Scottish Elections - Whither the Unionist Parties?

The recent Scottish Parliamentary elections were a disaster for all three Unionist parties, with each recording their worst result ever.  Their leaders in Scotland have all announced that they will stand down.  So at the very least a new leadership is required.  However a much more serious root and branch review is probably needed.  Already, it seems that every Tom, Dick and Mary has jumped in with their tuppenceworth.  Not to be left behind all this fun, after all when better to kick someone than when they are down, here are some of my own thoughts on the future prospects for the Unionist parties.

From some of the forests of words already written by Unionist politicians and bloggers, one of the great dangers they face is that some of them are still not willing to face up to the scale of the disaster that overtook them last Thursday.  I have just read one Labour supporter claim that the lack of campaign money was the major reason for the scale of Labour’s defeat.   If the Unionist parties are to have a long term future in Scotland then they need to focus on four key issues - policy, mindset, structure and personalities.  

Policy is vital for any political party.  It is even more vital in Scotland where there are currently five parties represented in Parliament, and previously there have been six parties at Holyrood.  So to succeed you need to have a set of policies, or vision for the country, that is both distinctive and inspirational.   While negative messages have a place in any campaign I would contend that a party is likely to more successful if its distinctive message is primarily positive.  That way it is more likely to motivate people to come out and vote and more important to get people to talk to others about the party and their policies.

From a policy perspective while the Tories did as usual have their own right of centre message to offer, it clearly did not inspire many voters.  The LibDems and Labour on the other hand had very little in the way of a clear and easily articulated vision of what kind of Scotland they wanted for the future.  The most distinctive parts of their manifestos were pathetic, narrowly focussed policies - a non-mandatory but somehow mandatory policy on carrying knives for Labour and save the status quo of the current police structures for the LibDems.  Really inspiring stuff!  Neither party had anything constructive or positive to say about how they would make Scotland a better, more prosperous country.

A major problem for the Unionist parties in developing a coherent vision for Scotland is what I term their mindset.  They are after all Unionist parties and as such their prime focus is the UK as a whole.  This works doubly to their disadvantage.  Any vision they have for Scotland is constrained within the UK and the limited powers available to the Scottish Parliament.  While they are prepared to consider some limited additional powers for Scotland, they are all, with the possible exception of the LidDems, at least while in opposition, unwilling to give significant financial and economic powers to Holyrood.  So the most they can offer is to manage Scotland - a little bit of tinkering here and there.  In no way can they even begin to imagine how to transform Scotland - that would require real powers for Holyrood.  To make matters worse, faced with a resurgent SNP all the Unionist parties have retreated into a “save the Union at all costs” mindset.  The more they think about how to preserve the Union the less they question the value Union itself.  Thus every option they come up with has to be framed within the primacy of the UK.  It is this that surely explains why just about all Unionists continue to assert that Scotland is too poor to go it alone.  They are currently trapped.  If the Union is to have any chance of surviving they need to break free of this mindset and more or less start afresh.  Start from the perspective of Scotland first.  In the 21st century, with Scotland as a member of the UN, the WTO and the EU, what additional benefits does Scotland get from the UK?  What benefits could it get from a changed, reformed UK?  Unionists need to come up with some kind of coherent and inspiring answers - soon.

Linked to the mindset issue is the question of the structure of the Unionist parties in Scotland.  While all have the word Scottish in their title, this means little in practice.  Because they are primarily UK parties the word Scottish means nothing more than the location.  Thus the Scottish Labour party is no more than the (UK) Labour party in Scotland.   This of course is a major factor in reinforcing the mindset I referred to above.  It is most clearly seen in the Tory and Labour parties, neither of which has a Scottish leader.  Both Ian Gray and Annabel Goldie were merely the leaders of their respective Parliamentary groups in Holyrood.  Their is no overall leader of either party in Scotland.  In fact the real leader of their parties is their leader in Westminster.  The LibDems have mover furthest in separate structures, in that Tavish Scott, their leader in Holyrood, is also the leader of the whole party in Scotland.  However the Scottish LibDems do not exist as a separate party - they are when all is said and done merely the Scottish branch of the UK LibDems.  This was most evident last year after the UK general election.  The  Scottish LibDem MPs all worked more closely with their fellow MPs from the rest of the UK than they did with their fellow LibDems in Scotland.  Given what everyone knew was likely to happen to the LibDems in Scotland once the UK party went into Coalition with the Tories the question is would a separate Scottish LibDem party ever have agreed to participate in such a Coalition?  

