Search topics on this blog

Showing posts with label CBI Scotland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CBI Scotland. Show all posts

Saturday, 26 November 2011

Playing the man not the ball

From time to time, men – they always are men – present themselves at my door and want to ask me questions. Sometimes they sport an identification tag with a photograph or flash some kind of an ID, But as Raymond Chandler used to say through his character Philip Marlowe – “Anyone can flash a tin badge – you can buy them at the five and dime.” These days, with a computer, a printer and a cheap plastic laminator, anyone can mock up an ID. So I’m wary of the guys at the door.

They have their counterparts in the cold callers, who have closely similar approaches, and are a pretty even mix of men and women.

Phone rings.

“Is that Mr. Curran?”

“Who’s asking?”

“Is that Mr. Curran"?”

“Who are you?”

“I’m doing a survey …”

“Who are you? Who do you work for?”

“Do you want to save money?”

“What are you selling?”

“I’m not selling anything

“**** off.”

My closing response, discourteous though it may seem, is the distillation of all my experience in communications and behavioural skills, and is demonstrably effective, with a certain elegant finality to it.

(There are many variants on cold caller approach, on the doorstep or by telephone. Unfortunately for the caller, I know them all, because I have worked with such companies as a consultant, and I know all the pitches, all the evasions, all the blocking tactics.)

However, my concern to know the identity of the caller, their organisation, and what they stand for, and above all, what are they selling, when it manifests itself in response to political questions, is called playing the man, not the ball.

Hiding at the bottom of page 15 of The Times today is Lorraine Davidson in a small commentary piece – Put-downs may prove an own goal for the Nationalists.

Before I play the woman, not the ball, let me address her content. Lorraine’s theme is that the Scottish Government and its ministers, described as “the ruling SNP Administration”, are not engaging constructively with arguments, but questioning the right of those asking questions to enter the debate and engaging in put-downs.

I may have missed it, but I can’t recall Lorraine referring to the UK Government as “the ruling Tory/LibDem administration”, but I’ll let that one pass. She elects to champion Iain McMillan as “the latest in a long line of prominent people to have put his head above the parapet”.

The parapet she refers to is the Unionist Coalition of unionist party politicians, unelected Lords, unelected commercial interests, unelected legal personages, et al, who may be described as the British Establishment - those who perceive themselves to have a deep vested interest in maintaining a system that has served them well, but has not served the people of Scotland well.

The parapet is the massive and forbidding rampart that protects them against any real representative democracy, and protects the rich, the privileged and the unelected from the will of the people.

Now, when these people elect to fire a volley at the elected Government of Scotland, representative of the people in a way, through their electoral mandate, that no other government and no other party in this disunited Kingdom is, they are disturbed to find that there is a return of fire, and they bob below the parapet, fuming with indignation at the temerity of the people for firing back.

But this is not how Lorraine sees it. Her long spell as spin doctor to Scottish Labour, her hard work on her hagiographical biography of Luck Jack, the eponymous Jack McConnell, former Labour First Minister and now an unelected Lord of the UK, and her deep links to the Labour Party, must understandably, and wholly subliminally and unconsciously, influence her view of UK politics.

She sees no need to look at just how representative the CBI is of Scottish industry and Scottish industrialists, nor to question how representative Iain McMillan’s views and statement are even of its existing members, anymore than she feels the need to examine, or quote from the abundant material on the exact nature, history and criminal activities of Citigroup in the US, another organisation that ‘put its head above the parapet’.

Anybody who does so, or who questions Lord Robertson of Port Ellen - another Labour politician turned unelected Lord, who has had a glittering and enriching career based on defence, i.e. war, armaments, NATO and all thing nuclear - is playing the man and not the ball, and engaging in put-downs. Naughty Nats!

Let me explain it simply for you, Lorraine. It’s all politics, and all this talk of objectivity and people being above politics is just so much self-serving cant. Polly Toynbee, someone Lorraine might just respect, given her impeccable Labour and Left pedigree, said it all when she observed that those who claimed to be above politics were inevitably right-wingers.

