Since I first posted this, we’ve had an election, and Westminster and the unionist coalition of Tories/Labour/LibDems under their Great Leader, David Cameron, have decide that we can have a referendum after all – but with very bad grace. But imperialists always revert to type – like the scorpion that stung the ox carrying it across a turbulent river – it’s in their nature …
Repost of Wednesday, 15 December 2010 blog
The Falklands Islanders can leave the UK whenever they want to–but what about the Scots?
The Daily Politics, Wednesday the 15th of December.
THERESA VILLIERS, TORY MP
"Our legal rights to the sovereignty of the Falklands is clear, and we've always said we will never give the Falklands back, unless the people in the Falkland Islands wish to make a change to the current arrangement ... The Falkland Islands stay British unless the Falkland islanders want to change that."
ED BALLS, LABOUR MP
"These are British people, who have a right to self-determination ---"
So say the two largest parties in the UK.
But what of Scotland, a country that voluntarily entered into a union with England as the UK - a country with its own ancient, proud, independent history, traditions and culture, its own church, its own legal system, its own Parliament.
What if a substantial proportion of the population of Scotland - a majority in the last opinion poll - want a referendum to determine their wishes?
The answer is a flat, unequivocal NO from all three of the largest UK parties. They are afraid even to ask the question. So billions can be squandered on maintaining a remote, tiny relic of the faded British Empire, but Scotland cannot even seek the opinion of its citizens.
The question must be asked again and again - why does the UK want to hold Scotland? The answers are clear - defence, i.e. nuclear, policy, revenue from oil and Scotch whisky, and finally the fact that if Scotland goes, the pretence of Empire can no longer be sustained.
And of course there is the secret terror that Scotland might well prove to be more economically successful than England, and might continue to display a concern for its poor, its vulnerable, its aged, and for the education of its young people that is increasingly absent in England.
Let Scotland go! You must be nuts - the Union Jack would rot on the flagpole! There would be riots in the streets of London! Members of the Royal Family would be assaulted in public! (aside from Sir Humphrey – Ahem, that has already happened, Minister ...”)
And what would happen to the post of colonial governor, the Scottish Secretary?
Why that would pass, unmourned, into the sordid pages of the history of that benighted position.
Let’s start with a question - who is pushing devo max?
If you listen to the unionist parties and commentators, it’s Alex Salmond, who they claim wants it as a fall-back if Scots say NO to independence. Senior SNP figures have repeatedly said their commitment is to independence and a clear, single question on that: individual nats have varying positions on it, but a very vocal group of unknown size is totally hostile to a second question, believing it to be a trap set by unionists, who in spite of repeatedly saying they don’t want it, are somehow engaged in Machiavellian double bluff, and hope that it will win, and can then be denied to the Scots.
All of this is complicated by assertions that “nobody knows what devo max means” and the various wee and big brothers of Max, including Nae Max at All, Wee Max, Max Plus and Max Minus - this last one espoused by a party of two, Lord Forsyth and Tam Dalzell who wish to return to a pre-devolution state of powerlessness.
The official SNP position, judging by numberless media statement, interviews and responses to the endless questions is this, at least as I interpret it -
1. The SNP wants independence and a single, clear cut question, and they have offered their question.
2. The term devo max is a media term coined to explain full fiscal autonomy, i.e. a devolved Scotland remains part of the UK, and runs everything except defence and foreign policy. The UK Parliament remains sovereign, and the Scotland Act defines what the devolved Scottish Parliament may do. All or part of this can be revoked at any time by Westminster through amendments to the Scotland Act.
3. The new referendum consultation document says this -
While the Scottish Government’s preferred policy is independence, it recognises that there is considerable support across Scotland for increased responsibilities for the Scottish Parliament short of independence. One option, full devolution (or “devolution max”) was set out in some detail in the Scottish Government white paper Your Scotland, Your Voice published in 2009.
The Scottish Government has consistently made it clear in that paper Your Scotland, Your Voice white paper, Nov. 2009and its 2010 consultation paper on a draft referendum Bill that it is willing to include a question on further devolution in the referendum. That remains the Scottish Government’s position. It will listen carefully to the views and arguments put forward on this issue in response to this consultation.
That was pretty damned clear to me at the time - I gave my response to the consultation in some detail, including my concerns about the wording of the questions, the sequencing of the questions and the ballot paper(s), concerns which I elaborated on in my blog.
In summary then, the Scottish Government’s preferred policy is independence but it recognises there is considerable support across Scotland for increased powers to the Scottish Parliament, and it will consider these in a nation-wide consultation exercise, then decide of whether such an option should be offered in the referendum in addition to the independence question.
All the polls before and since have indicated that there is a very substantial percentage of the Scottish electorate who wish for such a settlement. It would be undemocratic of the Scottish Government to ignore such a body of opinion.
The degree of devolution desired - from zero to full devolution, i.e. everything except defence and foreign policy (devo max) may vary across this body of opinion. The only way to determine what this might be is the consultation process: it is clearly impracticable to put to the electorate every aspect of government, every power of government that may be devolved, except under broad headings, as for example they are defined in the Scotland Act on devolved powers and Westminster reserved powers.
All of the above should be clear enough for an intelligent 12-year old, but it is not clear enough for the combined unionist parties nor for most of the media - or alternatively, it is abundantly clear to them, but they just don’t want to believe it.
MY POSITION
My position, for what it is worth - the view of a single Scottish voter - is that I want independence, I want a single question, but I recognise as a democrat that if a wider choice is demanded by a significant number of my fellow Scots, that choice somehow has to be enabled in the referendum.
But I warn those who want significantly more devolution under such an option that, if it won the day in a referendum, there is no guarantee that it will be delivered, in part or at all, by the Westminster government, who retain total control. The irony of devo max is that only full independence can guarantee to deliver it.
THE UNIONIST PARTIES
The three unionist parties, Tories, Labour and LibDems, now united in a Coalition against the independence of Scotland, are more or less as one on their view of a second question and devo max and their press supporters are also united - devo max is a Salmond-initiated ploy to snatch a kind of victory from a referendum defeat on independence. David Cameron, the Leader of the Labour and LibDem parties (he is also the Leader of the Tory Party) is against a second question and devo max.
Today’s Telegraph nonsense illustrates the official line -
By Simon Johnson, Scottish Political Editor
6:00AM GMT 31 Jan 2012
A coalition of organisations, including the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations (SCVO), yesterday announced a campaign to discuss changing the constitution. This was a blow to Alex Salmond, who is keen for a second question appear on the ballot paper. It has been likened to his ‘consolation prize’ in case Scots reject full independence.He is relying on civic groups to agree on the definition of a ‘more powers’ option after all three main opposition parties backed a single, straight question on independence.
Party leaders last night urged the coalition to resist any pressure from the First Minister to “manipulate the debate” and create a false consensus.
The LibDems waffle about federalism (some unionist media commentators masquerade as federalists or home rulers these days, in the hope that this will make them seem objective - and hedge their bets if independence wins!) but like most of what the LibDems say, this is meaningless.
Labour declaims that they have always been the party of Home Rule, and the ghost of Keir Hardie is summoned in evidence, but they too are against a second question and devo max.
They justify this by a tortuous process of reasoning - listen to any of Johann Lamont’s comments - that tries to separate the concepts of independence and devolution - in other words “Let’s kill the independence nonsense by a NO vote to a single referendum question, then Labour can consider devolved matters under the Scotland Act, and will influence Westminster to grant any more powers that may be required.”
This maintains the fiction that Labour and Scottish Labour - the tame puppets of the London Party - can somehow influence Westminster and the British Establishment.