Will any of the Unionist parties go along this route, sometimes dubbed the CSU model.  After the experience of the Christian Democrats in Germany, where in Bavaria the Christian Democrats do not exist as a party, but instead are represented by another party altogether - the Christian Social Union.  The two parties work very closely at the Federal level and have so far at least always presented a joint platform for Federal elections.  However the CSU is and remains primarily a Bavarian party, with no outside interference from elsewhere in Germany.  Once again it all comes down to the mindset of most Unionists.  At present their main focus is the UK.  Until they are prepared to change that and make Scotland their main focus, then little will change, whatever rearrangements are made on the deck.

Finally a word about personalities, and in particular the personal qualities of the leaders.  There are two aspects to this.  One is the public persona of the leaders.  Here there is no doubt that the SNP benefitted from having Alex Salmond as their leader.  After all, even their own supporters recognize that the phenomenal success of the SNP is due in large measure to the larger than life personality of Alex Salmond.  None of the other parties has as yet managed to find anyone of his stature.  Quite why is an interesting question and worthy of further thought.  However it is not only the public persona of leaders that matter.  Their own personal preferences and antipathies all come into play.  For example it is widely claimed that it was the personal hostility of Tavish Scott towards the SNP which prevented the LibDems from even entering into negotiations with the SNP after the previous Scottish elections.  So not only do political parties need to have a leader who can articulate their vision, assuming they have one, and motivate the electorate, they also need to ensure that their leader does not carry any deep seated personal baggage that may scupper their prospects in any coalition negotiations.  Back to the all importance of that mindset again.  Given the scale of the SNP victory last Thursday open hostility to the SNP and by implication the people who voted for them, may not be the wisest move to make.

Intelligence and Other Failures

Once again we have clear evidence of the incompetence and ignorance of our so called Intelligence Community.  The wave of popular uprisings which started in Tunisia in January are still spreading far and wide throughout the Middle East.  Now just ask yourself what advance warnings about any of these uprisings were given by any of the secret intelligence services?  Now some information is kept secret, but if the UK government had been told that a popular uprising in Egypt or LIbya was only days away would they not have made some efforts to secure the safety of UK citizens working there or on holiday there?  By all accounts the UK government was caught completely unawares and completely unprepared for any of the ongoing events.  Even the much vaunted Israeli intelligence services have been found out as incompetent and just plain ignorant.  

It’s not as if this was just a one off mistake.  The various intelligence services have substantial previous - and all of it bad.  Remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam’s Iraq was full of?  We were repeatedly assured that “intelligence” told us that Iraq absolutely and most definitely had loads of these WMD and they were just itching to unleash it all on us.  Why we even went to war - a brutal and costly war - just to get rid of all these WMD.  Yet hey what - there were no WMD, none, zero, nada, zilch.  And please,  someone tell me where the hell this Osama Bin Laden is.  Just what do these guys get paid for?  And, incidentally, they tend to get paid substantial amounts of our money.

One should not single out the so called Intelligence Community for our wrath.  The supposed experts on the economy and the financial world have just as long a record of failure.  Care to name anyone in the Bank of England or the UK Treasury who warned us in advance of the coming financial tsunami?  It was the same in the USA and in other major countries.  The world of academia should not escape censure either.  With one or two notable exceptions the ivory towers of our most prestigious and expensive centres of learning were full of professors and other experts assuring us all that all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

What is trully outrageous about all these intelligence and economic failures is that the very people who failed to foresee any of this are still in place.  Still in their highly paid jobs, mostly at our expense,.  And probably even worst and most infamous of all, they are still trotted out to lecture the rest of us on how to solve the current mess.  How can this be?  One thing is for sure there does not seem to be much in the way of competition at the top of the tree.  Success or failure clearly makes no difference - you just carry on as before and we poor mugs are supposed to just mind our manners and not dare to question our betters.  The Arab world is showing the way.  We need a bit more popular uprisings here in the UK and the rest of the western world.  Let’s make the bankers - and all the others who have failed us - pay.

A White Christmas Anyone?

It looks very much like we will all have a white christmas, at least here in Scotland.  Though more snowfalls are unlikely, the snow we have will remain for some time as we continue to suffer sub zero temperatures.  This will the second Christmas in a row with snow lying around.  However last year the snow came just before Christmas and only lasted a couple of weeks or so.  This time the snow started in late November, so will have had a whole month or more of snow.  

