Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

The A-ha Paradigm

Jun 25

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Parties | 20 Comments

A guest post today from Craig Gallagher. Craig is a PhD Student in History at Boston College and a Graduate Fellow of the Clough Center for Constitutional Democracy. He studies early modern Scottish imperialism, such as it was, with a particular focus on the Darién project and how it fits into the wider narrative of Scots and Empire, on which he has blogged at Better Nation before.

The A-ha Paradigm
At Edinburgh University on Friday night, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Mike Russell MSP, gave the keynote lecture to the first British Scholar Society conference to be staged in Scotland, which was entitled “Scotland Transformed: Cricket, Passports and the resilience of the social union”. The central theme was Russell’s own diverse British background, having been born in England to a Scottish mother and a Welsh-English father, before marrying a Gael and learning the language over 30 years, which he presented as an eloquent and thoughtful example to refute accusations that Britishness is rigidly defined and, crucially, can be taken away without your consent.

By common consent amongst the academics assembled from 21 countries across the world, from as far afield as the USA and the UAE, Russell gave an absorbing speech entirely befitting the questions being asked at this conference, about post-imperial Britain and the possible reconfiguration of the Union of Parliaments, which contained very little partisanship and instead embraced the word “political” in its analytical, rather than subjective sense. Yet it was the Q&A that followed which proved most revealing to many in the audience.

Following on from a roundtable on Scottish Independence the previous evening for conference attendees – which had featured Alan Taylor of the Herald chairing a discussion between Professors John Curtice and Owen Dudley-Edwards, Dr. Catriona MacDonald and Joyce McMillian of the Scotsman – many of the American audience were moved to ask about the distinctive Scottish educational spirit Russell championed, as well as engage in a series of enquiries about identity and its relevance to the debate we’re having. One young Englishman currently studying in Arkansas asked, in a deeply considered manner, why as a unionist he should accept having to stand by and watch his United Kingdom dissolve without having a say. Yours truly pressed the Education Secretary on Scottish Studies and the Curriculum for Excellence, and how he responds to accusations of parochialism generally.

On both counts, Mike Russell was assured. In response to my question, (I’m paraphrasing) he stressed his belief that to be an internationalist, you have to first be a nationalist; to take your place on the world stage, you have to first know what place it is you are taking. On response to the Arkansas scholar, he countered with his assertion that identity is a malleable concept, that it cannot be taken from you any more by a state anymore than one can be imposed upon you. You are what you are. My American colleagues had some pretty thoughtful things to say about this argument – not least the fact that they can simultaneously be, say, a Tennessean and an American – but what struck me was their complete lack of suspicion in how they framed their questions. They were asking honestly, even sceptically, for Russell to justify his claims, but there was no hint of the inherit narrowed-eyes scorn that I think infects the discourse levelled at the SNP.

This has led me to offer a theory about Scottish unionism that I believe isn’t totally skewed by my own ardent nationalism, and instead has some empirical basis. Many unionists are driven by what I will term the “A-ha! Paradigm”. By this, I mean they are consistently, determinedly, obsessively looking for the inherent cravenness in the SNP’s push for independence that they believe must be there. They see Alex Salmond’s discussion of devo-max and think, “Aye, he just wants to have a fall-back option”. They see Mike Russell discuss the social union and think, “Aye, they’re just trying to make it seem like they’re not anti-English”. They see Alex Neil talk about a community-based campaign and think “Aye, but they’re funded by millionaires, so that’s all a smokescreen”.

Some examples of the “A-ha! Paradigm” include Ken MacIntosh’s insistence that Scottish Studies being added to the curriculum was an attempt by the SNP to brainwash schoolchildren, while Johann Lamont’s attacks on Salmond over Rupert Murdoch make it clear for all to see that she believes this was the secret to the SNP’s obviously-anomalous win in May last year. It betrays an attitude in unionist ranks that if they can just find a way to puncture the rhetoric of independence, they’ll reveal an empty shell underneath. The fact that this hasn’t really happened, despite recent bloviating on the SNP’s “lack of detail” on a post-independence Scotland, is illustrative only of these politicians – and political commentators – own craven assumptions about how government should be conducted.

Of course, this isn’t confined to unionists. Many nationalists – for example, Joan MacAlpine or James Kelly, in my opinion – also subscribe to this paradigm. Like most unionists, they present every tiny flaw in their opponents plans as somehow evident of a massive scam that is deceiving the Scottish people. But it’s definitely most prevalent in the Labour and Tory parties in Scotland, who seize on every little thing – from school dinners to the Dalai Lama – as the domino that, if toppled, will prove decisive. I mostly omit the Lib Dems because I see signs in Willie Rennie’s leadership that they’ve absorbed at least some of the lessons of 2011.

