Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Ae fond consultation and then we sever

Jan 25

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 42 Comments

First Minister Alex Salmond will have the attention of the world’s press today as he outlines his party’s referendum plans that will lead us up to a 2014 plebiscite.

Today we will hear nothing that we haven’t heard before and many, many soundbites that we have but it is, nonetheless, a famous day for Scotland, not just for the SNP.

The publication of a white paper on an independence referendum had its importance exaggerated in the 2007-2011 term but with a Nationalist majority in the Parliament ensuring easy passage for whatever plans Salmond puts forward today, coupled with an emasculated coalition Government down South, the hand of history is certainly upon us.

The positioning is pleasingly already coming to an end. The Electoral Commission question has been ceded by the SNP and the 16-17 argument and Devo Max additional question will surely follow by also falling by the wayside and, in return, there will be no legal confusion over the holding of the referendum in 2014, despite the current token resistance from Westminster. All that is left is the question, a question that the SNP has already proposed and I don’t see why the final wording won’t be too dissimilar to that. Certainly the argument that the pro-UK side should take the Yes side of the answer has been straightforwardly dispelled. So we’re good to go and have the best part of 32 months to make our decisions.

As someone who was on the receiving end of the line ‘you can’t build an economy with shortbread and whisky’ last night, I have to admit that I am allowing my imagination to run away with itself a little bit about what today could bring. I have no qualms, as I might have had before, to let on to work colleagues that I’m very much in the Yes camp. After all, do we aspire to be the equal of Yorkshire, Cornwall and Northumberland, or the equal of Norway, Ireland and Finland?

It is the reaction to today that I am most looking forward to though, for therein lies the answer to what kind of referendum debate we are going to have. It is no coincidence of course that it is Burns Day today, so one hopes that the responses will be more poetic than prosaic. Labour may prick our collective unionist consciences with a romantic tale of British camaraderie, Lib Dems may reawaken the slumberous giant that is federalism, the Tories may wreak rhetoric in selling a dubious happy clapitalism and the Greens can paint a picture of a cleaner, healthier tomorrow.

From today the nation is back to being a blank canvas again, a post-Darien construct that knows not yet where it should turn. Alex Salmond will try to lead the way but is he our nation’s pastor or just a Tam O’Shanter? We don’t have ‘too’ long to find out I suppose.

Donations to the referendum campaigns

Jan 23

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution | 8 Comments

A gratefully-received guest from Thomas Widmann, who blogs here. 

The SNP didn’t react kindly to the restrictions imposed on the independence referendum by the Unionist parties. Most of the differences between the two sides  are easily explainable in terms of expected votes. For instance, the SNP are clearly expecting voters under 18 to be more favourable towards independence than other voters, especially after being enfranchised by the SNP government. In the same way, Westminster’s suggestion that EU nationals living in Scotland should be allowed to take part is probably (but wrongly, in my view) due to an expectation that they’ll support the union more strongly than UK nationals.

However, it’s not immediately obvious why the SNP find the Electoral Commission unacceptable. After all, they seem perfectly happy to let the EC’s Scottish office be in charge of elections to the Scottish Parliament. Most observers have just hand-waved this issue away by saying that the SNP dislike anything made in the UK (and the EC is a body created by the UK government), or assumed that it’s just an unimportant demand so that they have something to trade in during
negotiations with Westminster.

I don’t think it’s as simple as that, though. The SNP have been planning for this for a very long time, and they normally have very good long-term reasons for what they do, just like their attack on the Supreme Court, which could be seen as a precaution in case the independence referendum ends up there.

So what are the issues with the Electoral Commission? There are at several areas that could be important.

First of all, there are very few Scots in the Electoral Commission. Currently there are two Scottish commissioners (John McCormick and George Reid), but the latter will be replaced in October, and probably not by an SNP member (the small parties at Westminster take turns). This makes it more likely that they’ll rule in favour of the Unionist side if there is a dispute, especially given that the commissioners are accountable directly to the UK Parliament.

Secondly, as pointed out in a recent comment on this blog by Alwyn ap Huw, if we look at their role in the recent referendum on increased powers for the Welsh Assembly, they might restrict the allowed spending to figures that would favour the Unionist parties. In Wales, the spending limits were £600k for a vote share of more than 30%; £480k for a vote share between 20% and 30%, £360k for a share between 10% and 20%, and £100 for smaller parties. If we use the list votes from the election to the Scottish Parliament in 2011 as a guide, and double the spending limits given Scotland’s size, such a rule could produce the following figures: Yes £1,400 (SNP £1,200k, Green £200k), No £1,880k (Labour £960k, Tories £720k, LibDems £200k). However, it appears that although the Electoral Commission would make a recommendation on the limits, they would be defined by the Scottish Parliament when calling the referendum, and they would apply only for a specific period of time before the referendum anyway, so this is unlikely to be the main reason.

