Should Scotland be an Independent Country?

At long last the wrangling and complaining about the wording for the referendum question is over.  With a clear victory for the Yes camp.  Though the Electoral Commission has rejected the Scottish government's preferred question - Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? - their alternative is pretty much the same.  At great deal of fuss was made by Unionists over the phrase, Do you agree.  However their alternative, which called for an I agree/I disagree responsive was dismissed out of hand.  The key for all Yes campaigners is that the question, even in its shortened form still requires a simple Yes/No response.  So much better to be campaigning for Yes vote.  Especially when the Unionists still cannot come up with anything positive to offer for staying in the UK.  Their campaign is all about how Scotland is too wee and too poor.  No vision and nothing to inspire us.  

It is also worth noting that the Electoral Commission has called upon both the UK and Scottish governments to provide clarity about what will happen after the referendum, whatever the result.   To quote from their report, "We will ask both Governments to agree a joint position, for example, on the timescales for negotiating independence and the roles of the UK and Scottish Parliament in agreeing it following a ‘Yes’ vote, or for taking forward discussions on the future of Scotland following a ‘No’ vote."  Seems a very sensible suggestion to me.  Worth pointing out how insistent the Unionists were in demanding that the Scottish government accept without question the recommendations of the Electoral Commission.  I wonder if the Unionists will be equally insistent in demanding that the UK government accepts this recommendation from the Electoral Commission?  Any bets?  So far the UK government has strenuously refused to participate in anything that might bring some clarity to the debate.  I wonder what they have to hide?

Scotland is Already Independent (in some things)

This is something that may come as a surprise to lots of people, but in many areas of life Scotland is already fully independent.  It is a fact nearly always overlooked by Unionists, who are so keen to demonstrate that independence will somehow damage us.  Yet in areas as diverse as sport and religion, Scotland is and more important, always has been independent.


Let us start with sport, one of the most popular activities of humanity just about everywhere.  In just about every sport, Scotland is, to use the Unionists' favoured term, already separate.  It is not just in football, golf and rugby that we have our own independent, sorry, separate teams and governing bodies.  Nearly every sport from cricket to volleyball is governed in Scotland by our very own, internationally recognised ruling association.  And as far as I am aware, not even the most ardent Unionist argues that Scotland should give up its independence in these sports.  Just look at the brouhaha over the fielding of a UK football team in this year's Olympics.


When it comes to sports, everyone accepts our right to be independent - to run things for ourselves and to be represented in the relevant international bodies in our own right.  It is also worth pointing out that in all sports we are fully independent or separate if you prefer.  This means that we are not subsidised by anyone, certainly not by England or the UK government.  Somehow we manage to successfully pay our way.  We may not be the most successful team in some sports, but hey, nor is England.  We accept with good grace and a few murmurs whatever we do manage to achieve and if it is not good enough then we try to work out how we can do better in the future.  But virtually nobody thinks it a good idea to give up our separate football team for a UK one.


The same can be said for another, some might say even more important facet of life - religion.  Here again it is an uncontested fact that all religions, or at least all Christian denominations, have their own, independent/separate lives and governing structures.  This is clearly the case with the Church of Scotland, which as its name suggests is a wholly Scottish institution.  Perhaps surprisingly to some, the same applies to the Catholic Church.  Despite the universal nature of Catholicism, the Church is run along national lines.  This means that the Catholic Church is separate/independent from the Catholic Church in England for example.  Scottish Catholics have their own direct line to the Pope, without the inconvenience of having to go through London.  Again the various Scottish religious groups manage to survive and provide services to their faithful, without the benefits of any kind of subsidy from England or the UK government.


Since devolution there is now a further range of public services in which Scotland is pretty much independent.  I refer to education, the Health Service, local government, social work etc.  All areas which are under the full responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.  Over the past decade or so, Scotland has become ever more different from the rest of the UK, especially from England.  We are pursuing an independent/separate line in the above areas.  And virtually nobody is advocating that we hand back power in these areas to Westminster.  The key difference between let us say, education and football, is that in the latter we have full control over what we spend.  Whereas with education, we can only spend what London condescends to give us.  So in relation to public services we are only partly independent.  


So why not go the whole hog and vote for full independence in 2014.  It is amazing that we are proud of our independence in sport and religion and we are equally proud of our separate education and NHS, yet Unionists would have us believe we are still somehow too wee, too poor to take full responsibility for everything - just like all other independent countries manage to do.

Is Scotland a Nation?

The title for this post is in part a response to a post in the Better Nation blog entitled “Non-nationalists for Independence.”  You can read the post here.  Like James, the author of that post, I do not consider myself a nationalist and try to avoid the term.  It is one of the reasons why I have found it impossible to join the SNP for example.  However I am not in agreement with James’ interpretation of nationalism and non-nationalism.  His starting point is that, “Crudely, there are romantic arguments for particular territorial boundaries, and there are pragmatic ones.”  And he of course supports independence for purely pragmatic reasons.  As he puts it, “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 people he would regard as nationalists on the other hand see “independence as an end in itself, an emotional objective irrespective of any other political changes.”