Mike Russell kiboshed a few of these on Friday, particular on the EU and on passports, questions asked by scholars from European nations, incidentally. But he made it clear his contempt for the constant, obsessive desire to find and expose the probably-there-if-we-shout-loudly-enough flaw in the independence argument. He instead insisted that it’s simply not credible to say independence wouldn’t work, that Scotland can’t do it, and that anyone who argues that should be treated derisively. I tend to agree, and would go further. There is no question that Scotland could be independent, and prosperously so. But there are questions as to whether it should, and definite flaws in some not-yet-fully-formed SNP positions on issues. Those should be fair game for critics, and treated as such. But it would be nice if such criticisms are devoid of the conspiratorial tenor of the “A-ha! Paradigm”.

If you want to know what Devo Max is, just look at the Faroe Islands

Jun 20

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Governance, International | 6 Comments

Another Scandinavian-themed guest today, gratefully received from Dom Hinde, a Scots Green activist and doctoral student in Scandinavian Studies at the University of Edinburgh who has blogged with us before.

When you count down the list of European colonial powers, and consider the various past misdemeanours of Britain, France, Portugal and Belgium to name but a few, it is likely that most people will miss Denmark off from the list.

Our cuddly social-democratic neighbour to the east, producer of gritty crime dramas beloved by the middle class cultural consumers who watch BBC 4 and living standards that draw loving glances across the North Sea from Holyrood and Westminster alike, is still that most outdated of institutions – a European colonial power.

They say that the sun never set on the British empire, but for six months of the year at least this was also true of the Danes, who had the North Atlantic sewn up through their dominion over the Faroes, Iceland and Greenland on the Arctic rim throughout the same period.

Iceland took the step to full independence after the second world war, in part because the conflict had cut it off from its colonial master , making it difficult for the Danes to re-establish control. The Faroe Islands however remained part of the Kingdom of Denmark, obtaining a form of self-government which gave them control over domestic affairs. The majority of foreign policy, defence and policing is reserved to Copenhagen, and the islands still collect a generous subsidy each year from Denmark, the reasons for which are open to debate depending on whether you consider yourself a Faroese unionist or a nationalist.

The other night in Thorshavn, the Faroes’ diminuitive capital with more than a shade of Lerwick about it, I ended up at a concert and poetry evening in support of independence, organised under the auspices of the Leftist Green Tjóðveldi (Republic) party. Of the four main parties in the Faroes, there are left- and right-wing versions of both the unionist and independence movements. Much as is the case in Scotland, the social-democratic and conservative parties favour staying with Denmark whilst the Green Leftists and the centre-right nationalist People’s Party Fólkaflokkurin favour dissolution of the union for democratic and nationalistic reasons respectively.

The high degree of devolution enjoyed by the Faroese means that, on the ground at least, you get the impression of being in a fully independent country, aided by the existence of a national football team and a unique language. Sound familiar? What is more complex, however, is the effect which the current devolution settlement has on the country. Unionists point to the generous government grants from Copenhagen as being vital to the nation’s survival, whilst nationalists argue that such handouts and the restrictions of economic aid mean that the islands are unable and unwilling to seize control of their own future. The Faroes are not without their problems, and there exists real poverty and stagnation in certain parts of the country.

Furthermore, the nature of the kind of specific devolution offered to Scotland and the Faroes undermines any idea of an equitable union. The other regions of Denmark enjoy nowhere near as much power as the Faroese (The Faroe Islands are part of the Kingdom of Denmark but not the Danish State). The use of the Danish Krone for example is problematic for the Faroes, it being tied to the Euro and geared toward maintaining a balance of trade between mainland Denmark and Germany, despite the Faroes themselves not being part of the EU. I have always been of the opinion that any solution which sees Scotland remaining in the UK must also involve a fundamental restructuring of British politics so as to offer the four Home Nations equal power on an equal footing for democratic reasons.

Radically deeper devolution does, however, have its advantages. It has allowed the Faroes to reach a point where they can debate independence knowing full well what it entails, rather than the Scottish model of being asked to jump from a severely limited legislative parliament to an as yet unspecified vision of independence. I was intrigued to see that Alex Salmond has committed an independent Scotland to a cut in corporation tax, something which he has no right or authority to promise given that he may not even be First Minister in four years time and cannot do it at present. As the Faroes show, devo max is not a solution to the independence debate, but it does provide an arena in which the question of self-determination does not become a referendum on the popularity and wisdom of a 57-year old white male.