While this all makes for some stunning photos and a bit of sledging for those brave enough, the reality is that all this snow has come at a terrible cost for most of us.  For it is not just the snow, it is the bitter sub zero temperatures that have come with the snow which has caused all the troubles.  Transport of any kind has become a bit of a nightmare for many people.  With the low temperatures the snow has not just remained, but has in many places turned to ice.  Most of the pavements on our street are still icy and dangerous to walk over.  It is the same all the way into the centre of Broughty Ferry.  What should be a pleasant stroll along the estuary for a bit of local shopping has become a bit of a life threatening endeavour.  Luckily for us the main roads were cleared fairly early on and have been kept clear ever since, including our street.  Some of the side streets though have probably never been properly cleared.  This is the case with Elena’s street in Tayport.  We have also been lucky in that the local buses have kept running more or less all through the snow.

This has not been the case with trains, very few of which have ventured north of Edinburgh.  Nor with airplanes.  First we had the closure of Scottish airports and recently the closure of the main London airports which of course have had a knock on effect for Scottish air travellers.   Though we have been spared the worst, here in Dundee, other parts of Scotland have suffered some trully terrible conditions.  Initially the north east bore the brunt of the bad weather with roads brought to a closure and people having to spend the night trapped in their cars.  Later on similar conditions spread to Glasgow and  west central Scotland with even worse outcomes for road users.  Along with the worsening transport conditions came the closure of schools, with most schools in the east and north shut down for the whole of the first week of the bad weather.  Since then they have mostly stayed open.

These have been trully unprecedented weather conditions.   I cannot remember anything quite as bad for so long a period.  The winter of 1947 was apparently very, very bad, but as this was just after I was born, (not my fault, really) I have no memory of that winter.  During the late 1950s and the early 1960s we did have cold and snowy winters in St Andrews.  A playing field in the town would be regularly flooded to make a skating rink and just about everyone owned a pair of ice skates.  Most people would also have a sledge.  My Dad made mine and we would haul the thing up the nearest little hill and slide down.  However I don’t think we had snow lying about for every Christmas and I don’t really remember how long the snow lasted.  Certainly since then we have had nothing in any way comparable to the present white out.  The normal pattern over the last couple of decades is for two or three snowfalls over the winter period, usually between January and March.  Each would last for two or three days and then magically wash away.  So this current combination of repeated snowfalls with continuous sub zero temperatures is way out of anyone’s expectations.

On the whole, despite the atrocious weather, most people have just got on with life.  Not so however, the opposition politicians, backed up by an aggressive media.  All out to somehow pin the blame for the transport chaos on the SNP government.  Now, I don’t especially blame the politicians, as politics is a pretty messy business and the SNP can usually give as good as it gets.  Nevertheless some of the accusations hurled by Labour, Tory and LibDem MSPs bordered on downright lying.  Either that or complete ignorance.  Perhaps both in some cases.  I also do not expect much from the media, which is completely hostile to Scottish independence and hence to the SNP government.  However the BBC is a public service body, paid for by all of us, with a clear duty to be impartial and honest.  BBC Scotland’s coverage of the worst of the weather chaos left a lot to be desired.  From the beginning they seemed out to get the Scottish Transport Minister, a call quickly followed up by the opposition parties.  The fact that Scotland as a whole and west central Scotland in particular faced some totally unprecedented levels of snow was just ignored.  Scottish journalist Joan Mcalpine has some very good comments on the BBC’s coverage in her blog, Go Lassie Go.  She brings out the rather disturbing extent to which senior staff and reporters at BBC Scotland have very close links with the Labour Party.  In the event the Transport Minister did resign - the SNP is a minority government.  However what has made this attack on the SNP government so despicable is what has subsequently happened in England.  There in recent weeks there has been similar transport chaos, with trains cancelled, pile-ups on roads and the closure of two of the world’s largest airports.  Yet the BBC in England has generally treated all this in a fairly light hearted manner.  There has absolutely no aggressive grilling of the English Transport Minister - there has been very little grilling of any kind.  Even the Labour Party has been pretty muted in its criticisms.  Belatedly the BBC has begun to ask questions - but to the rail companies and the airports and airlines.  Now this fine, these are the people who have most responsibility for keeping our transport system working after all, not the Minister.  But why oh why did BBC Scotland no adopt a similar line?  I cannot recall the head of Scotrail or the East Coast railway being grilled as to why they could not keep trains running up to Aberdeen.  Or any grilling of the private companies charged with maintaining our motorways.  Perhaps that would require some real research - much easier apparently to attack the Minister.

