of their way to make sure their comments are not dragged into the debate as either being for or against a Yes vote. Andy Murray’s stock will go stratospheric if he wins today, it’ll remain seriously high even if he loses, but for how long can he remain neutral with politicians looking to claim him as their own?

I personally don’t see why someone who happens to be good at hitting a tennis ball should have more sway over how people should vote in an election, or makes bras for that matter, but that is the reality of the 21st century.

Politicians of both sides of the independence debate will doubtlessly remain on the edge of their seats, after today’s result, when Andy Murray faces questions from all sorts of press with all sorts of intentions.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s not about winning today, it’s the not being taken apart that counts.

Reflection on defection

Jul 4

Posted by Jeff in Parties | 14 Comments

A polarising debate around independence, the SNP embracing Nato & the Queen, Labour flip-flopping on tuition fees while toughening its stance on immigration and the Lib Dems continuing to find difficulty in balancing its principles with the reality of coalition Government are all contributing to perhaps the most turbulent period the political grass roots switching party identity in recent memory.

Despite the strict (some would say slavish) obedience to party lines within both of the UK’s Parliaments, it would not be altogether surprising if an MSP or MP had a quiet conversation with her or his self over the next few years and decided to defect to another party. It may be a hypothetical question for an issue that may never arise, but, in such circumstances, should the politician in question resign and fight a by-election under their new party colours?

There is no legal requirement to do so of course, but as the Jimmy Carr debacle has shown, that doesn’t necessarily make the rights or wrongs of a decision quite so clear cut.

More than ever before, elections are decided by the leaders at the helm of each party. The consistent swing from one party to another across the majority of constituencies at both Holyrood and Westminster is evidence enough of this. The SNP didn’t hammer Labour in constituency after constituency because they picked a raft of dazzling political individuals to stand as candidates, though I’m sure there are several in their number; it was because they had better policies as a party and Salmond appeared to make for a better FM than Iain Gray would have. They also had a massive spending warchest, but we don’t need to pick that old wound again.

So, the old adage that you could put a monkey in a red rosette in parts of Scotland and still win the election was brought to a swift end over the past year. I’m not even necessarily referring to the landslide victory in May 2011 here. After all, isn’t there a new adage? You could put an (alleged) wife-beater in an SNP rosette and still get him elected. Yes, that’s right, I went there…

The case of Bill Walker going from the SNP to an Independent MSP may be as close as we get to a defection at this parliamentary sitting. Nevertheless, it would be beneficial to have even an unofficially understood code of conduct around how any defections going forwards could take place. My particular bone of contention around this would protrude quite glaringly if Labour or the SNP (or whoever) were to accept an MSP or MP from a party after they had crossed the floor. If, as seems to be very much the case, the electorate vote for parties rather than people at the ballot box, is there not a moral duty for politicians, fed up with the party that got them elected, to resign and fight a by-election, if they wish to switch party?

For me, there absolutely is.

Perhaps there’s a clue from the first person to ever cross the floor at Westminster. In 1698, John Grubham Howe moved from the Whigs to the Tories. His nickname, I like to think… Howe Grubby.

Salmond’s win-win-win Devo Max legacy hunting strategy

Jul 3

Posted by Jeff in Constitution | 51 Comments

“Always try your best and what everyone else thinks of you is not your problem”.

It’s an old proverb but a useful one, particularly so for those with an occasional or general sense of inadequacy.

I suspect Alex Salmond is not one to generally suffer from low self esteem but he is approaching the stage of his career where it is difficult to avoid wondering how you will be thought of.

Quite possibly not unrelated to that, the papers and Twitter streams are full of coverage of Salmond finding Devo Max “very attractive” and his insistence that Scots “have a right” to a second question. I find it intriguing, and not a little amusing, that it is the Telegraph of all papers that are warning Salmond that SNP supporters may be infuriated at this news. If wishing made it so.

As someone who intends to vote Yes in a one question referendum, I certainly have no qualms with voting Yes-Yes in a two question referendum.