This is where I take issue with James - on two grounds.  Firstly I do see independence as an end in itself and secondly I do not believe one can keep the emotional out of this debate.  James wants independence for purely pragmatic reasons.  But why then stop at Scotland?  Would his particular purposes - a progressive, fairer and greener society - not be even more likely if Scotland were to join in a Union with Denmark?  Or what about an even wider Union with all the Scandinavian countries?   And if an independent Scotland did not deliver on any of James’s concerns, what then?  Would he seek re-admission to the UK?    While James may be quite relaxed about changing the territorial boundaries of Scotland every so often just to pursue a particular social or economic objective, I suspect he is in a very tiny minority in this.

The reason is that most people do feel some kind of emotional attachment to their country.  Which is why independence as an end in itself is the only valid position to hold.  Independence is not just for Christmas or the next few years.  While it may not be forever - who can foretell that far ahead? - it is for the long term.  So it has to be an end in itself.  It is of course at the same time a beginning.  In an independent Scotland James will be able to argue and campaign for his vision for Scotland - one which I pretty much share, as it happens.  The purpose of independence for Scotland is to establish that it is us, the people who live in Scotland, who get to decide our future, whatever it may be.  Choosing Independence will be based on a mixture of pragmatism and emotional attachment.

A major part of James’ difficulty is I venture to do with the complexities and contentions surrounding the word Nation and its derivatives such as Nationalism.  In his post he uses the term nation-states as opposed to nations.  I presume this is because he is most interested in states, but needs the addition of the word nation in order to argue against nationalism.  For it is the case that in the English speaking world the word Nation tends to be used as a synonym for state.  Thus we have English National Ballet, English National Opera, the National Galleries of Scotland, the Australian National University etc, etc.  I have never been at all comfortable with this usage.  In other parts of the world the word state and its derivatives are more likely to be used.  Thus we have the Wiener Staatsoper, the Berlin Staatsoper, and in Denmark the Prime Minister is the Statsminister.  Variants of the English word realm are also common in some countries, for example the Rijksmuseum in the Netherlands or the Riksdag in Sweden.  

To return to Scotland and the title question - is Scotland a Nation?  My answer is that Scotland is not a nation.  To me, Scotland is a state.  It is in fact a kingdom as the Scottish state was created by successive kings and queens.  The boundaries of this kingdom remained pretty stable over centuries and the Union of the Crowns of England and Scotland under James VI predated the UK by over a century.  I am by persuasion a republican, so I tend to refer to Scotland as a state.  But not if I can avoid it as a nation.  The original Scots were an Irish tribe and though they gave their name to the state, the Scots were never the sole or even the largest group in the country.  Scotland has always been a multi-national and multi-lingual country.  As has often been said we Scots nowadays are very much a mongrel breed.  Something to be proud of and not something that easily squares with nationalism or exclusive notions of national identity.

Scotland the country, Scotland the land has existed for centuries with its own distinctive customs and laws.  It is on the basis of its continuing existence as a distinct entity - a state - that I support Scottish Independence.  Let it be us - the people of Scotland, wherever we come from - who decide our future.

The Positive Case for the Union - Is there One?

Yesterday the Scottish government published its consultation proposals on the referendum on Independence for Scotland.  Cue for lots of media coverage both here in Scotland and in the rest of the UK.  What I find most fascinating about the responses from the Unionists is that they invariably fall back on the claim that independence would be damaging to Scotland and to Scots.  At the same time they are desperate to make a positive case for the Union.


Is it in fact possible to make a positive case for Scotland to remain in the UK?  Looking over some of the recent comments by Unionists, their case rests on three fundamentals:  the economy, defence and British nationalism. Given that with devolution, the Scottish Parliament is now responsible for just about all domestic matters - education, health, policing, housing, justice, transport etc - this focus on the economy and defence makes sense from a Unionist perspective.


However, despite claims to the contrary, their pitch is relentlessly negative.  Their key message is that Scotland is too small, too poor, too weak and goodness knows what else, to survive as an independent country.  Without England we poor Scots would be alone and defenceless in the world and even poorer.  The Scottish Daily Mail, one of the bastions of the Union, provided a nice illustration of this in their edition from 25th January.  Entitled 1,000 days to save the Union, this front page editorial was full of dire claims of how disastrous independence would be for Scotland.  According to this bulwark of the Union an independent Scotland would "confront a deficit of at least £9billion, enforced membership of the euro and a potentially unlimited liability in the ownership of toxic banks."


Now of course, as par for this kind of diatribe, no evidence was provided to support these claims.  However what was  really fascinating about this editorial was that despite the paper's clear view that Scotland is a basket case, which could not survive without English largesse, despite all this, the Daily Mail believes that Scottish Independence "will ultimately be a disaster for the whole of the UK."  Pretty hard to square that circle I would have thought.  Not that they even begin to try.  If Scotland is so poor why on earth is the Daily Mail and other Unionists so keen to prevent our independence.  So keen to keep Scotland in the UK that they are prepared to lie and spout out unsupported propaganda.


I suspect that part of the reason for the focus on negativity is that at bottom all Unionists are British nationalists.  They are too emotionally tied to Britain and in particular notions of Great Britain that they cannot conceive of Britain without Scotland.  At heart they know that Scotland is a net contributor to the UK, which is why, like the Daily Mail, they are aware that Scottish Independence could prove a disaster for the rest of the UK.  Or more precisely the London dominated elites that currently rule the UK.  But they cannot make too much of the UK's need for Scotland, for that would confirm that Scotland could not simply survive as an independent country, but would in fact be a very rich and successful independent country.  Far easier to pretend that Scotland is a poor wee country and to fall back on the so-called glories of the past.


