In my recent blog on the Scotsman’s report of Prof. John Curtice’s reported two question referendum Ask the bloody question(s) I analysed the contradictions and weaknesses of his second question - but I was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, feeling that he had been misreported by the Scotsman. He hadn’t, as the clip below shows …
As for the rest of what is laughably called the ‘debate’, the misrepresentations, factoids and downright lies continue unabated from the unionist side and from semi-informed academics who should know better. I want to believe that so-called experts are truly that – expert – and that they tell the truth and do not politicise it, but I am regularly forced by their behaviour into an invidious choice as to which of these attributes is true, because on recent form, they can’t both be true. Either they don’t know what they are talking about or they are being economical with the actualité.
Let me try, almost despairingly, to yet again nail the nonsense to the floor -
THE FACTOIDS – that which everyone knows is true, except it ain’t (Norman Mailer)
Factoid one: The SNP and the Scottish government keep changing their definition of independence, and are unclear as to what it means.
Since their election in 2007 as the Government of Scotland, the SNP and the Scottish Government have been clear about what independence means – and so have the majority of the electorate. It means Scotland running all its own affairs as an independent country, while retaining the Queen as constitutional monarch, being part of a currency union (now preferred as sterling) and being part of the EU, of the UN and of suitable defence partnerships and treaties.
It means intelligent and free cooperation with others in an interdependent world, especially the nations of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, our long-term friends and neighbours, but also with the free Scandinavian countries who are also our good neighbours. It means playing our part in international affairs, including international peace-keeping operations and alliances, based on our free, sovereign judgement as an independent country. It means non-nuclear, Trident-free Scotland.
Factoid two: The SNP and the Scottish Government actively want a second question in the referendum ballot as a fallback position in case they lose the independence referendum.
The SNP and the Scottish Government are totally committed to achieving the full independence of Scotland, will have a referendum to determine the Scottish people’s support for that, and would prefer a single YES/NO question to determine the matter. Only by full independence will Scotland have control of defence and foreign policy and truly be a nation.
But, since being elected as the Government of all the people of Scotland, not just the nationalist supporters of independence, the Scottish Government has recognised that a substantial body of Scottish public opinion and the electorate favour substantially more powers being devolved to Scotland by Westminster, but wants to remain part of the UK.
It is the view of the SNP and of the Scottish Government that it is their duty to ascertain what choices the Scottish people would therefore want to be allowed to make in the biggest political decision of their lifetime, indeed, the biggest for over three centuries. That was the Scottish Government’s position in the 2009 consultation, and it is their position in the 2012 consultation now underway. It is also quite evidently the position of a very substantial and influential body of opinion in Scottish society and beyond Scotland.
Devolution of powers may be defined along a spectrum from zero – the pre-1997 position – to total, the so-called devo max option. Devo max, far from being undefined, is clearly defined by common sense – it means everything except defence and foreign policy.
Anything less than devo max, e.g. devo plus, Calman, Cameron’s vague promises and the various vacuous and nebulous suggestions of other unionist politicians demands definition. Only Reform Scotland has attempted this in devo plus, and the ill-fated and doomed Calman-inspired Scotland Act has defined the other.
SUMMARY
Following the conclusion of the consultation exercise now underway - and after the local elections in May - the Scottish Government and the SNP will set out progressively - over the referendum lead-in period until Autumn 2014 - their full prospectus for independence. This will represent their negotiating position with the UK Government after a successful referendum outcome, i.e. a YES vote to independence. In the event of a NO vote to independence, all bets are open.
There is no confusion and absolute clarity on the nationalist side.
There is deep confusion, lack of clarity and a lack of any coordinated approach on the unionist side. This is unhealthy for democracy and for a referendum outcome that will be supported by all the people of Scotland - and the UK - whatever it may be.
For the UK’s sake and for Scotland’s sake, Tories, Labour and LibDems - get your unionist act together and start behaving like mature adults. And try to find some experts who can talk objective sense, and a statesman or stateswoman to lead your campaign …
Posts
Hi Peter,
ReplyDeleteI have been appalled by the Unionist response so far to the Indy Referendum. We have had nothing but threats, attempts at overruling the Scottish government, spreading of misinformation, downright lying and obfuscation. The list is almost endless.
Nowhere have I yet heard an argument expressed in favour of the Union which has got beyond the sloganising stage -"stronger together weaker apart", "richer, fairer, stronger together", "Scotland punching above her weight on the world stage" etc. None of which really stand up to close examination.
Yet I fear these Unionist scare tactics are working. Their spreading of fear and doubt is effective and very difficult to counter given the compliant state of media generally. It is only through the efforts of people like yourself publicising the positive aspects of Independence and exposing the scares for what they are - just scares, that we will have any chance.
I talked to a friend, just the other day who expressed the fear that we would be expelled from the EU and forced to adopt the Euro.