Indeed, in my view, Salmond’s intention to have Devo Max on the ballot slip is simple game theory and quite contrary to ‘abandoning’ independence as his detractors would have it.

Let’s look at two mutually exclusive scenarios:
Scenario 1
There is a 35% chance of winning a Yes/No ‘one-question’ referendum.
Scenario 2
There is a 20% chance of winning the independence element of a Yes/No ‘two-question’ referendum and a 60% chance of winning the Devo Max element.

Under Scenario 1, there is a 65% chance of being stuck with the status quo for a generation but under scenario 2, there is only a 32% chance (80% * 40%) of being stuck with the status quo for a generation.

Sure, Devo Max isn’t going to help the SNP realise its ambitions for getting rid of Trident, rebalancing inequality through the welfare system and having a strong Scottish voice at international tables, but including Devo Max on a ballot slip does not remove the SNP’s ability to take those arguments to the Scottish people and push for a Yes vote to the primary independence question. After all, if those arguments fall short, there is surely merit in having a satisfactory, if not spectacular, fall-back result.

The SNP may have many members that want independence and nothing less but more still recognise pragmatic progress towards their desired goal and will no doubt see Salmond’s cute push for a Devo Max option as a Win-Win-Win situation.

Win 1 – It pushes the Better Together triumvarate of Labour, Tories and Lib Dems into a space where they not only oppose independence, but are seen to oppose any proactive further devolution of powers in the near future. An unenviable place to be, one would have thought, particularly for the Lib Dems and Labour if they come over as indistinguishable on this issue from the Tories.

Win 2 – Scotland under Devo Max increases the probability of progress further down the line towards independence. It may not be the ‘big bang’ result of a Yes vote to full and near-immediate separation, but it’s progress and better than nothing.

Win 3 – It helps enable Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP for closing in on 18 years, to step down as First Minister and away from the SNP leadership with his head held high.

‘Shouldn’t Scotland’s interests be placed higher than Salmond’s desire for a legacy?’ put one political journalist on Twitter earlier today, but if the two objectives are wrapped up with each other in the First Minister’s mind, who would blame him for trying his best to achieve both before he ends his career.

A liberal case for independence

Jul 2

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Holyrood, Parties | 18 Comments

A history graduate, advocate for LGBT equality, Albion Rovers supporter and Liberal Democrat, Andrew Page is accustomed to being identified with minority causes. He contested Renfrewshire North and West for the his party in 2011 and blogs at A Scottish Liberal.

I’m a rather late convert to the cause of Scottish independence – a conversion that owes more to pragmatism than it does to political ideology.

I’ve never been the kind of Liberal Democrat vociferously opposed to the notion of independence. In 2007 I believed that, while a prospective coalition was a non-starter due to simple arithmetic, the party was misguided to rule out co-operation with the SNP on the basis that a referendum represented a “fundamental barrier”. Neither have I ever accepted the flawed logic of previous Scottish Lib Dem leaders in consistently denying Scottish voters the referendum – an ultimately futile tactic that has made it easy for political opponents to portray us as small-minded arch-unionists and contributed in no small way to our alienating of many traditional supporters.

The leadership line for the previous few years has been more pro-unionist than the view of the party membership, and has been influenced more by antipathy towards the SNP than by either a coherent political strategy or a commitment to democratic principles. The referendum represents the fairest and most liberal option and is certainly preferable to elected politicians and Westminster policy makers deciding Scotland’s future on our behalf. I have struggled to reconcile our party’s democratic credentials with what I perceive as a poorly conceived and fundamentally illiberal approach in recent years and have become increasingly convinced that, far from being anathema to convinced liberals, independence offers significant opportunities.