It is also worth noting in all this that other parts of Europe have also suffered greatly on account of this unprecedented cold weather.  Not just the usual suspects - Sweden, Norway et all - but France, Germany and parts of Spain have all seen serious transport chaos during December.  Yet not one of their Transport Ministers has been forced to resign.

However this is the season of goodwill, and we should make the most of the snow.  There have been some lovely snowmen in nearby gardens and it looks like there will be outdoor curling for the first time in many a year.   If you can get to the ski centres this must be a great time for winter sports.  And the odd snowball fight can raise the spirits a bit.  So let us enjoy what is left of the snow.  A Merry, if not white, Christmas to one and all.

Drugs and Politicians

Drugs and politics seems to be a lethal mixture.  Not so much the taking of drugs but rather the inability of most politicians to think clearly about drugs and what the country’s policy to drugs should be.  This morning we heard on the radio Bob Ainsworth, a former Home Office minister who had responsibility for drugs policy, calling for all drugs to be legally available.  He made the not unreasonable point that the approaches of successive government had all failed, leaving criminal gangs in control.  And in response to this call, the government and the Labour party immediately tried to close down any serious debate.  Both more or less simply dismissed legalisation as out of the question and some called Mr Ainsworth’s suggestion irresponsible.  See what I mean by drugs and  politicians?

Why is there such uniformity of (non) response when anyone calls for a rational debate about drugs policy?   The current policy and its consequences are a mess.  Drugs can cause terrible harm to users.  Tobacco for example kills thousands of people each year.  Not only the users suffer with tobacco, but non smokers can suffer the damages caused by the weed.  Yet tobacco is still legal, albeit with restrictions on where you can smoke - not in public places.  Here the overriding policy is one of health and harm reduction.

Alcohol of course remains the biggest killer and alcohol is a major factor in much of the violence that goes on in our towns and homes.  Yet, outwith Muslim countries, alcohol is not just legal, it is actively promoted and usually regarded as a good thing.   Addicts are encouraged to get treatment and only if they commit a crime are they punished.  

Another case for concern is the growing number of people who depend on prescription or over the counter medicines.  This can lead to sever cases of addiction and even death.  Not only drugs can cause harm.  The over consumption of food is causing growing damage to an increasing number of people.  While the deliberate under consumption of food is now regarded as a medical condition.   Once again the emphasis of policy is on health and harm reduction, not punishment.

In the examples mentioned above the damage comes from the mis-use of the substance - usually smoking, drinking or eating far too much.  However in the case of the currently defined illegal drugs - cannabis, cocaine, heroin etc - the mere consumption is a crime.  Why do we treat some drugs so differently form others?  The benefits of this policy seem very hard to discover.  The growing power of drug barons in Columbia and Mexico do little for the well being and economic prospects of these countries.  While the apparently insatiable demand for drugs from Americans continues we have a classic supply and demand situation which no amount of policing or crime busting can stop.   It is pretty similar here in the UK and much of the rest of Europe.  Rising amounts of violent crime associated with drugs.

We desperately need to look hard and seriously at other approaches.  As with tobacco and alcohol, I would suggest that the key priorities are to focus on health and harm reduction and to clear out the criminal gangs involved in the drugs trade.  Legalisation is one policy option which we should be debating in an open, serious and rational manner.   It is long past time to stop pretending that the current policies are working.

What does independence mean for Scotland?

This post has been prompted by an interesting post in a new blog on Scottish politics - Better Nation.  The post there takes as its starting point the following quoted from Iain Macwhirter’s Sunday Herald column last week:  “But  then I’ve never really understood the point of having a referendum on independence anyway because no-one really knows what independence means any more.  Flags and armies?  Hardly.  Border posts and a separate currency?  Definitely not.  The minimalist definition of independence would be the Scottish Parliament plus tax powers - and that’s likely to happen anyway.  Scotland already is a nation.  It is a question of acquiring the lost accoutrements of a state, and that process is already underway.”

Now I have to say that the above is a pretty pathetic statement and I will return to Macwhirter later.  However Malcolm Harvey, popularly known as Malc, in Better Nation gives him the benefit of the doubt and claims that the question that Macwhirter is really asking is: What does independence actually mean?   Now this is a fascinating question, but I fail to see what relevance it has to the political campaign to achieve independence for Scotland.  

