Most of us who support independence do so for weighty reasons - a belief in a more equal society, a detestation of the presence of inhuman weapons on this country's soil, a desire for a more dynamic economy. But I'm sure we can all think of some shamelessly trivial reasons that complement the more important ones beautifully. Here are my top six...
1) Scotland will have its own entry in the Eurovision Song Contest (naturally that was always going to be top).
2) When Eve Muirhead and co win the curling gold medal at the Pyeongchang Olympics in 2018, it'll be for Scotland, not Great Britain. Alas, we'll just have to accept that the 2014 gold will be for GB (perhaps Cameron's desire for an earlier referendum does have some merit after all).
3) We'll have a national Olympic association that actually supports and works with other Scottish sporting bodies, rather than undermining their very existence at every turn.
4) An immense strain will be lifted from countless TV sports presenters and commentators, who will no longer have to wearily go through the motions of pretending that they're speaking to a UK audience rather than an English one. (OK, they'll have to wait for Wales and NI to follow the Scottish example before that really happens, but it'll at least get the poor lambs one-third of the way there.)
5) The inevitable attempts to rig the TV leaders' debates at the next Westminster general election will still be an outrage, but won't actually matter.
6) It's a losing battle to try to convince several billion people all round the world that not all citizens of the UK are "English". If we can't move the perception closer to the facts, perhaps it would be simpler to move the facts closer to the perception?
Feel free to chip in with any other suggestions!
Friday, January 20, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Michael Ignatieff's A-Z guide on how to lose votes and alienate people
If unionists are looking for advice on how to prevail in the independence referendum, they might do well to be wary of taking it from the man responsible for the Canadian Liberal Party's idiotically tribal decision to renege on a 2008 coalition deal with the NDP and Bloc Québécois that would have turfed the Tories out of office. That man then led his party to a catastrophic meltdown in last year's federal election, costing them even official opposition status, and leaving the Tories in majority control for the first time in a generation. And yet Michael Ignatieff seemingly has no embarrassment in penning a Financial Times article that lectures Scotland in holier-than-thou fashion on the "lessons" it must take from him. It boils down to two points - a) don't have a referendum, and b) if you must have a referendum, vote 'No'. Yup, if you thought Alan Cochrane lacked subtlety, nuance and all sense of perspective in his approach to this topic, you ain't seen nothing yet.
"In our 1980 referendum on Quebec, the result was a clear cut victory for Canada."
I really would caution you not to think of the forthcoming referendum as one that will produce "victory" for either "Britain" or "Scotland", Michael. If the choice is framed in that way, there can only be one winner.
And "our" referendum in 1980? It was a Quebec referendum, Michael, and you are not from Quebec, nor were you a Quebec resident in 1980. Perhaps before going any further you should start by clarifying whether you actually believe in the well-understood (and legally-enshrined) principle of the SELF-determination of peoples, and if not, why not?
"We learnt the strongest argument for leaving countries as they are turns out to be that most people don’t want to choose between different parts of their identity."
Unless this is to be a one-way dialogue (admittedly that's almost certainly what you have in mind), perhaps you should be open to learning a few lessons about just how far the SNP has moved in terms of respecting the British sense of identity in Scotland, and how that identity will not be imperilled by independence any more than Scottishness is imperilled by union. If you cannot even conceive of British identity existing independently of dry constitutional structures, you're guilty of precisely the one-dimensional thinking you accuse Scottish "secessionists" (yes, really!) of.
"The issue is whether Scots feel they can only assert their Scottishness by parting with the Unionist part of their soul."
Which bears out my previous points. Conveniently, the choice is not between "Scottishness" and "Britishness", because only by pretending that the terms "Britishness" (an identity) and "Unionism" (an adherence to a constitutional structure) are interchangeable can you claim that the alternative to Scottishness is somehow threatened by independence. Well, two can play at that silly game - why not frame the choice as between "Britishness" and "Scottish sovereigntism"? In that case, only a Yes vote to independence would allow people to keep both "identities", whereas a No vote would jettison one part of people's "soul".
Yes, Michael, linguistic conjuring tricks do tend to produce exactly the answer you want. Another valuable "lesson" learned.
"So the independence side is campaigning for a ballot question that allows Scots to have it both ways. “Devo max” is the ungainly option: full self-government with fiscal powers within a sovereign UK whose parliament would retain jurisdiction only over foreign affairs. This would give Scotland a future in Europe looking like that of Wallonia, Catalonia or the Basque country.
Scottish patriots such as Neal Ascherson favour this package but the question is why it has to be put to a referendum at all. It could be negotiated with Westminister between now and 2014, avoiding the existential moment of truth altogether."
You'll be relieved to hear there's a very simple answer to your question, Michael - it has to be put to a referendum because otherwise Westminster won't budge an inch. Curious, isn't it, that it's the pro-independence side that has been far more imaginative in exploring potential solutions to how Scotland's multiple identities might be accommodated by means of innovative constitutional structures, whereas the side you're busy being a cheerleader for is still stuck in the bunker mentality of "resisting appeasement" and "drawing lines in the sand".
"And our Supreme Court adds another lesson about democracy itself: if the Scots vote to go, they can’t just walk out the door. They will have to negotiate, not dictate, the terms of divorce with the British government. Issues include the division of the debt, the nature of the border, the division of North Sea revenues, the future of the currency, the disposal of UK assets in Scotland and so on. It will be as messy and protracted as divorces usually are. And possibly as tragic too."
This may be a startling discovery for you, Michael, but I doubt if there's a single person in the SNP who thinks that Scotland wouldn't have to sit down and negotiate an independence settlement after a Yes vote. However, if you believe that the very principle of independence would then somehow be conditional on the UK side playing ball in those negotiations, you have a very curious definition of the word "democracy", with which you started that observation.
As for the use of the word "tragic", I must confess I laughed out loud at that point. For the last time that word was used in quite such a hysterically inappropriate way, I think we'd have to go all the way back to Donald Findlay's (deadly serious) reaction when the Estonian football team failed to turn up for an international match against Scotland in 1996 : "Let's put this tragic situation behind us, and get on with our lives".
* * *
James Mackenzie once innocently asked me on Twitter "why so confrontational?", but I'm pretty sure even I would have thought twice about the headline "Screw you, Floella Benjamin". I obviously sympathise with the underlying sentiment (ie. that it was wrong of her to vote against delay of the Welfare Reform Bill in the House of Lords), but the use of language does somewhat undermine James' notion that Better Nation is an oasis of constructive discourse in a desert of blogging "mentalism".
"In our 1980 referendum on Quebec, the result was a clear cut victory for Canada."
I really would caution you not to think of the forthcoming referendum as one that will produce "victory" for either "Britain" or "Scotland", Michael. If the choice is framed in that way, there can only be one winner.
And "our" referendum in 1980? It was a Quebec referendum, Michael, and you are not from Quebec, nor were you a Quebec resident in 1980. Perhaps before going any further you should start by clarifying whether you actually believe in the well-understood (and legally-enshrined) principle of the SELF-determination of peoples, and if not, why not?
"We learnt the strongest argument for leaving countries as they are turns out to be that most people don’t want to choose between different parts of their identity."
Unless this is to be a one-way dialogue (admittedly that's almost certainly what you have in mind), perhaps you should be open to learning a few lessons about just how far the SNP has moved in terms of respecting the British sense of identity in Scotland, and how that identity will not be imperilled by independence any more than Scottishness is imperilled by union. If you cannot even conceive of British identity existing independently of dry constitutional structures, you're guilty of precisely the one-dimensional thinking you accuse Scottish "secessionists" (yes, really!) of.
"The issue is whether Scots feel they can only assert their Scottishness by parting with the Unionist part of their soul."
Which bears out my previous points. Conveniently, the choice is not between "Scottishness" and "Britishness", because only by pretending that the terms "Britishness" (an identity) and "Unionism" (an adherence to a constitutional structure) are interchangeable can you claim that the alternative to Scottishness is somehow threatened by independence. Well, two can play at that silly game - why not frame the choice as between "Britishness" and "Scottish sovereigntism"? In that case, only a Yes vote to independence would allow people to keep both "identities", whereas a No vote would jettison one part of people's "soul".
Yes, Michael, linguistic conjuring tricks do tend to produce exactly the answer you want. Another valuable "lesson" learned.
"So the independence side is campaigning for a ballot question that allows Scots to have it both ways. “Devo max” is the ungainly option: full self-government with fiscal powers within a sovereign UK whose parliament would retain jurisdiction only over foreign affairs. This would give Scotland a future in Europe looking like that of Wallonia, Catalonia or the Basque country.
Scottish patriots such as Neal Ascherson favour this package but the question is why it has to be put to a referendum at all. It could be negotiated with Westminister between now and 2014, avoiding the existential moment of truth altogether."
