Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Poacher turned gamekeeper turned poached game

Jan 13

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 116 Comments

I don’t think I fully realised how badly Joan McAlpine had messed up with her “anti-Scottish” line on Twitter, which was raised in Holyrood yesterday, until she was ingloriously name checked by Douglas Alexander on BBC Question Time. Douglas went on to hector Nicola Sturgeon, asking if she agreed with Joan, in an unedifying spectacle that I fear will be replicated on all sides of the debate, up and down the party structures of SNP and Labour (and beyond), all the way out to autumn 2014.

For those who don’t know the context, the relevant parts of the transcript from the Scottish Parliament are shown at the bottom of this post.

This of course is the flipside of the ballyhoo that comes around when a politician calls the SNP xenophobes or their party conferences hate fests; it is the perfect situation to whip up as much fury and as many headlines as one can to do down the other side. The point that Joan McAlpine was trying to make was wholly separate to what “anti Scottish” as a standalone phrase actually means, but she uttered those words and the rest, as they say, is history. One could argue it either way but they’d be getting precisely nowhere as a result. I guess this is the risk that Alex Salmond has always faced when so many untried and untested amateurs fell into the Scottish Parliament on that crazy night in May. This won’t be the last such occasion where a storm is created over little more than clumsy wording.

I’ve read some more of the transcript from yesterday, not something that I often do, but the standard of debate in general is woeful, even fist-bitingly embarrassing in parts. You can read below the shameless, unnecessary bragging from the SNP about a few hundred new members and there was the charge from Kezia Dugdale that the SNP wants votes at 16-17 for the referendum but hasn’t brought forward legislation at a council level before John Swinney gently pointed out that that power is reserved. Awkward. My personal favourite was this one though:

Humza Yousaf (SNP): I commend the Scottish Labour Party for bringing up today’s debate. What subject could be more important than Scotland’s future? Although I cannot support the motion because of its obvious flaws, it is at least an attempt to engage with the debate, which is a refreshing change from the usual apocalyptic, scaremongering and fear-driven negativity that seems to come from Castle Grayskull.
Patricia Ferguson (Labour): Labour members pointed out to me that Mr Yousaf got his analogy slightly wrong. Castle Grayskull was not some kind of dark, louring place that people took their inspiration from; it was the place where the good guys got their power. If Labour is being associated with Castle Grayskull we are quite happy to accept that.

The main surprise that yesterday’s debate had in store was just how often Twitter was mentioned, primarily used to take errant messages and bash an MSP over the head with. It’s just so lousy. I know that we tried manfully to keep a Worst Motion of the Week debate going (and still intend to, watch this space) but if the poor standard of debate has percolated down into business-as-usual in the chamber itself, then there is not much to be done.

As to ourselves here at Better Nation, we have been informed on many an occasion by numerous people that they’d rather not write a guest post or rather not leave a comment as they don’t want their head bitten off by ‘cybernats’. For me, this is all wrapped up as part of the same problem – MSPs unable to act like mature, constructive professionals in the Parliament parallels the inability to hold a calm, considered debate online (I mean, goodness, just witness the Scotsman comments section; a tar that we have supposedly been brushed with sadly, rightly or wrongly).

So, getting to the overarching point of this post, and in a bid to stymie any further unhelpful ”anti-Scottish” or “xenophobe” slurs and ensure that the intended positive, non-partisan nature of this blog strives (or should I say is revived), the comments policy that was created recently will be more strictly enforced going forwards. We generally enjoy the rough and tumble of the comments section but content is king and if there is a point that any reader would dearly like to make, we all believe that a guest post with space to develop a point is often a better way to contribute to the debate than to leave a longer comment, so please consider this option if you do check this website regularly, or even just occasionally.

This isn’t a Nationalist blog, it isn’t a Unionist blog and it isn’t even a Green blog any more as we once passed it off as; it is a Scottish blog, and, as should be the case in the Scottish Parliament despite Joan McAlpine’s assertions, views are not illegitimate just because of where they lie on the Union-independence spectrum.

.
.
.