For the background to this debate is the claim by Macwhirter and others that the SNP is no longer in favour of independence, but would be happy to settle for what is termed devolution plus.  There is of course no real evidence that this is now SNP policy, unofficial or not.  The SNP has for decades taken a gradualist approach to Scottish independence and devolution plus would be  regarded by many as a further step along this road.

However minute examination of what independence means in the 21st century is best left to academia.  For in the real world the Macwhirter definition is an exceedingly minimalist one - domestic policy plus some tax powers.  I am not aware of anyone else who would accept this is any kind of definition of what independence means.  While it is true that virtually all independent countries are to some extent constrained in what they can do in certain areas - through membership of international bodies eg the EU, NATO, the UN etc - nobody as far as I know has claimed that this means these countries are no longer independent.  The key is whether or not a country has the power to decide which international agreements to sign or not.  

And it is precisely this power - the right to decide to join or not to join in international institutions, that both Macwhirter and Malc omit.  At present Scotland does not contribute to any of these important international institutions, though we are of course bound by their decisions.  This I would contend is one of the key benefits of independence - we will have the right to participate and contribute directly on our own.

A particularly worrying aspect of this debate is that it is used by some/many as another way to muddy the waters of independence.  As one of the commentaries to Better Nation wrote:  “the promotion of independence is being stymied because of an insistence in setting out exactly what decidions and independent Scotland might reach before we talk about achieving the right make those decisions.”

This I believe is precisely what Macwhirter in his column is hoping to achieve.  For it is important to note the Macwhirter and others like him, such as Gerry Hassan, are not committed supporters of independence.  Formerly closely attached to the Labour Party they have become more and more disenchanted by that party and have seen the SNP as a progressive alternative in Scotland.  But both are at heart deeply committed to the UK.   And just for the record if you are not sure what independence means, just ask some Danes or Slovenians.

Drugs, Politics and Science

Once again the UK government indulges in a very British outbreak of moral outrage over drugs. In this case there is the added excitement of an outraged scientist. It is so very clear and very sad that there seems to be zero chance of a serious debate about the use of drugs in the UK today. Just about all politicians are frightened to talk about the issues openly. There appears to be an unwritten agreement that any discussion about drugs starts from the premise that drugs are very, very bad and that people who take drugs or deal in drugs are very, very bad people and that the use of drugs will inevitably result in misery. Misery not just for those who consume the drugs, but also for their families and indeed whole communities. This line is most strongly peddled by most of the mainstream media, including TV and radio. There appears to be a never ending succession of stories about the dangers and damages caused by drugs. It is amazing how passionately concerned our politicians and right wing journalists become about communities when drugs is the topic. When it comes to the damage caused to communities by neo-liberal economics these same politicians and journalists remain very, very silent.

Drugs may or may not be a bad thing - I’ll leave that one for the moral philosophers out there. What is clear is that lots of us, almost certainly the majority of us, consume drugs on a more or less regular basis. And are no worse, or at least not significantly worse for the experience. Of course for the vast majority of us our preferred drugs are of the legal variety - tobacco or alcohol. Those of us who limit ourselves to one or other of these legal drugs are somehow immune from all the dreadful downsides to drug taking. What moral superiority it confers on us! And when some upstart scientist - otherwise known as the Government’s chief scientific advisor - comes along and points out that, erm, some of the illegal drugs, cannabis and ecstasy for example, are actually less addictive and less harmful than alcohol, well then all hell breaks loose.

How dare he challenge our cosy little world and in the name of science! Since it is a bit risky to challenge him on the science the moral outrage comes in very handy. Hence all this talk about wasted lives and damaged communities etc. It is not just the top politicians who seem to live in a different planet from the rest of us. Just last week we had some lesser known politicians on radio talking about this very issue. And what a confused and muddled lot they were. One justified the ban on cannabis by using the analogy of a packet of biscuits. It would be alright if we could trust people to just take one biscuit from the pack, but of course we know that some people will just scoff the lot at one sitting. What moral depravity! I was a tad surprised that she wasn’t asked if she was therefore in favour of banning biscuits on the grounds that some poor souls could not resist the temptation to misuse them. This appears to be the general tenor of the debate around drugs, or at least the illegal drugs. We cannot reclassify them, never mind decriminalize them, for fear that some people might misuse them. It is a pretty stupid argument as it could just as easily be applied to most things in life. Some people deliberately misuse food and end up obese or anorexic, causing great harm to themselves and to their nearest and dearest. Do we ban food? Some people, in fact quite a lot of people, misuse cars and cause great injuries and sometimes death to other people. Do we ban cars?

