Better Nation

Better Nation is seemingly temporarily turning into a rolling blog on the developments of the referendum’s question of legality but if my *cough* erstwhile esteemed fellow editors won’t pen anything *cough cough*, I shall just keep going. Incidentally, if any readers wish to submit a Guest Post on these potentially historic developments (or anything else), please do so.

Today’s log of the independence debate will no doubt revolve around Michael Moore’s statement to the House of Commons on the legal status of a referendum on Scottish independence as the unionist camp seek to put the troubles of the past 48 hours behind them. The day looks set to basically boil down to a challenge to Alex Salmond to ascertain whether the FM wishes to risk holding a referendum that may be open to legal challenge or whether he will negotiate with Westminster in order to ensure any referendum is as watertight as possible in terms of rebuffing any potential subsequent challenges. It looks set to be a more difficult day for Michael Moore than it will be for the First Minister though, and that is for two reasons.

The first reason is, the Lib Dem camp continues to be the harbingers of gloom. Michael Moore, and Danny Alexander who was uninspiringly bumping his gums on Radio 4 this morning, need to find a way to be, or at least appear to be, excited about taking part in this referendum, about having the opportunity to celebrate Scotland and direct its trajectory. However, instead, they are solemnly trying to hold back a Nationalist surge with trembling tones and careworn expressions. Who in their right minds wants to buy into that? Who is being pulled closer to the Lib Dems as a result of the party’s leadership on this issue?

Well, not (the excellent) Lib Dem blogger Andrew Page for a start:

“there are Liberal Democrats who are independence-leaning. They see a liberal vision for a truly liberal Scotland and recognise that having an open mind on the question is not anathema to liberalism. In a previous conversation with Willie Rennie I argued that independence could yield benefits for both Scotland and our party that should not be lightly dismissed; I also suggested that the Liberal Democrats’ best position could be in supporting whichever option gives Scots most freedoms and being open to the notion of independence even if we remain skeptical about the details. It would certainly be preferable to entrenched, cynical opposition. The Home Rule Commission is welcome, if somewhat overdue, but while it is right to formulate our own preferred option there is no place for political arrogance that refuses to even countenance other perspectives that would help bring about our liberal aims – you know, the kind of arrogance some might view as extreme.”

There is clearly a sense that the Lib Dem position on this, or should that be lack of a position, is not only losing them support outwith their party, but also support from within. People get into Politics to do something or argue for something, they don’t tend to get into Politics to stop other parties pushing their objectives. Michael Moore could well be inadvertently sapping his own party’s morale when he takes to the podium today.

The second reason that today might be a bad day for Moore is simply because there is a good chance that many Scots simply don’t agree that Westminster needs to hold open the legal door for Scotland to hold its referendum and deliver a result that must be abided by on both sides of the border. After all, what part of ‘Yes’ won’t Cameron or the courts understand?

Let’s be honest and realistic, a referendum carrying a Yes vote that is held within Scotland will result in independence whether it is ‘legally binding’, advisory or whatever. The Scottish people advising their two Governments to negotiate a settlement for separation is beyond successful challenge (how can a single legal complaint ever trump the will of an entire nation?). So there is an element of timewasting about today’s discussions and Michael Moore, rightly or wrongly, will be the face and name of that wasting of time. The Scottish Parliament having the legal competence to hold the referendum would be nice, but it is not at all necessary.

The only possible bone of contention from a legal perspective will be the Electoral Commission and to what extent it, or a similar independent body, will be involved. It is perfectly reasonable for Alex Salmond to reject a UK institution’s involvement in a plebiscite that is for Scotland alone to decide and hold, even if that institution is the venerable Electoral Commission, but some sort of independent oversight is certainly required to remove any suggestion of impropriety.

That is arguably the only interesting facet of today’s spectacle, but who in their right minds believes that Alex Salmond and the Scottish Government don’t have something waterproof in mind regarding this that shall be announced in due course? Not me.

It has been over 24 hours since David Cameron made it clear that he would be advancing plans for “decisive” action on the independence referendum. He has since fleshed out his rhetoric with an offer to the SNP that it can hold a referendum in the next 18 months that the UK Government will pave a legal path right up to the country’s break up for. The SNP has, quite reasonably, rejected the notion entirely and remains unmoved from its plans to hold the referendum in the second half of this term. So that’s the two main protagonists out of the way in a new skirmish that isn’t entirely unexpected, but what say Labour and the Lib Dems? What input shall they have that could pull this situation their way? Well, precious little and not a jot so far as far as I can make out, save for Tom Harris who is lockstep behind Cameron (quelle surprise).

