Better Nation

To fly Ryanair is to dance with the devil

Apr 12

Posted by Jeff in Transport | 22 Comments

On the face of it, the news today that Ryanair are cutting air links from Edinburgh is bad news. Less holiday destinations for Scots and less business opportunities from afar.

However, digging a little deeper into the story, and one sees that there is little to be sad about. Ryanair trying to grind BAA down to keep its low cost deal for flights out of Edinburgh. Yes, the budget airline provides high footfall but is it worth the price? Shouldn’t BAA strive for quality not quantity?

We all know that Ryanair prices are suspiciously cheap, the feeling you get on their website is not unlike browsing around Primark, but we batter down our consciences in favour of taking advantage of that £5 flight here or £9 flight there, thinking that you’re beating the system. That had certainly always been my experience until a couple of weeks ago when I finally learned exactly how Ryanair could keep some flight prices so low.

The issue started with a boarding pass which had to be printed 4 hours before take-off or a £60 fine would be levied (it used to be 2 hours before take-off and a £40 fine but I guess Michael O’Leary saw some money to be made in making changes). It transpired that I missed the 4 hours by 56 measly seconds but, sure enough, Ryanair’s robust internal procedures meant there was no way around avoiding the £60 charge. Wallop, less kronor for me to spend on my holidays. Bummer.

Now, thankfully, I can absorb such hits into my monthly budgets relatively easily as (1) I have a good job and (2) I’m generally a total skinflint. However, I wasn’t the only one at the desk where such charges had to be paid.

I don’t think I’ll ever forget the hulking Polish chap beside me, crying his eyes out at a charge that he had to pay with money that he clearly couldn’t afford. I sneaked a peak and it was a £360 bill he was faced with, for what I do not know. The oddly affable chap behind the Ryanair desk said, quietly (and suitably sadly) that this was nothing, we should have seen the family that was here the day before and another one the day before that. I can do the Maths, 2 parents and 3 kids with no boarding passes adds up to £300 out of the holiday budget. Is that really a way to run a business?

So even if these routes did go ahead at Edinburgh, I’d hope to be resolute in my decision from a fortnight ago to boycott them. It’s no more scratchcards, no more sleep-deprived pilots, no more queuing like animals to get on the flight, no more blaring self-congratulatory tannoy bulletins, no more landing 50 miles from the City I’m looking to visit and no more air attendants with a sadness deep in the eyes. Ryanair has joined the likes of Tesco and Amazon on my ‘I will not buy there no matter how cheap it is’ because, as tempting as the deals are with this airline, I will no longer be able to shake away the image of a tall Polish guy or a distraught family paying over the odds to subsidise my ticket.

Edinburgh could do with more international air links, and I hope BAA holds firm to attract quality airlines to provide new destinations for Scotland’s Capital, but I’ll be hoping the livery of any such planes won’t be daubed in garish blue and yellow and be part of a morally dubious business model.

Non-nationalists for independence

Apr 11

Posted by James in Constitution, Holyrood, Westminster | 46 Comments

During a recent discussion thread one of the commenters admitted to not knowing what the difference is between a nationalist and someone that supports independence. Given it was Jeff, I promised to explain my position, which is, as the title suggests, in favour of independence but against nationalism.

Crudely, there are romantic arguments for particular territorial boundaries, and there are pragmatic ones. The arguments for and against independence can both be divided in this way. If someone believes that larger nation-states carry more clout on the world stage, that the costs of implementing Scottish independence outweigh the benefits, and that the Westminster system is the most efficient form of democracy ever devised, for example, they are certainly a unionist but not necessarily a nationalist of any flavour. Those are pragmatic positions, and their merits can be debated.

If, however, they believe that Britain has a splendid history, that Britishness is important to their identity, and that we therefore belong together, they are a British nationalist. It sounds unpleasant, because of the association with the British National Party, but it’s really no more logical nor any less savoury than Scottish nationalism. Nationalists believe in flags and anthems and symbols of collective identity. Unless it’s the Jolly Roger, I’m broadly against flags. Any form of nationalism is like a faith position, and it is hard to debate sensibly with a person who adheres to one of them.

Similarly, Scottish nationalism has independence as an end in itself, an emotional objective irrespective of any other political changes. Patrick and I once took a drink with an SNP MSP who shall remain nameless. Patrick asked what their campaign priorities would be after independence, and got the memorable reply: “what do you mean?” Another round of pressing still failed to elicit any secondary policy objectives, like perhaps tackling poverty, or even apparently an understanding of the question. Eventually the answer came that they’d leave politics – job done. That’s nationalism in its purest form, and it frankly baffles me.

