Devo Shsh

After months of demanding a referendum that is simple, clear and transparent. David Cameron has suggested a process that is top secret. You’ve heard of Devo Max and Devo Plus, welcome to Devo Shsh…by Doug Daniel

David Cameron’s sudden (apparent) conversion into a devout “devolutionist” brings up many interesting questions, none of which he or any other unionist will want to answer.

The obvious one is what powers he actually thinks should be devolved, and as has been pointed out by the First Minister and others, it would be grossly irresponsible to tell Scots that if they vote “no” in the referendum, they will get more powers, without even telling them which ones, never mind putting in place a guarantee that this “jam tomorrow” will indeed be forthcoming. Unionists often claim that the SNP have not fleshed out what exactly “independence” means, but generally they can only refer to how things will be implemented, rather than what will be implemented – there’s no question we will have a separate defence force, for example, but they ask how this will work in practice, although even this has been explained by Salmond. By contrast, we quite simply do not know which powers Cameron et al would like to devolve to Scotland. In a manner of speaking, independence is nothing more than the full devolution of powers to Scotland, so that there are no more reserved powers at Westminster, and as a result, anything less than that requires spelling out so people know which powers are included and which aren’t. Continue reading

The Spin Room

By Mike Small

So what just happened? Watching the body language, maneuvering and positioning is fascinating. Salmond welcomes Cameron, and hand on back ushers him into a room before sitting in front of a huge yellow map. The table was tiny, the whole set-up to be as uncomfortable as possible. Moore seems inconsequential, a mere bag-carrier.

Previously through the day Cameron had gone through a choreographed “I’m visiting Scotland” routine. Dave eats porridge, poses with his MP and his new Scottish leader (allegedly) in front of the Forth Rail Bridge (Scottish icon), then declares that ‘the Union’s not about the past’ before citing John Knox, Adam Smith, James Maxton, RLS, James Watt and so on (and on). Having established that a) he was in Scotland b) he liked porridge and c) he had a great grasp of Scottish history and knew where Aberdeen was, he then made some very odd statements, including: ‘There are now more Scots living in England and English people living in Scotland than ever before. And almost half of Scots now have English relatives.’ Continue reading

Show Me the Mone

By Mike Small

Michelle Mone’s intervention in the independence campaign (‘Scottish lingerie tycoon Michelle Mone has threatened to move to England if Scotland votes for independence’) was the first big boob from the No Campaign. It show’s – if anything – that we live in times of enormous cleavage. It’s all a storm in D Cup. Okay, having got the compulsory gags out the way, what’s going on?

Miss Mone, one of the UK’s most successful businesswomen, said she was “passionate” about Scotland but she did not think it could “survive on our own”. Mone’s been on twitter saying about how she said these things two years ago and it’s all no big deal. But the episode tells us a lot about how businessmen and the idea of the entrepreneur have infiltrated our culture.  These people are the new gurus, from Duncan Bannatyne to Lord Sugar we genuflect beneath their greatness. This is the long 1980s, Gordon Gecko style.

Last year’s Holyrood election saw a slew of ‘endorsements’ and Mone’s statement sounds like an anti-endorsement. Remember when Stephen Hendry and Lulu were persuaded to say they’d flounce out of Scotland if devolution was won? It’s all terminally unconvincing. But at its heart is a misconception about how wealth is created. If we hold in high esteem a business based on push-up bras we’ve surrender to  Ultimo Democracy. Continue reading

Positivity

By Mike Small

Pundits seem to be coalescing around the idea that a ‘positive message’ is an essential part of political campaigning (nothing new here, see Pat’s Juggernaut of Joy thesis). Whether it’s Obama’s upbeat derivative (but ultimately empty) Yes We Can, or, as critics had it, Salmond’s indy question (characterised by some as some sort of Derren Brown-style mass hypnosis), the idea of positivity is the key, or so we’re told. It’s simple: people who whinge and moan all day become a bit of a drain to be around. We naturally gravitate towards those who bring a bit of sunshine and light into our life.