Keeping in touch with Auntie after independence

Jun 19

Posted by James in Constitution, Media | 20 Comments

Some in the independence camp have got a bit of a bee in their bonnet about the BBC, with such luminaries as Pete Wishart describing the corporation as the “institutional enemy” of independence. It will, he said, need to be replaced with a new SBC that can buy in £50-75m worth of BBC content a year. Newsnet Scotland’s attitude to the Beeb, similarly, is akin to the Daily Mail’s attitude to gay asylum-seeking carcinogens. Even the First Minister himself has played this game, invoking Godwin’s law by implying his own removal from a rugby commentary slot was so far up the scale of misbehaviour that we would normally associate it with the Nazis.

And to be fair, the BBC’s approach to anything non-metropolitan is often poor, and sometimes it does feel very partisan. Their treatment of the SNP during the 2010 leaders’ debates was unacceptable, for instance, although full equality would have been inappropriate for viewers outside Scotland. And it’s not just them: Greens can tell you a tonne of such stories. As just one illustration, on election day itself in 2007 the lunchtime news showed pictures of a certain Robin Harper voting while a voiceover intoned that he was only there for the cameras, having voted by post some days earlier. Could we get someone to correct this baseless nonsense even in time for the teatime news? We could not. Irritating. On a more minor but telling note, they were right to fix the infamous weather map tilt back in 2005, the most directly graphical illustration of a skewed agenda.

And yet I cannot agree with the SNP’s solution, just as I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theory that their anti-BBC attitudes are some kind of quid pro quo with the Evil One. I do not want an independent Scotland to cut itself off from the BBC and set up a new organisation instead, especially not one if it’s one that trades indy-scepticism for partisan political loyalty. I recognise the bathwater but I also value the baby.

Sure, Good Morning Scotland is essential listening during Scottish elections, despite its obsession with weather and travel reports, and I regard Newsnight Scotland as first-class if cramped (and I’d also rather it didn’t clash with what’s often the most interesting 20 minutes of the network edition), but their focus is necessarily narrower, less internationally-minded. Do we really want an SBC replacement for the remainder of Newsnight to have to staff foreign bureaux, including one to cover rUK news like just another outpost, or to have to try and replace Paul Mason or Susan Watts? I don’t.

After independence I would like to watch a Question Time that covers Scotland more, not less, and listen to a Today programme that deals with Scottish issues properly as well as providing excellent global coverage. Some of this can be achieved very easily now. As a start, they could use their own staff on the ground more for network news, for example, i.e. going to Brian Taylor or David Miller for comment on UK-wide programming rather than a separate Scotland correspondent.

Leaving the news and current affairs side for things I know less about, do we want to have to pay for more Scottish drama and other content as well as paying the BBC for what they do best? Wouldn’t it be better to see the BBC take a more radical approach and give more power and more channel access to their “nations and regions” instead?

BBC management couldn’t continue with the status quo if there’s a yes vote, clearly. An independent Scotland that retained that link would need to be a spur to the corporation to look at alternative models of management, structures that better reflect the growing diversity of their audiences. They should do so anyway, whatever the outcome of the referendum, not least because they’re competing with a revitalised and increasingly confident STV, an STV that’s expanding its hyperlocal services and doing well by doing so. A less constrained digital network gives the BBC the space to up their game accordingly. The right answer is not what would truly be separation, just as it isn’t for rail infrastructure or the electricity grid: it’s surely something more like devo max for BBC Scotland, or even that old Liberal solution, federalism.

Come on Dave, let’s haggle

Jun 14

Posted by James in Constitution, Defence, Holyrood, Westminster | 11 Comments

UK Minister Nick Harvey (why do so many coalition Ministers sound like posh shops?) floated the idea yesterday that a post-independence Scotland might tolerate handing over Faslane to the rump UK so they can continue their nefarious and implausibly expensive nuclear hobbies unhindered. The comparison was made to Guantanamo, America’s torture base on Cuba by disputed permanent lease.

It’s no wonder UK Ministers are considering it, too: the costs of decommissioning would be enormous (and UK Ministers want Scots to bear a proportion: thanks, but no), and as was reported earlier this year, there is no plausible English, Welsh or Northern Irish base for Trident and any post-Trident subs.

Pleasing as it is to see the coalition taking independence seriously, many Scots inside and outside the SNP think this sounds about perfect. We chuck Trident out and Westminster has nowhere to put it. An independent Scotland would be able to do what Scotland has never achieved within the Union: deliver a disarmed British Isles. And obviously that’s my preference too. What a great first contribution as an independent nation that would be.