Personally, I came to support independence as a pragmatic position, entirely devoid of any nationalist sentiment – only the 90 minute version has any effect on me. I look at Westminster politics and despair. I no longer think it likely that we will in my lifetime see an end to corporate politics there, or a fair electoral system, or a party of government opposed to privatisation, or a government prepared to make a positive case for immigration and honouring our asylum commitments. Obviously Labour started small, and the Greens couldn’t have a better bridgehead in the Commons than Caroline Lucas, but the inertia (at best) and copycat neo-liberal politics seen at a UK level is frankly beyond depressing.

So I don’t want to be offered an independent Scotland which would reproduce Westminster at Holyrood, something where the constitution won’t be written by the people, without a choice over an elected or a hereditary head of state, or where money politics still rules. I want to see independence for something, for a purpose. I want to see a fairer Scotland, one that relies on wind and wave, not oil and gas, one where money stops being wasted on motorways and is diverted instead into public transport, and one where politics is cleaned up and opened up. The list is enormous, and in general it’s what you’d see if you merged the last Green manifestos for Holyrood and for Westminster. Only a referendum on a truly democratic independent Scotland gives me any hope that I’ll live in a country like that.

The irony with this, of course, is that plenty of people who get called nationalists – SNP members, or even SNP MSPs – are not nationalists by this definition, or not just nationalists at least. Like me, they want independence for a purpose: some to deliver a version of social democracy, others to continue down a neo-liberal path. The leadership recognise the ideological and emotional strands in the pro-independence camp too, and so they use rhetoric that mixes nationalism and pragmatism, designed to have a broad appeal beyond the flag-wavers.

Another example further from home provides a footnote. Consider the 18th century American campaign for independence and the colonists’ famous slogan “no taxation without representation”. This was not a nationalist position, although it was part of the ideological foundation for a war for independence. It’s a pragmatic political position, and if George III had had any sense he’d have offered them representation. Who knows how that would have turned out? Similarly, if the unionists had been smarter and hadn’t blocked the assembly plans in 1979, who knows whether independence would seem so essential now?

Scotland’s non-existent nuclear weapons problem

Apr 10

Posted by Jeff in Defence | 90 Comments

The long trailed, looming decision by the SNP to reverse its policy regarding NATO in favour of Scottish membership has deprived many a unionist of one of its last remaining sticks with which to beat the Nationalists. The disappointment is palpable and no more so in the weekend’s Scotland on Sunday where Salmond’s supposed ‘NATO and nukes dilemma’ was splashed across the front page.

The argument, from Professor Malcolm Chalmers(?), seems to be that NATO won’t let an independent Scotland join its club if Scotland cleared nuclear weapons from its military bases.

The main article, and the accompanying editorial, involve telling Scots that you can’t be free of nuclear weapons and be a member of NATO in the short to medium term in an independent Scotland, and trying to make it the SNP’s problem at the same time. One initial oddity of this positioning is that opposition to nuclear weapons and membership of NATO are solid, historic Labour policies, and if there was one party that should be motivated to find a solution here it would be Labour. A solution over and above ‘let’s just stay in the UK shall we’. Lord George Robertson, former MP for Hamilton South, was recently the NATO Secretary General after all. Couldn’t he be expected to find a solution to this supposed impasse in the interests of Scotland?

Anyway, the article is difficult to take too seriously for separate reasons.

Post independence, on the one side, we would have a centre-right Government keen to ensure that rUK’s place in the geopolitical game remains strong and that the ‘special relationship’ with America stays tight. Underpinning each of these objectives is the requirement to retain a permanent seat at the United Nations. In order to ensure this, rUK needs to be a nuclear power. On the other side we have Scotland, a new country whose citizens have historically been opposed to holding nuclear weapons and led by a centre-left party (or parties) that have no appetite for paying for or holding nuclear weapons within their budgets or borders.

rUK wants nuclear weapons, Scotland doesn’t. There is no problem here. There may be an issue surrounding the timing of the physical move of nuclear weapons from Scotland to rUK but the weapons will always be operable and available to NATO if the simply unimaginable becomes reality.

Furthermore, it is not in rUK’s, or the USA’s, or France’s, or Russia’s interests for Scotland to have control over nuclear weapons. The smaller that club is, the better. There are good reasons after all why the many countries across Europe that successfully researched such weapons never actually created any.