Not being a nationalist, the question of Scotland’s constitutional future has always been of secondary interest to the creation of a liberal society and a fairer political system. Features of the liberal Scottish society Liberal Democrats aspire to achieve include tolerance, an embracing of pluralism, the guarantee of free expression, the fostering of autonomous choices and greater democratic freedoms. A liberal society is one in which its citizens are empowered to take greater control of their own destinies. Liberals in the UK have a history of campaigning for a fairer and more democratic voting system, a green economy, decentralisation and localism, an end to the privileges afforded to the unelected House of Lords, reducing the voting age to 16 and the fairness agenda (so beloved of Nick Clegg). For those of us living in Scotland, liberals are far more likely to achieve such objectives in an independent Scotland than within a dysfunctional Union. A British system of PR is unlikely to be achieved in my lifetime, but may well be a feature of an independent Scottish democratic system
in which concerns about the House of Lords would be both academic and redundant. Similarly, our objectives on fairness, the economy, green energy, lowering the voting age and empowering communities would have a greater chance of fulfilment after independence than they would have under the status quo, which has a proven track record of non-delivery.

The preamble to the Liberal Democrats’ constitution states that “the Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community”. The key question for Liberal Democrats therefore must be “which constitutional arrangement best allows for the creation of such a society?”

The preamble also makes the claim that “we believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from the people. We therefore acknowledge their right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs and commit ourselves to the promotion of a democratic federal framework within which as much power as feasible is exercised by the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.” This is clearly inconsistent with the leadership’s stance in recent years but also, in theory at least, simultaneously commits liberals to the right of self-determination and “democratic federalism”.

If I genuinely felt that the Liberal Democrats were capable of achieving this “democratic federalism” I would be supporting all attempts to make it a reality, as my inclinations are liberal, not nationalist. What we have learned is that, in eight years of coalition in Holyrood and two years in Westminster very little progress has been made on the federalism front. To put it bluntly, if it was a crime to be a federalist there would be very little evidence with which to convict the Liberal Democrats. We are not the “guarantors of change” Willie Rennie disingenuously claims us to be. Even if the premise that the party is by nature a federalist one is accepted, it is naive to believe that the best channel by which to achieve the benefits of federalism is affiliation to the negative Better Together campaign, which lacks any kind of vision for a post-referendum Scotland.

We have a Deputy Prime Minister who asserts that “we are a devolutionist party”. That, of course, is not entirely true. Federalism is many things but it is not devolutionism. Jo Grimond recognised that a risk of devolution was “too much government” and that “it is no good transferring from Westminster to Edinburgh the diseases which…are bringing British democracy to its knees.” What is needed, insisted Grimond, was an arrangement that is open and accountable – “less government, better government and government nearer home”. He retained suspicions about romantic and inward-looking nationalism but also argued that, as far as Scotland’s future was concerned, “not to go far enough may be worse than going too far”. Devolution is not by nature a liberal arrangement and has a tendency to deliver over-government. Independence on the other hand, while clearly going further than federalism, does have the potential to provide both more effective local government and less government. From a liberal perspective, this has to be the best of both possible worlds.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats talk of federalism and Home Rule, which is welcome. Unfortunately, the actions of the leadership in identifying themselves with the Tories and Labour in a coalition of cynical negativity is likely to compromise both the party’s distinctive message and attempts to portray itself as anything other than committed to unionism. However, public perception is simply one challenge for the Liberal Democrats: another, more pertinent, difficulty being that the scope for achieving whatever the Home Rule Commission recommends is zero. Pragmatic liberals realise that without an additional option on the ballot form the choice is between the status quo, with no clear indication of what Scotland’s future will look like post-referendum, and an independence which offers opportunities for both Scottish liberalism and the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

There would be electoral opportunities for the Liberal Democrats in a post-independence Scotland of which the party should be mindful. It is unclear what would happen to the SNP but, even if it continued as a political force, having achieved its primary goal the Scottish Liberal Democrats could be well-positioned to benefit from uncertainty within the SNP’s ranks. Independence could prove to be an antecedent for a liberal revival, especially if the party is able to use the referendum campaign to its advantage. Admittedly, the second possibility is looking more remote by the day but it remains an inescapable fact that independence could serve the Liberal Democrats well, in a similar way to how devolution has benefitted the Scottish Conservatives.

