Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Why is Scotland’s constitution off the agenda?

May 22

Posted by James in Constitution, Holyrood | 91 Comments

It might seem like an odd question. Isn’t that all we’re going to be talking about for the next 880 days? The trouble is we’re only talking about whether Scotland should be an independent state. And that’s really only the most basic issue. If the essay question says “discuss the American Constitution”, just writing “um, they’re independent?” gets you precisely zero marks.

The UK currently has no single codified constitution – although the Scotland Acts and the Parliament Acts are regarded as constitutional documents, and some would argue, so too are even famous commentaries on the constitution. Assuming an independent Scotland improves upon this unclear arrangement, a few key questions arise. Who drafts the constitution and when? Who approves it and when? What does it contain and how can it be modified?

This isn’t some dry set of issues for constitutional academics. The answers to those questions, plus the text of a final constitution itself, would determine how decisions are made in an independent Scotland, potentially in broad terms for generations to come. Although what decisions are made is the policy arena, not the constitutional one, the two  interact powerfully as well. A constitution that enshrines tough rules on access to government information will tend to make decisions on the assumption they will be properly scrutinised, for example, while one that retains the hereditary principle will tend to protect vested interests.

In an ideal world, we would have a government committed to popular control of the whole process, something I made an argument for almost a year ago, involving the Scottish people in the process before the vote, so they have their say on the question, the offer, not just the answer. That looks like it’s not going to happen. In fact, the SNP already know what the constitution will be, because they wrote it almost a decade ago. The full (short) text of their Constitution for A Free Scotland is here. I’ve been unable to track down a 2011 version referred to online, so that’s the best I’ve got to go on.

And it’s dire. It describes a Scotland I do not wish to see birthed in October 2014. The hereditary principle is enshrined, for a start, lumbering us with “Queen Elizabeth and her successors“, and as head of state she “shall be responsible for the exercise of all lawful governmental functions in Scotland” upon the advice of Ministers. If Parliament doesn’t pick a First Minister, that power then also lies with the Queen, who can choose to dissolve Parliament instead if she likes. Really? Even to authors writing in 2002 should that not have felt about a hundred years out of date?

Article II paragraph 7 also requires every single tax-generating power to be renewed every eighteen months. It’s a Taxpayers’ Alliance wet dream – the argument for every tax on income, wealth, sin or profit has to be won again every cycle.

It’s also totally out of date, even in terminology. The Presiding Officer is described as “the Chancellor of Scotland” for purposes of regency. I said “First Minister” above, but actually we’re to replace that with “Prime Minister“. Maybe, but I’m not sure there’s a need. A by-election is required to fill a vacancy at Holyrood, irrespective of whether it’s for a list or constituency MSP – have our unelected constitutional framers decided to move away from the current electoral system, which, it should be noted, was already in use when this bizarre document was drafted? Actually, they don’t specify the form of PR to be used. That’s up to the Government. Perhaps you find that reassuring. I do not, given the shocking ballot-paper fiddle Westminster Labour imposed on Holyrood in 2007.

And many other key decisions are taken for us. Should we have a second revising Chamber in an independent Scotland? The framers say no. I’m relatively neutral on the subject, depending on the other structures around the main Chamber. But shouldn’t that be something considered by more than a few high heedjins of the SNP behind closed doors? Likewise, do we really want to see judges appointed for life?

Or a Scotland which permits the death penalty during war or during imminent threat of war? Is this brave new nation of ours to be one where the rights conferred by the constitution can be ignored if the purpose is the imposition of “restrictions on the political activities of aliens“? I repeat, this constitution would permit restrictions on political activities only of “aliens“. A list of other exemptions also apply to these protections, including “the prevention of crime or civil disorder“. There would be no limit, effectively, to a Blair/Brown-style disregard for civil liberties, and any protest whatsoever could be clamped down upon in the name of public safety or order.