For a more detailed,  yet light-hearted look at the failed attempts by Unionists to specify just what benefits Scotland gets from the Union, have a look here.

The UK needs Scotland - but Scotland doesn't need the UK

As the debate about independence for Scotland heats up a bit, I am amazed at just how insistent our London based leaders are in keeping Scotland in the Union.  Such unanimity is very rare in politics.  Just think of the EU and the range of views among our political, business and media elites over what relationship the UK should have with the EU.  But when it come to Scotland, everyone in positions of power in London all share exactly the same view - Scotland must remain within the UK.

One reason given for this is that without the largesse that comes from London , we Scots would be quickly reduced to penury.  This view, while quite pervasive is of course nonsense.  I am not even sure that its proponents believe it.  But they have to say something and beyond vague generalities about being stronger together and sharing the same values and other platitudes, they fail to make any positive case for the Union.  This I think is both deliberate and revealing.  For it is my firm conviction that the UK in its current form, needs Scotland far more than Scotland needs the UK.  In particular the position and world view of our London based elites would change dramatically and for the worse (from their point of view) if the UK were to be reduced to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.  I can think of at least five reasons which explain why our elites badly need Scotland to stay in the Union.

Economic - This may come as a bit of a surprise, but despite the Unionist claims to the contrary, Scotland is a net contributor to the UK economy in more years than not.  Scotland has many successful industries, for example tourism and agricultural products.  One of which, whisky is an iconic brand throughout the world.  And of course there is North Sea Oil.  While it may have passed its peak in terms of production, there is still barrels of oil out there to be recovered and discovered.  The UK continues to depend on the taxes from North Sea oil and gas to balance its books.  Without these revenues the UK government would be in an even bigger mess than it currently is.  The revenues from Scotland’s share of these reserves are just too important for our London based elite to give up without a struggle.

Military - This was the reason the UK came into being in the first place.  England needed to secure its northern border.  While this is no longer a factor - no-one really thinks that Russia or another continental power is going to try and invade the UK.  However Scotland is still vital for the UK and its military ambitions.  It is a useful place for airbases, but most of all, it is the home for the UK’s nuclear submarines.  Where else in England , Wales or Northern Ireland could they be based?  Not a choice the military brass and politicians would want to make.

Size - Despite what many people say, size does matter.  Especially for countries that want to be seen as great powers.  Now the current UK is not that large a landmass as major countries go.  The UK is slightly larger than Romania and a bit smaller than Italy.  But without Scotland it becomes much smaller.  A UK of England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be smaller than Uruguay and just slightly larger than Tunisia.  If it was just England on its own, well it would be very slightly smaller than Greece and very slightly larger than Nicaragua.  Quite a downgrade in size for a great power.  (Not to be contemplated.)

Self-Image - This is clearly related to the above in that for most of our elite and for many English people in general, Great Britain and England are pretty much the same thing.  I image that most English people would find it incredibly difficult to draw a map of the UK without Scotland.  Probably even more difficult for them to draw a map of England alone.  It is, I suspect, way beyond their ken to conceive of the UK without Scotland’s land mass to the north.   It is even worse for our London based elite, whose image of themselves is very much related to the notion of Great Britain and all that goes or rather, went with that name.  The largest Empire in the world, once upon a time.  Yet without Scotland there is no Great Britain, or rather, it reverts to a mere geographical term, without any political substance.  There would also be the loss of the Union flag.  Union Jack no more.  Whatever remains of the UK would need to devise a new flag.  And what would this new country be called?  To be Prime Minister of the UK of England, Wales and Northern Ireland does not have anything like the same ring to it as Prime Minister of the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  (We do not like this at all.)

Status and Standing in the World - Here we come to the crux of the matter.  While the economic and military aspects of Scottish independence can be negotiated and dealt with, however reluctantly, the other consequences for the rest of the UK are enormous.  Or at least for their London based elites.  Just what standing in the wider world would or could this truncated UK command.  For how much longer could this truncated and much diminished UK retain its permanent seat in the Security Council of the UN?  Many in the UK are proud to talk of the UK “punching above its weight” in international affairs.  But much of this is a residual of our Imperial past, when GB did rule the waves.  I suspect that the loss of Scotland would be seen by our London based elites and by the rest of the world as a massive blow to their power and influence.

So the next time some Unionist politician or cheerleader waxes lyrical about the UK and how much Scotland would lose from leaving, just ask yourself - how much more would the UK lose from an independent Scotland?

Scottish Independence - Start Negotiating Now!

The initial skirmishes in the campaign for Independence for Scotland gives us an inkling of what is in store for us over the next 1000 days.  And it is not a pretty or edifying prospect.  Claims and counter claims will be made with great solemnity.  However without the time and resources to do a bit of research it will be very difficult for most voters to make much sense of the various claims.  We have already had a flavour of the more outrageous and unfounded assertions that the Unionist side will make.  For example George Osborne lets it be known that he, as UK Chancellor may not allow an independent Scotland to continue to use sterling as its currency.  An assertion that even Treasury spokespersons had to admit was nonsense.  However most newspaper had by then carried Osborne’s lie as a headline.  The subsequent denials were given little or not prominence.