Joan McAlpine (SNP): Will the member take an intervention?
Ruth Davidson (Conservative): On the idea of reasonable argument—yes, absolutely.
Joan McAlpine: Since David Cameron’s intervention in the referendum debate, 300 people have joined the SNP. How many people have joined the Conservative Party?
Ruth Davidson: We are in the middle of a very big membership drive, and I would ask anybody who has an interest in centre-right politics to join the Conservative Party.
Let us talk about that reasonable debate, because there is an ugly side to the argument that has been made in recent days, and it has come not from the Prime Minister but from the very member who has just intervened. I am sad to say—it probably says more about me than it does about anyone else—that I follow Joan McAlpine on Twitter, and I know that she has tweeted that Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are “anti-Scottish”. That type of ignorant, petty nationalism is an insult not only to us but to Scots up and down the country. I know the difference between patriotism and nationalism, and I do not doubt for one moment the desire of all patriots and nationalists to do what they think is best for Scotland. However, the narrow opinion that the only true Scots are those who believe in separation is demeaning to those who peddle it and an insult to the majority of people who live here. Ms McAlpine’s intervention is a sign of how the SNP mask can slip: a sign of SNP members’ desire to play the politics of grudge and grievance, to complain when they do not get their own way and to act as if they own the hearts and souls of all Scots and as if only Alex Salmond can speak for Scotland.

(later)

Joan McAlpine: As for the Conservative group leader’s assertion that those who suggest that what is happening is anti-Scottish are somehow narrow in their politics, I make absolutely no apology for saying that the Liberals, the Labour Party and the Tories are anti-Scottish in coming together to defy the will of the Scottish people and the democratic mandate that they gave us to hold a referendum at a time of our choosing, which, as the First Minister said, would be the latter half of the parliamentary session. The sight of those parties cosying up on the sofas of various Scottish television studios will really alarm the people of Scotland.

Neil Findlay (Lab): I think that the member should seriously consider what she is saying. Given what opinion polls suggest is the view of the vast majority of the Scottish people, is she suggesting that they are not patriotic and do not love their country? If she is, that is an utter disgrace.

Joan McAlpine: I did not address my comments to the people of Scotland; I addressed my comments to the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, who—thank goodness—do not represent the people of Scotland and were in their entirety outpolled by the SNP last year, as the First Minister said.
The anti-independence parties stood together against Scottish democracy yesterday in Westminster. That will be no surprise to the people of Scotland, because for four years between 2007 and 2011 those parties stood together to stop a referendum. Now they want to dictate the terms of a referendum. They want to exclude the young people of Scotland from choosing their future, but their elderly Labour peers down south say that they should have a say, even though they do not live here. The electorate told Labour what they thought of that strategy last May, but Labour seems to have learned nothing.

(later)

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative): I am a proud Scot and an elected member of this chamber and I have every right to be an active participant in this debate, which is what I intend to be. The claim by the SNP that those who vote SNP have some additional pride or more moral authority, or a birthright to speak on behalf of the people of Scotland, is offensive. If you spoke against someone who was gay, you would be homophobic. If you spoke against someone who was black, you would be racist. If you say that people are anti-Scottish because they belong to a different political party, that is a form of political racism, which is absolutely disgraceful and has no part in our politics. I suppose that, in the words of the Deputy First Minister, I should be relaxed about that type of remark, because it is what will win the argument for those of us who believe in the union.

Labour’s choice: a whiff of power trumps the Union

Jan 12

Posted by James in Constitution, Holyrood | 62 Comments

Labour’s motion on the referendum being debated as I type is pretty thin gruel:

Johann Lamont: Scotland’s Future—That the Parliament recognises that the Scottish Government has a mandate to call a referendum on the constitutional future of Scotland and calls on the First Minister to hold immediate cross-party talks, including with leaders from all quarters of civic Scotland, to agree a timetable for the referendum, to ensure that the referendum provides a clear result on a single question and to ensure that the referendum is run in Scotland by the Electoral Commission so that the people of Scotland can have an early and rigorous debate on the future of Scotland.