Labour, while in government for thirteen years, managed to -
widen the poverty gap, becoming more Tory than the Tories
launch two wars, one of them illegal, devastating two countries in the process and destabilising the Middle East
wreck the UK economy while enriching its Scottish politicians - those that weren’t jailed in the process
protest Labour pacifism and internationalism while wrecking the country of Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents
bleed the UK armed services to death by over-extending and under-equipping them (M.O.D. incompetence) in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan
In the light of this, the Scottish people can be forgiven for dumping them unceremoniously in May 2011 and returning with a massive majority a party committed to the independence of Scotland.
CIVIC SCOTLAND
And so we come to Civic Scotland, and its long-awaited launch. Well, this ship ran shakily down the slipway, birled around a few times, and now seems to be pointing exactly nowhere, with rumours that down in its bowels, officers are fighting over the compass.
One might have thought that Civic Scotland, comprised of unions, churches, think tanks, voluntary organisations, etc. would have learned something from the fiasco over the Scottish CBI’s claims - out of the mouth of Iain McMillan - that Scottish industry consensus existed that Scotland’s independence plans were damaging business confidence.
This should have demonstrated the dangers of a non-democratic body and its leader claiming to speak on a political matter for all of its members, but no, they’re all at it again under the rather wobbly, leaky umbrella of Civic Scotland. One body among them can claim a kind of democracy - the STUC - but even that is deeply compromised by its affiliation to a single party, Labour, and the inadequacies of its own consultative and democratic procedures. Another body in Civic Scotland invented itself - the think-tank Reform Scotland.
Insofar as it is possible to determine any central theme from Civic Scotland, its raison d'etre seems to be something like this -
The politicians are obsessed by the process of the referendum and no real discussion or debate has taken place over policies, or what government and political parties are trying to do in Scottish society.
The manifest weakness of this position is that it is only nine months since we had a Scottish Parliamentary election, one which was preceded by an intensive campaign in which the parties produced manifestos, and spoke long and passionately about their policies in the press, in the media in general, and in a series of unprecedented television debates, not to mention by leafleting, and on the doorsteps.
This had been preceded by four years of a Scottish Parliament, televised intermittently on BBC Channel 81, highlighted weekly by FMQs from Holyrood, and intensively covered in daily television programmes, including Newsnight Scotland and various other Scottish and national media programmes and news bulletins.
To suggest that none of this was about policy, vision, and the direction and shape of Scotland, economically, socially, fiscally, etc. is the most arrant nonsense.
It’s called democratic politics - it’s the way the free world is run - more or less - but Civic Scotland, whatever it is, seems uneasy and dissatisfied with this, or at least, the leaders of its component parts are. Just how they consulted their employees, church members, trades union members etc. is unknown to me, but they clearly don’t like the process of consultation that government is currently engaged in, and feel it to be in someway inadequate, narrowing the debate.
Here are some of the thing various people in civic Scotland have said -
Rev. Ian Galloway in an interview with Isabel Fraser: “The Church of Scotland does not have a position of devolution, it doesn’t have a position on independence, it doesn’t have a position on the status quo.”
Reform Scotland - “an independent, non-party think tank that aims to set out a better way to deliver increased economic prosperity and more effective public services based on the traditional Scottish principles of limited government, diversity and personal responsibility” - in contrast, has very definite views and supports what it calls devo plus.
Martin Sime 0f the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) in an interview with Isabel Fraser: “I think what we’ve heard in the last few weeks is from a whole lot of people, mostly politicians, who seem to know what the answer is, and are trying to restrict the question to get the answer that they want.”
Elected politicians (elected by us, Martin) either propose or oppose independence: how exactly are they to proceed except by campaigning for the answer they want ? That is how democracies operate.
As for restricting the question to get the answer they want, this is patently untrue of the Scottish Government, who have offered a single question, but have made it clear that they are prepared to consider other questions, and the wider views of the Scottish body politic and the Scottish people, and have launched a major exercise to attempt to determine these views by consultation and debate.
It does appear to be true of the Westminster Government, of the anti-independence coalition of the Westminster unionist parties and of the Scottish unionist party leaders, but not of elder statesmen like Henry McLeish
Martin Sime: “What this new coalition is doing is trying to open out the debate, and we’ve found very widespread support from among non-government organisations of all kinds, including business leaders, faith groups and students to try and take this debate out a bit before we get down to the brass tacks of what options there should be.”
That of course is exactly what the Scottish Government’s consultation process is about, and it is why they declined to be stampeded into an immediate referendum by strident calls from the unionist parties - and the CBI in the apparently unrepresentative voice of Iain McMillan.
Isabel Fraser: “Martin, is it not inevitable that if you’re looking for alternatives that have no already been proposed, that you end up with the devo max issue - and that intensely politicised already. You cannot keep this non-political, can you?”
Martin Sime: “Well, we’re not campaigning for any particular option in this debate ..”
Reform Scotland are, Martin - devo plus. But carry on …
Martin Sime: “ .. and we’re certainly not a ginger group for devo max.
That’s clear enough.
Martin Sime: “ .. we’re quite resolute that the debate needs opened up, rather than closed down, so we’re opposed to the proposition that at this stage there should be a decision to simply go forward with a YES/NO question ..”
And so is the Scottish Government, Martin, even though that is their favoured position, and that is why they are opening up the debate with a wide-ranging consultation process. In contrast, the Tory/Labour/LibDem anti-Scottish independence coalition is trying to do exactly as you say and close down the debate and “.. simply go forward with a YES/NO question ..”
This was before the launch. Yesterday, we had the launch of Civic Scotland, and their core message was that other options to a single YES/NO question should be considered. Let me reiterate - that is also exactly the Scottish Government’s position - it has repeatedly said so, even though it has a preferred option of independence, and that is why a major consultation exercise has been launched.
Ben Thomson - Reform Scotland: “We think the most important thing now is for Civic Scotland actually to have a voice and move away from this highly politicised debate …”
I’ve got news for you, Ben - the independence of a country is probably the most highly politicised debate a country can have - it is initiated by politics - the politics of a sovereign people - and it can only be peacfully resolved by the democratic politics of political debate and the elected representatives of the people.
Civic Scotland has no such elected representatives - but the leaders of the component organisations of this disparate coalition have a right to be heard, as informed individuals, but not as the voice of every employee, church member, union member etc. of their organisation. They have already spoken through casting their votes on May 5th 2011. The CBI and Iain McMillan have already demonstrated the dangers of such claims.
Both Sime and Thomson repeatedly claim that the debate, as reflected in the media, has been narrow and has been about process rather than purpose. I don’t believe this to be true, unless you restrict the perception to the debate to the period since Alex Salmond recently launched his consultation document.
In fact, there has been a very broad, yet very detailed debate going on for the last six years, before that since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, and before that for decades - a progressive, vital debate that led to devolution, the Scottish Parliament, the first SNP minority government, and the new SNP majority government. The people of Scotland have participated in that debate throughout, it has influenced their democratic voting patterns, and they understand very clearly what it’s all about.
But among the great and the good, the Westminster Parliament and the metropolitan media, there has been a mixture of denial of reality, and sheer blinkered ignorance. They are now waking up and trying to catch up with the people of Scotland.
Good luck to you, Civic Scotland - get in on the act belatedly - you are very welcome to offer views. Just don’t get in the way of a sovereign people and its Parliamentary democracy.
And don’t and try and shift the debate out of the political arena and into the hands of an unelected professional elite - it’s that sort of thing Scotland is trying to escape from.