Before I help you to understand the great game that is being played, let me first deal with Iain McMillan, Companion of The British Empire, whom we can safely assume is proud of being a CBE, and grateful to the political system, namely, the UK, that awarded him the honour, even if the radically shrunken British Empire now essentially consists of the four nations of the UK, the other nations of the empire having long since achieved their independence of it.

Iain McMillan is not apolitical, anymore than anyone else who enters this debate is – he is a unionist, and is committed to the continuation of the UK in its present form and opposed to Scotland’s independence. He has an absolute democratic right to hold this view publicly – he is not a civil servant, therefore he may enter the political argument as an individual holding unionist views.

If however he enters the public debate as Director of the CBI in Scotland, he may only claim to represent his member companies, and must do so as the spokesperson for interest groups that are not democratically structured.

It is highly unlikely – but possible -  that he can say with absolute confidence that he has a mandate from a majority of his member companies to oppose Scotland’s independence, unless of course he can point to the procedure, meetings, votes and individuals that gave him such a mandate. Even if he had such a mandate, it can be said with absolute certainty that the employees of his member companies who were eligible to vote in the May 2011 Scottish Parliamentary election gave no such mandate the their employers to speak on their behalf. They did, however, give a mandate to the Scottish Government.

Iain McMillan therefore may take a view, presumably after some form of consultation with his members (rather than quoting opinion polls about “what business leaders say”) on what he feels are the key issues for his member companies if Scotland achieves its independence, including their competitiveness and matters of fiscal and monetary policy that concern them, as a relatively narrow interest group. In other words, he may request – not demand – that his organisation be consulted about appropriate matters, and have the opportunity to offer their expertise on technical aspect of the implications of independence. Such a request would undoubtedly be responded favourably to by the Scottish Government.

But this is not how he has gone about things, as far as I can judge from reports on his public utterances. If I may focus on the BBC Scotland Business report of 24th November 2011 - CBI Scotland demands answers on independence planslet me say that neither he nor the CBI have a right to ‘demand’ anything from the Scottish Government. Only the voters of Scotland may demand answers from the government, as a sovereign people, regardless of which party they voted for, and they have the democratic mechanisms to make such demands. namely their elected representatives who sit in the Holyrood Parliament.

Who did he choose to address his ‘demands’ to? Why, 700 business leaders at the Institution of Civil Engineers at their annual dinner. Since it is unlikely that the 700 were polled, or sampled as to their views either before or after the dinner, we cannot know exactly what the balance of their views was.

Iain McMillan said that answers were needed on issues such as currency and cross-border taxation ahead of a referendum, and the questions should not be “brushed aside”. What he is saying, or more accurately, what he has the right to say, is that -

major Scottish companies must know before the independence negotiations commence how both the Scottish Government and the UK Government intend to formulate their opening positions

what the core issues and points of disagreement are, and what might appear to each team – the SNP and the UK teams – as the deal-breakers.

Such requests are reasonable, but not before a referendum. The people who have a democratic right to information before the referendum are those eligible to vote in that referendum, the electors of Scotland.

Iain McMillan will have a vote in that referendum as an individual, as will every director, manager and employees of his members companies who are eligible to vote – and each vote will count for exactly the same.

It’s called democracy, and it is what should determine the fate of nations. In the UK, as presently structured, it does not.

What is required before the referendum is enough information for the voters of Scotland to decide on whether they give their  elected government a mandate to enter into negotiations with the UK government on Scotland’s independence or not, or whether they wish to retain the status  quo and remain in the UK. (They may also possibly demonstrate a wish before the referendum to have a third option – to remain in the UK but have radically increased powers for Scotland, colloquially known as devo max).

Let’s look at Iain McMillan’s other statements -

“No one should be in doubt as to what independence means.”

No one is, Mr McMillan – the Scottish electorate is one of the most sophisticated in the world, and it certainly doesn’t need the help of unelected bodies and individuals hostile to independence to tell them what it means.

It means Scotland leaving the United Kingdom and the rest of the UK becoming a foreign country.”