So what should Labour and the Lib Dems do about this surprise development? And who are we looking to for leadership, Miliband/Clegg or Lamont/Rennie? This is a big test for how devolved these parties’ strategies and decision making are and it is an opportunity for leaders on both sides of the border.

First of all, the time for fence sitting is over. This isn’t Calman, this isn’t bland attack pieces in the newspaper, this isn’t blocking a minority Government as was the case in 2007-2011. The game has begun and some parties still haven’t laced up their boots. It is of course difficult to predict what Labour will do as it is not at all clear what type of Scotland the party, and the party members, wish to live in in the medium to long term. Assuming that it is somewhere between the status quo and full fiscal autonomy, they should try to restrict the space that Alex Salmond has to operate in.

David Cameron’s proposal is either right or it is wrong, this is a decision for Scotland or it is a decision to be dictated by London and, for me, Labour and the Lib Dems should seek to argue both. David Cameron has served up the ideal opportunity for the Scottish leaders of unionist parties to loosen their ties with London a little bit more. Johann Lamont should stand shoulder to shoulder with Alex Salmond in denouncing Cameron’s intervention, even if she is doubtlessly secretly pleased that the UK Government has made a move and has some sort of strategy up its sleeve to stop the relentless Nationalist march. The way that she can assist, along with Willie Rennie through a Labour/LD alliance on this issue, is to effectively man mark the SNP and dilute their arguments by sharing them, differing only in the result that the hope to achieve whenever the referendum comes around.

Ed Miliband should provide lukewarm but convincing support of David Cameron’s proposal, stating his commitment to the UK and desire that Scotland remains a part of it while Johann Lamont can rail just as much as Salmond is doing currently from Edinburgh, pushing for that second question that Labour still needs to own and shape in order to get back into the driving seat of Scotland’s political journey. Labour can win support of those who wish to go early or go later on a vote, the SNP is restricted to the latter; Labour can win support for proponents of fiscal autonomy, the status quo, devo max, the SNP is increasingly restricted to independence. (This of course comes with the caveat that full fiscal autonomy and devolution max are de facto victories for all but the most fundamentalist of SNP members. It, again, all hinges on precisely what Labour actually wants from this plebiscite).

So that is Labour, and to an extent the Lib Dems should try the same, but Willie Rennie and Nick Clegg have more to lose. The Tories have shown that they do not need Scottish MPs in order to win a UK General Election and they won’t need any in 2015 to win a craved majority. So even if Scotland collectively bellows with anger at an early referendum being forced upon us, it’s no skin off David Cameron and all but one of the Conservative MPs’ noses as long as the result is a No. The Lib Dems however, if seen as the handmaidens of a dastardly ruse by the Bullingdon elite, will have to pay a very heavy price for a longer period than they already face. A quarter of the Lib Dems’ MPs are north of the border, the Tories only have one, so this is a bigger risk for Clegg than it is for Cameron and to what extent depends on the attitudes of Scots.

Alex Salmond has tried to use Scottish nonchalance to his advantage by gambling that the public doesn’t mind waiting until 2014, 2015 or 2016 to have the referendum that we provided “an overwhelming mandate” for (as opposed to just a standard mandate of course); David Cameron is trying to use that same apparent unbothered opinion of Scots to bounce the public into an early referendum with insignificant backlash, and he may yet pull it off. Labour and the Lib Dems have the opportunity to come through the middle and actually stir the public’s imagination by owning the constitutional settlement that most Scots seem to prefer, but if they haven’t done it yet then why would they do so now?

Time is running out for them and irrelevance beckons as events currently unfold, and particularly as Cameron and Salmond escalate their positions, taking the headlines with them.

The choice of silence is no longer an option for Labour and the Lib Dems. It’s time for a bit of Bring it On.

UPDATE:
Scottish Labour have a very short news item on their website. They want the referendum “as quickly as possible” and want it to be “quick, clear and decisive”, wording that is remarkably similar to that of David Cameron’s on Andrew Marr yesterday, though they have ducked answering the question of whether they agree with Cameron’s bribe or not.

For me, it is a mistake for Scottish Labour to line up too closely and too cosily with the Tories on this and leave so much vacant space for the SNP to take the anti-London, anti-Tory, seemingly pro-Scotland line on its own. I reckon holding firm to an anti-SNP line has clouded Labour’s better judgement. The SNP did after all win its majority after devolved parties stated that if people wanted a referendum on SNP terms then Scots would have to vote for it. The perception across surely is this – Salmond won, he gets to make the rules.

However, the biggest problem for Labour is this (and this news story doesn’t help answer it at all)…:

What powers do Scottish Labour want Scotland to have going forward? It’s not enough to be the negative party saying No for the next 18 months.