The title of this blog is too grand, and appears to signal a major analysis, when in fact it is just a brief comment. But perhaps I’ll get around to more …
One of the many classic Isabel Fraser interviews with Alex Salmond. The Nationalist BBC bashers tend to ignore the vital contribution of the BBC to democracy by giving regular exposure to the FM and the nationalist viewpoint.
So interviewers sometimes press politicians on points that they think are relevant, and act as devil's advocates? That's their job - searching for the truth, however elusive. Even Paxman - perhaps especially Paxman - in his blundering, hectoring, hostile, patronising style has made his contribution. That's democracy - that's what a free media should aspire to.
The BBC is not perfect, and can never satisfy the needs of any political party - nor should it. It is still the finest public service broadcaster in the world, and it now faces the greatest challenge in its history - the independence of Scotland and the constitutional changes it will bring to what is left of the UK, of the Britain as described in its name.
Can it still be The BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation? In point of fact, it could, in the sense of, say, a Scandinavian Broadcasting Corporation, or a Mediterranean Broadcasting Corporation. But I don't think it will be - the new independent Scotland will demand its SBC, the Scottish Broadcasting Corporation.
After all, if we're going to be "a beacon to the world", we need to be on the air!
I expect journalists to be objective, but not neutral. I expect news reporting to be factual, and not to spin the facts, but I do not expect balance, e.g. if there are ten facts that day for one side of an argument and five for another, I don’t expect the journalist to trawl for another five facts to achieve ‘balance’.
I expect a sharp distinction to be made between news reporting and commentary. I never expect neutrality, only objectivity. I expect individual journalists to have a viewpoint and an interpretation of events. I accept that entire newspapers and magazines have a viewpoint, a position, and editors that identify with that position, providing they observe good journalistic practice in relation to factual reporting and veracity.
I deeply distrust newspapers and periodicals where the viewpoint is that of the owners, rather than the journalist.
I am not, and never have been a journalist, and I have never worked for a newspaper or magazine in any capacity, nor in media. I believe strongly in a free press and media, especially in print journalism and public service broadcasting.
KENNY FARQUARSON’S MYTHS
In the context that Kenny uses the word myth, the definition is a widely held but false notion. Norman Mailer called mythical facts factoids - something everybody know is true except it ain’t.
Today he sets out to demolish what he see as six myths about the SNP and the referendum. To some degree, he has set up straw men to knock down by stating a myth that either never existed, or exists only in the minds of a few unionist commentators. Let’s deal with Kenny’s myths briefly -
1. Holyrood’s voting system was designed to stop the SNP getting a majority
Kenny says it wasn’t - it was designed to stop Labour getting a majority. He describes his myth as “a cornerstone of the SNP’s persecution complex”. The SNP don’t have a persecution complex, Kenny, but they could be forgiven if they had, given the history of the party, and the role of successive UK Governments and Scottish Secretaries, as revealed under the 30 year rule so cogently by Diomhair and other analyses, not to mention the hysterical campaign of abuse and flagrant misrepresentation directed at them since may 2007.
The d’Hondt system of proportional voting was set up to stop any party having an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament, and in that objective, all Westminster parties were as one. As unionist parties, they last thing they wanted was any devolved administration having any real power over the levers of government in Scotland, including their own regional parties.
Since the Labour Party and Tony Blair were the key drivers of devolution, and since the only threat to London Labour’s dominance in Scotland was the SNP, there can be little doubt as to their prime motivation - the voting system was designed to keep the SNP out of power for ever.
The stunned shock of Labour when, in 2007 the Scottish people cautiously gave the SNP a chance to show what they could do, albeit in a minority government, was such that for some months Labour could not adjust to the fact that they were no longer in government - Jack McConnell was like a headless chicken for some time.
2. A devo-max option would put Alex Salmond “in a win-win situation” in the referendum.
3, Devo max requires a second question in the referendum
I’m not sure who Kenny is quoting here on win-win, but it must be either a unionist politician’s quote or an ill-informed metropolitan commentator - the SNP have never driven the so-called devo max option. They have recognised, since the previous consultation document and in the new one, that as far as polls are an indicator, there seems to be a substantial body of the Scottish electorate who do not want independence but want radically increased powers for Scotland within the UK.
We now have Civic Scotland and Henry McLeish saying that such an option must be on the ballot paper, and since the SNP is a democratic party and recognises a responsibility to the entire people of Scotland, not just those who elected them, they are prepared to respond to that wish.
Such democratic concepts are, I know, deeply alien to UK politicians, since they preside over a power structure that is only partly democratic, given the existence of the House of Lords and the visceral commitment - recently strengthened by a viciously fought referendum campaign that served only politicians - to a first-past-the-post system of government for Westminster.
The position of the SNP Government, of Alex Salmond, of his ministers, is that they want one question, they want independence, but will recognise the people’s apparent wish for another option. My own position is that I do not want devo max - I consider it a trap, and an option which, if selected by the electorate, would not be delivered by Westminster. Far from thinking it would offer Alex Salmond a win-win, I think it would represent a failure of the highest aspirations of those who want independence. Nonetheless, I think it must be offered if the people want it as an option. The other strand of opinion that I see in the SNP is of direct opposition to devo max being offered.
Kenny’s myth no. 3 solution - don’t have a second question, just let the Scotland Act and devolution evolution do the trick reflects the unionist trap. Not only will we not get more powers, we risk a clawback of exisitng powers caused by an English reaction against independence ambitions.
So, yes, it is a myth, Kenny - a unionist politicians’ myth, and a myth propounded by ill-informed media commentators, not by the SNP.
4. Debate on more powers for Holyrood should be left until after the independence referendum
Kenny sees this as a Labour and LibDem myth, and I agree with him on that perception. If they maintain it, they betray their own supporters in Scotland. In my more ignoble moment - and I have many - I secretly hope they do maintain it. But then the democrat in my psyche pops up again …
5. Alex Salmond is a godlike political figure with superhuman powers who can do no wrong.
If Kenny had presented this as a unionist and media myth solely, I might have agreed with him. The idea that - other than few starry-eyed, hero-worshipping groupies on the fringe - that anyone in the SNP believes in this myth is risible, as my private email correspondence demonstrates daily.
But what SNP supporters believe, what the vast majority of the Scottish electorate believe, what a rapidly increasing number of international commentators believe is that the Scottish people in this point in their history are fortunate to have a consummate politician and a visionary statesman who eclipses any other British or European political leader, yet a man who’s the goud for a’ that, and just one of Jock Tamson’s bairns - fallible, and above all a real Scot. Gaun yersel, Alex!
6. The SNP speaks for Scotland
This is no myth - it is a fact. It is also a fact that all the other parties, as well as the SNP, claim to speak for Scotland, and it’s their job to say that, otherwise, what the hell are they for?
But what is uniquely true is that the SNP speaks only for Scotland - all the other parties, by their own repeated proclamations, have at best a wider loyalty and at worst a deeply divided - and divisive - loyalty to the United Kingdom.
The Scottish Government speaks for Scotland, and they were elected by a massive majority to do just that.
Kenny’s last sentence is contemptible, not worthy of him, so I won’t repeat it here. It is regrettably typical of much unionist comment, and it’s why they’re losing the argument.
This blog is the opinions of a single voter - me. It doesn’t claim to represent SNP policy or any group. I am an SNP supporter and party member because I want independence for Scotland and a nuclear free Scotland. No other UK party offers either of these things.
The blog is open to comments, based on Blogger processes, ID’s etc. I pre-moderate comments, but I cannot edit them - they are either accepted or rejected, and that decision is mine. Don’t post URL links unless you have added the necessary html code - I have no automatic convert facility. If you do so, I cannot publish any of the comment.