It must again cheer SNP hearts to see the Scottish Labour Party sign up to chunks of the UK administration’s misguided intervention, and the call for cross-party talks on the timetable only will easily be brushed off by the Maximum Eck. A call for an open constitutional convention to involve the public and civic Scotland in the broadest sense would have been more constructive, notably if it was to consider what kind of independent Scotland the public wish to be offered, in constitutional terms, and whether there is indeed real public demand for devo max. But that call remains something only the Greens are making so far, unfortunately.

The “single question” aspect is the most critical part, though. This is perhaps the only part of the phoney war over process that Labour could have influence over. A clear and robust decision by Scottish Labour to set out a devo max option (or full fiscal autonomy, or indeed anything more coherent than the Scotland Bill) would surely have seen the SNP bring that forward in legislation. The Nats have issued enough press releases trying to provoke Labour into doing precisely that, and Ministers have essentially committed to offering the middle way if someone else comes up with it.

Why have Labour turned this offer down? Let us assume it’s tactical rather than some reference to party policy.

Lallands Peat Worrier has made a comprehensive and convincing case that a devo max option would reduce the chances of an independence victory. So if Labour were looking to minimise the risk of Scotland going it alone, surely they’d have set out some middle position, even if it didn’t go as far as devo max? Mere devo-plus would have sufficed. More powers is a form of pragmatic Unionism in the same way Holyrood itself was Unionist – an effort to head off independence at the pass.

Although the poll results showing support for devo max may largely be driven by people tending to pick the middle option, as LPW says, there would have been major media and political advantages to Labour if they had been the party to set out what that middle option would have been. They’d have owned a question on the ballot, they could have been virtually centre stage throughout the debate, they’d have had something positive to make the case for, and their option would have been quite likely to have won.

But devo max is also what would suit a personally ambitious set of SNP Ministers best. As I’ve argued here before, it gives them a moderate win, a step towards the holy grail, something to keep the activists happy, yet it also allows them to keep governing. It’s almost impossible to imagine an SNP devo-plus administration not being returned in 2016. Declining the offer to set out an extension to Holyrood’s powers suggests Labour are more afraid of seeing the SNP’s hegemony grow and strengthen than they are of an increased risk of full independence.

A Yes vote, however, would see the SNP achieve their only purpose while would also depriving them of it. It would make the contest for the first post-indy Scottish Government an open one, one which Labour no doubt feel in their secret heart of hearts that they would well placed to win. The constitutional question would for the first time (deep intake of breath) not overshadow the other issues politics urgently needs to deal with – poverty, public services, taxation, climate change, the rest. Indeed, one former very senior Labour figure once told a friend of mine they’d be fine with independence so long as the Nats weren’t running the show.

Conversely, an outright No vote sends the SNP activists back home in despair and puts the question on hold for a generation – unless the SNP didn’t notice what happened to the Bloc Québécois when they kept pushing it. There is no burning agenda for the SNP to deliver with the existing powers, we know that already, just some pretty right-wing tax proposals for an independent Scotland, and so again a No vote could well be followed by a Labour-led administration on the existing powers. A stronger prospect of returning to power at Holyrood looks more important to Labour than reducing the risk to the Union, whatever they say in public.

Devo max may be Unionism, but few on that side of the argument would be so foolish to regard it as likely to kill nationalism stone dead. In fact, if you want to kill nationalism stone dead there’s only one way to do it. Give it what it’s always said it wants: a clear yes or no on independence. Conveniently, that’s also the best sort of ballot paper for those of us who want independence but also want to see the back of this economically right-wing SNP administration.

Salmond attempts to wash Scotland’s hands of RBS exposure

Jan 12

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 50 Comments

The surprise news story today (on the front page of the FT with the First Minister doing his best Winston Churchill impression) is that Alex Salmond believes that the UK Government should still be liable for the full £187bn that is propping up RBS even if Scotland were to win independence. In what is surely a tactical move to paint the UK as having mismanaged the economy over the recent past, Salmond’s argument goes that given the “misregulation” took place at the London Treasury, then the London Treasury should carry the can. It’s a decent try, but I can’t say that I am altogether convinced.

The pre-emptive attempt to pin RBS’ woes on London is surely an admission from Salmond that he sees this issue as a millstone, a giant crack in his argument, and he will struggle to convince voters that it’s not Scotland’s problem to deal with.