You'll be relieved to hear there's a very simple answer to your question, Michael - it has to be put to a referendum because otherwise Westminster won't budge an inch. Curious, isn't it, that it's the pro-independence side that has been far more imaginative in exploring potential solutions to how Scotland's multiple identities might be accommodated by means of innovative constitutional structures, whereas the side you're busy being a cheerleader for is still stuck in the bunker mentality of "resisting appeasement" and "drawing lines in the sand".
"And our Supreme Court adds another lesson about democracy itself: if the Scots vote to go, they can’t just walk out the door. They will have to negotiate, not dictate, the terms of divorce with the British government. Issues include the division of the debt, the nature of the border, the division of North Sea revenues, the future of the currency, the disposal of UK assets in Scotland and so on. It will be as messy and protracted as divorces usually are. And possibly as tragic too."
This may be a startling discovery for you, Michael, but I doubt if there's a single person in the SNP who thinks that Scotland wouldn't have to sit down and negotiate an independence settlement after a Yes vote. However, if you believe that the very principle of independence would then somehow be conditional on the UK side playing ball in those negotiations, you have a very curious definition of the word "democracy", with which you started that observation.
As for the use of the word "tragic", I must confess I laughed out loud at that point. For the last time that word was used in quite such a hysterically inappropriate way, I think we'd have to go all the way back to Donald Findlay's (deadly serious) reaction when the Estonian football team failed to turn up for an international match against Scotland in 1996 : "Let's put this tragic situation behind us, and get on with our lives".
* * *
James Mackenzie once innocently asked me on Twitter "why so confrontational?", but I'm pretty sure even I would have thought twice about the headline "Screw you, Floella Benjamin". I obviously sympathise with the underlying sentiment (ie. that it was wrong of her to vote against delay of the Welfare Reform Bill in the House of Lords), but the use of language does somewhat undermine James' notion that Better Nation is an oasis of constructive discourse in a desert of blogging "mentalism".
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Publish or be damned, UK government warned over referendum
The title of this post is of course just a minor modification of the headline on a Scotsman article that claims Alex Salmond is "under mounting pressure to publish the SNP administration’s legal advice over holding an independence referendum". The article features this contribution from Margaret Curran -
"The legal competence of proceeding with a referendum is highly significant and reflects what a number of experts have said, so if the SNP holds differing legal advice, they should publish it today. Refusing to do so fuels suspicion."
That's an intriguing point of view, Margaret. Why not direct it at the UK government who also hold legal advice that differs from that offered by a number of experts, and have also "suspiciously" refused to publish it "today" or any other day?
There's also this from Murdo Fraser -
"If Alex Salmond is confident that he has strong legal opinion backing up his case, then he should be prepared to publish that advice, so that it can be subjected to proper scrutiny."
That's an intriguing point of view, Murdo. Why not direct it at YOUR OWN Tory-led government at Westminster - ie. if they are confident that they have strong legal opinion to back up their case, why aren't they prepared to publish that advice, so that it can be subjected to proper scrutiny?
We're now in the extraordinary position where parts of the media are playing along with the unionists' little game of pretending that their new 'out of thin air' legal advice somehow represents the equivalent of a preliminary finding of the Supreme Court, leaving the burden of proof entirely on the Scottish Government. The reality of course is that the two contradictory sets of legal advice have exactly the same standing - either could be right, either could be wrong, neither will be published according to convention, and neither constitute the ruling of a court. For Jim Wallace to claim that the Scottish Government are acting against the 'rule of law' by seeking to legislate in good faith and in conformity with their own legal advice is a shameful, cynical new low in this grotesque 'undead' period of an otherwise largely constructive political career. If his legal opinion - note the word opinion, it's not a "ruling" - is that the Scottish government's advice is in error, then when the time comes he has legal redress open to him in his role as Advocate-General. As has been pointed out even by Political Betting's resident self-appointed legal expert Richard Howell, he would in political terms be crazy to seek to use that redress, but if he wants to make Alex Salmond's day, that's a matter for him.
* * *
Wikipedia's blackout to protest against SOPA is in principle a very good idea - but the fact that they've also blacked out the "Learn more" page explaining why they are protesting against SOPA does rather defeat the purpose somewhat!
* * *
I freely confess I know next to nothing about Martin Schulz, the newly-elected socialist President of the European Parliament. But this claim in the Daily Mail does lead me to suspect that their damning account of his career to date may not be the most shining example of that paper's legendary dedication to objectivity and factual accuracy -
"The ‘election’ which is a stitch up between the largest groups – the Socialists and the Liberals – was agreed two years ago, before today’s election and he had formed his cabinet six months ago."
Er, no. In point of fact the Liberals are the third-largest group. The agreement two years ago was between the Socialists and the largest group in the parliament, the right-of-centre EPP.
"The legal competence of proceeding with a referendum is highly significant and reflects what a number of experts have said, so if the SNP holds differing legal advice, they should publish it today. Refusing to do so fuels suspicion."
That's an intriguing point of view, Margaret. Why not direct it at the UK government who also hold legal advice that differs from that offered by a number of experts, and have also "suspiciously" refused to publish it "today" or any other day?
There's also this from Murdo Fraser -
"If Alex Salmond is confident that he has strong legal opinion backing up his case, then he should be prepared to publish that advice, so that it can be subjected to proper scrutiny."
That's an intriguing point of view, Murdo. Why not direct it at YOUR OWN Tory-led government at Westminster - ie. if they are confident that they have strong legal opinion to back up their case, why aren't they prepared to publish that advice, so that it can be subjected to proper scrutiny?
We're now in the extraordinary position where parts of the media are playing along with the unionists' little game of pretending that their new 'out of thin air' legal advice somehow represents the equivalent of a preliminary finding of the Supreme Court, leaving the burden of proof entirely on the Scottish Government. The reality of course is that the two contradictory sets of legal advice have exactly the same standing - either could be right, either could be wrong, neither will be published according to convention, and neither constitute the ruling of a court. For Jim Wallace to claim that the Scottish Government are acting against the 'rule of law' by seeking to legislate in good faith and in conformity with their own legal advice is a shameful, cynical new low in this grotesque 'undead' period of an otherwise largely constructive political career. If his legal opinion - note the word opinion, it's not a "ruling" - is that the Scottish government's advice is in error, then when the time comes he has legal redress open to him in his role as Advocate-General. As has been pointed out even by Political Betting's resident self-appointed legal expert Richard Howell, he would in political terms be crazy to seek to use that redress, but if he wants to make Alex Salmond's day, that's a matter for him.
* * *
Wikipedia's blackout to protest against SOPA is in principle a very good idea - but the fact that they've also blacked out the "Learn more" page explaining why they are protesting against SOPA does rather defeat the purpose somewhat!
* * *
I freely confess I know next to nothing about Martin Schulz, the newly-elected socialist President of the European Parliament. But this claim in the Daily Mail does lead me to suspect that their damning account of his career to date may not be the most shining example of that paper's legendary dedication to objectivity and factual accuracy -
"The ‘election’ which is a stitch up between the largest groups – the Socialists and the Liberals – was agreed two years ago, before today’s election and he had formed his cabinet six months ago."
Er, no. In point of fact the Liberals are the third-largest group. The agreement two years ago was between the Socialists and the largest group in the parliament, the right-of-centre EPP.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
YouGov poll : SNP retain lead in Westminster voting intentions
Although it's the headline figures on independence and Devo Max that have caught most attention, one extraordinary finding from last night's Channel 4 News/YouGov poll shouldn't be overlooked - that the SNP still lead Labour in Westminster voting intentions. The percentage changes listed below may be slightly surprising, but bear in mind that they relate to the last YouGov poll of Westminster voting intentions way back in August, when the SNP were still very much enjoying their initial honeymoon period.
SNP 37% (-5)
Labour 35% (+2)
Conservatives 16% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 7% (+1)
To put these numbers in perspective, YouGov were showing a sixteen-point lead for Labour over the SNP in Westminster voting intentions during the very week of the SNP's Holyrood landslide last year.
On the referendum questions, 'No' leads 'Yes' by 61%-39% on full independence. The difference with ICM's figures can probably be mostly (and perhaps entirely) explained by methodology, because the fieldwork dates overlap to some extent. In fact, from memory 39% looks pretty high for 'Yes' by YouGov standards, although that's perhaps due to 'don't knows' being excluded from the headline figures.
As you'd expect, good news on the Devo Max question - 58% say 'Yes', 42% say 'No', again with don't knows excluded. So on this poll, the clear preference of the electorate is for the one option the UK government wants to legislate to ban from being on the ballot paper. Good luck with that one, guys - especially in the light of the following...
Regardless of how you would vote, do you think the referendum should...
Be a straight choice over independence - 43%
Include a third option to extend the powers of the Scottish parliament - 46%
The question on the timing of the referendum can perhaps be seen as marginally more favourable to the UK government's stance, with 38% thinking it should be held earlier than 2014, and 37% thinking it should be held in 2014 or 2015. But if the UK government are trying to credibly claim that it's self-evident that they "need" to interfere to have the matter settled earlier than the SNP want, they'd require overwhelming backing on the issue of the date, not a dead heat.