Comments are designed to be comparatively brief response to key points or the overall blog, but on big topics, e.g. the referendum, I am happy to accept more extended arguments. If you have a major and extended contribution to make, you must either start your own blog or go to a site that accepts guest articles, e.g. Newsnet Scotland
I don’t accept guest articles.
I don’t welcome posts that repeat at length what I have just said, even though they agree with me, nor do I welcome repetitive posting that simply repeat the same assertions, points of agreement and disagreement, and add nothing new to a discussion.
I welcome vigorous debate and frontal disagreement, and there is no room for delicate flowers who can’t handle equally robust responses, but abuse, etc. is unacceptable, especially when directed at third parties.
Certain comments that I may agree with will not be published because they could leave both me and the poster open to litigation.
I have had this little 48 second clip up since the 15th of January, but kept it private on YouTube because I still don’t know what to make of it.
Let’s examine the exchange verbatim - questions put, questions answered. Or are they?
Isabel Fraser:So. Are the politicians letting us down this week? Is party politics taking too much of a role when they should be looking at the wider interests of Scotland, do you think?
Question type and the formulation of questions - meat and drink to a negotiator like me - are all the rage this week, so let’s analyse this one, or rather these ones, since Isabel Fraser poses three questions in her statement, albeit within a single theme -
Are politicians letting us down this week?
Is party politics taking to much of a role?
when
they should be looking at the wider interests of Scotland?
The first is a closed question demanding a YES/NO answer, as is the second, and the third is technically a statement of fact that assumes a YES to the first two and offer an value judgment of what politicians should be doing, or invites a NO to the first two which implies a YES to the third proposition, which is in fact also a question.
Before I analyse further, here’s how I would have answered Isabel’s deceptively simple, but in fact complex bundle of questions. Bear with me in a lengthy digression - I have never been know to use a short word when a long one will do, or choose brevity over a prolix mode, except under duress on Twitter …
PC: “No, they are not letting us down, because it is impossible to separate party politics from the wider interests of Scotland. We live in a democracy, the interests of the people in that democracy are served by elected politicians who operate mainly within a frame of party, and it is the primary role of politicians in that democracy, whether in government or in opposition, to attempt to serve the interests of all of the people within the context of their party policies and beliefs.
There is no objective body that stands apart from party politics that has a greater right to speak or decide. Churches, civic leaders, business and commercial leaders are not apolitical - they act within a frame of belief and self-interest, and are also in the main, politically aligned as well.
Bodies such as Civic Scotland are political groupings - they have a viewpoint, they are comprised of people who in the main have party political views and who voted according to them in democratic elections. Their voice can therefore only be advisory - it cannot be democratic, and they have no right to compel political decision.
There is of course, the Law, which in theory stands outside of, and above party politics. A brief look at the composition of either the Westminster Parliament or Holyrood immediately demonstrates that, while the concept of the rule of law and the processes of the law should be free of influence, the lawyers themselves are not - they are in fact highly politicised.
The Advocate General of Scotland, Lord Wallace demonstrated this in the BBC debate this week. He is a former politician, now an unelected Lord: he is a political appointee representing the Crown: he therefore technically represented the Queen, but in reality the Tory/LibDem Coalition, and was in practice in the debate aligned with the Labour/Tory/LibDem coalition formed to fight against the independence of Scotland and to secure a NO vote in the referendum.”
(If you doubt that the law is politicised, consider this - Tommy Sheridan is being released from prison this week after serving a year of his sentence. Sheridan, one of the most charismatic campaigning politicians Scotland has ever seen, will not be allowed to speak in public after his release. He is, of course, a committed advocate of Scotland’s independence, and an opponent of the nuclear deterrent. Many, including me, saw his prosecution for perjury as a political prosecution, and many will see the ban on him engaging in political activity at this crucial point in his country’s history as a gagging stratagem. A legal justification for the gag has of course been presented and can be defended under the law.)
Isabel may be forgiven for breathing a sigh of relief that she didn’t have me on the programme instead of the admirable Joyce McMillan. But here we have the essence of the problem - television, limited by format and by timescale, can rarely do justice to such questions and concepts, even assuming their panellists understand them in the first place. Brevity, concise exchanges and ten minute exchange slots are what television is about, except in rare instances.
Of course, in reality, I would have given a briefer answer -
“No they’re not letting us down. This is about party politics and the electorate want the politicians to fight the corners they elected them to fight. Other individuals and bodies can advise, but that’s all - if they want to do more than advise, let them stand for election and run for office.”
WHAT DID JOYCE SAY? AND WHAT DID ISABEL DO NEXT?
Joyce McMillan:Well, I think - just to put it bluntly - I think no one who really cares about the future of Scotland could want to keep the devolution max or the devolution plus option off the ballot paper.
Oh, really, Joyce. So anybody who doesn’t agree with you doesn’t care about Scotland? There are many who do care deeply about Scotland who seem to want to do just that. I’m not one of them - I want a single question because I think the devolution max question is a trap for nationalists, but as a democrat, I agree with you, with great reluctance, and I have offered a ballot paper which covers all reasonable bases, an analysis to support it, to which no one has paid a blind bit of notice. Anyway …
Joyce McMillan:It’s quite clear that that’s the kind of option that most Scottish voters would feel, or the largest minority of Scottish voters, would feel most comfortable with - at the moment.
Isabel Fraser:Should it be a direct independence versus devo max question?
Joyce McMillan:No - absolutely not.
Now that answer is crystal clear - it should not be a direct independence versus devo max question. Or is it?
Joyce McMillan:It should be a question which allows people who want to opt for independence to opt for independence - and then, for those who have not opted for independence to say - well, what short of independence, would you like to open negotiations for devo max.
Joyce McMillan has just confirmed a YES to Isabel Fraser’s question, in spite saying absolutely not to it initially. Since a YES answer to any referendum question is a mandate to the Scottish Government to open negotiations for that choice, what Joyce has just said is that there should be two question, and if you say NO to independence, you also - or is it then - get a devo max choice, in which case it is “a direct independence versus devo max question”.
The confusion arise because not enough consideration is being given to the sequence and structure of the ballot paper and whether there should be conditionality between questions. I have addressed this at length, and doubtless tediously for those who don’t want to come to grips with the complexity that lies beneath apparent simplicity of any ballot paper. I have offered a ballot paper recently that I think covers all the reasonable bases, except the atavistic Tam Dalyell/Michael Forsyth option of reverting to a pre-devolution Scotland.
I am rather giving up hope than anyone will read or listen until the merde hits the fan, which it is already beginning to . If a 48 second exchange requires this kind of analysis, God Save Scotland - or Somebody Save Scotland …
MY BALLOT PAPER as posted earlier in the week
CONSULTATIVE REFERENDUM
Answer only one question - tick only one box.
If you answer more than one question, your ballot paper will be null and void. CHOOSE ONLY ONE OPTION - GIVE ONLY ONE ANSWER
I want a fully independent, sovereign Scotland.
I want Scotland to remain in the UK with no increased in current devolved powers to Scotland.
I want Scotland to remain in the UK with some additional powers devolved to Scotland.
I want Scotland to remain in the UK with all powers devolved to Scotland except defence and foreign policy.
N.B. If you have answered more than one question, i.e. ticked more than one box, your ballot paper will be null and void.
________________________________________
COMMENT
A minority, presumably led by Lord Forsyth, may call for a fifth question - a reversion to pre-devolution status. I believe there is no evidence for other than a tiny Tory minority asking for such an option, and that it therefore should not be offered. (A caller on Call Kaye this morning asked for just that!)