Thirdly, the Electoral Commission seems to be following the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (PPERA) to the letter, and it contains very specific rules on many aspects of holding a referendum, some of which could be favourable to the Unionists. It could be easier to escape the limitations of PPERA if the Electoral Commission were not involved, especially if the referendum had been called by the Scottish Parliament without Westminster’s blessing, simply because the referendum wouldn’t necessarily have a legal basis anyway.

One aspect that is of particular interest here is that “overseas donations are prohibited by PPERA, since only those individuals who are on a UK electoral register, and only organisations that are registered and carry on business in the UK, can make donations to politicals organisations in the UK“, according to the EC. In other words, PPERA doesn’t seem to prevent the No side from getting funding from England, while blocking funding from expat Scots around the world.  I presume the Yes side would want to treat English and overseas donations the same way.

This could be quite a big deal. 2014 is the second Year of Homecoming, and together with the Commonwealth Games and the Ryder Cup it is likely to bring significant numbers of expat Scots to Scotland, many of whom are likely to have a romantic view of Scottish independence. If this source of income is denied to the Yes side, while the No side can get plenty of funding from English businesses with a logistic interest in keeping the Union together, it could be problematic.

On the other hand, many people are extremely enthusiastic about the prospect of an independent Scotland, while very few Unionists have equally strong feelings, so my guess is the Yes side should by default get the most donations, if allowed by the Electoral Commission.

The new Scottish political craze – Fighting for what you don’t believe in

Jan 22

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 111 Comments

I have noticed an interesting theme develop over the past few weeks which has involved non-Nationalists complain about the look an independent Scotland would have under the SNP’s referendum plans. 

The objection goes that Salmond is claiming to offer choice with one hand but only offering a Scotland that keeps the monarchy, keeps the pound and keeps EU membership with the other.

For me, this is a bit like a Rangers fan complaining about the Celtic lineup before an Old Firm match.

If it’s clear which side of this argument’s line one is on, then why busy oneself with the free choice of what the other side is pushing for?

Further, how precisely would Scots get to decide on the monarchy, on the EU, on NATO, not to mention whether we should be independent or not, via one single question? 

It is difficult to tell if complainants are merely posturing or genuinely can’t tell the difference between a referendum that decides once and for all on the nation’s monarchy, currency and the extent of European involvement and a referendum, as this one in 2014 shall be, on whether we as a nation should decide on these issues for ourselves rather than merely as one small part of a larger country. 

One example was a fine argument had with David Torrance in the pub, unquotable only because I can’t trust my memory one minute to the next let alone two days after, but another example was a robust Twitter exchange with Labour’s mightily impressive Michael Marra. Examples of Michael’s position include:

“in order to be credible you have to argue for independence”

“no fiscal Indy, no monetary Indy, no military Indy, no head of state Indy. No Indy.”

“either have the balls to argue for real Indy or we talk about things that really matter”

It’s not for the SNP to dictate what an independent Scotland’s currency or EU membership should be, as I’m sure most in the party would freely accept. Even the current pressure on Alex Salmond to outline what our Defence force would look like is unwarranted. 

Salmond is the First Minister of a devolved Scotland, we don’t know who the first Prime Minister of an independent Scotland will be, if that day comes to pass. These issues would be for he or she to decide after fresh elections and after a negotiated breakaway from the UK. 

Of course the SNP is trying to push as wide a view of independence as it possibly can in order to fit as many Yes votes into its big tent, broad church politics as possible. What, in short, is wrong with this approach? Why is it for the SNP to dot every i and cross every t of how Scotland will be post 2014 and for decades to come? After all, the SNP might not even exist once its mission is accomplished.

Labour, or any party, pushing for Salmond to flesh out this detail are inadvertently weakening their own position by making it appear that they do not have a policy that they would wish to push for. To cede the position is to cede the argument.

For me, the best way to advance this referendum debate is for each side to pick their own position on any related issue and advance it as best they can. Salmond is wryly trying to advance nameless persons’ Devo Max argument on their behalf while trying to unscrupulously gain from doing so and, as pointed out, non-Nats are trying to paint what actual Nats should be arguing for. 

Maybe proponents of independence and members of the SNP are angry that abolishing the monarchy and shunning the EU are not on the agenda in the near future but it is not the business of unionists to stir that particular pot. Nats are free to raise this issue with the party they are a part of and/or join or create a different party in order to champion the views that they hold so dear.

Argue for what you believe in, make your case and we’ll see what the result is, and where Scotland wants to go next, come 2014. 

Everything else is just noise.

Scottish Labour needs to remember its own history

Jan 19

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Holyrood | 79 Comments

Another guest post, this time from Andrew McFadyen, who has a PhD in politics. He used to work for the Scottish Labour Party and now earns his living as a journalist. 

The last week has been depressing. The whistle has barely been blown for the kick-off, but already the debate about Scottish independence is showing all the subtlety of the crowd at an Old Firm match.