SNP 37% (-5)
Labour 35% (+2)
Conservatives 16% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 7% (+1)
To put these numbers in perspective, YouGov were showing a sixteen-point lead for Labour over the SNP in Westminster voting intentions during the very week of the SNP's Holyrood landslide last year.
On the referendum questions, 'No' leads 'Yes' by 61%-39% on full independence. The difference with ICM's figures can probably be mostly (and perhaps entirely) explained by methodology, because the fieldwork dates overlap to some extent. In fact, from memory 39% looks pretty high for 'Yes' by YouGov standards, although that's perhaps due to 'don't knows' being excluded from the headline figures.
As you'd expect, good news on the Devo Max question - 58% say 'Yes', 42% say 'No', again with don't knows excluded. So on this poll, the clear preference of the electorate is for the one option the UK government wants to legislate to ban from being on the ballot paper. Good luck with that one, guys - especially in the light of the following...
Regardless of how you would vote, do you think the referendum should...
Be a straight choice over independence - 43%
Include a third option to extend the powers of the Scottish parliament - 46%
The question on the timing of the referendum can perhaps be seen as marginally more favourable to the UK government's stance, with 38% thinking it should be held earlier than 2014, and 37% thinking it should be held in 2014 or 2015. But if the UK government are trying to credibly claim that it's self-evident that they "need" to interfere to have the matter settled earlier than the SNP want, they'd require overwhelming backing on the issue of the date, not a dead heat.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Time to call another Lib Dem bluff?
As any of you who occasionally read the Guardian's editorials will know, that paper loathes the idea of Scottish nationhood with as much of a passion as the right-wing London press. But because they have to keep up the facade of opposing independence from a 'progressive' and 'reasonable' standpoint, they do however use logic that is even more tortuous and sanctimonious than you'd find at the Times or the Telegraph. It looks suspiciously to me that for their latest weighty "contribution to the debate", they had a truly epic brainstorming session in which they tried to identify just one Good Guy in this whole sorry process, a Man With No Agenda, a Fearless And Objective Seeker After Truth And Probity in the conduct of the referendum. In short, an untainted unionist champion they could get behind without embarrassment, and without any danger of a titter from the assembled crowd.
And the man they came up with, ladies and gentlemen, is...Willie Rennie.
Moving swiftly on, they also seem to be taking their cue from the Lib Dems by having a synthetic bee in their bonnet about the supposedly insurmountable problem of 'working out who has won' if there is a dual Yes vote in a two-question referendum. Sigh. Let's try this for size - in 1997, there was a referendum with two separate questions. Just like the proposal being floated at the moment, the result of the second question would have been irrelevant had the first question gone one particular way - it wouldn't have mattered that 99.73% of the population wanted "the Scottish Parliament to have tax-varying powers" if 52.34% of the population had just voted that there shouldn't be a Scottish Parliament in the first place. It may seem amazing to senior Lib Dems and to the writers of Guardian editorials, but the electorate really didn't seem to struggle with that concept. That's probably because people make conditional/contingent decisions all the time in their daily lives - for instance, we'll go to Glencoe for our day out tomorrow, but we obviously won't be going anywhere if it's pouring with rain. What is so difficult about this? The public will know that in voting on Devo Max, they're voting on what should happen if Scotland stays in the United Kingdom. If they've just voted that Scotland should leave the United Kingdom, then plainly the question falls.
It's also worth making the point that, while the Lib Dems did raise some objections to the two-question referendum in 1997, they specifically did not do so on the basis of the confusion that might be caused by a "contradictory result". This is a bogus objection - they know it, we know it. However, as the "calling of bluffs" seems to be in vogue at the moment, we could always take them at their word - because, after all, this is a remarkably simple 'problem' to solve...
Option 1 : Put in bold capital letters on the ballot paper that "QUESTION 2 WILL BE VOID IF A MAJORITY VOTE YES TO QUESTION 1".
Option 2 : Separate the ballot into two distinct rounds, à la French run-off votes. If there is a No to independence in the first round, a Devo Max referendum automatically follows a week or a fortnight later. If there is a Yes to independence, the second round isn't required and therefore isn't held. No confusion, no "contradictory mandates". (The beauty of this of course is that the legislation for a Devo Max referendum would already be set in stone before the first round, meaning that London wouldn't be able to use a No to independence as an excuse to kick the constitutional issue into the long grass.)
So then what would be the next Lib Dem excuse? It seems we're already hearing the outlines of it - that Devo Max would have an effect on the whole UK, and therefore the whole UK must have a say. Oh-kaaaay - I trust you're going to have a convincing explanation for why that WASN'T the case for devolution in 1997? It seems that whenever the Lib Dems aren't busy shooting themselves in the foot, past history is doing it for them.
As I suggested in a previous post, if the SNP keep pressing the case for a Devo Max question, this is close to being a win/win position for them - either they'll get it, or the narrative will have been firmly established in the public mind that "Devo Max has been blocked by London". In the latter circumstance, the logic in favour of Devo Max supporters plumping for independence as the next-best option becomes irresistible.
PS. A small additional hint for the Guardian - Joan McAlpine categorically did NOT say that all "objections and doubts" about the SNP's plans were "anti-Scottish". Her characterisation applied only to those who abuse their positions of power at Westminster to thwart the sovereign authority of the Scottish people. If there are objections and doubts from opposition parties, let them be raised, debated and voted upon in the appropriate place - the Scottish Parliament.
PPS. A light has gone out in the political world - Tom Harris is seemingly no longer the Shadow Minister for Conducting a Review Into the Uses of Modern Technology. I fear for this review now, I really do - unless of course Richard Baker steps into the breach. As for Tom himself, I might almost feel sorry for him if this was an isolated incident - as he points out, the Downfall meme is so well-established that it shouldn't necessarily be assumed that the person in the video's sights is being called a Nazi. (What I took from the video was more Tom's extraordinary continued level of bitterness at the idea of lottery winners doing what they like with their own money.) However, Tom's pushed his luck many times in the past, not least with his bare-faced lie that a "Nationalist banner" had called for the end of "English rule". So in a sense the law of averages has finally caught up with him, and over the piece it's hard to pretend that he hasn't got what he deserved.
And I must admit there is something deliciously ironic about a Downfall spoof proving to be Tom's...downfall. Doubtless the next (and most apt ever) spoof in the long series is being prepared even as we speak - and I just hope that whoever has taken on the responsibility does Admin justice.
And the man they came up with, ladies and gentlemen, is...Willie Rennie.
Moving swiftly on, they also seem to be taking their cue from the Lib Dems by having a synthetic bee in their bonnet about the supposedly insurmountable problem of 'working out who has won' if there is a dual Yes vote in a two-question referendum. Sigh. Let's try this for size - in 1997, there was a referendum with two separate questions. Just like the proposal being floated at the moment, the result of the second question would have been irrelevant had the first question gone one particular way - it wouldn't have mattered that 99.73% of the population wanted "the Scottish Parliament to have tax-varying powers" if 52.34% of the population had just voted that there shouldn't be a Scottish Parliament in the first place. It may seem amazing to senior Lib Dems and to the writers of Guardian editorials, but the electorate really didn't seem to struggle with that concept. That's probably because people make conditional/contingent decisions all the time in their daily lives - for instance, we'll go to Glencoe for our day out tomorrow, but we obviously won't be going anywhere if it's pouring with rain. What is so difficult about this? The public will know that in voting on Devo Max, they're voting on what should happen if Scotland stays in the United Kingdom. If they've just voted that Scotland should leave the United Kingdom, then plainly the question falls.
It's also worth making the point that, while the Lib Dems did raise some objections to the two-question referendum in 1997, they specifically did not do so on the basis of the confusion that might be caused by a "contradictory result". This is a bogus objection - they know it, we know it. However, as the "calling of bluffs" seems to be in vogue at the moment, we could always take them at their word - because, after all, this is a remarkably simple 'problem' to solve...
Option 1 : Put in bold capital letters on the ballot paper that "QUESTION 2 WILL BE VOID IF A MAJORITY VOTE YES TO QUESTION 1".
Option 2 : Separate the ballot into two distinct rounds, à la French run-off votes. If there is a No to independence in the first round, a Devo Max referendum automatically follows a week or a fortnight later. If there is a Yes to independence, the second round isn't required and therefore isn't held. No confusion, no "contradictory mandates". (The beauty of this of course is that the legislation for a Devo Max referendum would already be set in stone before the first round, meaning that London wouldn't be able to use a No to independence as an excuse to kick the constitutional issue into the long grass.)
So then what would be the next Lib Dem excuse? It seems we're already hearing the outlines of it - that Devo Max would have an effect on the whole UK, and therefore the whole UK must have a say. Oh-kaaaay - I trust you're going to have a convincing explanation for why that WASN'T the case for devolution in 1997? It seems that whenever the Lib Dems aren't busy shooting themselves in the foot, past history is doing it for them.
