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

An Awfully Big Adventure

By Christopher Harvie

According to Neil Oliver the referendum will be ‘the biggest decision in 300 years’. So ca’ very canny … I wonder.

In 1707-15, as far as the mass of Scots were concerned, there was no decision. The deal was done, for good or ill, by elites – or parcels of rogues – north and south, for dynastic and diplomatic reasons. In 1837 the same Union was partly dissolved, when Victoria could not, by Salic Law, become Queen of Hanover. She was replaced by the reactionary Ernest August, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, whose repression helped provoke the German liberals who rose and fell in 1848. In 1866 Hanover’s king backed the Austrians against Bismarck. The blind George V’s state was swallowed by Prussia, and with it the chance of a type of liberal confederalism. Did anyone notice?

What operated in the UK after 1707 was more a tacit confederation than a union. The ruling groups of both Scotland and England invested in distinct ways, and the separate Scots ‘estates’ of kirk, law, learning and local government had about as much autonomy as small states enjoyed within the European empires. The alternative wouldn’t have been the ‘freedom’ that the likes of Paul Henderson Scott optimistically infer from Fletcher of Saltoun’s pamphlets, but either a version of England’s ‘Poynings’ Law’ that paralysed nominally self-governing Ireland, 1494-1782, or a drastic French-Jacobin-style ‘co-ordination’ of administration and civil society. 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

QI

By Doug Daniel

The Westminster parliament’s Scottish Affairs Committee (which includes several English MPs in its membership), has published a short report on the questions it feels need to be answered before people can make an informed choice in the independence referendum, or “The Referendum on Separation for Scotland: Unanswered Questions”, as they prefer to call it. Now, you just need to read the pejorative title to know it’s going to be a load of uninformed nonsense, but it’s perhaps worth going through some of the questions and highlighting just how uninformed it really is.

The report can be read here, and it really is a short report (they’ve decided not to include any evidence why these are “unanswered” questions, or who is actually asking these questions) so it’s worth having a look. Continue reading

The Case for English Independence

By Dan Hind, author of The Return of the Public

The British are meant to be content with the spectacles and dramas laid on for them. In the New Year, David Cameron told us with the pink suaveness of an ambitious young headmaster that this year we could look forward to the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee and the Olympics. Ed Miliband wants to put on a slightly different show; imagine a chorus line of crocodiles weeping while the financial sector gets everything it wants. But they are united in their desire to hog the national limelight and avoid discussion of what goes on backstage.

The Scots don’t want to be a miniature Britain, and never have done. In the years before 2014 they will decide for themselves what it means to be a great nation. A progressive beacon, Salmond says. If the Scots create a polity where free citizens have the powers they need to secure prosperity and social justice, then the light of it will be visible to all her neighbours. And that is the last thing that anyone in Westminster, or the City of London, wants.

Read the full article over at Aljazzera Opinion.

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

Why Indy Lite is Wrong

By Pat Kane

It’s fair to say – along with the not-so-gentle student arm-twisting of a newly elected representative for the South of Scotland region – that the veteran SNP grandee Jim Sillars is responsible for my current political identity.

His concept of independence-in-Europe, articulated in his mid 80′s book Scotland: A Case For Optimism - and still on the SNP website - was the first time I’d heard a truly sophisticated argument for Scottish independence: about reconnecting to the wider world, not just chippily tilting against our largest near-neighbour.

Somewhere in my personal archives I have a piece of campaign literature from the 1992 SNP campaign, arguing for “The New Union” for Scotland – that is, the European Union, with Scotland as integrated but independent nation-state within it. I also remember seeing Jim at a conference about 10 years ago, arguing with great vision about how an independent Scotland could contribute to the creation of a “strong European feel”, which would help legitimate and bolster a European governance that was certainly facing its challenges at that time.

This is personal, too: back to 1992, I shared an SNP Snappy Bus on Jim’s last, desperate day as a Govan MP during that years General Election. My admiration for his commitment to, and sympathy for, ordinary voters hasn’t diminished from that day to this.  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

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

In Defence of Democracy

By Mike Small

It’s difficult to know where to begin with David Cameron’s intervention in Scottish democracy. After months of prevarication and brow-beating, we’re now being lectured on democratic matters by failed-Tory grandee, the rejected Lord Michael Forsyth, and by David Cameron, who’s own elected MPS north of Carlisle are outnumbered by Pandas. Curious. Continue reading

The ‘Three Scotlands’ and How to Win an Independence Referendum

By Gerry Hassan

Scottish politics post-the election and the return of a majority SNP Government have existed in a seeming state of limbo, a kind of political phoney war.

The SNP have won a landslide victory but have yet to produce a serious strategy for winning independence; the unionist parties in Scotland have all been reduced to an existential crisis about defining their purpose and point; while David Cameron’s government (if it ever thinks about Scotland) is of the view that the break up of the United Kingdom isn’t a serious threat and those pesky Nats will soon be put in their place. Continue reading

Labour’s Leader Lamont

By Mike Small

It’s unfair I know but the idea that there’s more likelihood of Hearts players getting paid on time than Johann Lamont breathing life energy and the feelgood factor into Scottish Labour seems to be doing the rounds.