Banning something because of what some people might end up doing with it is not a serious policy. It is a knee-jerk reaction and in the case of drugs based on delusions of moral superiority and it seems, bad science. What then to do? At the very least we should decriminalize drug taking. Then as is the case with tobacco and alcohol addiction we try to minimize misuse and if possible prevent misuse by offering clear simple information on drugs and the provision of rehabilitation centres for those who wish to change.

This of course is most unlikely to happen anytime soon. Why? Why are nearly all of our politicians and media so trapped in this moral crusade approach to illegal drugs while at the same time are happy to promote the consumption of alcohol? There must be something behind all this. Most likely money and lots of it. The War on Drugs, like the War on Terror, has become big business for some very rich people. In the case of Afghanistan the two have become intimately entwined. Perhaps there is too much for too many rich people to lose if we were to change our drugs policy?

A Nordic Scotland?

A recent piece in the Scotsman by Lesley Riddoch raises the prospect of Scotland applying for membership of the Nordic Council. Her article can be found here on her own website. This is not a completely new idea. In 2007, the Scottish Left Review contained a piece which also dealt with Scotland and our Nordic neighbours. This can be accessed here.

New idea or not, it is a most welcome suggestion and one I wholeheartedly support. As I see it there are two main reasons for supporting this initiative. The first is the need to enhance Scotland’s voice and representation in international bodies. At present, outwith some sports, Scotland is not represented in her own right. A current case in point is the forthcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Copenhagen. The Scottish government requested ministerial representation at this conference as part of the UK delegation, as this is a devolved issue, but the UK government has refused. Thus Scotland’s contribution to this important international issue will go unheard. Or if heard, only at the whim of the UK delegation. This cannot be right.

Membership of the Nordic Council would allow the Scottish government and members of the Scottish Parliament to raise issues and suggest programmes without needing the prior approval of London. Membership would also force the Scottish participants to come with sound proposals which would be subject to serious scrutiny by the other delegations. Sound bite politicking is not the Nordic way. This would be a useful spin-off from membership.

The other major reason for supporting this idea is that exposure to developments in the Nordic countries will help wean Scots, not just MSPs, but journalists and academia, away from their current overdependency on what happens in England. England is and will always remain an important point of reference for Scots, but it should not be, as seems to be the case at present, the only point of reference. Scotland does have a lot in common with the Nordic countries and we should be willing to share our experiences and to learn from them. To take just two very important examples - the role, size and financing of local government and the structure of the health service. Both have been the subject of major debates and legislation in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. I am sure there is much we could learn from the reports and research produced in these countries concerning these two issues.

A brief word on practicalities. The fact that Scotland is, not yet, an independent country, does not prohibit membership. The Nordic Council includes three substate bodies - Greenland, the Faroe Islands and the Åland Islands. Still, the UK government would need to agree to any application for membership. Which, given their recent no to Scottish participation in the Climate Change Conference, is not something they are likely to favour. To overcome this hurdle the Scottish government could do three things. One would be ensure that the application restricted Scottish participation to those areas of government that are currently devolved. This might reassure the UK government somewhat. The second action would be to in the first instance apply for observer status or perhaps associate membership. This would allow all parties - the Nordic Council members, the Scottish government and the UK government - to test the waters as it were. The third action and perhaps the most important vis-à-vis the UK government would be to secure all party support for any application. This should not be too difficult. If the small Åland islands, an autonomous province of Finland, can be a member, without upsetting Finland, then surely a majority of MSPs can be persuaded that membership is in the interests of Scotland, whatever one’s views on the long term constitutional position of the country. All Scots should welcome an opportunity to participate in the Nordic Council and thereby further enhance our continuing links with a part of the world which has historically been of crucial significance to the creation and development of Scotland.