This presents the Unionists with a challenge. How to oppose the Yes Campaign with a positive? What is the positive case for the Union? Well it’s about security, continuity and stability. All good things, but in stressing these you have to also sort of pretend it’s all okay as is, and that’s where they get unstuck. The nationalists have to say things will be okay, the unionists have to pretend things are okay. It’s not jam tomorrow but it’s a set of ideas – a vision – based on hope. Now we know that this might not work out but we have aspiration whereas in the HERE and NOW we kind of know perfectly well what things aren’t working. UK Plc has nationalised the banks and given our money away to the super rich. People can’t get the homes they need, and there’s an outbreak of mass unemployment, fuel poverty and a generalised economic insecurity that strikes into the heart of peoples well-being by the residual stress it creates. Continue reading

Bringing it On

By Doug Daniel 

The 25th January 2012 brought the independence referendum another leap closer to reality, and did its best to shift the debate along, while not quite succeeding. We now have a published timeline of events detailing exactly why the SNP has chosen Autumn 2014 for the referendum. Sure, unionists can argue that there are perhaps exaggerations in how long certain aspects are scheduled to take, but it’s pretty difficult to argue that any of the stages included are superfulous, which makes those who are still demanding a referendum “sooner rather than later” look even more ridiculous than they did before. It also makes it crystal clear why they make such demands – because they want a rush job, particularly as polls are already suggesting public opinion towards independence has now caught up to be completely neck and neck with the status quo.
For decades, unionists ignored all calls for independence. For four years, they claimed an independence referendum was a waste of time and money. For six months, they argued that the referendum had to happen NOW and that not knowing the date was harming Scotland. We now have a definitive time, yet apparently this still isn’t good enough. There is only one word for this behaviour: disingenuous. Well, maybe another word: petulant. You can only change your mind so many times before you start to look like you’re just arguing for the sake of it, and unionists passed that point long ago. We have a timescale – it’s now time to move away from this tedious argument and get onto the main, grown-up debate. Continue reading

Scotch Myths 4 – No Scottish Army

By Mike Small

One of the most humorous myths peddled about Scottish independence is that it could not, and should not have a competent military structure. This week Lord Richard Dannatt even suggested that we would struggle to have recruits because it would be too ‘boring’ serving in a Scottish regiment. Presumably he was thinking of the fun enjoyed by Baba Moussa at British Army hands , or the recent case of soldiers in Kabul? Perhaps he was thinking of the collusion in the murder of the human rights lawyer Patrick Finucane, or other exciting times in Ireland?

Whatever he was thinking of, it should be remembered that it’s not actually a prerequisite of a nation to be armed to the teeth. The stark geopolitical consequences of Scottish sovereignty are what motivates these myths and attacks. Continue reading

Alex Salmond: Hugo Young Lecture 2012

Extract from Alex Salmond’s Hugo Young lecture (see video here):

I want to reflect on the astonishing, and increasing, pace of change in Scotland. Devolution took a century to be delivered. The last decade embedded the Scottish Parliament as the focal point of public life and Scottish democracy. We now have a Scotland Bill changing by the day and overtaken by events before it even reaches the statute book. The momentum and direction of the people of Scotland is unmistakable.

It is therefore right that in 2014, people in Scotland should have the opportunity to vote on whether to become independent. Continue reading

Let the i Generation In

By Kate Higgins

If, even in the quietest moments, we wondered if we might sneak independence in by the back door, well, we ken noo.  One of the most contentious issues is the SNP’s proposal to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the referendum.  A referendum apparently is no place for bairns, not even if they were born to be free.  Me?  I’d go even further and let all children over the age of five in Scotland have their say.  This is, after all, the independence generation. Continue reading