For a start, the crux of RBS’ problems, the acquisition of ABN Amro for a vastly overinflated cash price, had the blessing of the First Minister, as this link shows. I don’t see how any would-be leader of a country can cherry pick which problems they will take responsibility for and which problems they won’t, particularly when they themselves went into the troubled period with both eyes open and having been an economist at the bank in question.

Another problem is the risk of pushing away one of Scotland’s economic jewels. RBS is constantly urged to move its Headquarters down to London, a move that would be a body blow to employment in the financial sector in Scotland’s Capital. The bank has always maintained that Scotland is part of its fabric, part of its name, and will not move down south. However, if independence takes place and one Government doesn’t want to help it through a tough time while another Government does, where will the bank’s loyalty, and HQ, prove to be then?

Perhaps that is what Salmond is after. HBOS is now part of Lloyds Banking Group, reduced to nothing more than a brand and RBS is deeply troubled. Maybe Salmond is trying to create a space for a new bank to be formed that will be synonymous with a new Scotland. It’s not the worst idea in the world but it is hugely risky. To lose one bank is unfortunate but to lose two would be seen as careless.

Surely the fairest way to apportion out the expense of bailing out of RBS is to work out what percentage of income is realised in Scotland and what percentage is realised in rUK and split the £187bn by this ratio, broadly similar to how Corporation Tax would be applied. A bitter pill for Scotland to swallow but no more bitter than what we are currently having to contend with, and if these oil revenues are as lucrative as suggested then we should be able to help RBS back onto its feet easily enough. Isn’t that the independent, self-standing Scotland that the SNP aspires to?

Of course, Salmond rarely puts a foot wrong and perhaps there is an overriding incentive for the SNP to try winning this argument. A recent poll showed that 65% of Scots would vote for independence if it made them £500 richer as a result. Well, 10% of £187bn is £18.7bn which, spread across Scotland’s 5million people, is £3,740 each. More than enough money to get Scots out voting Yes.

So with a flaky kind of logic, very flaky, that’s potentially the ball game. However, crucially, it also undermines the other Nationalist argument that an independent Scotland could carry RBS’ weight so perhaps this particular ante should not have been upped in the first place.

Muddy Waters

Jan 11

Posted by Kirsty in Health, Westminster | 15 Comments

There’s plenty going on this week which demonstrates the Coalition government should pay more heed to where Scotland is and what she thinks. Nonetheless, David Cameron’s proposal on minimum pricing for alcohol is undoubtedly inspired by Scotland’s lead.

Maybe you missed it in a boozy blur between Christmas and New Year, but David Cameron has instructed civil servants to pull together plans for minimum pricing for alcohol sales in England. According to The Daily Telegraph, this could either be the Scottish model, banning the sale of alcohol priced below 45 pence per unit, or as taxes based upon the number of units in a drink.

Whitehall’s strategy on alcohol will be published in February. The Scottish Government’s Bill is at Stage 1 at Holyrood, after being introduced by Nicola Sturgeon back in October. Labour at Holyrood don’t believe minimum unit pricing is the answer to Scotland’s alcohol issues as “it will not target problem drinks”. But might they be compelled from February onwards to take an opposing view to Labour at Westminster?

Despite introducing 24 hour drinking in England while in government, in early 2010 Andy Burnham, the then Health Secretary, indicated that Brown’s government were at least open to considering the introduction of minimum alcohol prices, saying:

“We need to balance the rights of people who drink responsibly with those who buy ludicrously cheap booze and go out and harm themselves and others… There is no shortage of research that shows the link with price and people drinking harmful levels of alcohol – there is no debate about that.”

Back then, Andrew Lansley, now Health Secretary, dismissed calls to set a minimum price for alcohol from both the Chief Medical Officer and the Commons Health Select Committee. Although the Coalition has banned supermarkets selling booze as a loss leader, and introduced higher duty on super-strength beer and cider, Lansley reportedly favours a voluntary approach on the part of the seller, indicating that Cameron has over-ruled him with the minimum price move.