This alas will be the norm.  Already we have had politicians and commentators wading in with dire predictions of how much of the UK national debt an independent Scotland will have to take - usually some astronomical figure.  Others claim that Scotland will have to shoulder all the costs of the bailouts of RBS and HBOS, despite the fact that both are clearly UK banks.  Then we have others claiming that an independent Scotland will be forced to join the Euro.  Which sits at odds with the claim by others that an independent Scotland will not actually be in the EU and will have to apply for membership.  Which of course might be denied - allegedly.  And of course there will be constant claim and counter claim about North Sea oil reserves.  Just how much oil is still there to be recovered.  How much it will be worth and finally, just where will the marine boundary between Scotland and England go.

All these and others are important questions and deserve serious and researched answers.  They are not of course questions that are unique to Scottish independence.  All countries which have become independent have had to find answers to these questions.  Since the fall of the Soviet Union there have been numerous countries in Europe that have become newly independent.  Most have done so without bloodshed.  Perhaps the most relevant for Scotland is the process whereby Czechoslovakia become the Czech Republic and Slovakia, both now full members of the EU.  The Czechs and Slovaks had to work out just who would get what out of the liabilities and assets of the Czechoslovak state.  Exactly the same kind of questions which are being raised in relation to an independent Scotland.  This was done through extensive negotiations.  Which is what should happen here.

Now normally negotiations would begin once both parties had agreed to independence.  But there is no reason why the negotiations cannot begin now.  The UK and Scottish governments could set up joint committees to work out the options and details of what independence would mean.  These committees would consist of UK and Scottish civil servants with the addition of outside experts nominated by both governments.  One such committee would look into the details of the economic and financial aspects of independence.  So instead of endless claims and counter claims about how much of the UK debt an independent Scotland would have to assume, this particular economic committee would present to the public the specifics of how the UK debt would be divvied up.  Now of course, it is perfectly possible that agreement may prove very difficult.  But at the very least we will know what is the basis of any disagreement and both governments will be able to publish their version.  Even in the case of some disagreement on the final outcome, it is likely that there will a great deal of agreement on many of the figures and we, the public will be much better informed.   

This would be the key purpose of starting negotiations now.  To inform, us the electorate, of precisely what Scottish independence would involve.  Of course the UK government is unlikely to agree to such a proposal.  They would see it as akin to conceding independence in advance.  However, if the Unionists are so convinced that the UK positively benefits Scotland and that independence would be harmful to Scotland, then such negotiations would only provide irrefutable proof of their case.  Perhaps they realize that their case is not so irrefutable as they would like to think.

A Referendum is Coming

So after lots of huffing and puffing a bit of clarity about the proposed referendum on independence for Scotland.  The UK government's offer to amend the current Scotland Act to give the Scottish Parliament the legal right to hold such a referendum is to be welcomed.  Despite lots of claims from the SNP to the contrary there was always the likelihood, if not certainty, that any go it alone referendum would be challenged in the courts, with all that could mean in terms of delay.  M'Learned friend, Lallands Peat Worrier has a very good and readable account of the potential legal difficulties here. 


However the UK government has done itself no favours with its blatant attempt to attach strings to this offer.  They just never seem to learn that the more they try to shackle Scots, the more Scots are likely to vote for independence.  In any case Salmond has pretty much resolved the key issue by announcing that the referendum will take place in autumn 2014.  A St Andrew's Day referendum anyone?  It is hard to see the UK government going to the wall to try and force an earlier referendum.  So it looks like Salmond and the SNP have got what they wanted.  A legally binding and thus challenge proof referendum on more or less the date they wanted.


There will no doubt be a few more public wrangles about the fine details of the referendum - who will supervise the campaign and the count etc, but with a bit of luck we can all get down to debating the merits of the case for independence.  Here I think the Unionists will find things rather more difficult than they expect.  Already we have countless references to making the positive case for the UK, but, on examination there is never anything of substance.  The most Unionists can come up with it seems is to hark back to the past and go on about how wonderful things were long ago.  When it comes to the present or the future they have little of real substance to say.  More on this in later posts.


One telling example of how rattled and worried the Unionists are is the suggestion that Scots living in the rest of the UK should be allowed to vote in the referendum.  This raises all kinds of questions, for example why just Scots living in the UK?  Why not Scots no matter where they live?  This of course then raises the problematic of who can count as a Scot?  The proponents of this idea can only justify this proposal on the basis of ethnicity or some kind of racial or national purity.  Exactly the opposite of the kind of Scotland that those of us in favour of independence propose.  Scotland is for those who live here and for those who in the future choose to live here.  And the referendum will be decided by the people who are living in Scotland and registered to vote at the time of the referendum.  Wherever they come from or whatever nationality they hold.

Does the Tory Party have a Future in Scotland?

That is a future other than stagnating at around 16% of the electorate.  This a question for all the Unionist parties, but is particularly urgent for the Scottish Tories as they are in the middle of a leadership election.  And one of the candidates - Murdo Fraser - has come up with a novel and rather daring solution to the crisis of Toryism in Scotland.  His solution is to disband the current party - The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party - and begin afresh with a new party with a new name.  Alan Trench has written an interesting piece here, showing that this proposal is in tune with developments elsewhere in the world.