Bulmer’s admirable and constructive 2011 paper “An Analysis of the Scottish National Party’s Draft Constitution for Scotland” flags up a series of other problems. There’s nothing in this bizarre tract on parties, the impartiality of the civil service, or votes of confidence, and Bulmer also raises concerns about the ability of Ministers to interfere with the electoral system. Across the issue of the appointment and removal of “Prime Ministers”, he notes that “the draft Constitution appears as a retrograde step when compared with the Scotland Act“.

Overall, Bulmer says, “the draft Constitution appears not only much less radical than at first sight, but also much less technically competent that it ought to be“, and inherits much from the first draft, written in 1977, when “much of the work was done by small groups of friends in late-night whisky sessions“. That might be understandable in the 1970s, when independence was quite the cranky fringe project, but times have changed, and as Bulmer says, “fewer excuses can be made for the 2002 version. The draft Constitution reads as if the Claim of Right, the Scotland Act and the Consultative Steering Group, had never existed.”

The general problem here is that this is the kind of dross people cook up when the public aren’t involved. And it doesn’t have to be like that, even at this stage, despite the year the SNP majority government has just wasted, including on a limited consultation that didn’t touch on any of these issues.

There’s still time for a commitment to an open Iceland-style constitutional process. A pledge that a successful yes vote will not just lead to Scottish Ministers haggling with UK Ministers, it’ll lead to the Scottish people being asked what kind of new and, dare I say it, better nation they want to live in. A promise that they’ll get to ratify their work in another referendum, something that wouldn’t have been necessary if the last year had seen Ministers launch an open and participatory process, rather than another top-down elite project. If time isn’t found by the SNP leadership to make those basic commitments they will instead make a wide variety of rods for the collective backs of those of us who are committed to genuine independence.

Every time a member of the Yoonyonisht Conshpirashy finds themselves on a doorstep with a waverer, this approach gives them a perfect excuse to pour the voter’s worst fears into their ears. “Want the Queen? Don’t want the Queen? The SNP aren’t giving you a choice. It’s take it or leave it. Want to see an open constitutional process? Forget it. They don’t trust you. It’s a pig in a poke.” That’s the sort of poison this approach hands the defenders of the unaccountable and apparently unreformable Westminster system. In fact, as my esteemed colleague Aidan pointed out to me, is that any switch from the Queen will in fact be harder if a first referendum of the SNP’s preferred sort has been won, predicated as it appears to be on retaining the hereditary principle.

Instead let’s open the doors and let the people in. This is an extraordinary opportunity, most likely the only one I will see in my lifetime. We should have the chance to create a Scotland fit for our ambitions and our optimistic imagination, yet if there is no change of tack then that opportunity risks foundering on the arrogance of this SNP administration.

Let’s do something to stop the Glasgow subway photo ban

May 21

Posted by Guest Blog in Crime, Local government | 8 Comments

Thanks to Caron Lindsay for today’s guest post. Caron’s a Lib Dem activist, she blogs at Caron’s Musings and at Lib Dem Voice, and she’s here on Twitter.

So, you’re on the Glasgow subway with some friends and one of them does something cute or funny or otherwise worth recording for posterity. You take out your phone to capture the moment…..

What should happen next is….nothing. Life should go on as normal. However, if Strathclyde Partnership for Transport gets its way, new bye-laws could mean that you’re on a slippery slope to a £1000 fine. The operator has put their new proposals out for consultation and they include the controversial clause 12.1:

Passengers must not take photographs, or make video audio or visual recordings on any part of the subway.

There is a get out clause – but it involves you obtaining the written permission of SPT in advance. So much for spontaneity.

This brings to mind the situation under the last Labour Westminster Government when amateur photographers were apprehended by police under the controversial Section 44 of the Terrorism Act. This report from the Independent summarises how people innocently taking photographs of public buildings, tourist attractions and even a fish and chip shop found themselves being stopped and searched. By and large, although the law applied in Scotland, it was largely ignored. I wrote in 2010 that while over 200,000 people had been stopped south of the border, only 79 searches had been recorded here.