Some nationalists - how many I do not know - might want devo max as a fifth fall-back question if independence fails. I do not believe such an option should be offered, because it would require a transferable vote option.
Is it too complex? I do not believe it is. There are no gradations of independence - independence delivers devo max and negates the other options. The last three questions are all the reasonable options for those who do not want independence.
Some might argue for a YES/NO on independence, but that again would require a conditionality clause, and answering more than one question, e.g
If you say YES to independence, do not answer any other questions. If you say NO to independence, choose one, and only one of the following two options
I want Scotland to remain in the UK with some additional powers devolved to Scotland.
I want Scotland to remain in the UK with all powers devolved to Scotland except defence and foreign policy.
This is too complex and confusing, in my view, especially since the first question, the independence question would be a YES/NO, but the other two would be box tick answers.
Doubtless, some will argue over the sequencing of questions, i.e. the order they are set out on the ballot paper. Since it is a referendum with the overarching theme of independence, I believe the order I have set out is reasonable.
Magnus Gardham of the TheDaily Record and Katie Grant of The Scottish Daily Mail start in fine objective commentary style, but the facade collapse rather quickly in as Ewan Crawford, in his calm, unruffled style draws them out of their comfort zone.
I had a Twitter debate yesterday with David Torrance, Alex Salmond's biographer, about the key distinction between neutrality and objectivity.(I like to think of myself as objective, but I am anything but neutral). All three here are aligned - two union and one independence, but I rather think Gardham and Grant hoped to be - albeit briefly - taken for neutral.
Don't worry guys, no decent journalist telling the truth to power was ever neutral, and when the independence of a country is on the agenda, it's time to take sides in the argument.
Part Two of the BBC Scotland referendum debate - 25th January 2012 - Burns Night.
Johann Lamont MSP - Leader of Scottish Labour Party
Nicola Sturgeon MSP - Deputy First Minister of Scotland
Lord Wallace of Tankerness - Advocate General of Scotland - UK LibDem/Tory Coalition
Lesley Riddoch - journalist, broadcaster and commentator
Note: The Advocate General is the British Crown's legal representative/watchdog in Scotland. It is a political appointment.
Jim Wallace - Baron Wallace of Tankerness - is a former LibDem politician who was in coalition with Labour in the Scottish Parliament. He is currently an unelected Lord, represents a party with 5 MSPs in Holyrood, and the junior partner LibDems in the UK Tory-led, Tory-dominated Coalition Government.
If a UK general election were held tomorrow, the LibDems, deeply discredited and unpopular across the UK, would be wiped out as they were in the 2011 Scottish election.
The Scottish Passport question - asked genuinely by a member of the audience - is actually one of the other scare stories of the UK - borders, checkpoints, Hadrian's Wall, and passport problems. At least the panel recognised the irrelevancy of this point.
Two members of the audience tell it like it is - on unionist negativity and scaremongering, and the centrality of the nuclear questions and WMDs.
"He looks like a relic, he talks like a relic, he doesn't talk like young people - and they want an end to this" Addressed to the hapless Baron of Tankerness, who did himself no favours with his lamentable performance in this debate.
I feel sorry for Jim Wallace - branded as "a relic" at 58 years of age. I'm a helluva lot older than he is, but I hope I'm not a relic, and if I am, I hope I'm still a relevant relic to young people in Scotland, because they own the future.
Part Two of the BBC Scotland referendum debate - 25th January 2012 - Burns Night.
Johann Lamont MSP - Leader of Scottish Labour Party
Nicola Sturgeon MSP - Deputy First Minister of Scotland
Lord Wallace of Tankerness - Advocate General of Scotland - UK LibDem/Tory Coalition
Lesley Riddoch - journalist, broadcaster and commentator
Note: The Advocate General is the British Crown's legal representative/watchdog in Scotland. It is a political appointment.
Jim Wallace - Baron Wallace of Tankerness - is a former LibDem politician who was in coalition with Labour in the Scottish Parliament. He is currently an unelected Lord, represents a party with 5 MSPs in Holyrood, and the junior partner LibDems in the UK Tory-led, Tory-dominated Coalition Government.
If a UK general election were held tomorrow, the LibDems, deeply discredited and unpopular across the UK, would be wiped out as they were in the 2011 Scottish election.
Jim Wallace, raising yet another unionist scare story about trade with England, appears oblivious to the fact that Scotland and England are in the EU and are part of a free trade, common market. He is unable to give any examples of his imagined ‘barriers’, and resent being told he is spreading scare stories under the guise of ‘debate’. Nicola patiently tries to educate him, but the Baron is excited and approaching incoherence by this point.
A plummy-voiced lady in the audience raises an inaccurate scare story about "being forced into the euro by Germany". This is patent nonsense - no sovereign state can be compelled to join the euro - that decision will be Scotland's alone, and will only be taken if economic conditions are judged to be favourable. Such primitive fear tactics have been characteristic of the woeful case advanced for the Union.
Johann Lamont thinks that Alex Salmond's long commitment to the independence of his country, and his belief that Scotland could handle its own affairs better is some kind of nostalgic romanticism and harking back to the past. Exactly the reverse is true - the SNP is about the future of Scotland, and it has been highly specific as to why independence will make that future a better one, economically, socially, educationally, culturally.
In fact, the nostalgia for "300 years of Union", the lack of any vision except a vague internationalism and the utter void of policy, values or vision at the heart of Labour and Johann Lamont's leadership is the thing most in evidence in this debate.
16 and 17 year olds can marry, enter the armed forces, have children - but they can't vote in the referendum, to help determine the future of their country, Scotland - the future that is in their hands.
The UK government, the Advocate General and the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party don't want them to vote - except in an AV referendum that nobody asked for and nobody wanted, the campaign for which was one of the dirtiest in a long time, and in which the Coalition 'partners' - Tory and LibDems fought like ferrets in a sack.
Anyone who thinks that the law isn't politicised in the UK should listen to Jim Wallace in this debate. An unelected Lord, a member of a party with 5 MSPs in Scotland - a party that, if there were a general election tomorrow, would be reduced to a rump in the UK - Lord Wallace is the legal watchdog of the Crown in Scotland.
Sorry about the glitch around four-minute mark. I started recording on BBC1 Scotland News by mistake, and had to shift rapidly to BBC News 24 (Ch81) quickly. The break - which lasted about 40/50 secs - will be evident. I don't know what was lost - resumes again on voting rights for 16-17 year olds.
Doubtless conspiracy theorists will accuse me of Machiavellian editing. You'll find a continuous version somewhere, I'm sure.
I thought Maggie had returned to the Commons, as this glib, right-wing Tory displayed the contempt for Scotland that typifies the Cameron regime, under the guise of quoting our national poet on this day that means so much to Scots. It provoked the sneering laughter it aimed at eliciting, and a typical snide response from the Prime Minister.
And we had the Labour Tories, Bain and Curran, part of the anti-independence coalition, listening to this with doubtless no evidence of shame or embarrassment as their national traditions were exploited and mocked.
Thanks, Eleanor Laing MP, Epping Forest Tory - you've just delivered another 10,000 votes to the YES vote for Scotland's independence.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Born in Paisley in 1958, Eleanor graduated BA LLB from Edinburgh University in 1982. She was the first woman to be elected President of Edinburgh University Union. She practised law in Edinburgh, in the City of London and in industry between 1983 and 1989.