There is a lot to be said for this idea, and at the very least shows that some Tories are aware of how much Scotland has changed over the last two or three decades.  Which is more than can be said of either the LibDems or Labour.  However merely changing the name is unlikely to make much of a difference.  If a new centre-right party is to succeed then it needs to accept the key reality of politics in Scotland now.  All opinion polls, not to mention actual votes, confirm that the overwhelming majority of Scots want their politicians and their political parties to put Scotland first.  To stand up for Scotland as it is often popularly expressed.  In the key constitutional question this translates into an expressed demand for the Scottish Parliament to be given substantially more powers, including financial and economic powers.  Indeed most Scots want their Parliament to have more or less full control over taxation.  Instead of a block grant coming from London to Edinburgh, the Scottish Government would send a cheque down to London to cover Scotland’s share of the remaining UK matters - primarily defence, foreign affairs and whatever else was felt to be better dealt with at a UK wide level.

Such a policy change to what is often referred to as fiscal responsibility, should be natural territory for a centre-right party.  It would ensure that future Scottish governments could only promise to spend what they were prepared to raise in taxes.  There would be no-one else to blame.  This is the kind of thing the Tories are always going on about - getting rid of the dependency culture, standing on your two feet, taking responsibility etc.

This policy has the great added advantage of making it clear that the new party is indeed a Scottish party, beholden to no-one else.  The new party could and probably will have clear links with the Conservative party in England and Wales, but it would in fact and in deed be an independent party.  Maintaining the UK would remain a key part of their programme, but the emphasis would clearly be on Scotland.  Since polls show that this is want most Scots want - a more powerful parliament, but remaining within the UK - the new party would for the first time in decades be in tune with majority opinion in Scotland.  

The other advantage that would come from such a policy change is that the new party could expect to attract a lot of popular support for its centre-right policies.  For despite appearances to the contrary, Scotland has historically been a predominantly centre-right country.  The only party to win over 50% of the popular vote in a general election was the old Tory party, way back in the mid 1950s.   There has been a steady decline since then, which became a flood with the rise of Thatcherism which was massively rejected by almost all sections of Scottish opinion.  The final blow came with the rise of the SNP, who were originally dubbed the Tartan Tories by their political opponents.  This would seem to indicate that there is fertile ground for a  centre-right party that is seen to be authentically Scottish and one that puts Scottish interests first.

But herein perhaps lies the rub.  For the current Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party seems to have become reduced to primarily representing those who are more attached to the UK than to Scotland.  It is telling that of the four candidates standing for the leadership, only one, the aforementioned Murdo Fraser, is calling for this radical change in direction.  The party seems to be bitterly divided over this proposal.  The danger for the Tories is that if they reject Murdo Fraser and his vision, they become an even more marginalised party.  A rump of embittered right wing unionists who would deep in their hearts really like to the the Scottish Parliament disappear and all would be well in the world again as in the glory days of Mrs T.  Alas for them, such a Scotland never existed.

Fiscal responsibility is of course, not just a Tory idea.  It has been LibDem policy, or at least some version of it has been.  The LibDems are after all the historic party of Home Rule and are theoretically at least in favour of a Federal UK.  Strangely Fiscal responsibility has never much appealed to the Labour party.  In this Labour too faces the prospect of a slow decline à la Scottish Tories.  They are in serious danger of becoming more and more defined by their visceral opposition to any further change and to maintaining the UK at any cost.

If the Unionist parties are to succeed in persuading a majority of Scots to stay with the UK, then paradoxically they need to become more independent and Scottish first.  Most Scots want their political parties to represent Scotland and not to be primarily branch parties of the UK.  We will shortly find out if the Tories, of all people, have seized their chance to respond to this key dynamic of Scottish politics.

More Unionist Nonsense

The current craze for Unionists to belittle Scotland and tell downright lies continues unabated.  A recent entry into the fray was newly elected Tory MSP Ruth Davidson.  She offered us a piece in the Better Nation weblog entitled - Why I’m proud to be Scottish and British.  From her initial paragraph it looked like we were to at long last to get some kind of positive case for the Union.  Alas this was not to be.

The give-away came later on when she wrote:  “I believe Scotland is better off as part of the United Kingdom.”  Now this is not a case for anything, merely as she herself states, her belief.  Well, some people continue to believe that the Earth is flat.  I was hoping for something in the way of evidence to support her belief, but none came.  The most that came was this anodyne, “We are part of one of the worlds largest economies.”  But what difference, pray Ms Davidson, did this actually make when the financial crisis came?  It certainly didn’t stop the crisis from coming.  And despite all the claims from the Coalition to the contrary, the UK economy is still in a deep, deep mess.

She continues with this gem, “We have more influence over our future, as well as other parts of the world.  Scots influence the direction of a great nation.  That is something we would lose if we lost the Union.  Unfortunately, small independent nations don’t have that influence.  Look at the impact of the credit crisis upon Scotland and Ireland.”  Her assertion that we influence the direction of a great nation would be more impressive if she came up some concrete examples of this influence.  I can think of none.  She seems to think that the baling out of HBOS and RBS was some kind act of tremendous generosity by the UK government towards badly run Scottish banks.  But as all studies have shown, both these banks are UK banks.  They may have the word Scotland in their name and they may be headquartered in Scotland, but they are both integral parts of the UK financial system.  Crucially most of their business is done in England.  They are thus regulated by UK wide authorities.  Though precious little regulation seems to have taken place.  She provides no other examples of Scots influencing the direction of the UK.

Her broader claim that we have more influence over our future, as well as other parts of the world is just plain ridiculous.   It would have been nice if Ruth had explained in simple language and with a few illustrations just how Scots have more influence over our future than the citizens of independent countries.   The same applies to our apparent influence over other parts of the world.  This seems to boil down to the fact that a few Scots can and occasionally do, achieve prominent positions in the UK government.  This is not in any sense the same as Scotland as a country having influence.