I always tend to take the view that if an authority is given a power, it will use it. That’s why we need to make sure that any powers they have are both necessary and proportionate. Why, then, do SPT want this photo ban? According to Amateur Photographer, SPT said:

Our company policy has always been that consent must be sought prior to any photography taking place, and this is in line with security restrictions at any major transport hub, including railway stations, airports etc.

It also allows us to ensure that any such activity does not disrupt the operations of the network in any way.

How on earth the group of friends in my example could potentially disrupt the operation of the network in any way is beyond me.

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie was quick to condemn the proposals:

Whichever bright spark came up with this needs to be told to drop it. This kind of nonsense distracts from the real fight against crime and terrorism.

We have seen what happened in the past under the old Labour government. People were  arrested under terrorism laws for wearing t-shirts lampooning Tony Blair or for shouting ‘nonsense’ at a conference. Strathclyde needs some strong liberal voices to shout ‘nonsense’ at this plan.

On Twitter, Education Secretary Mike Russell described the plan as “Utterly daft.”

I’m sure that many people who aren’t involved in politics will agree that this restriction is ridiculous.

It doesn’t have to be this way

Happily, there is something we can do about this. If you agree with me and the many others on Twitter yesterday who thought the proposal is a piece of nonsense, you can respond to the consultation on it and the rest of the bye-laws by 15th June.

The photography ban is only the tip of the iceberg. Some of the other proposed  bye-laws, also carrying a potential £1000 fine for their breach, are equally questionable. Failing to report lost property to a member of staff, singing, using musical equipment in a way which might annoy a reasonable person, being drunk (which isn’t defined, but may well apply to a fair few people taking the subway home on a weekend night) or going the wrong way up or down an escalator all carry the same penalty. So does trying to get on a train before the last person has left and trying to jump the queue. These things can be rude, but deserving of a four figure fine?

Truly dangerous acts, like going onto the track, have the same penalty as the petty, which is a ridiculous state of affairs.

Have a read of the proposed rules here and make sure you send your response to the consultation by 15th June. It needs to go to:

FAO: Joanne Gray
Glasgow Subway Byelaws Consultation
Transport Policy Directorate
Area 2 D North
Victoria Quay
EDINBURGH
EH6 6QQ

or e-mail joanneDOTgrayATtransportscotlandDOTgsiDOTgovDOTuk

Subway Snap-In

Such authoritarian proposals are crying out to have fun poked at them. A few of us were discussing on Twitter yesterday that we should encourage everyone to take as many photos as they can on the subway over the next few weeks and post them on Twitter, using #subwaysnapin. I’ve created a Facebook page as well. Be as creative as you can. Add in a campaign slogan or placard if you like, but let’s show off a Glasgow institution at its best.

(photo credit)

Time to help Scotland’s male politicians with their election problems

May 19

Posted by Guest Blog in Gender, Holyrood, Parties | 11 Comments

A very welcome guest post today from Lena Wångren and Dominic Hinde. Dominic is a Scots Green activist and doctoral student in Scandinavian Studies at the University of Edinburgh. Lena is a post-doctoral researcher at the department of English Literature at the University of Edinburgh. She is originally from Stockholm and has been active in feminist campaigning in both Sweden and Scotland.

Looking back at the Scottish local elections, it is appalling to see just how male-dominated Scottish politics (and public life) is. There was husting upon husting without a single female candidate from any of Scotland’s more established political parties, and the SNP in particular were frustratingly male. In hindsight this is hardly surprising given the macho personality politics upon which Alex Salmond has built the SNP.

Then, the week after the election, people in social media (women included) were casually tossing around phrases such as ‘unionist witch’ to describe Johann Lamont and Margaret Curran. Just imagine if those words hadn’t been aimed at women but at someone from an ethnic minority. South of the border, and in a different context, backbench Tory MP Louise Mensch suffered even more violent sexist abuse via Twitter because of her defence of Rupert Murdoch. She may support an enemy of a free press, but the people who ganged up on her from the safety of their smartphones should not be welcome in any political forum. Now we’re fans of neither the Scottish Labour Party nor the SNP, just before we get accused of being partisan, in part because neither party seem aware that Scotland needs a new and proactive feminism in order to break down barriers for women, increase opportunities in some areas for men, and to generally move on to create the ‘beacon of progressiveness’ which the First Minister claims it is our manifest destiny to become.