When the Telegraph released details of MP's expense claims, it was shown that Laing had avoided paying £180,000 Capital gains tax on the sale of her Westminster flat by declaring it as her primary residence. However, she had registered the flat as her second home with the Parliamentary Fees Office, and by doing so had claimed through her Additional Costs Allowance some of the interest due on her mortgage. Her constituency is Epping Forest, which is close to London and less than an hour's journey by tube. When questioned she said that prior to the sale of the flat she had sought the advice of her solicitor. Laing was cleared by the Legg Inquiry.She voluntarily repaid £25,000. As a result of the scandal she also had to face an attempt to deselect her by her constituency party, led by the Leader of Essex Council - which she survived.
If you answer more than one question, your ballot paper will be null and void. CHOOSE ONLY ONE OPTION - GIVE ONLY ONE ANSWER
I want a fully independent, sovereign Scotland.
I want Scotland to remain in the UK with no increased in current devolved powers to Scotland.
I want Scotland to remain in the UK with some additional powers devolved to Scotland.
I want Scotland to remain in the UK with all powers devolved to Scotland except defence and foreign policy.
N.B. If you have answered more than one question, i.e. ticked more than one box, your ballot paper will be null and void.
________________________________________
COMMENT
A minority, presumably led by Lord Forsyth, may call for a fifth question - a reversion to pre-devolution status. I believe there is no evidence for other than a tiny Tory minority asking for such an option, and that it therefore should not be offered. (A caller on Call Kaye this morning asked for just that!)
Some nationalists - how many I do not know - might want devo max as a fifth fall-back question if independence fails. I do not believe such an option should be offered, because it would require a transferable vote option.
Is it too complex? I do not believe it is. There are no gradations of independence - independence delivers devo max and negates the other options. The last three questions are all the reasonable options for those who do not want independence.
Some might argue for a YES/NO on independence, but that again would require a conditionality clause, and answering more than one question, e.g
If you say YES to independence, do not answer any other questions. If you say NO to independence, choose one, and only one of the following two options.
I want Scotland to remain in the UK with some additional powers devolved to Scotland.
I want Scotland to remain in the UK with all powers devolved to Scotland except defence and foreign policy.
This is too complex and confusing, in my view, especially since the first question, the independence question would be a YES/NO, but the other two would be box tick answers.
Doubtless, some will argue over the sequencing of questions, i.e. the order they are set out on the ballot paper. Since it is a referendum with the overarching theme of independence, I believe the order I have set out is reasonable.
Paxo never learns - like the UK, he's past his sell by date, out of touch with the constitutional realities. As Mark Hennessy of the Irish Times dryly observes "Most people watching that interview with Jeremy Paxman - I'm sure Alex Salmond would be very, very glad if he was to get more interviews like that by English presenters. It's certainly the picture of the patronising Englishman, and that's going to feed into the debate both in Scotland and indeed in the attitudes that perhaps will be taken abroad when people are looking at this from an outside audience."
Paxman's opening remarks - " ... what his country might be like if he get's his way and manages to bust up the United Kingdom. ..... But fear not: while Moses, sorry - Alex Salmond - didn't quite promise a land flowing with milk and honey, he did claim it would be a beacon of what he called progressiveness." Not quite the respect agenda that David Cameron or indeed the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation is supposed to be pursuing with the First Minister of Scotland - nor was the comparison of Alex Salmond to Robert Mugabe later in the interview.
But Scots are long past being offended by a relic of empire - a UK dinosaur - like Paxman. Like our First Minister, we are amused by him, and will find Paxo a place on the sofa of a chat show in the new Scottish Broadcasting Corporation to remind us of days past ...
(Note: The ideas below and some of the text derive from earlier blogs. I make no apology for this - I still feel the same way and still want to say the same things in the same way.)
The choice that will soon face the Scottish electorate is devolution max or full independence. All the talk of economic factors, of the currency, of borrowing powers, of taxation and of the detail of independence is smoke and mirrors – the last redoubt is defence and foreign policy.
Why?
Because no country can truly be a nation unless it controls its own foreign policy and defence.
No country can be a nation if it lets another nation decide in what cause - and when - to place its servicemen and women in harm’s way, and to sacrifice their lives if necessary.
No country can be a nation if it permits another to determine its fate in the most fundamental areas of nationhood.
Scotland cannot be a nation again unless it is fully independent.
The above principles are entirely distinct from defence alliances and treaties, which can be entered into voluntarily and exited from at will. (An independent Scotland would undoubtedly enter into such alliances, and would also have a range of flexible and common sense areas of cooperation with other nations short of formal alliance.)
In the defence debate now raging, my concern is the insidious way in which the military/industrial complex subverts the moral consciousness of governments, trades unions and ordinary voters - and the very nature of democracy itself - by the offer of industrial investment and jobs, and the naked threat of the withdrawal of that investment if Scotland doesn’t toe the line, not to mention tug the forelock and bend the knee.
Is this emotive, heated language? If it is, it is several hundred degrees cooler than the threats, abuse, contempt and distorted propaganda that has been thrown at Scotland since the British Establishment and their Scottish political puppets have reached the stunned conclusion that Scotland will hold a referendum and will hear the voice of its own people, without interference from Westminster and from political appointees in the UK legal system, and that the referendum is highly likely to result in a vote for complete independence
I believe in legitimate defence of the Scottish nation, and in conventional defence forces and armaments, but I abhor the use of defence jobs as job creation schemes to induce tacit participation in, and compliance with the foreign policy of the United States and of the UK as its compliant ally. This is exactly the insidious perversion of democracy that former US President and distinguished American WW2 general Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against when he pointed out the dangers of the military/industrial complex.
Why question the purpose of the armaments or their relationship to any real defence need, or the price in blood that must be paid for them when they are such an unfailing source of jobs to Scotland, not to mention lucrative directorships and consultancies to politicians? So they warn Scotland of the terrible consequences of attempting to be a free nation, to have defence forces appropriate to its real defence needs, to be free of the intolerable financial and moral burdens of WMDs, to stop sending its young men and women to die in the foreign wars that are so necessary to the profit machine called the military/industrial complex.
Of course, they are not consequences, they are empty threats, designed to intimidate a free people and suppress their democratic instincts .
But then, that’s what British imperial foreign policy has always been about, isn’t it - intimidating free peoples and suppressing their democratic instincts? But from America onwards, free nations have rejected that intimidation and thrown off the yoke of empire.
Under Labour, the Ministry of Defence, the MOD, the legendarily incompetent - but unfailingly lucrative - body that fails to adequately equip our young men and women in the armed forces, spent an average of £5.6m on entertaining each year under Labour and probably far in excess of that under the current regime. We don’t have to be told who they were entertaining, boozing and eating lavishly with while Scottish soldiers died – while Fusilier Gordon Gentle died because his vehicle was not fitted with an electronic bomb detector.
No defence minister has retired poor: no senior MOD official retires into poverty or even a modest pension. They slide effortlessly through a revolving door into lucrative directorships and consultancies with the merchants of death, or with brutal foreign dictatorships of the kind now being overthrown by the people of the Middle East in the Arab Spring.
Scottish MPs on the high road to Westminster head for the lucrative, blood-soaked pastures of defence like heat-seeking missiles – they know where the money and the power lie.