Of course, embracing independence will require surrendering the commitment to a federal Britain in which Scotland is part. I have no difficulty with this, especially as inaction on the part of the leadership is largely responsible for undermining my faith in the achievement of federalism. While I would have preferred the party leadership to have done everything in its power to ensure an option more closely relating to our position would be presented to voters, what is precious about federalism isn’t a doctrinal commitment to it but the kind of society it can help create. Federalism, like all constitutional arrangements, is simply a tool; a means to a desired end. The focus must be on end goals, not the journey. We must be mindful that the final destination – a fairer, better Scotland in which liberal values can thrive – is so much more significant than the route by which we arrive there.

In 2014, like millions of other Scots, I will be voting on the future of our nation. I will do so from a commitment to liberal values and a determination to progress the cause of liberalism. That is why I will vote “yes”.

Migration, redistribution and renewal

Jun 30

Posted by Guest Blog in Parties, Westminster | 2 Comments

Thanks to Peter Cranie for today’s guest post. Peter is the North West England Green Party’s lead candidate for the 2014 European election and is currently a candidate for leadership of the Green Party of England and Wales when Caroline Lucas MP steps down in September 2012.

In 1983 my father faced redundancy for the third time. A choice had to be made. Stay and face the likelihood of not working or go south for a job near London. Our family, like many others, migrated. In our case, it was from Bo’ness to High Wycombe, despite my protests at the time.

Even without direct barriers, migration is not an easy decision. You move away from family and friends. Your children are moved from their familiar school to one where they stand out as different. It is not a decision to take lightly, but it is one that is being forced on many families, in the UK and around the globe.

I currently work in Skelmersdale, a new town, which promised a better life to thousands from Liverpool. Our college musical to commemorate Skelmersdale’s 50th anniversary made members of the audience cry as the songs asked where the jobs and promise of a new life went. I live in Liverpool, a city that faced the wrath of Thatcher during the 1980s. Despite its defiance Liverpool has seen depopulation over the past few decades, as some of its brightest and best have left.

At a time when we want to build stronger communities, towns and cities, there is a need for government policies that redistribute wealth from the richest regions to the poorest on a much bigger scale. We need not just the affluent suburbia around London to do well, but the forgotten valleys of Wales and former industrial towns of the north to be at the heart of our goal to build a fairer and sustainable society.

I was one of the migrant gang at school, with Ishrat, Shirwan and Dudley. We need the voice of redistribution to also speak for those who take the difficult decision to uproot from their homes not just to escape war, persecution or environmental degradation, but also for economic reasons and develop a future together united by common social and environmental goals.

Ed Miliband has recently pushed the debate on migration into the spotlight. Unfortunately, he has chosen to use the kind of narrative which is being applauded by right-wing Tories, UKIP, and even the BNP. The Green Party must make the argument that while social, economic and environmental inequalities continue on a European and Global scale, immigration to Britain, one of the world’s richest countries is not just inevitable, it is a logical consequence of the way our global economy works.

At its 2011 autumn conference the Green Party of England and Wales voted to reiterate its support for a liberal immigration policy on the grounds that everyone is equal, whatever the colour of their passport. This was the overwhelming vote of the party conference and it shows that the Greens are not the party to change their tone to suit a small subset of voters in swing marginal seats.

We can’t shy away from this issue, and nor should we allow the bigger parties to use immigration to distract attention from other challenges, like the need to redistribute wealth. If elected as Green Party leader, I would want to strongly make the case to defend immigrants, and to bring the real migration debate into focus. I know from experience that a great deal of economic migration is down to necessity. The language used in our media, with talk of “floods” and “invasion” comes close at times to inciting hatred. We need voices in politics that will challenge and discredit this. It is only by facing up to the real challenges of addressing national, European and Global poverty and inequality that can “stop” immigration.

We are the party of redistribution. We will talk about taxation and we will make the case forcefully. Politics doesn’t need another party to fight over swing voters, but a brave and radical vision. That is what is on offer from the Greens.