When I asked her to consider that the two matters were mutually exclusive - we could not possibly be forced to adopt the Euro if we were not in the EU, she replied "But that is what the papers are saying." Needless to say, I respectfully pointed out a few more inconsistencies in the Unionist's arguments and she was less "against" by the time I was finished - but not convinced. She is an intelligent woman who runs her own business but like many, many others is not interested in politics and believes the BBC is trustworthy.
This is a measure of the hill we have to climb.
Regards,
Thanks, Rab.
ReplyDeleteThe Press and the BBC report, with varying degrees of objectivity, what the unionists and their 'expert' shills are saying.
But if it wasn't for the BBC, we would not have heard the clear nationalist response to the lies.
It is very much about pointing people towards objective information sources - and having the key responses when challenged.
regards,
Peter
It seemed to me whilst listening to the HOC Academics session that there was a huge elephant in the room. The elephant was support for and the SNP's clear agenda for an Independent Scotland.None could really say it without using "factoids" as you have outlined. All were there knowingly to support the Unionist view, whilst giving the appearance of "fairness". I am not saying all the academics personally support Unionism but they were all aware of the task they had been set by appearing at the HOC.
ReplyDeleteA bit like a misogynist committee discussing women's right's, they need to look fair and will use research to further that appearance but have their own agenda to protect the right's of men.
Thanks, smallwhitebear
ReplyDeleteThere is hypocrisy from the nationalist side as well. Whenever an "expert" is rolled out by the SNP, what they say is absolute gospel, yet the unionist ones are simply pawns. (And the same applies vice versa I must add).
ReplyDeleteBut is anyone from the electorate really listening? Only politicians can deliver arguments that are listened to.
I don't think these experts are pawns, Barbarian of the North - I simply think they are wrong, and I have said why in considerable detail.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe they are pawns, don't want to believve it, but it is the only alternative explanation, one which at the moment I reject.
I think the term is 'wilful ignorance'. I agree that they are not pawns of whichever side they decide to speak for. It's entirely possible some of them are trying to cover up lack of research with bluster (Not the first academic to do that) and so appear to have no clue what they're talking about, but this suits certain politically motivated who use it as a line attack along the lines of: "See, if they don't know then how can the man in the street understand?". In truth, it's rather disingenuous.
ReplyDeleteFor some of them, it's fairly obvious they are enjoying their position of being 'regular' experts either for TV or for a political institution which I am sure they're being compensated financially for their various appearances. Last thing you want to do is upset the one holding the purse strings, right?
As for MPs in that committee, well they're naturally going to be biased either because of their party or fear of losing their jobs. Sadly there are very very few MPs who can rise above such factors.
"It means Scotland running all its own affairs as an independent country, while retaining the Queen as constitutional monarch, being part of a currency union (now preferred as sterling) and being part of the EU, of the UN and of suitable defence partnerships and treaties."
ReplyDeleteI think it's important to the process not to be disingenuous about what the process of independence implies. Scotland running its own affairs; yes. Scotland keeping the monarchy; yes... that's the template default in achieving independence from the UK since 1867. Even the Irish technically kept the king during a long, messy process of finally being goaded into extra-constitutionally declaring the republic at the end of the 1940s.
But all the rest is not Holyrood's to promise. They may aspire to those things, but they are not automatically part and parcel of independence, and in order for Scots to make a fair and informed decision, that should be made plain.
A currency union, by definition, requires at least two partners. Partnership implies negotiation. Terms. Compromise. It's not entirely certain that a UK smarting from rejection by Scotland would be amenable to a currency union that barely benefits a country the size of England and whose principal beneficiary is Scotland. The "British", if we may call them that, less Scotland, might prove magnanimous, but it shouldn't be counted and any suggestion they're obliged is mistaken and insulting to independence. Scots should opt for independence, then, only if they are prepared to do so on the basis of a separate currency, and consider the prospect of a currency union a desirable bonus only.
It's doubtful that Scottish membership in the European Union would be automatic, or that it would carry forward on terms of Britain's accession. Partnership in treaties and membership in international organization does not generally accrue to newly independent countries. For example, Britain has been in NATO since 1949, but none of the nations of the British West Indies became a member upon independence. Sudan was a member of the UN when South Sudan seceded; nevertheless South Sudan was required to join the UN as a new member. So it's very likely that Scotland would have to negotiate its way into the EU, a process that would probably take a couple of years at least, and would almost unquestionably imply its accession to the eurozone. It's extremely unlikely Scotland would be allowed to join on the basis of the currency opt-out the UK got; it would break the guideline that no other acceding country moving forward can opt out. The rest of the EU seems heartily sick of opt-outs, all told. This, too, is something that should be taken into account as the likely outcome of an independence vote, making it, again, something they should aspire to only if they are prepared to accept this as a likely upshot.
(cont'd)
ReplyDeleteUN and, should Scotland want it, NATO accession would probably be fairly straightforward, though a thoroughgoing prohibition on nuclear weapons might complicate matters for naval involvement. It effectively ended New Zealand's membership in ANZUS with regard to the United States (on the basis that for security reasons the US refuses to reveal which of its ships are nuclearly-armed, and so the presumption is that any might be).