A split between government ministers is always fun for oppositions. But with his previous comments, as well as many Labour-controlled councils within Greater Manchester and Merseyside considering the introduction of bylaws to set minimum alcohol prices, it won’t be so easy for Burnham to dismiss Cameron’s move for minimum pricing if it is included in proposals come February.

Of course, Burnham didn’t do anything when in power about minimum pricing, and his somewhat cool comment above could mean Labour will oppose any move by the coalition to introduce minimum pricing. But Burnham’s performance during Labour’s leadership elections in 2010 sees him regarded as a considerate centrist, while his recent campaign for the full disclosure of Hillsborough papers means he’s unafraid to grab emotive, powerful public issues. I would bet he won’t oppose minimum pricing just because Cameron wants it.

Meanwhile, Scottish Labour is gone too far on record opposing a minimum unit price to adapt to it developing from a Scottish to a UK debate. If Burnham backs Cameron’s measures, Jackie Baillie has to stand alone.

Labour in Holyrood’s not wrong in saying minimum pricing isn’t enough on its own to tackle Scotland’s demon drink problem. But I think they are mistaken to not back minimum pricing.

To survive Scottish Labour needs to develop an identity, both political and on policy, to distinguish itself from the Westminster party. But trying to do that on legislation that will save people’s lives should not be the place to start.

Why the Coalition is outgunned by the SNP

Jan 10

Posted by James in Constitution, Holyrood, Westminster | 57 Comments

The intensity of the debate/kerfuffle/furore about the independence referendum continues to build with the publication of the UK Government’s consultation document today – which at first glance doesn’t appear to bear much relation to the weekend spin from the Prime Minister.

Despite the legal concerns of Scotland’s finest legal tweeters, I share Jeff’s view that Holyrood could ask a question which is politically equivalent to an independence referendum, even if the previous “open negotiations” one is a poor choice and one that would require a vote on what had been negotiated. No matter: the Coalition proposal is for clarity on Holyrood’s ability to legislate here, and that’s welcome. The date limits and nature of the question are far more problematic, and I’ll return to the latter shortly unless someone gets in ahead of me again here. On the date front it’s long been my view that a late poll with a tired SNP administration (domestically they’ve basically run out of ideas already) is more likely to be lost, so both sides appear to be arguing for the position which suits them least.

In any case, the constitutional battle is truly upon us. But are the armies well-matched? Is the terrain more suited to one side or another? Is there a parity of intelligence? Clearly not. Just consider the main combatants: the Coalition versus the SNP administration.

Starting with the ground war, the former have, at a Ministerial level, the full-time efforts of Michael Moore and David Mundell. Even the most ardent Lib Dem or Tory wouldn’t pretend they were their parties’ most imaginative or tactically shrewd generals. The best you can say for Moore is that he’s tall and looks Ministerial, whereas Mundell is no friend to his notional colleagues at Holyrood and hardly a first-class campaigner. Neither of them appear terribly in touch with matters on the ground – even just working in London rather than Scotland can’t help, and Moore, like most Lib Dems, has the air of someone who knows he’s not got another Parliamentary term awaiting him: time to enjoy the limo, the staff and the state receptions before heading off into oblivion.

The Coalition also have the Prime Minister’s occasional attention, as this week, which typically doesn’t help very much. David Cameron, despite the name, clearly views Scotland as a far-away country where one’s chums go shooting, which makes it more interesting than the North of England, but only marginally. He regularly overplays his hand, as this week, and I have no doubt that every time he discusses the constitution or Scotland a little dial in SNP HQ twitches perceptibly towards the shiny yellow YES end.

And as for the rank and file, who are they? Imagine a non-party No campaign had been set up: other than hacks from the three main anti-independence parties, who joins up? Who volunteers to be the lion led by these donkeys? Who wants to spend their rainy evenings in a forlorn attempt to move David Cameron’s drinks cabinet six inches closer to Edinburgh? And where are the financial backers who’ve waited their whole lives to fund a defence of the Union?