That is of course factually true, but the choice of words seems pejorative and seem intended to be so. Perhaps Mr. McMillan would like to make exactly that statement to all the Commonwealth countries, and those that are not part of the Commonwealth but were part of the British Empire?

Perhaps he would like to remind the Taoiseach of Dáil Éireann that the Republic of Ireland left the UK and became a ‘foreign country’. Perhaps he would advise the Queen to remind the heads of the Commonwealth nations that by leaving the Empire they became ‘foreigners’? President Obama on his next visit? Or perhaps Her Majesty could delegate this unpleasant task to the Duke of Edinburgh, always a plain-spoken man?

That is the stark reality and it would be a huge step to take.”

Well, yes, Mr. McMillan, I think we know that, except it is a reality that a large number of Scots regard as anything but ‘stark’. What they do regard as stark is a UK Government that, in attempting to remedy the disastrous economic circumstance created by the previous UK Government, is displaying even more mind-bending incompetence than the last one, and systematically destroying the live of tens of millions of ordinary people.

Iain McMillan says it is legitimate to ask questions of the SNP as the referendum approaches. No, it’s not, Mr. McMillan, but it is legitimate to ask questions – not ‘demand answers’ – of the elected Government of Scotland as the referendum approaches. And the place to ask such questions is not at a series of dinners with unelected bodies or individuals, nor to relay them through the media, but to put them directly to Government in the proper manner.

And it is legitimate for the Government of Scotland, through its ministers, to either answer these questions, or say that they cannot be answered at any given point in time, either because they are either premature, irrelevant, or would prejudice the negotiations on independence after a consultative referendum delivers a mandate to negotiate.

Iain McMillan, in his after-dinner speech on the 24th, said

The SNP leadership says that an independent Scotland would keep the pound sterling until such time as the euro may be adopted.”

Sorry to cavil, Iain – it’s something like what the First Minister of Scotland said, albeit not quite right, as Scottish Government policy. (The SNP is a political party, one that formed the Government.)

What the FM has said repeatedly is that Scotland would retain sterling until such time as it was to its advantage to move elsewhere, and only then if the people of Scotland so wished in a referendum. Scotland would only join the euro when the euro system was stabilised, only when it was to Scotland’s economic advantage, and only with the support of the people of Scotland in a referendum. FM Politics Show 6 Nov. 2011 = 7.5m in

I’m sure you didn’t want to misrepresent the FM’s position, Mr. McMillan – things sort of just come out after a meal, don’t they?

I.McM:But that begs the question – would the rest of the United Kingdom permit an independent Scotland to use its currency? It might not. And if it did, are there likely to be conditions attached. So, has the SNP fully explored the currency issues?”

There are indeed questions here – why don’t you ask them of George Osborne, or Michael Moore, or even David Cameron?

Only they can say whether they would ‘permit’ an independent Scotland to ‘use their currency’. Only they can say whether or not ‘there are likely to be strict conditions attached.’

But I imagine that they would be reluctant to answer them for exactly the same reasons as the Scottish Government might be reluctant to answer the other questions to which you ‘demand’ answers – that they are premature, that they would prejudice negotiations, that they anticipate the outcome of a referendum that is at least two years away.

Or perhaps for a more likely reason – that the UK Government, George Osborne, David Cameron and Michael Moore don’t have a clue, as they demonstrate every day, as they continue their incompetent, disorganised approach to the economy and to Scotland.


What this debate is about is a 300-year old political deal, reached in contentious circumstances, by a mix of intimidation and bribery that has has not been delivering for the people of Scotland, a formerly independent nation.

In fact, it has not been delivering for the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland either, but it has delivered handsomely for a tiny, unrepresentative, unelected and obscenely rich and privileged elite concentrated in the south-east of England. The Tory, Labour and LibDem elected – and unelected – politicians in Scotland have cooperated with that elite, are part of it, and are committed to the perpetuation of it, despite that fact that it impoverishes the lives of the vast majority of those who have voted for them.