As I suggested in a previous post, if the SNP keep pressing the case for a Devo Max question, this is close to being a win/win position for them - either they'll get it, or the narrative will have been firmly established in the public mind that "Devo Max has been blocked by London". In the latter circumstance, the logic in favour of Devo Max supporters plumping for independence as the next-best option becomes irresistible.
PS. A small additional hint for the Guardian - Joan McAlpine categorically did NOT say that all "objections and doubts" about the SNP's plans were "anti-Scottish". Her characterisation applied only to those who abuse their positions of power at Westminster to thwart the sovereign authority of the Scottish people. If there are objections and doubts from opposition parties, let them be raised, debated and voted upon in the appropriate place - the Scottish Parliament.
PPS. A light has gone out in the political world - Tom Harris is seemingly no longer the Shadow Minister for Conducting a Review Into the Uses of Modern Technology. I fear for this review now, I really do - unless of course Richard Baker steps into the breach. As for Tom himself, I might almost feel sorry for him if this was an isolated incident - as he points out, the Downfall meme is so well-established that it shouldn't necessarily be assumed that the person in the video's sights is being called a Nazi. (What I took from the video was more Tom's extraordinary continued level of bitterness at the idea of lottery winners doing what they like with their own money.) However, Tom's pushed his luck many times in the past, not least with his bare-faced lie that a "Nationalist banner" had called for the end of "English rule". So in a sense the law of averages has finally caught up with him, and over the piece it's hard to pretend that he hasn't got what he deserved.
And I must admit there is something deliciously ironic about a Downfall spoof proving to be Tom's...downfall. Doubtless the next (and most apt ever) spoof in the long series is being prepared even as we speak - and I just hope that whoever has taken on the responsibility does Admin justice.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Cameron's blunder in numbers : dramatic ICM poll puts independence just three points behind
If there was any lingering doubt that the UK government's brazen interference in an exercise in Scottish self-determination was going to have any other effect but to bolster support for full independence, these figures will remove it -
Do you approve or disapprove of Scotland becoming independent?
Approve 40%
Disapprove 43%
Would Scotland be better or worse off if independent?
Better off 38%
Worse off 41%
The sample size was 501, which is not ideal, but high enough to be statistically credible.
On both questions, this is what the Americans would call a 'statistical tie', because the lead is within the margin of error. With delicious irony, the poll was commissioned by the Telegraph, one of the bastions of the London media myth that "poll after poll shows that Scotland has no interest in independence". All the same, you have to admire the sheer imaginative breadth of their attempts today to convince both themselves and their readers that this poll is anything other than a devastating blow to their cherished belief-system -
"Today's poll provides a series of setbacks for Mr Salmond, who favours a "three question" referendum in which Scots are offered the choice of full independence, the status quo, or a "devolution max" option in which all powers other than foreign policy and defence are handed to the parliament in Edinburgh.
Offered this precise choice by ICM, more Scots go for the status quo (37 per cent) than the other two options, both of which win 26 per cent support."
Er, no. The proposal for including Devo Max on the ballot paper is not for a "first past the post" question with three options, allowing one option to win even though it is opposed by a clear majority. There would instead be a dedicated Yes/No question on Devo Max, in which virtually all independence supporters could naturally be expected to vote Yes. On these figures, therefore, Devo Max would be handsomely approved, by a margin of 52% to 37%. Even if a small number of independence supporters quixotically voted No, we'd still be talking in the region of a 50-40 split.
"Most Scots admit their nation would be worse off after independence (41 per cent) than better off (38 per cent)"
Given the relentless pumping of the establishment/media myth that Scotland is subsidised (ironically exemplified by the smuggling of the word 'admit' into that very sentence!), the unionist side have got serious problems if all they've got to show for their decades of effort is a mere four out of ten Scots accepting "the truth"...
* * *
Housekeeping Note : The mysterious problem with the font in the comments section still hasn't resolved itself, so for the time being I'm going to switch to a pop-up form. If anyone has difficulties loading it, let me know by email (see "Profile/Contact" in the sidebar) and I'll switch back again.
Do you approve or disapprove of Scotland becoming independent?
Approve 40%
Disapprove 43%
Would Scotland be better or worse off if independent?
Better off 38%
Worse off 41%
The sample size was 501, which is not ideal, but high enough to be statistically credible.
On both questions, this is what the Americans would call a 'statistical tie', because the lead is within the margin of error. With delicious irony, the poll was commissioned by the Telegraph, one of the bastions of the London media myth that "poll after poll shows that Scotland has no interest in independence". All the same, you have to admire the sheer imaginative breadth of their attempts today to convince both themselves and their readers that this poll is anything other than a devastating blow to their cherished belief-system -
"Today's poll provides a series of setbacks for Mr Salmond, who favours a "three question" referendum in which Scots are offered the choice of full independence, the status quo, or a "devolution max" option in which all powers other than foreign policy and defence are handed to the parliament in Edinburgh.
Offered this precise choice by ICM, more Scots go for the status quo (37 per cent) than the other two options, both of which win 26 per cent support."
Er, no. The proposal for including Devo Max on the ballot paper is not for a "first past the post" question with three options, allowing one option to win even though it is opposed by a clear majority. There would instead be a dedicated Yes/No question on Devo Max, in which virtually all independence supporters could naturally be expected to vote Yes. On these figures, therefore, Devo Max would be handsomely approved, by a margin of 52% to 37%. Even if a small number of independence supporters quixotically voted No, we'd still be talking in the region of a 50-40 split.
"Most Scots admit their nation would be worse off after independence (41 per cent) than better off (38 per cent)"
Given the relentless pumping of the establishment/media myth that Scotland is subsidised (ironically exemplified by the smuggling of the word 'admit' into that very sentence!), the unionist side have got serious problems if all they've got to show for their decades of effort is a mere four out of ten Scots accepting "the truth"...
* * *
Housekeeping Note : The mysterious problem with the font in the comments section still hasn't resolved itself, so for the time being I'm going to switch to a pop-up form. If anyone has difficulties loading it, let me know by email (see "Profile/Contact" in the sidebar) and I'll switch back again.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Devo Maxers for Indy?
After I posted my planned submission to the UK government's consultation on an independence referendum, a commenter pointed out that Westminster can hardly be trusted to accurately summarise the results of consultations, in the light of the Spartacus Report. I don't necessarily think that's an argument against taking part, but it's certainly an argument in favour of making sure that submissions are as watertight and as immune to misrepresentation as humanly possible. Having since sent my submission off, the one thing that does bug me slightly is my response to Question 8, asking about the question or questions to be posed in the referendum. I think in retrospect that before making the point that it should be exclusively a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide upon, I should have first spelt out in crystal-clear fashion that it was my own personal view that there should be an additional devo max question. After the jiggery-pokery identified by Spartacus, it's not too hard to imagine the people who simply say it should be up to the Scottish Parliament being defined as part of "the 74% (or whatever) of respondents who expressed no interest in a second question", which would then grotesquely be used as a justification for Westminster legislating to ban the Scottish Parliament from adding a second question! So just a cautionary thought for anyone planning to make their own submission (which I would still urge you to do).
This particular subject is vitally important, because if by any chance we do end up with a single-question referendum as a result of Westminster interference, there's a massive opportunity for the SNP if they can win the 'battle of perceptions'. Potential devo max supporters who come to realise that it was Cameron and Osborne who denied them the chance to have a say on their preferred option may well be more likely than they otherwise would have been to plump for full independence in a two-way forced choice. Who knows, we might even see a "Devo Maxers for Indy" campaign!
* * *
I haven't yet followed the practice of other bloggers by putting a "things people have said about me" section in the sidebar, but if I ever do I'm going to give pride of place to the following 'testimonial' from the ever-delightful CyberYoonYoonist 'Moniker of Monza', and put it under the heading "Yet Another Reason Why I Support Independence" :
"You're a typical Brit, a product of the Empire. You can call yourself Scottish if you wish but you aren't."
* * *
Staying on the subject of the nutters over at PB, they of course overwhelmingly have a fawning attitude towards the US as a "beacon of freedom" (translation : hard-right conservatism). So it suddenly dawned on me that if Richard Nabavi ever has another bash at his rather desperate line of argument that the SNP want "children" to take part in the independence referendum, it'll be easy enough to direct him to the many examples of US states that allow "children" (ie. 17-year-olds) to vote in presidential primary elections. If it's a good enough way to choose the holder of the most powerful office on this planet, I'd say it's good enough for the decision on independence.
* * *
The other night on Question Time, Douglas Alexander trotted out the line that independence would "make the English foreigners", which presumably is going to be one of the 'appeals to the heart' during the referendum campaign. But for the answer to that charge we need look no further than the title of one of the great UK offices of state, the 'Foreign and Commonwealth Office'. By the UK government's own definition, therefore, Commonwealth countries (of which an independent Scotland will be one) are not "foreign" to each other, as they indicate by having High Commissions in each other's capitals, as opposed to embassies.