ATTACK ON SCOTTISH NATIONALISM FROM THE UK POLITICIANS AND COMMENTATORS
Back in June of last year, Allan Massie wrote a piece in the Scotsman - False patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel prompted by the Labour (Ian Davidson MP) fascism slur against the SNP. Allan Massie then managed in his piece to move seamlessly from appearing to condemn Ian Davidson’s unfortunate remark, as a Member of Parliament under privilege in the House of Commons, to conflating the most extreme remarks of sundry anonymous online posters to draw parallels between some Scottish nationalists and Hitler’s Germany, anti-semitism, Franco’s Spain, and to describe them as “at least proto-fascists” (I said my piece to him back in June 2011)
Since then, we have had the Tom Harris’s ‘Downfall’ YouTube clip and innumerable attacks, direct or oblique, on the right of Scots to express pride and belief in their nation and seek its independence. All of them seem oblivious to the fact that the UK is a constant example of extreme nationalism under the term Britain, and regularly displays all the characteristics of such nationalism, one that is deeply alien to Scotland.
I offered an analysis of the characteristics of a fascist state back then.
CHARACTERISTIC OF THE FASCIST STATE
Fascist states are obsessively militaristic in character, consuming a wholly disproportionate part of their national resources on armaments.
They appeal to a nostalgic and glorious past that has little to do with present social and economic realities.
They exalt the Head of State, whether monarch or dictator, and claim either a hereditary or nepotistic right to succession in key offices of state.
They maintain the semblance of a democracy, while effectively nullifying, or as they describe it, ‘balancing’ the democratic institutions with non-democratic, unelected bodies.
They have key linkages between the military and relevant sections of industry in a military/industrial complex. Defence procurement is perceived by the public as incompetent, when in fact it is mainly corrupt, and unfailingly enriches the politicians associated with it.
They claim a right to intervene by force in the affairs of other nation states, and occupy them, always with the claim that they are acting in the interests of the people of the occupied territories.
They have a cult of blood, death and sacrifice in which the Head of State plays a major role. They exalt the dead as heroes of the nation: the children of the governing elite are rarely if ever among the dead. They drape the coffins of the dead with flags.
They are given to militaristic displays at any and every opportunity. They blatantly use military contracts and jobs as a political lever to influence the vestiges of true democracy that remain in the state apparatus.
When the voice of the people is heard, either through popular protest or electoral success, a sustained attack is made by the fascist state on the legitimacy of such protest and electoral success, and the democratic mandate is challenged frontally. The fascist state exercises significant or total control over media.
The fascist state has an elaborate system of patronage, titles and honours to sustain its power and to limit and control the democratic mandate where it exists. Large swathes of decision-making are controlled by people who have no democratic mandate whatsoever, who were appointed by the ruling group.
The fascist state will sacrifice any public service rather than contain its military ambitions or curtail the profits and privileged of the rich and powerful. It deeply distrusts the public services of the nation. It readily blames the poor and the vulnerable for the ills of the nation and holds them responsible for their own miseries.
THE STATE OF THE UNION
All of the above characteristics are either currently present or developing in the state of the United Kingdom. None of them are present in Scottish nationalism, the Scottish National Party, nor in the vast majority of its supporters.
Is the UK fascist? No, absolutely not - yet. The good sense of the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland militate against it, and the deep democratic instincts of the people are currently being aroused in the countries of this ‘United’ Kingdom, because the dangers and the abuses of power by an unrepresentative elite are manifest. The impending independence of Scotland and its non-nuclear defence policy will place an effective brake on the dangerously militaristic tendencies of the UK Establishment, tendencies that are especially evident under Tory control.
That of course is why the Scottish Government’s defence policy is under a sustained and unprecedented attack at the moment - it is the real threat to the power of the elite and the pretensions of a small militaristic state to global power and influence.
A democracy must be on high alert when the military establishment flexes its muscles and tries to dictate an agenda - world history reads us that lesson loud and clear.
DEFENCE AS JOB CREATION SCHEME AND ROLE OF THE TRADES UNIONS IN SCOTLAND
A nation must be ready to defend its people, its territorial integrity and its interests against external threat. It therefore needs a defence force, and in the modern world, that means an army, a navy and an air force. The right size for such defence forces, and therefore the proportion of GDP allocated to defence must be the minimum necessary to meet defence objectives.
The idea that defence policy, defence expenditure and defence procurement should serve other objectives is a pernicious and dangerous one. It is also a seductive one. When it is allied to the commercial objectives of manufacturing and exporting armaments, it is potentially a moral and ethical quagmire.
There are powerful voices that argue that, when it comes to these issues, that maintaining an arms trade between nations - and indeed relationships between nations - can ultimately only be conducted on a basis of realpolitik, and that diplomacy - negotiation between nations - is essentially ethics and morality free. (Sir Christopher Myer, a former British diplomat who I admire as a presenter, argued this view cogently in a BBC documentary, citing from his wide experience the kinds of ethical dilemmas a diplomat faces. The late Robin Cook argued in contrast for an ethical foreign policy.)
As a negotiator, I recognise the dilemma, and the stark fact that you don’t negotiate with people who already agree with you. In diplomacy, this is expressed as ‘A nation doesn’t negotiate peace with nations they are not actually - or potentially - in conflict with.”
ARMS SALES
Scotland, with its skills and expertise, especially in its shipbuilding industry, must face such dilemmas too, including the perennial question - “If they don’t buy it from us, they’ll buy it somewhere else …”
I have no easy answers to this - ethical dilemmas are dilemmas because there are no easy answers. But decisions have to be made across a range of defence products: we’ve already made the biggest one - we will not harbour nuclear weapons, nor in my view should we trade in any products that supports them.
At the other end of the spectrum, we shouldn’t sell electric cattle prods adapted to deal with protesters and political opponents to oppressive dictatorships. The insidious argument “If they don’t buy it from us, they’ll buy it somewhere else …” could equally be applied to the cattle prods, or selling high tech thumbscrews to torturers. There must be an ethical line, and it must be drawn with care if the new Scotland is to live up to its highest ideals. I believe it can.
EMPLOYMENT AND THE TRADES UNIONS
In Britain, the trade union movement has traditionally been more than simply a way to even up the negotiating clout of ordinary working people faced with powerful employers and legislators in the pockets of powerful vested interests.
Combination on the one side is patent and powerful. Combination on the other is the necessary and desirable counterpart, if the battle is to be carried on in a fair and equal way.Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the Vegelan Case.
The British trade union movement has always proclaimed political, social and moral values, in contrast to the American trade union movement, which adopted a model of business unionism, essentially the realpolitik of unionism. American trades unions have moved a long way from Woody Guthrie and the Wobblies - Workers of the world - Unite!
(They may have to return to this if the present parlous state of the American economy and the gross social anomalies within it continues to worsen. Five recent studies have shown America now to be one of the least socially mobile countries among the developed countries of the world.)
A number of major trades unions are beginning to show signs of challenging their long affiliation to the Labour Party, in the face of a party that is now in many respect indistinguishable from the Tories in their economic and social policies.
But in Scotland, where the heart and soul of trades unionism historically lay, the union hierarchy show no such recovery of ideals, or willingness to question allegiances that no longer serve their membership.
Not the least of their problems in doing this - in addition to the effect on the career path of trades union officers - is confusion over Scotland’s thrust for independence, and the related ethical dilemma involving defence jobs, in the shipbuilding and nuclear-related industries.
Shipbuilding and WMD-related jobs, not to mention those in the nuclear power industry, are being used cynically and blatantly in threat/bribe scenarios by Westminster politicians, notably Scottish Labour politicians, and the defence debate is polluted and debased by such behaviour.
I do not cast a jaundiced eye on Civic Scotland - I recognise the valid place such a grouping has in a pluralistic democracy - but I do cast a sceptical eye on some of the ambivalence they are currently showing about independence, especially when it comes to the defence and jobs debate.