In May 2011, the Scottish electorate delivered  a massive, decisive mandate to a party committed to ending that union, but only if the democratic will of the people of Scotland wished it to end. That party, the SNP, has always recognised that some of their electoral support comes from voters who do not want to end the union completely, but who wish to radically redefine it, and a decision must therefore be made closer to the referendum, which is at least two years away, whether that choice should be offered in a separate, additional question to a simple YES/NO for or against independence.

Politically, ranged against the SNP Government, we have a failing UK Coalition Government that has not a vestige of a mandate in Scotland, an unelected House of Lords, an unelected hereditary privileged class, a shadowy coalition of money and power, with war and armaments as the core of their obscene wealth and influence, and an English legal establishment that seeks to challenge the ancient autonomy of Scottish Law in the name of human rights, by establishing a UK Supreme Court that didn’t exist before to interpose itself between the Scottish people and the European Court of Human Rights – a court that claims special rights and function in relations to constitutional matters just at a time when constitutional matters between Scotland and England are centre stage.

There are no objective bodies or institutions in the UK, and no one is above politics. The idea that there are somehow objective bodies and individuals out there who can stand loftily apart from politics and who are in possession of objective facts is nonsense. Fact do exist – they are blindingly obvious to ordinary people – as is the fact that they are manipulated by vested interest groups.

And those who claim to be apolitical and above the facts are always of the right, always have a vested interest, and are often entirely undemocratic. The people understand the difference – they know what is happening to them, and when they are preached at by the rich and privileged who profit from a system and a society that ordinary people are suffering under, they know that a change is overdue and they know what to do about it.

The auld lies will nae wash any mair, and the evidence of that rages across the globe. Scotland will make its change democratically and peacefully, unless someone is stupid enough to deny the Scottish people their democratic rights.

Thursday, 17 November 2011

Understanding the Unionist mind – and how professionals can be manipulated

A key skill in negotiation, in diplomacy, in conflict resolution and in conflict itself  is getting inside the head of the other party or parties, whether they be individuals, groups, political parties, trades unions – or nations.

This applies whether your objective is to shift viewpoints and perceptions, reach agreements or defeat the other party. When I was a child, my adult cousin Peter used to take me to a boxing club in Dalmarnock. He didn’t box himself, but was an avid follower of the sport. (This was the era of Benny Lynch.) I remember sitting talking to one of the fighters who was taking a breather. My cousin Peter asked him what was the essential thing in preparing for a competition bout.

Watching the guy yer gonnae fight in a bout wae somebody else.” he replied. “Ye’ve goat to get intae his style, an’ intae his heid as well – an’ ye’ve goat tae decide whit kind o’ man he is.” He looked down at me, wiping his face with a towel. “Never forget that, son – ye’ve goat tae ken whit kind o’ a man he is.  If he’s the kind that’ll dae onything tae win, then he’s ultimately a loser – real men ken where tae draw the line …””

I can’t say I understood those words at the time, but they came to mean more to me as I got older. Later in industry, American bosses were fond of maxims. “Understand what made them the way they are, respect that, then find out what they want. If you can give them some of it and still get what you want, negotiate. If you can’t, sooner or later you’ve got a fight on your hands. But you may have to live with them after the fight …

Having said that, I now feel like an unctuous little radio vicar pumping out platitudes on Thought for the Day – “Life is like an ashtray – full of wee doubts ..” (BILLY CONNOLLY).

So let me return to a more hard-edged analysis -


The maxim of Cassius -that in considering a position being advanced one must ask “Who gains, or benefits from this?” The American version, used by journalists and police investigators alike is “Follow the money”.

Political philosophies usually claim that the answer is the people, and politicians therefore claim to have the interests of society and the people at heart. Some do and some don’t, and it is a moot point which motivation is the more dangerous – the wholly altruistic motive or the narrowly self-interested. The former has often produced political and religious fanaticism and the latter endemic corruption. Both at the extremes can result in dictatorship, totalitarianism and repression.

Without sinking into a morass of PPE degree analysis, most political philosophies, most politicians and most voters are a mix of both – it’s a question of where the balance lies, and significantly, exactly where those supporting a particular view stand on the question of the ends justifying the means.

