The UK Supreme Court will make a ruling at 10 0’clock this morning. The outcome will be significant, and it will say a lot about the UK’s relationship to Scotland and the ultimate fate of the Union.
Cadder – UK Supreme Court overrules Scots Law and Scottish judges
Fraser – UK Supreme Court overrules Scots Law and Scottish judges
Pleural Plaques – ?
If the UK Supreme Court does overrule Scots Law again – we hope it won’t - it will be a victory for cynical commercial interest over human values and the rights of vulnerable Scots whose lives have been threatened by forces beyond their control.
After the ruling is known, the Scottish Government will speak for Scots, either welcoming the decision of Scottish Judges being upheld, or against a decision that upholds the interests of big companies and profit against common humanity. In the latter case, the pseudo-Scots who call themselves the Unionist Opposition, with dreary predictability, will call this principled stance ‘Alex Salmond making mischief against the Union’.
NEWSNIGHT SCOTLAND’S MINI INDEPENDENCE DEBATE LAST NIGHT
The programme was one of those occasions when Newsnight Scotland rose to the issue and to the moment. This, however, was true only of the programme makers, and of Gordon Brewer, Eddie Barnes and Stewart Hosie. I never expect Scottish Labour, least of all Willie Bain, to rise to any occasion, but I had expected more of George Kerevan.
The programme was in three parts – a piece by Catriona Renton on the history of Labour’s negative campaigning against the aspirations of Scots to secure the independence of their nation, which was well-constructed, highly professional and crucially, informative, in the way these scene-setting Newsnight Scotland pieces almost invariably are.
The second part was a debate between Willie Bain, one of the new Team Scotland group of Labour MPs set up to prevent their countrymen and women from gaining their freedom (I am entirely free of bias on the matter) and Stewart Hosie MP, one of the most economical and effective SNP spokespersons, with the ability to reduce a discussion to its essentials while remaining in command of the detail, a quality that is not universally displayed by SNP spokespersons, as George Kerevan later made evident.
Willie Bain was weak in argument – what little he had – and obscure on just what was new in the new Team Scotland, managing to sound like a bad Iain Gray tribute act.
Stewart Hosie was a model of clarity, as he patiently answered the questions that Gordon Brewer was obliged to ask about the exact meaning of independence, but clearly already knew the answers to.
The third part was Eddie Barnes of the Scotsman and Scotland on Sunday, who also displayed great clarity and insight into what was meant by independence and exactly where we were at, and where we might be at, come the referendum.
And then we had George Kerevan, journalist, commentator, former SNP candidate, and SNP supporter. I shot from the hip on Twitter exchanges last night on this, and thought the cold light of today might dispel my reservations about his input. They haven’t, but here are the clips – judge for yourself.
I will be back gnawing at the bone either later today or tomorrow …
I close with a reprise of Stewart Hosie’s definition of what the independence of a nation means, which is exactly what I hope the independence of my nation, Scotland, will mean.
Posts
Thanks for posting the videos Peter, beats staying up late to watch the show!
ReplyDeleteAs usual I agree with your analysis. Kerevan certainly needs to be careful with his use of "confederation". Switzerland for example, styles itself a confederation, but none of the cantons are really sovereign countries in the way that Scotland would be. I'd avoid the term altogether.
Personally I think that "confederation" overstates the nature of future relationships within the British Isles. I see our future more like the Scandinavian countries - they are independent, sovereign nations that choose to cooperate in certain areas, but they are certainly not a confederation. They have strong ties (and sometimes rivalries!) between each other and there is undoubtedly a loose Scandinavian identity, or a social union if you prefer. Go to any UK university and you'll find a Scandinavian Society for example. Go to Berlin and you'll find a Nordic Embassy. Think of the Nordic Passport Union or the Nordic Council.
Those are the kinds of arrangement I can envisage for the independent countries of the British Isles. Despite the dire (and by now counter-productive) warnings of "separatism" the truth is anything but. As Winnie Ewing said, "Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on".
In reality Scotland is in a state of separation from the rest of the world at the moment. In theory at least, the Scottish Government/Secretary of State for Scotland makes representations to the UK cabinet detailing Scotland's position on a given issue, the UK Government factors that view into the overall UK position, then passes their consolidated view to the relevant UK bods at the EU, UN, etc. How often does Scotland's unadulterated voice get heard in those arenas? Rarely if ever. The real separatists are those who want to keep Scotland at one remove from the international stage.
Incidentally I'd love to see an independent Scotland push for some sort of membership of, or association with, some of the Nordic bodies mentioned. With our shared history with Norway in particular, and our geographic location, we would be a natural bridge between Scandinavia and any British Isles organisations. Just a thought.
Thanks for such a full and highly pertinent analysis, forfar-loon.
ReplyDeletePeter
I think G K would have read better here rather than be heard.
ReplyDeleteWhat he said made sense but his delivery was flustered and lacking the slightest passion.
The Labour fellow (don't know his name) with London twinkling in the background tried 'positive' but quickly sunk into negative - they are what they are.
I do get the feeling Salmond is exercising his gradualist muscle in the coming referendum.
I'm going to state the obvious but for the first time I'm fairly sure this is his plan: his view is that the independence vote is not
in the bag but might be. Yet he knows by including the second question he can get the largest part of practical independence until the Scots see it works. Then an inevitable political argument will erupt between the Scottish parliament and the British parliament - a referendum on full independence will be called and depending on the situation a Yes may be expected.
No, it's not what we want but Salmond is smart.
If we get FFA, then the dominoes will topple inevitably. No, it's not pleasing but it's another step forward.
YET, there is always a chance we can win the YES TO independence vote. It's still in play and if anyone can do it he can.