I would remind the churches within Civic Scotland, and those who claim a social and moral conscience of the swords into ploughshares principle, especially when the ploughshares can be readily identified as the renewables industry, among others where Scotland has real strengths.
Among the latest scare tactics over the last few days have been a number of attempted frighteners over jobs in the armed forces, where contemptuous comparisons have been made on the challenge, opportunity and travel benefits for young men and women in the British armed forces as opposed to a Scottish defence force.
My position on this is best summed up my response to a comment and query on my most recent blog, which genuinely posed the question as to what Lieut.Col. Stuart Crawford’s position is on these questions, and by implication, what is the SNP’s position. I don’t know the position of either Stuart Crawford or the SNP, but here was my answer, and where I stand.
No mention or he may have not been asked - what about the servicemen? Those who who are already in a British Army and those who would continue to join the English/Welsh Army- would the Scottish Regiments stay- becoming Scottish Gurkhas, or will Scots just travel south and join an English regiment? Most who join the armed Forces want to see the world and challenge themselves- that will not be possible in a Scottish Army- unless remaining part of NATO-
I don't know the answers to these questions, Alasdair. The only statement I know of from Alex Salmond said the servicemen would be free to choose, and I am sure that those with the motivation you describe would want to "travel south and join an English regiment". Scotland will not remain in NATO while NATO is nuclear, but will cooperate through Partnership for Peace as some other countries do. The defence forces of a nation cannot be predicated on the basis of “join the Army and see the world”, although that has always been a recruitment slogan of the military throughout the ages. Exactly how this will affect recruitment and choices cannot be predicted, but defence forces of other small nations don't find a difficulty in filling their ranks. What recruits to the new Scottish Defence Force can be assured off is that they will not be sent to die in illegal wars and misconceived foreign engagements, and that a Scottish Ministry of Defence will be staffed by competent and ethical persons whose motivation is to serve the military personnel and their families, instead of their own advancement and careers in private companies.
Among all the hysteria from sundry Westminster politicians, Lords, admirals et al, it is a breath of fresh air to hear some calm commentary from a former senior soldier, now in business in Scotland - Stuart Crawford of Stuart Crawford Associates - a former Lieutenant Colonel in the British Army. From a recent BBC radio interview -
“I’ve always been a believer that an independent Scotland could run its own defence forces, and I don’t think there’s any doubt that if the political will is there, then the circumstance would allow it to happen.
“I think the big question is not -- whether Scotland could have its own armed services - I think the question is whether it should.”
I think that gets to the nub of it, and had some of the defenders of the Union approached it with this level of objectivity, instead of attacking the feasibility of a Scottish defence force, some real dialogue might have been established in the great debate over Scotland’s future.
Stuart Crawford readily accepted the interviewer’s suggestion that if Scotland voted Yes in the referendum, the realpolitik would require negotiations, and Scotland could negotiate for part of what the MOD currently owns.
“Yes, I think that would be part of the process. I think if we can can go through that process, you’ve actually got to ask yourself what an independent Scotland might want its armed forces to do: and that, together with a look at likely foreign policy - and security policy - would give you an indication of what size and shape the forces would be, and that would be a good springboard to start negotiations with the rest of the UK for the allocation of assets.
“I think Angus Robertson’s got a very valid point - Scotland has contributed, and therefore Scotland is entitled to a share of MOD assets. But it’s not just a numerical 10% thing - we have to really ask ourselves what we want them to do.”
The interviewer referred to the First Minister’s recently expressed view of the ‘blueprint’ (actually ‘template’) of Scottish armed forces as containing an RAF base, a naval base (without nuclear submarines) and a mobile armed brigade, and asked if this sounded right, compared to other countries.
(BBC report: “Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has said the UK defence review has produced a template of how armed forces would look in an independent Scotland. He said the setup of one naval base, one air base and one mobile armed brigade was “exactly the configuration” required for a Scottish Defence Force.)
Stuart Crawford said there had been “lot’s of guesses” that it would be about 10% of the UK’s defence resource, and Norway had been cited as a comparator.
“Bu again we come back to my point - what do we want them to do? The armed forces exists for a number of reasons, but mainly they are to maintain the territorial integrity and safety of the nation and the people. And we have to ask ourselves - what are the risks? Who is going to attack an independent Scotland? And what is it they might want to capture from us?
Thanks God such vital logical concepts and principles are now being discussed objectively, and such eminently pragmatic questions being asked by a professional soldier, and a Scottish businessman, free of the usual fog of negativity. I ask why such ideas and such capable professionals are not appearing in properly structured television debates, and yet again and again, radio can offer such clarity?
The interviewer asks if a defence review by the Scottish Government is necessary before conclusion are reached on the makeup of the Scottish Defence Force?
Stuart Crawford’s answer in an unequivocal yes.
“It needs to go through what I would regard as some sort of intellectually rigorous process whereby it asks itself what they are for. That may go through several iterations -“
Intellectual rigour and logical iterations clearly have a place on radio, and radio is not afraid of them, but television journalism may take fright at such terminology, preferring all too often Strictly Come Defence Chatter, or maybe Scotland’s Got Defence Forces? type programme structuring, terrified of intellectual and professional depth.
“ - because cost obviously is an important aspect, and when one comes up with some sort of design of an armed service - of all three services, I would assume -we have to put some sort of costing on it, and defence economists are the people who would do that sort of thing, not ex-military people like me. But it may be that the budget allocation that the original plan called for is too large, and therefore you have to go through the whole thing again and say - where can we compromise on it, and what can we do with that?”
The interviewer raises the question of whether an independent Scotland’s membership of NATO has a bearing on all this.
“Well, the SNP - assuming that it is the SNP that takes Scotland to independence, if that is the case - has long had the policy of negotiating its way out of NATO. I think that is a question for them to answer, not for me. The elephant in the room on all of this is Trident on the Clyde, and I think that the negotiations on the removal of Trident from Scotland are going to be absolutely central to any defence debate in the future.”
The interview referred to the previous day’s suggestion from some UK government quarters that an independent Scotland would have to contribute to the clean-up costs of the Trident bases.
“Well, I mean - gosh, who knows? All I know is - and I think rightly so - that an independent Scottish Government would not want to have the so-called independent nuclear deterrent based in Scotland, and therefore it would be very keen that it should leave Scotland. I can’t see Scotland achieving independence one day, and Trident sailing out of the Clyde for ever the following day …”
Despite the fact that it is my fantasy, and that of many nationalist to see just that, I ruefully have to accept the reality of Stuart Crawford’s last statement.
The interviewer referred to the suggestion, again yesterday, that the removal of Trident could take decades.
“That is not an inaccurate assessment. I think if we look at when the current Trident fleet is due to bec0me obsolete and out of service might give the sort of timeframe when Trident might come out of the Clyde. The real problem, as everybody has said - there’s nowhere else for it to go, except probably France or the eastern coast of the US: there’s no suitable base for the boat and the weapons south of the border.”
The interviewer closed by thanking Lieut. Col. Stuart Crawford for his comments and insight, and so do I - and so should every Scot, whether nationalist or unionist or undecided, because he spoke more hard sense in a five minute interview that all the unionist Lords and politicians have uttered to date.
With one fact alone, Stuart Crawford gave us the heart of the UK’s - and NATO’s - problem with Scotland’s independence - they have nowhere else to put their weapons of mass destruction, and may have to abandon them.
That fact alone makes Scotland’s independence worthwhile, not just for Scotland, but for the peoples of these islands, for Europe, for the world, and for generations as yet unborn.
And we can’t wait decades for the WMDs to be neutralised …
Posts