I have always believed it is inconceivable that England, Wales or Northern Ireland cannot have a base for nuclear weapons ready in a matter of years, if it isn’t ready now. If this is indeed true then it is a dereliction of duty on the part of Westminster to have kept such supposedly strategically important weapons in a nation that (1) might leave the UK, (2) has never wanted the weapons in the first place and (3) should have been covered by a back-up location via a disaster recovery contingency plan.

So why this is all Scotland’s problem is beyond me. Indeed, it sounds more like an opportunity. Scotland could command a large price for keeping Trident where it is, and that doesn’t sound like bad news for Alex Salmond or an argument against independence to me.

The alternative of course is to simply scrap Trident, a decision that the coalition baulked at during this Parliamentary term. There is simply no conceivable scenario when these bombs would be fired, no country or state in the world that would deserve such horrors to be rained down upon it. So why keep holding these weapons? If they have served their purpose strategically, and run out of options geographically, let’s just put the whole thing to bed and save ourselves billions that we can build schools with, no?

Well, if it wasn’t for the permanent seat at the UN and that sordid special relationship, we might just manage to do that. Again, it’s not Scotland that wants to cling onto a seat at the big boy’s table, so why are people making it an issue for the Scottish independence referendum?

Experts can be dug up to provide front page exclusives and national newspapers can wring their hands in their editorials, but imagining problems that don’t exist or turning opportunities into issues for partisan reasons is not going to get Scotland anywhere.

The Midlothian Question

Apr 9

Posted by Guest Blog in Elections, Local government, Parties | 4 Comments

A guest post today from Ian Baxter, Green Party activist and chair of Bonnyrigg & Lasswade Community Council. Ian has stood as a candidate for the Green Party (and its predecessor, the Ecology Party) many times over the last 30 years, and in 2007 came close to becoming Midlothian’s first Green councillor, something he hopes to achieve on May 3rd. He blogs at Hearts and Mines.

Last week, Midlothian Labour followed their Glasgow counterparts in losing an overall majority on the Council when Councillor Jackie Aitchison resigned and immediately submitted his nomination papers as an Independent candidate in next month’s local elections.

There was a time when Midlothian was described as ‘the one party state’ with 17 out of 18 councillors belonging to the Labour Party (albeit on 46% of the vote). That was under First Past the Post. More recently, ahead of the STV-based local elections in 2007, I was told that the then council’s Chief Executive was overheard saying that if Labour didn’t get two of the three seats up for grabs in the Bonnyrigg ward, then it was in serious trouble. If he’s to be believed, then I think that time has now come.

Midlothian has six three-member wards. In 2007, Labour won 9 of the 18 seats, with the Nats 6 and the Lib Dems three. Soon after the election, however, Lib Dem councillor Katie Moffat jumped into the red camp and normal business resumed.

Change is not something Midlothian flirts with much, but this time it might just smack us on the lips. In common with most areas across Scotland, the Nationalists only fielded one candidate per ward five years ago. They all topped the list on first preference votes, with one, Margaret Wilson in Penicuik, not far short of double the vote of her nearest rival.

Throw into the mix a near collapse of the Lib Dem vote, and some local factors which I’ll come to shortly, and this looks very much like one council which will be changing hands in four weeks’ time.

Penicuik has always been a Lib Dem stronghold, once represented by Michael Moore, now Secretary of State for Scotland – indeed he was the one non-Labour councillor back in the days of the one-party state. In 2007 they came close to winning two of the three councillors there. However, the SNP, fielding two candidates, have a decent chance of removing the Lib Dem, though my bet is there will be no change.

Les Thacker, the Lib Dems’ councillor in Midlothian West will not be so lucky. Loanhead and district has always been fluid electorally, and with 9 candidates standing, it will again provide a bit of interest. My guess is SNP Group leader Owen Thompson will return along with his running mate Andrew Coventry replacing the Lib Dem representation.

In Midlothian East, Katie Moffat only just scraped in last time for the Lib Dems, but even with her red rosette I can’t see Labour taking two seats here. Another SNP gain, I’d say.

Midlothian South will be a hard fought battleground between SNP and Labour. Last time it was 2-1 to Labour, with newly elected SNP MSP Colin Beattie and Labour councillor Wilma Chalmers both standing down, it’s a difficult one to call. It could go either way, but I think SNP will sneak two in.