May You Live In Interesting Times

By Calum Cashley
It was a strange thing to watch; those who oppose independence, having failed to build a case for the union, have sought, instead, to turn the issue into a process story.  Not the why but the how; not a debate about what Scotland’s future should be but an argument about how many questions should be on the ballot paper; not a discussion about what would be to Scotland’s best advantage but a huff about who’ll run the referendum; not an ambition for Scotland’s future but a sneer about who has control over the legal aspects of the referendum.  They want to talk about the process not the issue.  Unfortunately for them, they wandered blithely into the trap they thought they’d prepared for the SNP.
Both sides have been stepping around the ring, eyeing each other warily, trying to judge the right moment to strike, whether the opponent has a weakness that can be exploited.  The problem is that making the first move carries as much danger as opportunity – tilt at the windmill at the wrong time and the turning blade will crack your head; miss the windmill altogether and your own momentum carries you right over the cliff. Continue reading

One Shot- Independence or Nothing

By Mhairi McAlpine

The last few days have been a remarkable display of kack-handedness, arrogance and sheer stupidity on the part of Unionist politicians.  Attempting to seize the initiative on the Scottish Independence Referendum, Cameron set out a range of parameters under which he was prepared to consider allowing the kind of question that he liked to be put to us at a time of his choosing, considering that we should be grateful for his benevolence of considering us worthy to be asked such a stupid question.

“It’s very unfair on the Scottish people themselves, who don’t really know when this question is going to be asked, what the question is going to be, who’s responsible for asking it. We owe the Scottish people something that is fair, legal and decisive. So in the coming days we’ll be setting out clearly what the legal situation is…”

The sound of jocular laughter could be heard all the way from Dumfries to Orkney.  It is clear that the Tories haven’t noticed but with the Scottish Parliament as an alternative authority in Scotland we can no longer be treated as a colonial outpost, its governance to be tagged on as an afterthought at the end of a sporting arena walkabout in the Imperial Capital.  What Cameron really owes us is reparations for the oil money that has been snaffled through the past 30 years, the return of the coastline which was stolen from us in 1999 and a full independent investigation into the death of Willie McRae. Continue reading

Bad News

By Jamie Maxwell

One of the most dispiriting aspects of the debate surrounding Scotland’s constitutional future has been the relentless, grinding superficiality with which the London-based media have covered it. The failure (or refusal) of many UK broadcasters and print journalists to address the question of Scottish secession in any real depth has become all the more stark since David Cameron’s ill-judged attempt to ‘seize back the initiative’ earlier this week.

Take, for instance, last night’s Channel Four News. In a report about how British assets and liabilities would be divided in the event Scotland became an independent country, economics editor Faisal Islam suggested it was unreasonable for the SNP to expect to take 90 per cent of the oil from the North Sea yet only 8.4 per cent of the UK’s total debt. Jon Snow pursued this line of argument in a subsequent interview with First Minister. But it is a complete dead-end. The protocols governing the ownership of natural sea-bed resources are clear and internationally recognised: states control a 200-mile exclusive territorial zone running out from their coast lines and the resources contained therein. The question of debt following the break-up of multinational states is equally unambiguous: it is distributed according to population or GDP. Any other formula would provoke endless – possibly irresolvable – disputes. Continue reading

The Union: A Journey into the Unknown

By Dorothy Bruce

Politicians, commentators and posters have in recent months urged Unionists to make their positive case for the Union. Although some of us are rapidly coming to the conclusion there is no such case to be made, we nevertheless expect our Unionist friends to attempt to spin together crumbs to feed to the faithful.

It’s amazing what deliberations time off, or perhaps immobility due to over-indulgence on the food front, fuelled by a higher alcohol content in the blood, can give rise to. Anyway, over the festive season, I began to wonder about this Union we want defined, its benefits, its shared values. And after some late night research, it dawned on me that I was unclear on exactly what Union our Unionists want to preserve. Is this uncertainty why they too are having trouble defining it? Continue reading

To See Ourselves as Others See Us

By Mike Small

O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us.
- To a Louse, Robert Burns

Today is going to be crucial in that the Westminster Govt will reveal their legal advice and we will (I believe) have an immediate response from the First Minister. What Alex Salmond and his team require, and may have, is perspective. There seems some confusion on whether the 18 month imposition has now been withdrawn, which is odd, given that was presented as the main motivation. ‘Botched’ doesn’t do justice. Continue reading