Standing behind the goal and waving her fist at the opposition, SNP MSP Joan McAlpine is giving a lesson in intolerance. Her comments in last Thursday’s Holyrood debate that “the Liberals, the Labour Party and the Tories are anti-Scottish” were daft and she should have known better.

What about Labour? Frankly, the constant repetition of negative phrases like “rigged referendum” and “separation” is giving me a headache. With a few honourable exceptions, like Malcolm Chisholm and Patricia Ferguson, the Labour Party is displaying a kind of knee-jerk Unionism that is out of step with mainstream Scottish opinion and its own traditions.

It’s worth recalling that Keir Hardie was a founding Vice-President of the Scottish Home Rule League. Labour politicians campaigned for a Scottish Parliament for over a century.

In the breakthrough election of 1922, Red Clydeside sent ten socialists to the House of Commons. Tom Henderson, the newly elected MP for Glasgow Tradeston, urged his colleagues at the victory rally in St Andrew’s Hall to “go to Edinburgh and take over the old House of Parliament and set up a government in this country.”

The generation that built the Labour Party in Scotland believed that they could achieve more with a government in Edinburgh, than one in London.

Last May, I was among the shocked Labour activists in the SECC who watched as their work was undone. The cheers from jubilant Nats provided the soundtrack to a dreadful night that got worse as it went on.

All of the candidates in the recent leadership election spoke about the need for change. It is now time for them to show that they meant it.

Strathclyde University’s John Curtice pointed out in a recent article for The Scotsman that according to the Social Attitudes survey, three-fifths to two-thirds of Scots would like Holyrood to take on responsibility for taxes and welfare benefits. He added that, a recent Ipsos-MORI poll reported that as many as 68 per cent would vote in favour of “devo-max” should they be given the opportunity.

This is the ground that the Labour Party should be fighting on. There is no issue of principle that precludes adding a second question on ‘devo-max’ to an independence referendum. It is simply a matter of tactics.

In January 1978, Donald Dewar, George Robertson and Helen Liddell were part of a Scottish delegation to Downing Street urging the then Prime Minister Jim Callaghan to add a second question on independence to the following year’s ill-fated referendum on devolution. The plan was designed both to bolster the vote for devolution and deal with the question of independence for a generation. If Donald Dewar could support a second question then, why can’t Johann Lamont support a second question now?

The Conservatives are adopting an extreme position, as they did in the 1980s and 1990s, trying to polarize the debate and force Scots to make a hard ‘in or out’ choice. My advice is that Scottish Labour should regard the Tories in the same way that a budgie does a ginger tomcat. David Cameron and George Osborne should be kept at a very great distance. The party has much more to gain, and would be truer to its own values, by being the voice of reason.

Scottish expats have no right to a referendum vote

Jan 19

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 80 Comments

James Wallace, the London-based Scot who is calling for the coming referendum to include all Scottish expats with his Let Wallace Vote campaign, has garnered remarkable coverage to boost his profile. James’ logic is as follows:

“If I was living in America, I could vote for my Scottish MP in the Westminster elections, but living in London I would be unable to vote on the independence of my country. My vote will be taken away from me without me having any say about it.”

Labour MSP Elaine Murray has picked up the campaign and run with it as far as Holyrood, leading a member’s debate on the issue yesterday.

However, the idea that people living outside of Scotland, people who may well never return to the nation, should have a say on Scotland’s constitutional future is dumbfounding. There is an element of people wanting to have their cake and eat it here, and such people will hopefully be told in no uncertain terms to dry their eyes.

To move outside of any country and take yourself off the electoral register, whatever the circumstances, is to forfeit your right to have a vote. There may well be a rule that one can vote in Westminster elections 14 years after you have left the UK but two wrongs do not make a right and what Mr Wallace is calling for here is most certainly wrong.

There is of course a political side to this, with the thinking being that a majority of the 800,000 expat Scots would vote for the union and one could argue that that is why Elaine Murray is pushing the issue so ardently. I don’t really know where this logic stems from though as I see quite clearly Scots’ ‘Scottishness’ coming to the fore when they move away from home, largely due to a mix of pride of how we are viewed around the world and also as a defence against crass generalisations made against us (are you having that deep fried, bunch of scroungers, unintelligible etc etc).

We do live in a global world and people are moving further and further afield to get an education, get jobs or to settle down. I know this all too well, living and working as I do in London right now due to the limitations of certain courses that Scotland provides. Not getting to vote in the independence referendum would be annoying if a return to Scotland doesn’t take place before Autumn 2014, but there will be no sense of injustice on my part.

They say that decisions are taken by those that are in the room and that logic needs to apply for Scotland for this decision on its future. A referendum is a collective opinion at a certain point in time and if Scotland means that much to you, then you’ve got over 2.5 years to get yourself back there to make your opinion count.