Prime Minister David Cameron was on Andrew Marr this morning and he made several eyebrow-raising points regarding Scotland (see transcript below), including confirmation that a statement will be made “in the coming days” on the legal aspect of the independence referendum.

David Cameron believes that “we owe the Scottish people something that is fair, legal and decisive”, decisive being the most interesting word for me there. He also “(doesn’t) think we should just let this (uncertainty and lack of clarity) go on year after year”. Cameron is keen to “move forward” and “settle this issue in a fair and decisive way”. And there’s that d- word again. Indeed, he mentioned decisive or decisiveness four times in total, so something is afoot.

My expectation is one of three possibilities:

Either:-
(1) David Cameron will announce a fast tracking of the transfer of powers from Westminster to Holyrood in order to deprive Alex Salmond from having any excuses to name his date and get on with Scotland deciding its future, one way or the other.

or

(2) David Cameron will announce a UK version of the National Conversation, an effort to engage with Scots and talk up what the UK is and why Scotland should stick with it.

or

(3) David Cameron will announce that Westminster, the Parliament with the legal competence to do so, will facilitate an independence referendum in order to end the uncertainty surrounding Scotland’s constitutional arrangement.

Of the three options, the first doesn’t change things too much other than put a little bit of extra pressure on Salmond to get a move on (easily ignored), the second is a decent idea to get the unionist side of the debate in early but is likely to be as unsuccessful as the original National Conversation and the third, well, the third one makes more sense from a unionist perspective – using Westminster’s existing powers to hold a Yes/No referendum on Scottish independence.

Yes, the SNP will jump up and down about London ‘butting in’ to Scotland’s affairs and will go on about its (highly questionable) mandate to hold a referendum at the end of this parliamentary term but both sides are playing to win and if Alex Salmond wants to have the plebiscite later to maximise his chances of winning then it is reasonable that David Cameron sees it the other way. Furthermore, the Prime Minister is still responsible for Scotland and if he can see that Scotland is losing out on investment, losing out on jobs as a result of this uncertainty then he has a duty to act.

I’ve said before that the unionists best chance of a win is to move early and I’ll happily say it again. It looks like we’ll find out this week to what extent the Prime Minister agrees.

.
.
.
.
.

ANDREW MARR SHOW TRANSCRIPT – 8th Jan

ANDREW MARR:
Let’s turn to something that might be about getting smaller, not getting bigger, and that’s the United Kingdom itself. Are you determined to affect the timing and the questions of any referendum on Scottish independence?

DAVID CAMERON:
Well I think there is a problem today, in fact two problems. One is the uncertainty about this issue I think is damaging to Scotland and Scotland’s economy because you have companies and other organisations asking well what’s Scotland’s future. Is it within the United Kingdom or not? That’s damaging. And, secondly, I think it’s very unfair on the Scottish people themselves who don’t really know when this question is going to be asked, what the question is going to be, who’s responsible for asking it, and I think we owe the Scottish people something that is fair, legal and decisive. And so in the coming days we’ll be setting out clearly what the legal situation is, and I think then we need to move forward and say, right, let’s settle this issue in a fair and decisive way.

ANDREW MARR:
So what is the legal situation because you know I think, as most people understood it, Alex Salmond as First Minister of Scotland would decide when the referendum was going to happen and the question of whether it’s an in or out referendum or whether there was a third option there would be down to the Scottish administration to decide. Is that something you don’t believe to be the case?

DAVID CAMERON:
Well we’re going to make clear – and I’m afraid I can’t do it today – but we’ll be making clear in the coming days what the legal situation is, and then I think we need a proper debate where people can put forward their views. But my view very strongly is the Scottish people deserve some clarity, some decisiveness, and obviously they deserve it to be legal and binding. And I think that’s very, very …

ANDREW MARR:
(over) So sooner rather than later?

DAVID CAMERON:
(over) Let me be absolutely clear, put my cards on the table. I strongly support the United Kingdom. I think it’s one of the most successful partnerships in the history of the world.

ANDREW MARR:
Yuh.

DAVID CAMERON:
I think it would be desperately sad if Scotland chose to leave the United Kingdom and I’ll do everything I can to encourage Scotland to stay in the United Kingdom because I think that’s the best for all our economies – Scotland included – and all our societies.

ANDREW MARR:
And of course if Scotland did leave the United Kingdom, that would be the end of Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent, wouldn’t it?