Don’t belive us (nasty nat separatists and all) ask self-styled ‘Labour Man’ George Galloway who unleashed an astonishing attack in this weeks Daily Record likening Johann Lamont to Rosa Klebb: Continue reading

The Devolution Deficit and the Independence Referendum: Part One

By Donald Adamson

One of the many interesting features of devolution in Scotland is that turnouts at Holyrood elections have been consistently lower than turnouts at Westminster elections. On the surface, the reasons for this seem obvious: for example, there is more at stake in Westminster elections, the media coverage of British general elections, in both the broadcasting and printed media, is more heavily saturated, all the British political heavyweights are fully engaged in British elections, lending greater authority and legitimacy to British election campaigns and so on. This has been the position at least up to the 2010 British general election. To illustrate the point we can compare the performance of the four main Scottish parties at both British and Scottish general elections. Continue reading

Breaking Waves

The Scots and the Basques are the European nations which are most likely to break away from the states of which they are currently citizens and have most incentives to do so, according to a new model created by an international research group employing a proxy for cultural heterogeneity based on genes (while making clear that there is, of course, no politically incorrect implication that culture is explained by genetics).
“For the case of secessions, the model predicts that the Basque Country has the highest propensity to break away, followed by Scotland and Sardinia. This ranking is unchanged under a number of robustness checks. These results are consistent with the observation that the Basque Country and Scotland are the only two regions in Western Europe that in recent years have called for referendums on self-determination.” (The Stability and Break-up of Nations: a Quantitative Analysis, Klaus Desmet, Michel Le Breton, Ignacio Ortuño-Ortín and Shlomo Weber, August 2011)
The mathematical model operates by considering  not only demographic and economic criteria but, in an original and ingenious manner, also culture. It includes factors such as the wealth of countries alongside size and cultural differences in terms of population genetics, there being a correlation between culture and genetics in so far as it is true to say that populations which have mixed more tend to display greater cultural similarity.
Read the full post at Frankly here.

Loves Labour Lost

By Mike Small

Last night was the night for Labour hustings (which Bella sadly missed), and it’s a subject which we’ve been all but silent on. Many of you might be wondering who we’d be backing? Might it be Kandidate Ken? Tom4Scotland or Johann, er, Lamont?

The Burdz’ generous offer to enable the debate amongst Labor candidates offered some scope for sharing of vision and the new positive outlook as advocated by Douglas Alexander. Unfortunately some of this seems to have gone awry.

Siobhan McMahon MSP – swinging right behind Johann Lamont writes that she rejects the idea that Lamont was a key part of Labour’s disastrous electoral team saying: “If we were to debar all those who bear a measure of responsibility for Labour’s past from participating in Labour’s future, we would be hard pressed to find anybody at all.” Which isn’t maaybe quite the endorsement that Johann  was after.

Mind you it’s not as bad as the backing Tom4Something gets. Before that though Ian Smart (lifelong Labour) takes a few swipes at the other candidates: “Ken Macintosh has been in the Scottish Parliament since 1999.  To quote another great Socialist thinker, Michael Caine:  “not many people know that”. On Johann he writes: “Insofar as one can work out what criticisms she has of the 2011 Campaign, they appear to be the wrong criticisms.  Not that we were insufficiently negative but rather that we were not negative enough.”

Ouch. So, what is it that attracts Ian Smart to back Tom?.

“I know this is going to sound kind of strange, but the main reason I am supporting Tom is that he has ideas that I don’t agree with. It is only strange, however, if you realise that for him to have ideas I don’t agree with, he must – as a predicate – have ideas at all.  In that he is head and shoulders above either of the other candidates.”

So if the campaign hasn’t exactly  lit up the world with ideas and vision, perhaps the arrival of the heavy-squad might offer some quality to Labour’s lacklustre leadership debate? In today’s Scotsman Brian Wilson took up the gauntlet of the the Claim of Right, only to get VERY confused.

In an extraordinary passage, describing Scotland’s democratically elected government Wilson writes: “I certainly do not accept the qualification of Mr Salmond to set the question. That is the way dictators run referendums, not democracies.”

Brian Wilson has always detested the devolution process, he voted against it in 1979 and has been an arch-Unionist ever since, so it’s no surprise he writes: “As one who has no particular loyalty to what exists at present, I believe this challenge should be taken up. It is the anti-separatists who should reaffirm the Claim of Right by listening to the people, in advance of a referendum.”

With no indication which of the three candiidates has his support Wilson continues with a strange sort of utopian-nihilist jive: “In order to defeat separatism, its opponents must offer some more attractive option than the one to which the status quo has been reduced. There must be respect for what the people of Scotland want as well as dire warnings about what might befall them.”

This is a common theme amongst Labour leaders: “we must seek a new positive voice”. Yet whether it’s the dripping negativity of nuclear-lobbyist Brian Wilson, or the self-mocking harsh truths of Ian Smart, or the anodyne utterances of Candidate Ken and Johann, there’s no sign yet of a flicker of policy initiative, or positive notions the way forward for Scottish Labour, never mind Scotland.