When was the last time anyone stood up in the chamber at Holyrood and declared that they were a feminist? Who is brave enough to say that feminism is not a historical phenomenon but more current than ever in its potential to change society for the better? Not big Eck for sure.

Domestic violence, shared maternity and paternity leave, sexual assault, academic and employment opportunities, sexual and family health and economic performance are all areas in which a robust and progressive feminist politics can help to make Scotland a better place. And implicitly grounded in all these issues is a potential destabilising of the rigid gender roles that restrict us as individuals. Politics is about policy, but it is also about creating the social debates which allow those policies to succeed. It is about changing the mindset of the establishment to the extent that feminism is seen as a public good and not just a fringe interest. In the same way that the growth of the Greens has brought environmentalism in from the fringes to the centre, we hope that they might do the same with gender politics.

The Greens would appear ready-made for taking a more central stage in discussions regarding gender equality in Scotland, with their policy of having a male and a female co-convenor. Something which we would like to see more of is both Patrick Harvie and Martha Wardrop appearing and debating together, as is the case with their counterparts in Sweden.

Likewise, if Cameronite Swedish conservative leader Fredrik Reinfeldt, along with many leaders of the other main parties, can stand up in Parliament and feel obliged to at least pay lip service to the movement, then so can Holyrood.

The Greens do however face a great challenge in bringing gender equality on top of the agenda as the situation here is rather different than in Sweden. Both countries have long histories of labour and women’s movements, but the focus on gender has been left behind in the UK. There is a significant difference in how the public discourse approaches feminism. In the UK, the term ‘feminist’ is often considered a derogatory label, falsely seen as implying an ideology in which women should be posited above men. (We have yet to meet one single feminist who identifies their politics in terms of women’s supposed superiority.) In Sweden however, the term feminist is taken for what it is – a struggle for gender equality, through which people of all genders will benefit.

Furthermore, while in the UK we sometimes see a biologically essentialist claim to feminism -the idea that ‘only women can be feminists’-, in Sweden there is no requirement to identifying as a feminist beyond a support for the aims of the same rights for all, male or female.  And feminism is indeed for everyone. In Sweden, a robust feminist politics has created equal parental leave (one and a half years in total, to be divided between the parents irrespective of their sex), affordable and pedagogical nurseries with highly educated staff, political representation of women which has steadily increased since the early twentieth century (the ratio in the Swedish Parliament is currently 45 percent women and 55 percent men). Rather than having to defend your feminism, in Sweden you might have to defend why you do not identify as one.

There is major potential for a Green feminist politics in Scotland. Presently, there is not one single party in Holyrood that explicitly espouses feminist policies, or even has a particular section of their politics based around gender equality. There may exist a ‘Labour Women’ group, but the party itself has not lately been speaking up for gender equality. The progressive libertarians in the Lib Dems aren’t exactly chomping at the bit to take a stand either, and even though the Greens have ‘equality’ as one of their main focuses – gender equality seems to have gone missing of late.In the latest Green manifesto, the term ‘gender’ was used only once .The term ‘feminist’ was entirely absent.

We want to create a Scotland which is more equal, democratic and environmentally responsible. An innovative feminist agenda is an important component in this, and the Greens should be the party to take it forward. They have time and time again proven themselves to be capable of innovation and ideas far and above their resources and representation, and we sincerely hope that the growth of the Greens coincides with a sea change in our country’s appreciation of feminist politics.

The Problem with Political Jokes

May 16

Posted by Kirsty in Democracy, Parties | 1 Comment

The peril of every politician is the heckler. Despite the security of spin, handpicked television audiences and packing the front rows of your conference with student politicos primed to applaud like performing seals, stick a politician out in public, and someone’s bound to shout something, at some point, that sticks.

Poor Theresa May, heckled and jeered during this week’s Police Federation Conference in Bournemouth. Her speech, defending 20% cuts, ended in silence. Awkward.