DAVID CAMERON:
Well there would be many disadvantages from a break-up of the United Kingdom. You know all those issues would have to be dealt with. But let’s not go there. You know we have this great partnership. This partnership’s worked so well for us in the past, we must keep it into the future. But let’s have some decisiveness about it. Let’s not drift apart with … I think what Alex Salmond is trying to do is just … I think he knows that the Scottish people at heart don’t want a full separation from the United Kingdom and so he’s trying to sort of create a situation where that bubbles up and happens, whereas I think we need some decisiveness so we can clear up this issue.

ANDREW MARR:
And just on the timing. He also apparently wants to have this vote in 2014, the anniversary of the great Battle of Bannockburn when lots of people called Cameron defeated lots of people called Osborne or something like that. But at any rate, he would like it to be 2014. You are saying no, let’s have the vote earlier.

DAVID CAMERON:
Well I think this is a matter for the Scottish people …

ANDREW MARR:
(over) Oh it is, it is.

DAVID CAMERON:
… and if there are problems of uncertainty and lack of clarity, I don’t think we should just let this go on year after year. I think that’s damaging for everyone concerned, so let’s clear up the legal situation and then let’s have a debate about how we bring this issue to a conclusion.

ANDREW MARR:
(over) And sooner, not later?

DAVID CAMERON:
My view is that sooner rather than later would be better.

It has been a week of fun political stories for tweeters and bloggers to keep themselves entertained over and yesterday was no different with Nick Clegg quoted in The Scotsman as calling the SNP extremists. 

To be an extremist is typically to be two things – to have all political parties to one side of you on a particular political spectrum and also to be seen to have a very small band of committed followers behind you.

The former is palpably the case for Nationalists when it comes to Scottish independence, as the SNP never tires of reminding us when they merrily lump the London unionist parties together. 

The latter is something that is not true of the SNP with a majority Government and ~30% of the public backing them on independence. 

It is well worth noting that the former is a logical extension of the word “extremism” and the latter is merely a perception. An extremist could have democratic support of 50%+ from the public, they all just might happen to really want significant change.

Nick Clegg did not liken the SNP to basque separatists, to IRA groups, to Italian fascists or some other such well known extremist organisation, his quote was “the extremists are those who think that we need to yank Scotland out of the United Kingdom tomorrow”.  And he was accurate, and smart, to say so. 

The SNP rattiness on Twitter speaks volumes about how rattled the Nationalists are about this accusation. They know, even if they don’t care to admit it, that they are the extremists of the independence piece and, righty or wrongly, this comes with a heavy disadvantage. 

Think about this, if you asked 50 people to pick a number between 1 and 10, would 5 of them select 1 and 5 of them select 10? Not likely. There is comfort in selecting something from nearer the centre. 

And that is why Nick Clegg’s positioning of the SNP is so astute. He is pushing the Nats to the side and freeing up some precious space in the centre for his party to find some much needed relevance. Alex Salmond (pictured above to the extreme right of some school girls) is, somewhat ironically, helping the Lib Dems out with this strategy. There is no middle ground for the Lib Dems to hold in a Yes/No referendum but the First Minister’s apparent insistence that there be a second question is a lifeline for the Lib Dems that they appear well placed to take with both hands.

Could the Lib Dems be on track for a revival? Well, not simply by calling the SNP separatists they aren’t, but positioning themselves as Scotland’s leading devolutionists in a period when Scotland may very well define itself for the next generation as committed to devolution will serve them well. Sure, the Lib Dems will get spanked at the local elections in May and probably at the Westminster elections in 2015 too but Holyrood 2016 should see a huge reversal of fortunes.

As the SNP licks its wounds and comes to terms with a No result, as Scottish Labour pointedly but purposelessly breaks away from UK Labour, as Tories continue to be Tories and as Greens struggle to get a look in, why wouldn’t the Lib Dems enjoy a resurgence in Scotland? Fees schmees and Clegg Schmlegg. Tim Farron and Willie Rennie freed from the shackles of a wrongheaded coalition standing in the spotlight with the shadow of independence removed for a generation. They could put on quite a show you know, but that’s still a long way away. 

For now, the SNP perhaps had its first taste in a long while of how losing will feel when the referendum is held because it is choosing to have its own sharpest weapon used against it. 

Almost all political parties want to be seen as radical but few wish to be seen as extreme. Why? What is the difference?

Perhaps the SNP should stand up and be proud of who they are, positive extremists who are brave enough to argue for the radical, relatively extreme change that Scotland needs, not opting to suffer more from the glacial progress that we are making as a nation within a sclerotic union. 

The Nats ran for cover despite Nick Clegg pointing out the reality of the situation this weekend.  They’ll need to do better next time, and the time after that, and the time after that, and so on if they are to have any chance of winning the Yes vote they so crave.