The Date of the Independence Referendum & the Battle of Bannockburn

There has been much hot air about the supposed date of the Independence Referendum falling on the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn.  This may seem like a good time to mention that that particular anniversary falls on the 23/24th June 2014 which is bang slap in the middle of the 2014 World Cup Finals which run from 12 June – 13th July 2014. Continue reading

Dave’s Big Adventure

By Mike Small
Dave’s Big Adventure yesterday has the Tory right and far-right dancing with glee. He’s being compared to Churchill for walking away from Europe (as far I remember Churchill stood by Europe but let’s not quibble it’s the action they’ve been ganting for for decades). For some this is a great bat to beat the nationalist movement. But to the Twitter question ‘Why would Scotland want to join an unelected superstate?’ the answer quickly came, ‘We’re part of an unelected superstate, called Britain’.

Angus Macleod of The Times was ‘rubbing his hands at the deafening silence’ from SNP HQ, but we reckon that he and  Kenny Farquharson of SoS have got this one far wrong. Even the struggling mega-bland Eddy Miliband has it right: “We should be under no illusions about the import, the impact or the reasons behind the decision. The significance is that we have chosen to let 26 countries make crucial decisions without us. The prime minister’s apparent warning at the meeting that they “couldn’t use this building for their meetings” would be laughable if it was not tragic.”

This is a terrible decision for Britain but potentially good news for Scottish independence. A reconstituted eurozone could offer a safe haven from the crazies of big business Bullingdon and hedgefunds represented by British Govt PLC. As news seeps out (shock horror) that RBS boss Fred the Shred will escape ‘further’ (sic) sanction, what Cameron’s antics expose is a reckless xenophobic ideologue posturing as Tory New Man. Gone are the Huskies, Sam Cam and Hug a Hoody, back are the Same Old Tories. Continue reading

The Twilight of the British State: Alex Salmond, Scottish Independence and the European Question

By Gerry Hassan

This is a fascinating and fast moving period of politics, at a global, European, British and Scottish level, challenging many of the most deep-seated and unexamined assumptions held across the political spectrum.

In the last week we have seen the euphoric SNP conference at Inverness showing a party on the crest of a wave which seems to think that the future is within its grasp.

Then we have at Westminster the return of the popular bogeyman – Eurosceptism – and its capture of the mainstream of the Conservative Party with the biggest ever backbench Tory rebellion on Europe.

What is seldom explored is the interconnection of these two issues: Scottish independence and Euroscepticism. Both illustrate the multi-dimensional nature of the crisis of the British state, and tensions and faultlines in the existing order with its mantras and folktales of parliamentary sovereignty. And in both, the centre of gravity has shifted significantly in recent times; towards an environment favourable to Scottish self-government, and a Eurosceptic agenda. In the first, the debate is now between full fiscal autonomy and independence, and in the second, the Tory mainstream debate is between repatriation of powers from Europe and complete withdrawal. These two dimensions could in the future influence each other in ways seldom stated or explored.

The National Party of Scotland

The recent SNP Annual Conference was a major watershed for the party: its first gathering since it became the majority government in the Scottish Parliament in the May 2011 elections. The conference captured the SNP in transition, heading from their traditional role as the outsiders and anti-establishment of Scotland, to being embraced by large swathes of institutional Scotland to such an extent that they could foreseeably become the new establishment.

The SNP has managed in four years of office to be a competent, relatively successful administration, much to the surprise of its opponents. It has acted and sounded like Scotland’s Government unlike the minimalist political aspirations of the previous Labour-Lib Dem Scottish Executives. It has shown in Alex Salmond and his ministerial team a model of individual and collective leadership which has been impressive and striking compared to the previous Lab-Lib Dem era.

This doesn’t mean the SNP has got everything right. It has clung too closely to the institutional Scottish consensus to allow it to be radical and different on the economy, public services, health and education, while often striking the right tone in general and on specifics such as minimum pricing for alcohol.