They still don't get it

They being the government and their advisers in the Treasury and the Bank of England. Much public anger is being directed at Sir Fred Goodwin and the others who have made off with mind boggling pay-offs. Quite right too. The same is happening in the USA, where it is the executives in the Financial Products unit of AIG who are in the firing line for receiving huge retention bonuses. These are the very same people who helped create this financial mess and they are being retained - to do what? Create an even bigger financial mess? And remember, as in the UK, these bonuses come from public money. At least in the USA there has been real public anger, which has forced the politicians to take some action. The House of Representatives has just voted for a 90% tax rate to apply to people getting substantial bonuses from firms that have received public money. Sounds like a great idea. What about it, Darling Brown?

Of course the real question is why the governments here and in the USA let this happen? It's not as if they didn't know about the bonuses and the pay-offs. The main answer to my mind is that the people at the top - in government, the Treasury and the Bank of England - are still so in cahoots with the financial and business sector that they are not seriously interested in changing the system. Poor Lord Myners - why would anybody think that someone with his background in the banking and finance industry would ever challenge his buddies in the RBS or any other big financial institution? It's the same in the USA, where despite Obama's victory, it is the same old faces, again mainly from the failed financial sector who are in charge of clearing up the mess.

And this is the real crisis, at least the real political crisis. How can we, the public, bring about the change in personnel and thinking that is required to develop a new economic and financial system that in the first instance stops the rot and in the long run creates the conditions for stable economic growth?

An indication of the scale of the problem and of the steps we need to take can be found in a recent article in the Washington Monthly by James K Galbraith, son of the famous economist - No Return to Normal, Why the economic crisis, and its solution, are bigger than you think. The whole article can be found here

Galbraith's main argument is that our top leaders have misjudged the crisis. This is not simply credit crunch, but rather a fundamental failure of the current system and that the main issue is insolvency or the fear of insolvency. And simply throwing more and more taxpayers' money at the banks will not help. As Galbraith puts it: “There is no chance that the banks will simply resume normal long-term lending. To whom would they lend? For what? Against what collateral? And if banks are recapitalized without changing their management, why should we expect them to change the behavior that caused the insolvency in the first place?”

Galbraith then goes into a bit of history to review the key lessons from the New Deal in the USA in the 1930s. His conclusion is that only public spending can prevent a total collapse of the whole economy. As he states: “A brief reflection on this history and present circumstances drives a plain conclusion: the full restoration of private credit will take a long time. It will follow, not precede, the restoration of sound private household finances. There is no way the project of resurrecting the economy by stuffing the banks with cash will work. Effective policy can only work the other way around.”

What this means in practice is that we need more not less government spending and not just for a short time, but almost certainly for years if not decades to come. It's not as if there isn't plenty to do – improvements to schools, hospitals, health centres, social care, not to mention long term investment in green energy alternatives. This has to be a better way of restoring the economy than just giving billions to banks and bankers.

Is any of this likely to happen? Not by the leaders currently in charge. In the USA it is the same failed old faces. Though as a new president still with enormous popular support, Obama could break with the past and appoint new people. People who anticipated the current crisis. But he would need to be prepared to split the Democrats as most of them, at least those in Congress are pretty much tainted by the current mess. In the UK there is at present zero chance of real change. New Labour is now bereft of any ideas and it is an insult to intelligence to even pretend that Cameron and his Tories have the wit or desire to challenge the current system. They have too many ties to finance to even contemplate wholesale changes. And as for more government spending? Vincent Cable of the Liberal Democrats has come up with some good points and suggestions, but again he and the Lib Dems in general are still too tied to the old way of thinking to lead us out of the mess. I am afraid it is up to you and I to get really, really, really angry and keep pestering and pelting all our politicians until they get the message. If we, as members of the public do nothing then do not be surprised if our leaders stay around and continue to do nothing.

Scotland's Future

Whatever may have been the situation in the past, the European Union now provides the legal framework for relations between states in Europe. This applies not only to the member states but to others as well. Norway and Switzerland for example have both signed bilateral agreements with the EU. As a result these countries gain some of the benefits of the EU while at the same time they are also in large measure bound by the rules and regulations of the EU. Thus for member states and those outwith the EU but bound by its agreements, the notion of independence has changed from the traditional one of full national sovereignty to one of interdependence and shared sovereignty. What does this mean for Scotland? One thing it must mean is that Scottish independence can no longer be credibly equated to separation or divorce.  

With the creation and continuing development of the European Union the key and fundamental basis for Scotland’s economic development lies with the legal framework provided by the EU. The four freedoms – movement of goods, services, capital and labour are at the heart of the EU and over the years they have become embedded in practice throughout the member states. Through its membership of the EU, all Scottish firms have access to capital and markets and if necessary, skilled labour throughout the EU, including England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I am unclear as to what additional benefits accrue from membership of the UK.