In any case, Ireland is not even a Commonwealth country. When Douglas visits Dublin and looks around at people, does he really only see "Johnny Foreigner" staring back at him? What a narrow (if I may say so) view of the world...
This particular subject is vitally important, because if by any chance we do end up with a single-question referendum as a result of Westminster interference, there's a massive opportunity for the SNP if they can win the 'battle of perceptions'. Potential devo max supporters who come to realise that it was Cameron and Osborne who denied them the chance to have a say on their preferred option may well be more likely than they otherwise would have been to plump for full independence in a two-way forced choice. Who knows, we might even see a "Devo Maxers for Indy" campaign!
* * *
I haven't yet followed the practice of other bloggers by putting a "things people have said about me" section in the sidebar, but if I ever do I'm going to give pride of place to the following 'testimonial' from the ever-delightful CyberYoonYoonist 'Moniker of Monza', and put it under the heading "Yet Another Reason Why I Support Independence" :
"You're a typical Brit, a product of the Empire. You can call yourself Scottish if you wish but you aren't."
* * *
Staying on the subject of the nutters over at PB, they of course overwhelmingly have a fawning attitude towards the US as a "beacon of freedom" (translation : hard-right conservatism). So it suddenly dawned on me that if Richard Nabavi ever has another bash at his rather desperate line of argument that the SNP want "children" to take part in the independence referendum, it'll be easy enough to direct him to the many examples of US states that allow "children" (ie. 17-year-olds) to vote in presidential primary elections. If it's a good enough way to choose the holder of the most powerful office on this planet, I'd say it's good enough for the decision on independence.
* * *
The other night on Question Time, Douglas Alexander trotted out the line that independence would "make the English foreigners", which presumably is going to be one of the 'appeals to the heart' during the referendum campaign. But for the answer to that charge we need look no further than the title of one of the great UK offices of state, the 'Foreign and Commonwealth Office'. By the UK government's own definition, therefore, Commonwealth countries (of which an independent Scotland will be one) are not "foreign" to each other, as they indicate by having High Commissions in each other's capitals, as opposed to embassies.
In any case, Ireland is not even a Commonwealth country. When Douglas visits Dublin and looks around at people, does he really only see "Johnny Foreigner" staring back at him? What a narrow (if I may say so) view of the world...
Friday, January 13, 2012
Cut the Lib Dems, and they bleed unionist red, not the federalist rainbow
On Radio 4 the other night, Professor James Mitchell summed up his view of how events are likely to unfold rather succinctly - if devo max is on the ballot paper in pretty much any form it will win, but if not it's anyone's guess at this stage as to whether independence or the status quo will prevail in a forced choice. We might quibble about his near-certainty that devo max would defeat independence in a three-way choice, but there's no denying there's more than a grain of truth in his assessment, and all the parties will surely have made a similar calculation. Which makes the battle over whether there should be a devo max question essentially one founded on games theory. The SNP seemingly believe that it's rational to seize the overwhelming likelihood of substantial new powers for Holyrood, even if it means lessening their chances of securing the ultimate prize in the near future - because it would also dramatically reduce their risk of coming away with nothing. The Tories and Labour have reached the opposite view - the thought of genuine Scottish self-government is plainly so horrific to them that they believe it's rational to risk everything in order to have a chance of maintaining their precious line in the sand.
But the Lib Dems? Unlike the Tories and Labour, Devo Max is indistinguishable from what they claim to believe in. So how on earth are we to explain their seemingly irrational decision to turn down the golden chance to use the referendum to fight for the very constitutional settlement they supposedly want, instead infinitely preferring to join a united front with the Tories and Labour to save a status quo they're supposedly opposed to? Remember - just a few days ago, Nick Clegg informed us that he is "not a unionist", and that supporters of both the status quo and independence are "extremists". And yet how quick he is to want to reduce the choice to one only between those two "extremes", and equally quick to decide which one of those extremes he passionately wants to win. Curious.
Perhaps the response from the Lib Dems might be that if independence is defeated in a straight yes/no vote, they can then go on to argue the case for substantial new powers. Don't make me laugh. A No vote would be hungrily seized upon by the London establishment as an excuse to close down all movement on the constitution for a generation, just as happened after 1979. We know it, and the Lib Dems know it as well. No, there's only one explanation for the way in which they are moving heaven and earth to sabotage their own constitutional policy - namely that the Lib Dems (or more specifically the party leadership) are, in spite of Clegg and Moore's protestations, every bit as much an instinctive, "gut" unionist party as the Tories and Labour are. Cut them, and they bleed unionist red, not the federalist rainbow.
* * *
Is Ruth Davidson channelling Martin Kettle, or is it the other way round? She made this extraordinary claim in the Scottish Parliament yesterday -
"Every opinion poll ever published shows the people of Scotland agree with me - Scotland is better off in Britain."
Every opinion poll ever published? The only question that needs to be asked here is whether she knows she's lying or just hasn't bothered to do even the most basic homework (ie. whether she's making the schoolgirl error of taking the London media mythology as read). Forget the poll from just last September showing a plurality in favour of independence - how about the legendary multi-option poll in the run-up to the 1992 election, that showed support for independence at 50%, with devolution and the (then) status quo trailing way behind in the twenties? And there have been umpteen polls showing a pro-independence plurality since then.
But if by any chance she knows all this, then clearly we're in for the 'Big Lie' school of political campaigning over the next couple of years.
But the Lib Dems? Unlike the Tories and Labour, Devo Max is indistinguishable from what they claim to believe in. So how on earth are we to explain their seemingly irrational decision to turn down the golden chance to use the referendum to fight for the very constitutional settlement they supposedly want, instead infinitely preferring to join a united front with the Tories and Labour to save a status quo they're supposedly opposed to? Remember - just a few days ago, Nick Clegg informed us that he is "not a unionist", and that supporters of both the status quo and independence are "extremists". And yet how quick he is to want to reduce the choice to one only between those two "extremes", and equally quick to decide which one of those extremes he passionately wants to win. Curious.
Perhaps the response from the Lib Dems might be that if independence is defeated in a straight yes/no vote, they can then go on to argue the case for substantial new powers. Don't make me laugh. A No vote would be hungrily seized upon by the London establishment as an excuse to close down all movement on the constitution for a generation, just as happened after 1979. We know it, and the Lib Dems know it as well. No, there's only one explanation for the way in which they are moving heaven and earth to sabotage their own constitutional policy - namely that the Lib Dems (or more specifically the party leadership) are, in spite of Clegg and Moore's protestations, every bit as much an instinctive, "gut" unionist party as the Tories and Labour are. Cut them, and they bleed unionist red, not the federalist rainbow.
* * *
Is Ruth Davidson channelling Martin Kettle, or is it the other way round? She made this extraordinary claim in the Scottish Parliament yesterday -
"Every opinion poll ever published shows the people of Scotland agree with me - Scotland is better off in Britain."
Every opinion poll ever published? The only question that needs to be asked here is whether she knows she's lying or just hasn't bothered to do even the most basic homework (ie. whether she's making the schoolgirl error of taking the London media mythology as read). Forget the poll from just last September showing a plurality in favour of independence - how about the legendary multi-option poll in the run-up to the 1992 election, that showed support for independence at 50%, with devolution and the (then) status quo trailing way behind in the twenties? And there have been umpteen polls showing a pro-independence plurality since then.
But if by any chance she knows all this, then clearly we're in for the 'Big Lie' school of political campaigning over the next couple of years.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Citizens for Love, and other thoughts of ardour
A few miscellaneous thoughts on the momentous events of the last few days...
I see that Johann Lamont has taken a leaf out of the 'Scotland for Marriage' strategy book by campaigning to 'save' something that her opponents are actually in favour of, ie. devolution. Of course in a very pedantic sense the logic of 'Save Devolution' can be justified, because independence would mean that the Scottish Parliament was no longer a devolved body. But 99.999% of the public would interpret Lamont's slogan as meaning that there must be some threat of the Tories abolishing the Scottish Parliament and reimposing direct rule from London, which by extension would lead people to wonder why on earth Lamont, Curran and Miliband are busy cosying up to Cameron at the moment. So I'm not sure it's such a winner, but if by any chance it gains any traction, the pro-independence side shouldn't be too proud to learn from it, and rebrand themselves as "Citizens for Love" or something of the kind.