That having been said, how daft is the exclave idea? They’re surprisingly common around the world. Some are exclaves within exclaves. The map above shows, amongst other things, an Indian exclave within a Pakistani exclave within an Indian exclave within Pakistan. It’d be like leaving Faslane within the UK, but keeping the mess-hall Scottish, except the kitchen, which’d also be part of the UK. Let’s not do that.

But if we did for some reason have to swallow this unpleasant idea, it’d also be a massive bargaining chip. What would it be worth to the rump UK to be able to keep its massive penis substitute afloat? As I found myself discussing with a Labour-supporting friend this morning, perhaps we could swap it for a bit of England or Wales? Berwick-upon-Tweed is a bit obvious, and besides they’ll probably join an independent Scotland of their own accord at some point anyway.

We agreed that some sun and sea might be nice, but that Blackpool was maybe not far enough south to get best value. Bournemouth might be an easier ask than Brighton, perhaps, although Brighton is as far as I know the only part of England to have been represented by an SNP Councillor. Perhaps they’d vote to join us: we wouldn’t want just to annex them, after all.

Given the multi-billion pound value of this theoretical swap, though, why not aim high? There are a fair few Cornish who would like to be independent: perhaps we could invite them to join an alternative union across the British Isles? Maybe the Welsh would feel happier partnering with us at that point too..

Getting women on board

Jun 14

Posted by Kirsty in Equality | 22 Comments

This morning Labour MSP Jenny Marra called on the Scottish Government to set quotas for women’s representation on the boards of public bodies.

Her amendment to the Police and Fire Reform Bill, setting out that the board of the new single police service should consist of a minimum of 40% women and 40% men, was rejected at committee stage by the SNP and Conservatives.

In the debate today, Marra said: “Gender equality at boardroom level is unlikely to happen organically in the next 13 years unless we take bigger and bolder steps to make it happen.”

34% of public appointments in Scotland in 2011/12 were held by women, but with significant gender imbalances within organisations: as quoted by Marra, the board of sportscotland is 78% male.

The Scottish Government appears keen to make progress in improving women’s representation in public life, if perhaps not to the extent of quotas.  According to Sports Minister Shona Robison:  “It is patronising to assume that there aren’t equal numbers of equally suitable male and female candidates, and it is worse than patronising to assume that the best candidate just happened to turn out to be male on so many occasions. Public appointments have seen some good progress being made over the years but it is not enough.”

The Scottish Government’s response is to hold an open event hosted by the Scottish Government and supported by the Public Appointments Commissioner to review the progress of the Diversity Delivers strategy.

Many European countries are looking at following the example of Scandinavian nations, in introducing quotas to improve the representation of women on public and private boards. The Westminster government has an aspiration that by 2015, 50% of new appointments to public bodies will be women. In the private sector, companies are working towards a voluntary target, introduced by Lord Davies in 2011, to increase the percentage of women on FTSE 100 boards to 25% from 12.5%.

Norway introduced legislation in 2003 to set 40% quotas for women on boards. The proposed legislation caused a great deal of public debate in Norway, with opponents arguing such measures would be unfair to men,  that private companies should be free to appoint who they like, and that more competent men would be replaced with less able women.

According to Aagoth Storvik, who conducted the study Women on Board into the Norwegian experience together with Mari Teigan, “It is surprising because when the quota was introduced it created a lot of debate, especially from people in the business sector, who were critical of the reform. But after the reform went into force almost nobody seemed to object, hardly anybody is writing about it in the newspapers any more or telling us about negative experiences.” Further research published in 2012 indicates the changes are not an economic burden.

Earlier this year, the EU urged businesses to consider affirmative action to voluntarily improve women’s representation on boards, in order to demonstrate that compulsory targets will not be necessary. Storvik and Teigen’s findings demonstrated that without the compulsory order being imposed Norwegian boards only made modest improvements in representation. But Shona Robison is right to note in the debate in Holyrood that there is no consensus on the issue.

Like Jean Stephens, the chief executive of RSM International, I believe quotas are a ‘necessary evil’ to make the change in boardroom culture we need. According to Stephens, “Proposals for European-level legislation to set binding targets for Women on Boards is both welcome and essential. Equality within the boardroom is drastically lagging and realistic quotas are a necessary evil to kick-start the changes needed to create a correct level of diversity.”

Representation, especially on public bodies, should reflect society. That means public boards need to include people from all parts of the community, and women are not a minority in that. I believe quotas work, and it would have been both brave and the right thing to do for the SNP to introduce them to the new single police board. Nonetheless, I hope in moving forward from Marra’s call today, the Scottish Government will reflect on how a better and more equal Scottish state needs more women to be at the table, and how that they as the government have the powers to make that happen.