I don't say any of these things to throw cold water on the project; I favour it. I say them only because I don't like the idea of anyone being sold a pig in a poke. Having been through this twice in Canada with regard to Quebec's aspirations, I'm loathe to see those promoting independence issuing cheques they can't cash, but only someone else can. Scots should only take on independence if they're confident in their ability to move forward with their own currency--no more backed by anyone else's than Canada's or Australia's or Switzerland's--and in the full knowledge that they are giving up most of the opt-outs the UK has in becoming a separate member of the European Union. Look across the Irish Sea to a country much more Scotland's size for an indicator. If you like what you see, press on, Macduff.
I agree with Rab that suggestions of "Scotland punching above its weight on the world stage" are absurd. Speaking as someone well outside of Scotland, Scotland does not really punch on the world stage at all, currently. In rare instances where a Scottish voice is heard--representing, of course, Britain--it is considered a pleasant anomaly.
ReplyDeleteBut it's always understood it's England talking.
How many times in your lives have you heard "Britain" simply referred to as "England"? I heard it just yesterday while watching a show about the US Civil War in which PM Gladstone referred to mediation by "England, France, and Russia"--a list composed of, supposedly, two sovereign nations and one constituent country. And yet, there was "England", the equivalent of France and Russia. Where was the United Kingdom? Where, more to the point, was Scotland in that discussion? Off punching above its weight somewhere, no doubt.
Imagine a prime minister saying "Scotland, France, and Russia". Now THAT would be Scotland punching above its weight. And that CAN happen. But not while Scotland is, really, just one of the members of The England Gang. When Scotland speaks for Scotland in the UN, in the EU, in the WTO, that's when Scotland will be punching above its weight, instead of just holding the bag for England.
Thanks for posting, barefoot hiker.
ReplyDeleteA couple of points - in or out of a currency union, Scotland WILL use sterling. The UK would then want us in,not out, for their interests, not ours. (Same as NATO point below)
We believe that membership of the EU will not be conditional on adopting the euro, and that there is not a shred of doubt that Scotland will be accepted as a member.
As far is NATO is concerned, it is they who will be desperate to get us as members, not the reverse. No nationalist Scot would shed a tear if they turned us down.
Peter
I don't think the realities bear our your hopes. The UK didn't give a damn what Ireland wanted after it left. Use the pound, use the punt; peg to it; adopt the euro. Didn't matter to the Bank of England, and they certainly didn't consult with Dublin on the particulars of the pound. The US doesn't consult with any of the countries that use, or peg to, the US dollar, either. It can't stop them, but having done so, they're just along for the ride, like it or lump it.
DeleteI'm not convinced a currency union, or even using sterling, is even desirable for Scotland. For example, Canada has a separate currency from the United States, and its value floats relative to the US dollar (and every other convertible currency). Our economy is linked to theirs, but different. Ours was not hit as hard as theirs by the 2008 downturn. Our banks didn't fail. The ability to set interest rates separately from theirs gives us the leverage to borrow and issue financial instruments at different rates from them, and that has certainly been to our advantage in recent years. Much as I like the euro, that's starting to look like one of its weaknesses in an economy as varied as the eurozone. In my opinion, Scotland ought to institute its own pound/dollar/shilling, let it float against sterling, use it to attract foreign investment and industry and promote buying locally, and see what happens. The whole idea of becoming independent seems to lose a lot of its point if you carry on letting the Bank of England decide what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the haggis.
"We believe that membership of the EU will not be conditional on adopting the euro"
Well, you can certainly hope, but the fact is that's Brussels's call, not Edinburgh's. And I'd get that in writing first, because otherwise, the process of accession as it stands now absolutely rules that out. And I honestly don't believe the EU would be willing to break that rule for Scotland when all those small countries in the east are scrabbling to get their ducks in a row to meet accession requirements. Nevertheless, that's up the EU, not Holyrood, so it's not something you can promise. Not honestly.
And while I don't doubt Scotland would be welcome in the EU, I also think its accession would take at least a couple of years. It's likely that the EEA rules would be extended to Scotland so there'd be little disruption in trade, but there'd still be a lot of adjustment, and some of it would be stuff being in the UK let you off the hook on. All such bets would be off, and that's important to take into consideration, too.
"As far is NATO is concerned, it is they who will be desperate to get us as members"
I don't mean to disparage Scotland, but, no, honestly, the rest of us would not be "desperate" to have Scotland in NATO (the rump UK notwithstanding, potentially). I don't mind that Switzerland and Sweden aren't in NATO. Haven't lost any sleep over Ireland never joining. If Scotland joins, they join. If they don't, they don't. It's not going to fundamentally change the alliance. Even France basically opting out for 40 years wasn't a show-stopper. To be honest, at this point, I really don't see the need for NATO any longer anyway. Ireland does fine without it; I don't see why Scotland should be in any rush to join. Nor, to be blunt, why the rest of us would be much perturbed if you didn't.
What can I say? Bluntly, I'm not much perturbed about what you say, barefoot hiker.
ReplyDeleteregards,
Peter