Pity too Andrew Lansley, who was also heckled this week, not his first time, thanks to Mrs Hautot, but this time at the Royal College of Nurses conference as he struggled to state the correct number of nurses cut from the NHS frontline by the coalition. And it’s not just Tories who generate the nurses’ ire – Patricia Hewitt was notably heckled twice in one week by healthcare workers when Health Secretary back in 2006.

Trade union conferences do seem the domain of the heckler. Less to do with the origins of the word ‘heckler’ from some stroppy jute workers in Dundee. More probably thanks to an audience freer from the controls which can be exerted by political parties at their own respective conferences. Vince Cable was booed at last year’s GMB conference. Nick Gibb was too at the Association of Teachers and Lecturers’ conference in 2011.

And it’s not just the coalition – Ed Miliband’s first address as Labour leader to the TUC saw heckles shouted and hackles raised after he called public sector pension strikes ‘a mistake’. Luckily for Ed, the same RCN conference that jeered at Lansley this week granted him a standing ovation.

In his brief history of heckling, Michael White bemoans that the art of political heckling has all but disappeared, with what is described as heckling of politicans today really being “more of an organised verbal assault: anger, not wit; abuse, not tempered outrage; a blunt instrument, not a rapier.”

Indeed, in all the examples above, there’s not a single witty one liner of the type a decent stand-up can transform from bellow to banter. Even Walter Wolfgang, disgustingly manhandled and evicted from Labour Party Conference in 2005, merely had the gumption to shout “nonsense” at Jack Straw.

I suspect today that the Statlers and Waldorfs are all too busy being clever on Twitter. But no matter. Even if heckling isn’t the fine witty art it once was in the days of public meetings (and do go back to White’s brief history for some cracking examples), it can still have an impact.

Nobody’s career has ever been destroyed by a heckler (no doubt someone will prove me wrong in the comments but it’s worth remembering if you’re a candidate and have a sticky moment); incidents do however serve as an audio litmus test of how a politician is being received.

Any hopes Tony Blair might have of returning to a more active role in British politics should be humbled by the boos of his own party to mention of his name. I would suspect, should Cameron’s much-anticipated reshuffle be shuffled along soon, May and Lansley will be among those being slow-clapped off the stage.

P.S. The punchline to the title is, of course, that they get elected.

Labour, tuition fees and all that hard to listen to acid jazz

May 15

Posted by Aidan in Holyrood | 74 Comments

So, leaving aside the fact that Johann Lamont didn’t actually change policy at the Fabians on Saturday, something the SNP; Newsnet and others seem to be willfully ignoring in their haste to get back on the attack, is even looking at how education funding works in the round a heretical betrayal of some deeply held core principles? I’m going to finish of my degree with a return to philosophy so I thought I’d take what I covered about ethics previously and apply it here but tldr: QTWAIN

Let’s start with some premises:

P1. Education is a public good – society as a whole benefits from an educated populace.

P2. Education is a right – everybody has a right to an appropriate level of education (this is currently universal, compulsory and free up to 16).

Given P1 and P2 it seems both sensible and ethically correct that there should be state funding for further and higher education. In fact, given those, it seems the logical position is to provide as much education as possible for everybody for as long as they want.

Sadly, we must also live with a further premise:

P3. Being in full time education limits current earning potential

One of the reasons I’m studying at the OU is because it means I don’t have to compromise work – there isn’t a great deal of part time work out there for computer programmers. For other people, in other circumstances to me, it makes sense for them to study full-time.

P4. Some people do not have sufficient support to study on part-time earnings

Being at university incurs living costs such as rent, food, clothes, transport as well as books and other materials. While some people may receive support from family, partners etc this is not always possible or sufficient.

Given premises P1-4 we should offer free education to all along with sufficient support to ensure people have a decent standard of living while doing so, perhaps topped up with the sort of part-time, insecure, low wage work generally available to them.

Speaking of money, let’s add a final premise to make this more realistic:

P5. Education budgets are tightly constrained.