The main event at every SNP conference is the keynote address from Alex Salmond. This year he had the opportunity to lay out how the SNP plans to use majority government, its vision and strategy for independence, and how it sees the prospect for change short of independence – which has become known to some as ‘devolution max’.

Salmond’s speech to a packed, expectant hall invoked the idea of a long standing set of different Scottish values, what he called ‘the community of the realm’ stretching back into medieval times, and a Scottish ‘common weal’; this was an attempt to situate the ideal of a Scots public and civic realm distinct and different from England and the rest of the UK (1).

What it did do is position independence as an expression of traditional Scotland, as being about continuity and preservation, rather than fundamental change. In this sense the SNP is placing independence within the paradigms of the devolution mindset and as a logical extension of devolution: a kind of ‘devolution max plus’. Continue reading

Stepping Stone or Stonewalling?

Scotland in a Post-FFA Future? By Doug Daniel

Let’s suppose the unionists (or “devolutionists” as some of them are now calling themselves) realise they’re heading down the wrong path for keeping the union and start embracing Full Fiscal Autonomy for Scotland. Suppose that this leads Scots to vote for FFA instead of independence in the coming referendum. Scotland will be one step closer to independence. But how big a step? What would it then take to go that extra step? You might think “well, there would be another referendum of course,” and perhaps you would be right. But who says it would actually be needed?

In this FFA future for Scotland, I imagine we’re talking about Scotland raising its own taxes, being able to borrow money on its own, funding its own welfare and pensions systems, and generally spending its income as it sees fit. The current situation is that we pay all our money to the UK treasury, and it gives a fraction back to Holyrood. Under FFA, we would presumably pay all our money to a Scottish treasury, and Holyrood would then send a proportion of this to Westminster with which to contribute towards our share of UK defence and the foreign office. Now, straight away you can perhaps see a problem. Yes, they would be reserved powers, so the Westminster Defence and Foreign secretaries would still speak for the whole UK. But surely, if the Scottish Government is now giving money to Westminster, it would need to have a better say in how the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence spend that money? Surely it would only be prudent, then, for the Scottish Government to have some sort of Defence and Foreign Affairs ministers, lobbying to Westminster to make sure the money we give them isn’t being spent on illegal wars etc? Continue reading

Beggar Nation

By Mike Small

When reading of the ‘German Forest Boys’ first words: “I’m all alone in the world, I don’t know who I am. Please help me” – I couldn’t help think of John McTernan wandering around in post-Blair Britain with only his weekly indulgence by the Scotsman to orient him.

As my learned friend LPW described the ‘political leprosy of the Scottish Tories’ perhaps we could describe the Tories Unionist bedfellows as suffering from sort of political aneurysm. Like goldfish gupping around the Westminster bowl they mouth the same words that is ushering them further into political wilderness. These are the Friends of Chumbawamba Do you suffer from long-term memory loss? I can’t remember.

Will nobody tell them? Continue reading

Will Victory Take Us Left?

By Bill Kidd from the new issue of Scottish Left Review (see also Peter McColl’s very good piece on why the Greens failed (‘Grassroots Aren’t Green’).

Euphoria is generally considered to be an exaggerated psychological state, but it’s certainly the mood of the moment as regards this second SNP Government, it’s first as a majority administration – at least amongst the growing party membership and those who supported the National Party during the recent electoral victory. The mood amongst the avowedly Unionist parties memberships and supporters is, unsurprisingly, less buoyant but also uncertain as to where Scottish politics is heading.

The plans for an Independence Referendum which the SNP had for the last parliamentary session had to be side-lined due to a lack of MSP numbers in support to have been a successful manoeuvre towards the establishment of a democratically-mandated state. Now, however, with the numbers at Holyrood on the side of the nationalist angels, a referendum is unequivocally back on the agenda and the London-based parties have been calling for second referendums and for Westminster to continue having the overriding say on the constitutional settlement even after the Scottish People have spoken. Continue reading