It is also incredibly insulting to all those small independent countries who somehow manage to survive very nicely.  While Ireland may, just like the apparently great UK, be going through its own little difficulties, this is not the case with all small countries.  I wonder why she decided to only mention Ireland.  Could it be that the likes of Denmark, Norway, Finland and many others have been much less affected by the financial crisis than the UK?  And as regards the ludicrous notion that Scotland has some influence over the future of other parts of the world, is Ruth Davidson seriously of the belief that Denmark, Norway, Ireland, to name just three, all have less influence in the world than Scotland?

As usual what is missing from this article is any sense of the world beyond the UK.  If a small country like Scotland gets all these wonderful benefits from being part of a great nation, then surely other small countries would also benefit.  In particular, given her criticism of Ireland, surely she should be advocating that Ireland rejoins the UK so that it too can get all those benefits that now come to Scotland.  Is this in fact Ruth Davidson’s opinion?  It is amazing that no-one in Ireland is recommending this option.  Is anyone in the UK recommending it?  And what about other small countries.  Surely Denmark would benefit enormously from becoming part of Germany - the most successful of all European states.  And how come Portugal has not begged to rejoin Spain?  

The whole notion is of course absurd.  Yet the likes of Ruth Davidson continue to assert that Scotland and apparently Scotland alone, of all the small countries in the whole world needs the eternal support of a great nation.  Ruth claims she is proud to be Scottish.  Not sure why she should be proud to be part of a country that in her view is incapable of running it own affairs.  Methinks she is much more proud to be British.  Though God knows why.

Scottish Independence – Coming Soon?

A flurry of recent polling on independence has some mixed messages for supporters of an independent Scotland. Though on the whole the omens are looking good.  For details of the polls and a breakdown of the findings, LallandsPeatWorrier has some very good posts.

The first figure to hit the headlines was that a tiny majority now favour the SNP`s proposal that the Scottish Government negotiate a settlement with the Government of the UK so that Scotland becomes an independent state.  The results were as follows:

Agree                      39% (up 2%)

Disagree                  38% (down 7%)

Don`t know              23% (up 5%)

The other figures to come out show how people currently stand when given two options.  In this case the results for independence were as follows:

Agree                      35%

Disagree                  58%

Don`t know               7%

The other option was what is sometimes described as  Maximum Devolution or DevoMax.  This is to extend the powers of the Scottish Parliament to include more laws and duties and all tax-raising powers, while Scotland remains part of the UK.

Agree                      66%

Disagree                  26%

Don`t know               8%

What is most noticeable about the results is the incredibly strong support for DevoMax.  This is clearly where most Scots are at the moment.  However, and this cannot be emphasized enough, there is no political party that is actively in favour of DevoMax.  While the SNP would welcome this as a further step towards full independence, the UK parties are all dead set against anything remotely resembling DevoMax.  So at some stage Scots voters will have to make a straight choice between the status quo and independence.

While the figures are far from a ringing endorsement of independence they do show two clear trends.  One is that less and less Scots are frightened by the idea of independence.  While not yet convinced, the majority is no longer dead set against.  Secondly support for independence is growing, though still slowly.

All this of course is against a background of little activity by the SNP government.  The usual Al-Megrahi stories re-emerged attempting to discredit Scotland.   Meanwhile the Unionist parties and their lackeys in the media led a barrage of counter attacks against independence.  Despite their claim to offer some positive reasons for maintaining the Union, it all came down to scaremongering and claiming that Scotland is just too poor to be independent.  Plus ça change, plus c’est la mème chose!

Once the SNP and the other pro-independence groups start advocating the positive attractions of independence, then things will begin to get really interesting.  As Wee Wendy memorably said – bring it on!

Labour’s Hot Strategy - Insult the people of Scotland

Of course Labour will answer that they are only attacking the SNP, not the Scottish people.  However it is darn hard most of the time to see the difference.  In the first place since large number of us Scots did vote for the SNP at the last parliamentary elections, to attack the SNP is in a way to attack those of us who had the temerity to vote SNP.

Secondly Labour seems to have reduced itself to opposing anything and everything the SNP comes up with.  At the last election for example Labour found itself in the ludicrous position of opposing the setting of a minimum price for alcohol.  Despite the fact that this policy was widely supported by professionals and the general public.  But as the SNP had proposed this, then Labour had to be agin it.  The same happened with the proposal to levy an additional rate on large superstores in out of town locations.  A policy that an earlier generation of Labour people might have come up with as their own policy.  But, again, because the SNP had made the proposal, well, Labour just had to come down in support of some of the richest businesses in the land.

In general Labour has managed the almost unimaginable feat of becoming the Unionist party.  In Scotland more than anything else Labour is fast becoming seen as for the Union and nothing else. Why else the pathetic attempts to discredit the SNP government’s plans introduce Scottish Studies in our schools?  Their visceral hatred of anything to do or come from the SNP leads them to adopt what can only de described as an anti Scottish attitude.