This reflects the reality there there is not, unfortunately, an especially large pot of money available. Personally, I’d love to bring back the grant and offer free PhDs to everyone who wanted to do one and was deemed capable. That isn’t on offer from anyone AFAIK, not Labour, not the SNP, not even the Greens.

Given those premises, how can we judge education funding policy? I would argue that P1 and P2 taken together suggest the following corollary:

C1. the greatest number of people who are able to benefit from education are able to do so.

Since education is a public good society benefits and since education is a right society has an obligation to provide it as best it can (rights often come into conflict, so this is often a less than straightforward issue).

Given C1, let us consider some possible schemes that divvy up £1,000,000 (P5) in the budget different ways, with each course costing £10k to deliver £5k of living costs (P3 and P4) and a population of eligible students who would benefit from education and want to do so. 20 will go to university even if they have to pay full fees and full costs (eg. the rich), 100 will go to university if they can get loans to defer fees and costs and 100 will only go to university if they can pay no fees and get help with costs.

S1. No state funding for university education.

This is an extreme example of the situation in the US where everything is paid for the by student through loans or philanthropic grants, bursaries, scholarships etc. Quite clearly violates P1 and P2, let’s move on.

S2. Subsidised loans for fees and living costs costing govt 2% per annum

This is analogous to the situation in England & Wales at the moment. Students on the vast majority of courses pay for the whole of their tuition and are given access to subsidised loans and some bursaries to help defer living costs.  It doesn’t quite violate P1 or P2 as there is some attempt at helping, there’s enough money to provide 3333 places but on this model only 120 people want to go. The other 100 are priced out by the system

S3. State funding for course fees, loans for living costs at 2% per annum

This is close to the situation in Scotland. Scottish students do not pay tuition fees and are given subsidised loans to help defer living costs. On this model there are 99 places available, so 31 people who want to go to university are excluded and 100 who would benefit think it’s “not for them”.

S4. Fees for those willing to pay them, subsidised loans living costs for the rest

This is an optimised version of the above – the 20 students who would be willing & able to pay for their education in totality fund another 20 places for a total of 118 and so only 12 who want to take out loans to go to university are excluded and the other 100 are still left out in the cold on princple. Better, but obviously room for improvement.

S5. Full fees and costs for those willing to pay them, subsidised loans for fees and support for those who will go if they can get them and full support for the others on a round robin basis.

This is a perfectly spherical education system operating in a frictionless vacuum with an omniscient and omni-benevolent God means testing system. 20 people go to university and cost the state nothing. There’s £1,000,000 to divvy up between the 100 who require loans and 100 who require full support. Apportioning the funding on a round robin basis to one member of each support-requiring group results in there being 78 places. This is fewer than the 119 above however everybody who could benefit from education wants to.

S6. Full fees and costs for those willing to pay them, subsidised loans for all who would take them and the rest of the budget allocated to full support.

Adjusting S5 to provide the maximum number of places by apportioning funding first to those who only require loans and then to those who require full support yields 184 places with nobody deterred from going on the basis of cost but some of those who most require support excluded due to insufficient funds. That’s harsh, and I’d stress I’m not advocating this or any of the other schemes as an actual policy, but it does provide the greatest number of places and illustrate my fundamental point: an appropriately formulated policy can meet premises P1 and P2 given the constraints of P3 and P4.

Rather than having a free for all accusing me of being a member of the Labour party (hiya R.G) I’d ask folk to limit themselves to challenging the premises, the corollary I assert flows from them and the way they’re applied to the scenarios presented. Egregious errors in my calculations will also be accepted, albeit grudgingly.

That’s really all a long winded way of saying that education funding is a complex, nuanced area with a lot of things to consider when formulating policy. A simplistic stance of “no tuition fees” without considering the affect that has on access and inclusion is not really a principle unless you’re prepared to prioritise platonic characteristics of your system over those characteristics as the inevitably imperfect education system is actually implemented.

The spreadsheet used to calculate the above examples is available here (Edit: now in Excel format). Please download it, it will mean you’re even more tedious than I am and I’d really appreciate that.