* * *
I watched part of The Daily Politics yesterday for the first time in an eternity, and it really brought home to me how the London broadcasters are going to have to urgently rethink how they handle discussion about Scottish independence in the run-up to the referendum. OK, it sounded like they'd had Bruce Crawford on before I switched on, but nevertheless it's hard to justify the cosy four-way chat almost exclusively from a unionist perspective that unfolded between Andrew Neil, Damien Green, Douglas Alexander and Nick Robinson. At one point an email was read out from a viewer, who pointed out that the British people would be up in arms if the European Parliament told them that proposals for a UK referendum on EU membership were illegal, and that the terms of any referendum would instead have to be determined by the European Parliament. Andrew Neil instantly cut in to haughtily insist "that isn't the point, actually", because no-one in London was trying to stop a referendum. Cue nods of approval from his highly objective panel of guests - but no, Andrew. It's you that wasn't listening. The viewer was not talking about a referendum being blocked altogether, but about the terms of the vote being externally-imposed. In that sense it could hardly have been a more pertinent analogy, because there's absolutely no way the British people (far less the London tabloid press) would put up with such interference in an exercise in national self-determination. Neil would almost certainly have been set straight had there been a pro-independence voice on the panel - but there wasn't.
* * *
There was an article in the Guardian yesterday from Martin Kettle, which seeks to gloat about the 'setback' Alex Salmond has recently suffered (I must have missed that bit). As you'd expect, it's riddled with logical holes and factual inaccuracies, starting with the invention of a party called the 'Scottish Nationalist Party' (although we can probably blame the sub-editor for that one).
"And he [Salmond] backs away on popular UK issue after popular issue – the crown, the pound, the British army, the BBC and the NHS among them. Anything, in short, rather than a simple yes/no on separation."
Tell me, Martin, in exactly what sense have the SNP "backed away" on the NHS? When have they ever suggested that it would be abolished in an independent Scotland? Would it be too cynical of me to suggest that you tacked that on because you were struggling to think of a fifth example of a "UK institution" the SNP are in favour of retaining, and thought no-one would notice that you had ceased to make sense? The reason that the SNP have never had any difficulty in supporting the NHS (indeed they support its founding principles to a far greater extent than the three London parties do at the moment) is that it's not an institution that is tied in any way to the United Kingdom's existence as a nation state. The "national" in the title is really shorthand for "public" or "state-administered", not for "British". If it does refer to a nation, that nation can only really be Scotland, because since devolution the four health systems in the UK have diverged so comprehensively as to make any suggestion that we are talking about a UK-wide institution utterly risible. And while there may have been more conformity before devolution, even then the Scottish NHS was administered by the Scottish Office, not the Department of Health.
As for the crown, that's also a red herring, because a) the SNP have been broadly in favour of retaining the monarchy for as long as I can remember, and b) the crown was a Scottish institution long before it was a UK one in any case. Queen Anne was the monarch of Scotland every bit as much the day before the Act of Union took effect in 1707 as she was the day after.
"All polls show that Scotland is not pro-independence."
Really, Martin? All polls? Did I dream the TNS poll in September that showed a narrow plurality in favour of independence? The London media do seem to be terribly fond of this "polls show Scotland is not ready for independence" meme - it's as if they've decided in advance that's going to be the narrative, and their brains filter out all inconvenient contrary information.
* * *
Has anyone else noticed that when London politicians talk about their commitment to the United Kingdom, they use language of devotion, ardour and passion that most Scottish nationalists would never dream of using about Scotland? Cameron referring to "the country I love" always reminds me of Edward VIII declaring in his abdication broadcast that Wallis Simpson is "the woman I love" - although that might just be because both men pronounce the word "love" in the same way.
It's probably a sign of just how synthetic the sentiment is, and in any case someone has to compensate for the fact that no real people in London, Birmingham or Manchester would ever dream of talking about "loving the United Kingdom". Some of them might "love" Britain, but most of them would probably regard England and Britain as interchangeable terms in any case.
* * *
What with this flurry of activity relating to Scotland, my New Year's Resolution to keep away from PB lasted all of nine days (pretty good by my standards). Richard Nabavi, runner-up in the Poster of the Year poll (how?) has been prattling on in this broken record fashion : "What are they moaning about now? Isn't London giving the SNP exactly what they want? What is the problem?" When I pointed out to him a list of ways in which London are in fact proposing to block the SNP's plans, for instance by denying the right of young adults to vote, he sneeringly replied that the SNP surely would have realised that "no-one" would ever take seriously the "demand" that "children" should have a vote. Hmmm. I wonder how 'amused' he will be by the suggestion in today's Scotsman that there may indeed be room for a compromise on this topic - but only because Labour are pondering the possibility of backing the SNP's proposal for giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote!
* * *
Apologies for the problem with the font in the comments section. I think it's a fault with Blogger, because I experimented with switching to a pop-up form and that resolved the issue. I might make that a permanent change if it hasn't cleared itself up after a few days.
I see that Johann Lamont has taken a leaf out of the 'Scotland for Marriage' strategy book by campaigning to 'save' something that her opponents are actually in favour of, ie. devolution. Of course in a very pedantic sense the logic of 'Save Devolution' can be justified, because independence would mean that the Scottish Parliament was no longer a devolved body. But 99.999% of the public would interpret Lamont's slogan as meaning that there must be some threat of the Tories abolishing the Scottish Parliament and reimposing direct rule from London, which by extension would lead people to wonder why on earth Lamont, Curran and Miliband are busy cosying up to Cameron at the moment. So I'm not sure it's such a winner, but if by any chance it gains any traction, the pro-independence side shouldn't be too proud to learn from it, and rebrand themselves as "Citizens for Love" or something of the kind.
* * *
I watched part of The Daily Politics yesterday for the first time in an eternity, and it really brought home to me how the London broadcasters are going to have to urgently rethink how they handle discussion about Scottish independence in the run-up to the referendum. OK, it sounded like they'd had Bruce Crawford on before I switched on, but nevertheless it's hard to justify the cosy four-way chat almost exclusively from a unionist perspective that unfolded between Andrew Neil, Damien Green, Douglas Alexander and Nick Robinson. At one point an email was read out from a viewer, who pointed out that the British people would be up in arms if the European Parliament told them that proposals for a UK referendum on EU membership were illegal, and that the terms of any referendum would instead have to be determined by the European Parliament. Andrew Neil instantly cut in to haughtily insist "that isn't the point, actually", because no-one in London was trying to stop a referendum. Cue nods of approval from his highly objective panel of guests - but no, Andrew. It's you that wasn't listening. The viewer was not talking about a referendum being blocked altogether, but about the terms of the vote being externally-imposed. In that sense it could hardly have been a more pertinent analogy, because there's absolutely no way the British people (far less the London tabloid press) would put up with such interference in an exercise in national self-determination. Neil would almost certainly have been set straight had there been a pro-independence voice on the panel - but there wasn't.
* * *
There was an article in the Guardian yesterday from Martin Kettle, which seeks to gloat about the 'setback' Alex Salmond has recently suffered (I must have missed that bit). As you'd expect, it's riddled with logical holes and factual inaccuracies, starting with the invention of a party called the 'Scottish Nationalist Party' (although we can probably blame the sub-editor for that one).
"And he [Salmond] backs away on popular UK issue after popular issue – the crown, the pound, the British army, the BBC and the NHS among them. Anything, in short, rather than a simple yes/no on separation."
Tell me, Martin, in exactly what sense have the SNP "backed away" on the NHS? When have they ever suggested that it would be abolished in an independent Scotland? Would it be too cynical of me to suggest that you tacked that on because you were struggling to think of a fifth example of a "UK institution" the SNP are in favour of retaining, and thought no-one would notice that you had ceased to make sense? The reason that the SNP have never had any difficulty in supporting the NHS (indeed they support its founding principles to a far greater extent than the three London parties do at the moment) is that it's not an institution that is tied in any way to the United Kingdom's existence as a nation state. The "national" in the title is really shorthand for "public" or "state-administered", not for "British". If it does refer to a nation, that nation can only really be Scotland, because since devolution the four health systems in the UK have diverged so comprehensively as to make any suggestion that we are talking about a UK-wide institution utterly risible. And while there may have been more conformity before devolution, even then the Scottish NHS was administered by the Scottish Office, not the Department of Health.
As for the crown, that's also a red herring, because a) the SNP have been broadly in favour of retaining the monarchy for as long as I can remember, and b) the crown was a Scottish institution long before it was a UK one in any case. Queen Anne was the monarch of Scotland every bit as much the day before the Act of Union took effect in 1707 as she was the day after.
"All polls show that Scotland is not pro-independence."
Really, Martin? All polls? Did I dream the TNS poll in September that showed a narrow plurality in favour of independence? The London media do seem to be terribly fond of this "polls show Scotland is not ready for independence" meme - it's as if they've decided in advance that's going to be the narrative, and their brains filter out all inconvenient contrary information.
* * *
Has anyone else noticed that when London politicians talk about their commitment to the United Kingdom, they use language of devotion, ardour and passion that most Scottish nationalists would never dream of using about Scotland? Cameron referring to "the country I love" always reminds me of Edward VIII declaring in his abdication broadcast that Wallis Simpson is "the woman I love" - although that might just be because both men pronounce the word "love" in the same way.