You can see this in the glee with which Labour politicians grasp at any “facts” which purport to show that Scotland is subsidised by England.  I am genuinely amazed at why so many Scottish Labour people seem to rejoice in what they regard as Scotland’s immutable poverty.  After more over 200 years of Union, you would think they would want to show that this had somehow brought some real benefits to their country.  But this is perhaps the rub.  For most Labour politicians their country is not Scotland, but the UK.  Despite their much trumpeted hostility to nationalism, they are at bottom British nationalists first and foremost.  They see everything through the prism of the UK.  The always ask what is best for the UK and never, what might be best for Scotland.  Their mindset is so set that they are incapable of imagining a better Scotland that is not in the UK.

This of course continues to make life difficult politically for Labour in Scotland.  While, alas, most Scots are not yet ready to vote for independence, they do see themselves as Scots first and British second.  The vast majority of Scots do want their political parties to put Scotland first and to rejoice in and celebrate Scotland.  And where possible to make it better.  Hence the proposals to set a minimum price for alcohol  and to introduce Scottish Studies.  What they do not want is for their country to be denigrated and dismissed as a mere region of the UK. 

UK = Pop and Fish'n'Chips

The ongoing attempt by unionists of all hues to come up with new ways to defend the Union continue unabated.   One of the latest was penned by journalist Kenny Farquharson in last weekend’s edition of Scotland on Sunday.  It was titled, Britishness is about pop and fish’n’chips.  Really.  Clearly we are in the middle of the silly season.  If not and this is what unionists are reduced to, then the prospects for Scottish independence can only grow by the day.

The crux of Farquharson’s claim is that there is a sense of Britishness which can become the most powerful argument against Scottish independence.  This revelation came from watching a Newsnight programme devoted to independence.  According to Farquharson, the English participants on the programme articulated a clear sense of Britishness which, “was predicated on common British values: tolerance; diversity; shared endeavour; unity; moderation; fair play; innovation; solidarity. All were presented as good reasons for the nations of these islands to stick together, to accentuate what we had in common rather than what divided us.”  Farquharson was so taken by this that he gushed to say, “I’ve never heard a Unionist argument this effective in 20 years of covering Scottish politics.”

Alas, for the likes of Farquharson, there is nothing new in this or similar litanies of “British” values.  There is also nothing to suggest that they are in any sense uniquely British.  No evidence is ever produced to justify such a claim and Farquharson offers none himself.  I am sure there must be many citizens of other countries who are more than slightly fed up of hearing yet another Briton lecture them on how superior us Brits are.  For all these assertions of so-called British values does, is confirm that arrogance and a feeling of superiority are probably the only two genuine British values.

There is another aspect to this claim which always goes unmentioned by its advocates.  The existence of the Republic of Ireland.  Do the good citizens of the Republic share these ‘British’ values?  After all most people in the UK consider the island of Ireland to be one of the islands that make up the British Isles.  And of course the whole of Ireland was part of the UK until the early 1920s.  So unless these ‘British’ values only emerged since then, unlikely, they must be equally shared by the Irish.  This becomes clearer when Farquharson outlines his own choice of emblems which can be used to save Scotland for the Union.  “More powerful than the NHS, Lancaster bombers, the monarchy and the British Legion, are alternative emblems such as Blue Peter, the Grand National, fish’n'chips and – most powerful of all – the cultural heft of half a century of distinctively British pop music.”

Is the esteemed Mr Farquharson claiming that the citizens of the Irish Republic have no feeling for Blue Peter, or that the Irish care nothing for the Grand National or have an antithapy for fish’n’chips?  Surely not.  And as for that great cultural achievement - distinctively British pop music - precisely what distinguishes the UK contribution from the Irish contribution?  Or is he claiming that Irish bands and musicians do not form an integral part of ‘British’ pop.  Once again we are back with the typical UK arrogance.  We just ignore the contribution of others.  

In this case thought it pretty much destroys his whole argument.  For unless he can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the people from the Republic of Ireland do not and never have shared in these common ‘British’ values, then their existence cannot not be used as an argument for maintaining the UK.  Will need to do much better than this young Farquharson.  

Though originally published in Scotland on Sunday, the whole article is available here on Scottish Labour Hame.  This is supposes to be a grassroots website for the Labour Party in Scotland, though most of the contributors seem to be MPs, MSPs or local councillors.  Worth a visit if only to confirm the terminal decline of Scottish Labour.

Scottish Independence – How many Referendums?

Once again we see the rather unlovely sight of Unionists making a fool of themselves.  This time it is over the issue of a referendum or more precisely over how many referendums will need to be held before Scotland can  become independent.  For years now, if not decades, Unionists of all stripes have stated again and again that there was no need for even one referendum.  They asserted as if Gospel, that any referendum was a waste of time as Scots didn’t want independence anyway.  Now that they are out of power at Holyrood, they have suddendly discovered the attractions of referendums.  To such an extent that like a greedy little child they now want two of them.  It is all very revealing of just how scared and lacking in ideas Unionist have become.  Trully the Unionist Emperor has no clothes.

The argument, to the extent that there is one, is a phoney one.  As Gerry Hassan has pointed out there has never, repeat never, been a case of two referendums before a country has become independent.  The main point that Unionists make is that the Scottish Parliament has no jurisdiction over constitutional matters and that therefore any referendum held by the Scottish Government would have no legal or consitutional validity.  Which of course is true.  No one has ever suggested otherwise.  However a yes vote in such an advisory referendum would carry great political weight.  Which is why David Cameron and other Coalition ministers have always stated that they would respect the result of a Scottish referendum.  So why all this talk about the need for a second referendum?