An independent Scotland would on the other hand have two very concrete and very practical advantages. Advantages that could benefit individuals and businesses in Scotland. The advantages are the economic and financial powers that a Scottish government would have and the right of Scotland to be represented directly in all the decision making forums within the EU and in the wider world.

In relation to the economic and financial powers that would at the disposal of an independent Scotland, these would include the ability of a future Scottish government to make small, but nevertheless important changes to taxation to promote investment. Within the EU, the economic and fiscal powers of all member states are to some extent constrained. However whatever margin for manoeuvre that is allowed would in my view be better used by a Scottish government answerable to the Scottish electorate than the UK government which of necessity cannot prioritise the needs of Scotland.

The other advantage, that of direct Scottish representation in international bodies is in my view of equal if not greater importance. With so many economic, social, environmental and other decisions now either taken or co-ordinated at the EU level it is vital that Scotland and the Scottish perspective is directly represented as of right. At present of course only the UK is represented and the UK government is answerable to the UK parliament, not to the Scottish parliament. Therefore the Scottish position on a whole range of vital issues is either not voiced at all or if presented, it is only as part of a wider UK presentation. This I would contend is simply not good enough. It is claimed by yourself and others that because the UK is a “big hitter” within the EU, Scotland gains from having the UK go into bat for us. However this “advantage” only happens if the UK government happens to agree with the Scottish government’s position. Where the Scottish position on an important issue is different then the Scottish position does not get past go, it remains in London. Not much good having a big hitter if he or she doesn’t actually go out to bat for you. In these circumstances an independent Scotland would have the right to put its position forward. While it may not have the support of England the Scottish position may find support elsewhere in the EU. Like all the other small countries within the EU Scotland will not have the same clout has the larger countries. However, again like all the other small countries it is surely better to have the right to represent yourself directly rather than depend on the good graces of others. It is interesting to note that none of the other small member states, some of whom are considerably smaller than Scotland, want the alleged advantages of union with some providential “big hitter”. It can of course be claimed that in practice the Scottish and English position on many issues will be either identical or very similar. In these circumstances it can only be of advantage to not just Scotland but also to England to have two delegations arguing and voting in favour of their common position. To the extent that there is a common British interest then the existence of an independent Scotland can only be seen as an advantage to both Scotland and England.

In sum it seems to me that there are small, but still tangible advantages from independence, namely the increased room for decision making and the right to be represented directly in international forums, especially the EU.

It seems to me that the main motivating factor for those who favour the Union is in fact an emotional attachment to Britain. This emotional attachment is often linked with the number of Scots who have family relations in England. While obviously true this is not really much of an argument in favour of a political union. The personal and social links among people in Scotland and England will continue anyway and as mentioned above the basic legal framework is now provided by the EU. Furthermore not all Scots have family links with England. In my case my elder daughter now lives in Switzerland, legally thanks to one of the bilateral agreements signed between Switzerland and the EU. She is now married and has a son, born in Switzerland. Despite having a daughter and a grandson living in Switzerland it had never occurred to either my wife or me that Scotland should therefore become part of Switzerland. My son-in-law is Italian and he of course has many relatives living in southern Italy, but again it has never occurred to him that this is any kind of reason for Switzerland to become part of Italy, even though Italy is also a “big hitter”.

The above was originally written in May 2007 as part of a letter I wrote to the then leaders of the main political parties in Scotland – Labour, Conservative and the Liberal Democrats. After further writing, I got a brush off from a Labour party hack and a copy of the Steel commission report – the Liberal Democrat's attempt to convey the virtues of something they call fiscal federalism, and nothing from the Conservatives, which probably sums them up as a force in Scottish politics. I am always amazed – horrible optimist that I am – that leading politicians are so unwilling to engage with members of the public. At a time when all and sundry bemoan the low rates of voting and the supposed lack of interest by the public, you would have thought that any MP or MSP, let alone a party leader, would jump at the chance to explain their views and stimulate debate. Yet as I have discovered, both at Westminster and Holyrood, politicians refuse to engage with mere individual members of the public. Write an article for a newspaper, appear on TV or radio – no problem. But actually engage with the public and be forced to answer specific questions – nae chance. Perhaps Iain Gray and Scott Tavish will be more receptive to my next letter.