It's probably a sign of just how synthetic the sentiment is, and in any case someone has to compensate for the fact that no real people in London, Birmingham or Manchester would ever dream of talking about "loving the United Kingdom". Some of them might "love" Britain, but most of them would probably regard England and Britain as interchangeable terms in any case.
* * *
What with this flurry of activity relating to Scotland, my New Year's Resolution to keep away from PB lasted all of nine days (pretty good by my standards). Richard Nabavi, runner-up in the Poster of the Year poll (how?) has been prattling on in this broken record fashion : "What are they moaning about now? Isn't London giving the SNP exactly what they want? What is the problem?" When I pointed out to him a list of ways in which London are in fact proposing to block the SNP's plans, for instance by denying the right of young adults to vote, he sneeringly replied that the SNP surely would have realised that "no-one" would ever take seriously the "demand" that "children" should have a vote. Hmmm. I wonder how 'amused' he will be by the suggestion in today's Scotsman that there may indeed be room for a compromise on this topic - but only because Labour are pondering the possibility of backing the SNP's proposal for giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote!
* * *
Apologies for the problem with the font in the comments section. I think it's a fault with Blogger, because I experimented with switching to a pop-up form and that resolved the issue. I might make that a permanent change if it hasn't cleared itself up after a few days.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
The first skirmish in the independence battle : winning the consultation numbers game
It goes without saying that Michael Moore's consultation exercise is a farce - to the extent that the outcome is not already pre-determined, it will not be greatly informed by the submissions. However, given the PR difficulty of holding a consultation and then completely ignoring the findings, it may make some small difference at the margins. So in my view it's vitally important that as many individuals as possible take part in the consultation (click HERE to do so), and in particular that they emphasise repeatedly in their answers to the questions that the UK government should have no role other than to sit back and respect the Scottish Parliament's right to decide on the nature and timing of an independence referendum.
Here is the first draft of my own submission. I'd be interested in hearing any suggestions for improvements before I send it off!
1. What are your views on using the order making power provided in the Scotland Act 1998
to allow the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a legal referendum in an Act of the
Scottish Parliament?
First of all, the premise of this question is incorrect, because it assumes that the UK government's legal advice represents the final word on the matter, whereas of course it is just one opinion among many, no more or less valid/interesting than any of the others, and certainly no more objective in its source. The Scottish Government have clearly received advice that they already have the power to legislate for an advisory referendum, and the election pledge to hold a referendum that attained such an overwhelming mandate last May was founded on that advice, not on any intention to seek 'clarification' or 'assistance' from the UK government or its law officers. Nevertheless, if the UK government is sincere in both its own view that there is a legal problem and its claim that it has no wish to interfere in the referendum process, then clearly the most sensible way forward would be to use the order making power (or some other means) to unambiguously grant the Scottish Parliament powers over a referendum without any conditions whatsoever, whether regarding the date of a poll, the question(s) to be asked, the regulatory body to be put in charge, or the minimum age for electors. Only this unconditional approach would complement rather than interfere with the Scottish Government's plans, and would be respectful of its mandate to implement those plans.
2. What are your views on the UK Parliament legislating to deliver a referendum on
independence?
It should not. It would be wholly wrong in the current circumstances for Westminster to seek to directly deliver an independence referendum. In the pre-devolution period it would of course have been appropriate for it to legislate for such a referendum (because no other institution could), and many of us argued that it should. It refused to do so. Now that there is a Scottish Parliament in place perfectly able to deal with these matters for itself, and especially given that the current parliament clearly intends to do so within three years, it would be absurd and offensive for Westminster to suddenly decide in quasi-colonial fashion that it can do the job better.
3. What are your views on whether the Scotland Bill should be used either to:
i) give the Scottish Parliament the power to legislate for a referendum; or
ii) directly deliver a referendum?
As explained above, it would be wrong for Westminster to seek to directly deliver an independence referendum, so it makes no difference whether the proposal is that this should be done by means of the Scotland Bill.
On sub-question i) my views are as explained earlier : the premise is incorrect, but there is nevertheless no harm in the UK government seeking to unambiguously transfer legislative powers over the holding of a referendum to the Scottish Parliament (by means of the Scotland Bill or other means), as long as it does so without setting any conditions.
4. What are your views on the oversight arrangements for a referendum on Scottish
independence?
My personal view is that the body in charge should be a distinctively Scottish one, mandated to act by the Scottish Parliament. There are clear dangers that a predominantly non-Scottish body such as the Electoral Commission will unwittingly bring subtle pro-union biases to the table, and would not be able to administer the poll in an even-handed manner. However, from the point of view of this consultation, the only thing the UK Government should be concerning itself with is that the Scottish Parliament is the appropriate institution to legislate on oversight arrangements. Once it accepts that principle (as it surely must do if it means what it says about not interfering) then it would of course be open to the individual parties represented in the UK Government to argue on the floor of the Scottish Parliament for whichever oversight arrangements they think are most suitable, and to seek to prevail in a democratic parliamentary vote.
5. Do you think the Electoral Commission should have a role in overseeing a referendum on
Scottish independence?
My personal view is no, for the reasons explained above. However, this should exclusively be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide upon, and the UK Government should not be concerning itself with it one way or the other. It seems likely that if allowed to proceed without interference from Westminster, the Scottish Parliament would indeed consider the potential role of the Electoral Commission with the seriousness it deserves, and then decide the matter by democratic parliamentary vote.
6. What are your views on which people should be entitled to vote in a Scottish
independence referendum?
My personal view is that the local government/Holyrood franchise should be used, but extended to give young adults of 16 and 17 years of age the right to vote. However, I am deeply concerned that by posing this question in its consultation, the UK government is suggesting that it has a role to play in this matter. The Scottish Parliament is plainly the institution that should decide upon the franchise of any referendum it holds, and the UK government should not interfere in that process. It is of course open to the individual parties represented within the UK Government to make the case on the floor of the Scottish Parliament for a franchise that excludes young adults, and to then seek to prevail in a democratic parliamentary vote.
7. What are your views on the timing of a referendum?
My view is that the Scottish Government are wise to seek to hold the referendum in 2014, because this will allow the Scottish people a suitable period of time to properly consider the momentous decision before them. However, once again, I am troubled that by asking this question in its consultation, the UK government is implying that it has a role to play in determining the date. It should have no such role. If it is as respectful of the Scottish Government's mandate as it claims, it should simply accept that the date is exclusively a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide upon.
8. What are your views on the question or questions to be asked in a referendum?
It should be open to the Scottish Parliament to ask whichever questions it wishes. This is the Scottish people's referendum, not anyone else's. For the UK government to seek to find a way (as it appears minded to do) of legally blocking a second question on 'devolution max' when there is ample opinion poll evidence that this is an option that attracts widespread public support, would not merely be disrespectful of the Scottish Parliament's mandate to act, but even more importantly would also be a deeply cynical assault on the democratic aspirations of the Scottish people.
9. What are your views on the draft section 30 Order?
As stated previously, my view is that it would only be appropriate for the UK government to use the order making mechanism if there were no conditions placed on the powers being 'granted' to the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, the following words that clearly impose such conditions should be deleted -
"(2) The date of the poll at the referendum must not be the date of the poll at any other referendum held under
provision made by the Parliament.
(3) The date of the poll at the referendum must be no later than ***"
"There must be only one ballot paper at the referendum, and the ballot paper must give the voter a choice
between only two responses."
"(5) The persons entitled to vote in the referendum must be the persons who would be entitled to vote in an
election for membership of the Parliament—
(a) if one were held on the date of the poll at the referendum, or
(b) if one were held on that date but alterations made in a register of electors after a particular date were
disregarded."
"(6) The referendum and arrangements in connection with it must be in accordance with Part 7 of the Political
Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (referendums) as if the referendum were within section 101(2) of
that Act, subject to any modifications specified in subordinate legislation."
UPDATE : Thanks to Tris for his helpful suggestions, which can be read below. Another point that it's since occurred to me would be well worth making relates to the UK government's stated objectives of a "fair, legal and decisive" referendum. The 'legal' point may be one thing, but the fact that the government are implicitly suggesting that fairness and decisiveness can only be ensured by means of Westminster 'supervision' calls into question their own stated faith in devolution. The challenge should be made to them to demonstrate their authentic commitment to devolution by pursuing their supposed objectives through the unconditional transfer of the relevant powers, and by simply trusting the Scottish Parliament to make the right decisions - as they are content to do on the administration of local government elections, criminal justice, health, education, and countless other matters of vital importance to people's lives. Do the UK government see the Scottish Parliament as a grown-up legislature capable of making grown-up decisions, or don't they?
I've therefore added these words to my submission -
"In conclusion, I'd like to touch on the UK government's stated objectives in launching this intervention, namely to secure a 'fair, legal and decisive' referendum. It is surely self-evident that these objectives are qualitatively different from each other. The pretext for this consultation is the UK government's legal advice that the Scottish Parliament is currently unable to hold a legal referendum. But to the best of my knowledge the UK government are not in possession of equivalent advice stating that the Scottish Parliament is intrinsically incapable of administering a fair and decisive referendum.