The simple answer is that there is now a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament.  Which means that there will now almost certainly be a referendum.  And the Unionists are clearly terrified that a majority of Scots will vote yes to independence.  Otherwise  why are the Unionists so frightened of a referendum?  What the Unionists now want is a second bite at the cherry.  If Scots vote yes then we will need to vote again in a few years time after the negotiations have been completed and the terms known.  This of course would give all the key powers back to Westminster and the Unionists.  The UK government could prolong the negotiations in the hope that opinion in Scotland changes.  They will be able to decide when to hold this second referendum and most importantly, be able to choose the wording of any question.  So one can see why Unionists are so keen to get this idea of a second referendum accepted.

However there is a little matter in all this which the Unionists seem to have overlooked.  The whole basis for a second referendum is that a Scottish referendum would have no real validity.  It would not in itself give the Scottish Government any additional powers.  In which case why have this first referendum?  The logic of the Unionist case is that the Scottish Government has all the political powers it needs to start negotiations with Westminster.  It has the support of well over half the MSPs, who were all elected on a platform that included independence.  So why does the UK government not just recognize this and offer to begin full negotiations on Scottish independence?  This way there would still only be one referendum, but this time at the end of the negotiations.

One can see immeditately the bind that Unionists are in.  For a referendum at the end of the negotiations to have any validity, the UK government would need to be willing to start these negotiations now.  Which is almost impossible for them to do.  So all they can hope to do is to try and frighten the Scottish people about the dangers and complications of independence and hope that fear works in their favour.  Not much of a prospectus for maintaining the Union.  For a more detailed look at the issues around a second referendum, Lallans Peat Worrier has a very good post here.

Scotland - Independence Lite Anyone?

The shockwaves from the SNP’s recent electoral tsunami continues to reverberate around the media.  The latest wheeze is that an independent Scotland will not actually really be fully independent.  Why, Scotland might continue to share lots of things with England and whatever remains of the UK.  This notion has so excited some Unionists and most journalists that it does make you wonder about the sanity and intellectual competence of some of these highly paid and supposedly well- educated people.  We have even had the spectacle of that old warhorse, Jim Sillars, riding forth to give his imprimatur to all this nonsense.   Alex Salmond and his gang must be delighted with all these Unionists running around like headless chickens.

What seems to have confused all our oh so bright journalists is that the establishment of independence necessarily involves two distinct negotiating strands.  The first strand will deal with what I term the Independence Settlement - basically what assets and liabilities Scotland will have at the moment of independence.  The second strand will deal with all those matters that have to do with the post independence situation.   For most of these matters there will be no change at all.  Under devolution the Scottish parliament and government already have responsibility for most matters - education, health, social services, police, the law, local government etc.  Independence in itself will make no difference to these areas.  Where it will make a difference is in the other areas of government which are currently known as reserved matters and as such, dealt with by Westminster and the UK government.  These areas, such as economic and fiscal policy, foreign and defence policy will, on independence become the responsibility of the Scottish parliament and government.  

This is where the confusion seems to lie.  As there can be no hiatus before independence, this second strand needs to be sorted out before independence becomes reality.  Hence the fact that this second strand of negotiations will need to take place in parallel to the first set of negotiations.  In addition the two strands will be intimately linked.  Nevertheless they will be distinct negotiations.  Let us take a brief look at a couple of the issues that this second strand will have to look at.

An independent Scotland will need to have a currency in place at the moment of independence.  There would seem to be three options - 1. set up our own Scottish currency; 2. use sterling;  or, 3. use the euro.  From all the indications given by the SNP, they favour option 2, at least in the medium term.  Scotland would then continue to use the pound sterling as its currency for the payment of salaries and all other financial exchanges.  In this case, there would of course need to be extensive negotiations between the Scottish government and the Bank of England and the UK Treasury.  These negotiations may well result in some formal arrangements or even a treaty between Scotland and England, or whatever the rest of the UK is to be called.  Now clearly this would mean that Scotland would not have full control over an important part of its economy.  Just as is the case with all those countries, such as France, Germany, Italy etc who are part of the Eurozone.  Whether this would be a good decision is not relevant to this post.  What is relevant is that it would be a decision by the government of an independent country.  And as such could only be taken once the decision to become independent had been taken and agreed.  Though this decision would come into force at the same time as independence, it would not be part of the independence settlement, but rather an arrangement entered into post independence.  And unlike the independence settlement arrangements, this one can change.  At some point in the future a Scottish government may decide to issue its own currency or to join the euro.  The kind of decision that all independent countries can make.

Another area where some kind of sharing arrangement may be put in place is defence, and in particular the various military bases in Scotland.  The government of England may want to use one or more of these bases and the Scottish government may agree to this.  In which case, to ensure continuity of use, there would again need be parallel negotiations on this matter, alongside the negotiations on the independence settlement.  As with the currency issue, this arrangement can change in the future.  Other countries may want to use bases in Scotland and it would be up to the Scottish government to decide whether to agree to such a request or not.  Once again the power to decide would rest with Scotland.

Now some people may want to call all this independence lite, in which case virtually all countries are only “litely” independent.  Last I knew for example the USA continues to have the use of bases in the UK.  Does this mean that the UK is not fully independent?  Or what about Germany, which also has US bases in its country and shares a currency with 20 or so other countries.  I am not sure what independence lite really means, but I am more than happy for Scotland to have the same kind of independence that Germany or the current UK has.  Unionists can call it what they like.