Let’s take a topical example – the current criticisms of the electoral system used to elect the Scottish Parliament – the d’Hondt system.

Yesterday’s Guardian carried the story - Scottish voting system is unfair – “Scotland's voting system is allowing two major parties to dominate politics and is putting smaller parties under unfair pressure, the Electoral Reform Society has warned.”

We’re straight into cui bono country here, because the Electoral Reform Society champions proportional representation and is against the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. So they would say that wouldn’t they?

But unionists and the unionist media have leapt on to this, displaying the hypocrisy and doublethink that characterises so much of what they say, because the outcome of the Scottish May 2011 election came as a profound shock to them, and they don’t like it.


Because the d’Hondt system was supposed to stop the nationalists ever gaining an overall majority, and thus being able to govern and call a referendum on independence. The system was expressly designed by the UK to prevent the nationalists gaining power.

Of course, it wasn’t presented in this way when the Parliament was set up and the Scotland Act defined the rules of the game. There was much talk of balance and democracy, and the two largest parties, Labour and the SNP, but it was clearly targeted at the SNP.

Now the unionists are bitterly regretting that they didn’t adopt STV – the single transferrable vote system. Under that, the SNP would have won in May but would have still been a minority government, and the three opposition parties  could have happily continued their game of frustrating the SNP government from really coming to grips with the endemic problems of the nation, e.g. sectarianism and alcohol abuse, by cynically ganging up to oppose any legislation to address them.

Where does the hypocrisy lie?

The answer to that is as plain as a pikestaff – the Tory Party and a large block of the Labour Party, while piously urging proportional representation on Scotland, was engaged in a vicious, no holds barred – and successful - campaign to protect the first-part-the-post system for the UK and Westminster. Devolution was designed to neuter the Scottish National Party – and any other nationalists – by denying them real power, while the good old Empire got on with the unrepresentative, unelected conspiracy of wealth, power, privilege and the military/industrial complex masquerading as a modern democracy, i.e. the United Kingdom.

Needless to say, the Electoral Reform Society see themselves as loftily above this sort of thing, arguing that STV would have protected the Scottish people against both Labour and SNP dominance. Aye, right

And so I come full circle, back to my Dalmarnock boxer, broken-nosed, sweaty, and wise. We must decode every message from the Unionists, and we must be alert to the fact that the messages often come obliquely, often cloaked in a heavily-spun regurgitation of objective comments from organisations and institutions that claim to be apolitical – the Electoral Reform Society, Citigroup, the CBI, the Inst. of Mech. Engineers and the Law – organisations and institutions that entirely coincidentally always seem to choose to speak at a time and on a topic that equally coincidentally suits a unionist/UK agenda and is hostile to a nationalist agenda.

Of course, these entities have the highest standards of ethics, probity and objectivity and would be outraged at a suggestion that they are politicised in any way. But to believe that they are not subject to influence, subtle and on occasion almost subliminal influence – influence that they may well be unaware of, and would indignantly reject if it were overt – is naive. Organisations and institutions are comprised of people – people with careers, people who are members of clubs, people who are members of political parties or who have a political viewpoint, people who have family traditions.

The most effective forms of influence are not overt, and over centuries, the British Establishment has developed an all-encompassing web of influence, patronage and preferment, with a backup of coercion in reserve. All those who live in the expectation of a gong, of a knighthood, of a baronetcy, of the ermine know that such baubles are not obtainable from nationalist parties such as the SNP – they come only from the British Establishment and its front-end democratic simulacrum, the Westminster Parliament.

So look at the men who speak and then - “ye’ve goat tae decide whit kind o’ men they ur. If they’re the kind that’ll dae onything tae win, then they’re ultimately losers – real men ken where tae draw the line …

May I return to my Thought for the Day vicar persona and close by saying that in our present highly polarised political debate and grossly unequal and divided society, the professional men and women of the  Electoral Reform Society, Citigroup, the CBI, the Inst. of Mech. Engineers and the Law would never be collectively swayed by political considerations, but should be aware of how their wholly professional and objective views and advice might be spun by politicians.

Aye, right …