The UK government has repeatedly professed its faith in devolution, implying that this constitutional arrangement is superior both to independence and direct rule from London. But the very essence of devolution is surely that the 'national' parliament is content that worthy objectives such as 'fairness' are not imperilled by simply trusting the 'sub-national' legislature to make responsible decisions without supervision or guidance from 'above'. Given that the UK government correctly accepts that legislating for a referendum is appropriately the province of the Scottish Parliament and not Westminster, the aforementioned principle must logically apply in this instance. I would therefore urge the UK government to act in comformity with its stated commitment to the principle of devolution, by not seeking to stand in the way of the Scottish Parliament's efforts to achieve 'fairness' and 'decisiveness' by its own chosen means."
Here is the first draft of my own submission. I'd be interested in hearing any suggestions for improvements before I send it off!
1. What are your views on using the order making power provided in the Scotland Act 1998
to allow the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a legal referendum in an Act of the
Scottish Parliament?
First of all, the premise of this question is incorrect, because it assumes that the UK government's legal advice represents the final word on the matter, whereas of course it is just one opinion among many, no more or less valid/interesting than any of the others, and certainly no more objective in its source. The Scottish Government have clearly received advice that they already have the power to legislate for an advisory referendum, and the election pledge to hold a referendum that attained such an overwhelming mandate last May was founded on that advice, not on any intention to seek 'clarification' or 'assistance' from the UK government or its law officers. Nevertheless, if the UK government is sincere in both its own view that there is a legal problem and its claim that it has no wish to interfere in the referendum process, then clearly the most sensible way forward would be to use the order making power (or some other means) to unambiguously grant the Scottish Parliament powers over a referendum without any conditions whatsoever, whether regarding the date of a poll, the question(s) to be asked, the regulatory body to be put in charge, or the minimum age for electors. Only this unconditional approach would complement rather than interfere with the Scottish Government's plans, and would be respectful of its mandate to implement those plans.
2. What are your views on the UK Parliament legislating to deliver a referendum on
independence?
It should not. It would be wholly wrong in the current circumstances for Westminster to seek to directly deliver an independence referendum. In the pre-devolution period it would of course have been appropriate for it to legislate for such a referendum (because no other institution could), and many of us argued that it should. It refused to do so. Now that there is a Scottish Parliament in place perfectly able to deal with these matters for itself, and especially given that the current parliament clearly intends to do so within three years, it would be absurd and offensive for Westminster to suddenly decide in quasi-colonial fashion that it can do the job better.
3. What are your views on whether the Scotland Bill should be used either to:
i) give the Scottish Parliament the power to legislate for a referendum; or
ii) directly deliver a referendum?
As explained above, it would be wrong for Westminster to seek to directly deliver an independence referendum, so it makes no difference whether the proposal is that this should be done by means of the Scotland Bill.
On sub-question i) my views are as explained earlier : the premise is incorrect, but there is nevertheless no harm in the UK government seeking to unambiguously transfer legislative powers over the holding of a referendum to the Scottish Parliament (by means of the Scotland Bill or other means), as long as it does so without setting any conditions.
4. What are your views on the oversight arrangements for a referendum on Scottish
independence?
My personal view is that the body in charge should be a distinctively Scottish one, mandated to act by the Scottish Parliament. There are clear dangers that a predominantly non-Scottish body such as the Electoral Commission will unwittingly bring subtle pro-union biases to the table, and would not be able to administer the poll in an even-handed manner. However, from the point of view of this consultation, the only thing the UK Government should be concerning itself with is that the Scottish Parliament is the appropriate institution to legislate on oversight arrangements. Once it accepts that principle (as it surely must do if it means what it says about not interfering) then it would of course be open to the individual parties represented in the UK Government to argue on the floor of the Scottish Parliament for whichever oversight arrangements they think are most suitable, and to seek to prevail in a democratic parliamentary vote.
5. Do you think the Electoral Commission should have a role in overseeing a referendum on
Scottish independence?
My personal view is no, for the reasons explained above. However, this should exclusively be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide upon, and the UK Government should not be concerning itself with it one way or the other. It seems likely that if allowed to proceed without interference from Westminster, the Scottish Parliament would indeed consider the potential role of the Electoral Commission with the seriousness it deserves, and then decide the matter by democratic parliamentary vote.
6. What are your views on which people should be entitled to vote in a Scottish
independence referendum?
My personal view is that the local government/Holyrood franchise should be used, but extended to give young adults of 16 and 17 years of age the right to vote. However, I am deeply concerned that by posing this question in its consultation, the UK government is suggesting that it has a role to play in this matter. The Scottish Parliament is plainly the institution that should decide upon the franchise of any referendum it holds, and the UK government should not interfere in that process. It is of course open to the individual parties represented within the UK Government to make the case on the floor of the Scottish Parliament for a franchise that excludes young adults, and to then seek to prevail in a democratic parliamentary vote.
7. What are your views on the timing of a referendum?
My view is that the Scottish Government are wise to seek to hold the referendum in 2014, because this will allow the Scottish people a suitable period of time to properly consider the momentous decision before them. However, once again, I am troubled that by asking this question in its consultation, the UK government is implying that it has a role to play in determining the date. It should have no such role. If it is as respectful of the Scottish Government's mandate as it claims, it should simply accept that the date is exclusively a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide upon.
8. What are your views on the question or questions to be asked in a referendum?
It should be open to the Scottish Parliament to ask whichever questions it wishes. This is the Scottish people's referendum, not anyone else's. For the UK government to seek to find a way (as it appears minded to do) of legally blocking a second question on 'devolution max' when there is ample opinion poll evidence that this is an option that attracts widespread public support, would not merely be disrespectful of the Scottish Parliament's mandate to act, but even more importantly would also be a deeply cynical assault on the democratic aspirations of the Scottish people.
9. What are your views on the draft section 30 Order?
As stated previously, my view is that it would only be appropriate for the UK government to use the order making mechanism if there were no conditions placed on the powers being 'granted' to the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, the following words that clearly impose such conditions should be deleted -
"(2) The date of the poll at the referendum must not be the date of the poll at any other referendum held under
provision made by the Parliament.
(3) The date of the poll at the referendum must be no later than ***"
"There must be only one ballot paper at the referendum, and the ballot paper must give the voter a choice
between only two responses."
"(5) The persons entitled to vote in the referendum must be the persons who would be entitled to vote in an
election for membership of the Parliament—
(a) if one were held on the date of the poll at the referendum, or
(b) if one were held on that date but alterations made in a register of electors after a particular date were
disregarded."
"(6) The referendum and arrangements in connection with it must be in accordance with Part 7 of the Political
Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (referendums) as if the referendum were within section 101(2) of
that Act, subject to any modifications specified in subordinate legislation."
UPDATE : Thanks to Tris for his helpful suggestions, which can be read below. Another point that it's since occurred to me would be well worth making relates to the UK government's stated objectives of a "fair, legal and decisive" referendum. The 'legal' point may be one thing, but the fact that the government are implicitly suggesting that fairness and decisiveness can only be ensured by means of Westminster 'supervision' calls into question their own stated faith in devolution. The challenge should be made to them to demonstrate their authentic commitment to devolution by pursuing their supposed objectives through the unconditional transfer of the relevant powers, and by simply trusting the Scottish Parliament to make the right decisions - as they are content to do on the administration of local government elections, criminal justice, health, education, and countless other matters of vital importance to people's lives. Do the UK government see the Scottish Parliament as a grown-up legislature capable of making grown-up decisions, or don't they?
I've therefore added these words to my submission -
"In conclusion, I'd like to touch on the UK government's stated objectives in launching this intervention, namely to secure a 'fair, legal and decisive' referendum. It is surely self-evident that these objectives are qualitatively different from each other. The pretext for this consultation is the UK government's legal advice that the Scottish Parliament is currently unable to hold a legal referendum. But to the best of my knowledge the UK government are not in possession of equivalent advice stating that the Scottish Parliament is intrinsically incapable of administering a fair and decisive referendum.
The UK government has repeatedly professed its faith in devolution, implying that this constitutional arrangement is superior both to independence and direct rule from London. But the very essence of devolution is surely that the 'national' parliament is content that worthy objectives such as 'fairness' are not imperilled by simply trusting the 'sub-national' legislature to make responsible decisions without supervision or guidance from 'above'. Given that the UK government correctly accepts that legislating for a referendum is appropriately the province of the Scottish Parliament and not Westminster, the aforementioned principle must logically apply in this instance. I would therefore urge the UK government to act in comformity with its stated commitment to the principle of devolution, by not seeking to stand in the way of the Scottish Parliament's efforts to achieve 'fairness' and 'decisiveness' by its own chosen means."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)