Consider next the Coalition’s air force. The Scotland Office has perhaps three press officers, and no credible sign of a strategy unit. According to Guido, there isn’t even a SpAd in evidence, while the press team’s work is the kind of stolid and neutrally-worded stuff the civil service insist upon. Finally, the big intellectual guns – presumably naval to stick with my metaphor – in other words, Unionist campaign central. What is it? Where is it? There is simply no devoted and organised hard core with the preservation of the Union as its raison d’être, contrary to Alex Neil’s suspicion of a Yoonyonisht Conshpirashy. Admittedly there are first class journalists for whom the Union is crucial, including the trenchant Alan Cochrane, the self-described black-hearted Unionist, and Alex Massie, who deserves a wider audience than Twitter and the Spectator, but the current field of battle regularly leaves them bemoaning their side’s mistakes.

Above all, the Coalition has lots of purposes, some contradictory, some associated with grinding the faces of the poor, and some day-to-day fire-fighting. The Scottish question is not their main concern, apparently not even for those Scottish Lib Dems for whom the prospect of independence ought to be focusing their minds. Fighting on lots of fronts at once is much harder than a single determined effort, and it shows.

As for the SNP and the Scottish Government, they have an entire team of Ministers with a dedicated interest in the constitutional question. The FM and DFM are truly first class officers, generals with strong tactical nous, irritating as I find the Great Puddin’ in particular. The next tier has brains too, notably Swinney and Russell. They’re all based here in Scotland, which makes for a much stronger connection to the ground campaign, their careers still look like their trajectory is upwards, and their supporters don’t cringe when they come on the telly. And those front-line troops are gee’d up to say the least. They’ve just had the best ever election result in their lifetimes, they’re experienced, and they believe one more push will see them achieve total victory. They can also call on irregulars, ex-SNP fundies and those for whom the current leadership is too right-wing, people who wouldn’t campaign in a local election ever again but who would do anything they could to deliver independence.

And on the air war side the SNP have a staggering array of media professionals. They have a team in the party’s own offices, from where electioneering and campaigning are led – and they buy in strategic support. They have Liz Lloyd’s well-run team on the fourth floor at Holyrood, dedicated to getting backbench SNP MSPs into the papers and on the telly. They have their own vast civil service press team who can’t promote the SNP, but promote the hell out of their Ministers in a pseudo-non-partisan way, just as they did for the last lot (and who seem brighter than the UK equivalents). And they have 11 SpAds, led by the always-on Kevin Pringle (incidentally, the odds on an all-male team like that occurring purely by chance are less than a twentieth of one percent, all other things being equal), bridging the gap between the civil service press teams and Ministers’ partisan positions. Each and every one of these people is based in Scotland, and they know the key Scottish political hacks in a way the Coalition’s press team simply don’t. With the exception of the Record and the Telegraph, all the important papers backed them in May, even if they won’t back a Yes vote whenever it comes.

I felt the disparity when it was just me doing media for the Green MSPs by day and for the party by night and weekend, but the assets the Coalition itself can deploy on a day-to-day basis fall almost as short: the exception will be on rare weeks like this where Scotland is indeed their overall front line.

Finally, the SNP itself is that single-issue big gun the Union side lacks. They have some serious shortcomings – how and by whom the constitution should be written is one, what they want to do with an independent Scotland is another – but they know how to make the case and they have the organisation. They’ve also got an overflowing war chest, from poets to lottery winners, and they’re supported by a series of thinkers like Pat Kane and Gerry Hassan, blogs like Bella Caledonia and, well, there’s actually a bit of a dearth of non-mental SNP-backing blogs, but you see the argument. (edit – this has been taken as an insult to first-class bloggers like Kate and LPW: it’s not, just that neither are exactly uncritical, and there are others too, but many good ones are now sorely missed)

These substantial disparities don’t guarantee an SNP win over how the referendum will be held, nor in the referendum itself, but they’ve certainly put themselves in about the strongest position possible, and the appearance of a UK administration being a larger force is superficial and entirely misleading. In fact the gap between them is almost what Iain Banks calls an Out Of Context Problem in the opposite direction. Your civilisation is getting on swimmingly with swords and pikes when a ship turns up and men with guns get out. Taking account of all these imbalances, the next phases of this war remain the SNP’s to lose.