In Dalkeith, SNP’s Craig Statham and Labour’s Alex Bennett were two votes apart on first preferences last time, with Depute Provost Margot Russell squeaking in for Labour on just 761 first prefs. Local factors will come into play, with controversy surrounding the Woodburn Community Centre possibly affecting the Labour vote. However, with neither of the SNP’s candidates a sitting councillor, I think Labour may prevail.

Which brings us to Bonnyrigg, where once again I will be flying the flag for the Greens. In 2007, Bob Constable was elected for the SNP on the first round of counting with 400 votes to spare. Jackie Aitchison – now standing as an independent – was elected immediately after. Labour’s Derek Milligan had to wait until the seventh and final round before eliminating myself to take the third spot.

With two Nats standing, and the Labour vote potentially split three ways, there will be a fair amount of vote transfers taking place before anyone reaches quota. Bob Constable and Derek Milligan (benefitting this time from alphabetic precedence) will probably be elected – although Derek’s well known association with a number of controversial local issues and tendency to hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons could mean there is an outside chance his running mate Louie Milliken may overtake him.

So who gets the third seat in Bonnyrigg is the question. Without Labour backing, Jackie Aitchison is unlikely to succeed, though where his transfers go and what he does and says during the campaign may be critical. The SNP has not been particularly active locally and Labour candidate Louie Milliken is virtually unknown in these parts. Unlike in 2007, I am now chair of the community council and have been very active in exposing the Labour Council’s maladministration over allegedly missing grant funding made to Bonnyrigg Rose for a car park which still hasn’t materialised several years on.

Given the local factors involved, my own activity over many years, the relative anonymity of my main rivals and some very encouraging canvass returns, I am optimistic for my chances here in being the first Green councillor on Midlothian Council.

Should that happen, I would see the make-up of Midlothian Council on 4th May being SNP 9, Labour 7, Lib Dem 1, Green 1. How that translates into power will be interesting.

Will Tory voters stop going tartan?

Apr 8

Posted by James in Elections, Holyrood | 33 Comments

The idea that Scotland’s a decisively more left-wing country than the rest of the UK is at least in part a myth, perpetuated largely by the marked disparity in the Tory vote share north and south of the border, combined with the associated myth that the SNP are a left-wing party now.

In 2007 and again in 2011, it’s clear that many natural Tories voted SNP. Some did so, especially in 2011, because the SNP’s position on taxation was just as right-wing as the Tories. Many many more did so, especially in 2007, simply because the SNP could end Labour’s hegemony at Holyrood. Others no doubt saw a kindred spirit in Alex Salmond, despite his leftwing views on currently reserved matters like defence and international affairs.

The deal was always this – we’ll vote for the most credible party to the right of Labour (to be clear, I don’t regard Labour as left-wing any more either), but in the unlikely event you ever manage to bring your referendum forward, we’ll vote no. I’m sure some business types have genuinely come round to independence, especially given the SNP desire to race to the bottom on corporation tax, but for most I suspect that remains the deal. Run Scotland, Mr Salmond, unless and until the Scottish Tories get their act together.

But what about the SNP majority now? No-one expected that, not the over-exposed Mr Curtice, not the swathes of new SNP backbenchers, not the Great Puddin’ O’ the Chieftain Race himself. And certainly not the Tories who went tartan, who now face a referendum which they must fear losing, given the relative quality of the leadership and the relative campaigning nous on both sides.

Might tactically-minded Tories out there not now wish to pull the balance back in the other direction, take any opportunity to bring the SNP back to minority levels? The Nats proved they could run a competent minority administration – in fact, their period of minority was probably the most competent in Holyrood’s history.

If Bill Walker resigns as an MSP (and Kate’s right, he should), what happens in Dunfermline? Bill won with a narrow 590 majority, and the by-election dynamics would be entirely different. If it’s a seen as a local vote for against independence, Labour would have to be pretty confident even if John Park doesn’t contest it, as Kate suggests. That 590 majority looks even smaller when you consider the almost 8,000 combined Tory and Lib Dem votes from last year. Sure, the Nats’ election machine remains the most formidable ever assembled in Scotland, but this is not natural Nat territory.

I love by-election drama, and I think Bill has a moral responsibility to let his constituents be represented by someone who’s not a wife-beater, but if I wouldn’t be surprised if the SNP leadership were saying “Go!” in public and desperately hoping in private to keep their effective majority exactly where it is today.

Edit: I’ve taken the other Bill Walker out, the former Tory MP. The coincidence in naming amused me, buy think I meant Nicky Fairbairn anyway and I don’t want to associate the Tory one with domestic violence.

Work as if you live in the early days of a