Sunday 4 August 2013
Tuesday 16 July 2013
Tuesday 9 July 2013
30-day Analytics – TAofMoridura – my YouTube channel.
What does this mean – if anything? What should it tell me? How representative are the demographics? I’ve no idea, but here they are …
Friday 28 June 2013
Azeem Ibrahim, the Defence of Scotland – and the Scotland Institute. Part Two
A question I can answer easily –
Has Azeem Ibrahim the right to use his formidable intellect and business acumen to contribute to the Referendum Debate?
Answer: Undoubtedly, yes.
Two questions I can’t answer so easily –
Has Azeem Ibrahim the right to use his wealth to contribute to the debate?
Does Azeem Ibrahim believe he is neutral – or undecided - in the debate or is he committed to YES or No?
Answering them is complicated by the fact that the questions are inter-related, and in the timescale for the referendum, subject to legal constraint. He is free within any relevant legal constraint to donate to political parties that reflect his position on YES/NO, if indeed he has one.
If he has no position or is truly undecided, or wishes to remain neutral despite holding a specific position, he is free to donate to all parties, and to both the YES and No campaigns, again within any relevant legal constraints.
What I would argue is that no person is free to present themselves as neutral, to invest substantial resources which they claims are to facilitate and inform the debate, while in reality holding a preferred position and loading the dice heavily in favour of one side or the other. To do that would be to try to deceive the electorate and to circumvent the electoral law.
Has Azeem Ibrahim done this? Would he do such a thing consciously? I have no means of definitively answering the first question, because in a rapidly polarising debate in which I am highly partisan as a YES, my perceptions are inevitably coloured by my position, as would be those of any but the most heroically objective of YES voters.
But I do have an opinion on the second part of that – I do not believe he would do such a thing consciously or deliberately, because I believe on all the evidence of what I think I now know of the man that he is ethical, brave (no one can be a reservist in IVth Para without being brave!) a caring humanitarian, and that he truly has the interests of Scotland and Scotland’s people at heart. He had – and still has – the potential to make a major positive contribution to the referendum debate.
Yet I am left with the fact that, on everything I have seen and heard, in my perception the Scotland Institute is, to all intents and purposes, part of the NO campaign, from its launch through to Monday’s media launch of the Defence and Security paper, indeed it could almost be an extension of Ian Davidson MP’s Scottish Affairs Committee, which under the label of an objective UK Parliamentary committee, is openly partisan under a partisan Chair against what it calls the Separation of Scotland.
How can two such apparently contradictory beliefs of mine be reconciled?
The answer I believe lies in grand narratives, and I believe that Azeem Ibrahim, as he moved from being a successful businessman and financial entrepreneur and used his exceptional analytical powers to consider national and international politics, was swept into and ultimately seduced by the failed narratives of the US/UK/NATO military/industrial complex, and absorbed their flawed and dangerous values by a process of osmosis. I will go further, and say that exactly the same thing has happened to many academics and experts in the fields of strategic studies, international relations, departments of War studies, interagency, international security studies, etc. with the key difference that Dr. Ibrahim is rich enough to be immune to career and financial pressures.
Dr. Ibrahim is now Adjunct Research Professor at the Strategic Institute, and the US Army War College, served as an International Security Fellow at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and has recently been appointed as policy advisor to Imran Khan, the PM-in waiting of Pakistan – a nuclear state.
One might think Scotland was small beer in such exalted circles, but of course because of its strategic position as the postern gate of Europe and NATO’s crucial nuclear base, its possible independence and non-nuclear status, the removal of Trident WMD from Scotland and the consequential real possibility that rUK would be forced to abandon its nuclear deterrent, the organisations and countries listed above - in which Dr. Ibrahim plays a significant role - are anything but neutral about Scotland’s referendum.
At the very least, I believe Azeem Ibrahim is influenced subliminally by them, by their positions and attitudes, and may even have assimilated their values and world view to the point that his is indistinguishable from theirs. In either case, his behaviour in deciding the Scotland Institute’s priorities and focus cannot in my view be neutral or wholly objective.
If he wants to end such a perception, then his path is clear – he should simply make large, legal and equivalent donations to both the Better Together Campaign and YES Scotland, and offer the benefits of his intellect and strategic perspective as a speaker at key events in both campaigns – and he should wind up the Scotland Institute and Scots Politics.
Alternatively, he can come out firmly for one campaign or the other – YES or NO – and throw his considerable talent and influence behind the one he chooses. If he makes such a choice, I would ask him to reflect on the choice made by a great man in 1947, Muhammad Ali Jinnah - محمد علی جناح - as he established the independence of Pakistan from India – and from the British Empire.
(My analysis of the Defence and Security paper, planned for today or tomorrow, must be postponed in view of the length of this blog. My apologies!)
Thursday 20 June 2013
Where are we going on independence?
The answer I want to give to the title question is a confident – To a decisive YES vote on September 18th 2014!
That’s what I and any independence supporter is expected to do – be gung ho, celebrate the polls that bode well, attack the methodology, pollsters and those who commissioned the poll when things don’t go so well. Forward to victory! Don’t be deflected! Find increasingly ingenious ways to interpret poll results that don’t suit us until they yield a positive message.
Well, I’ve done my share of that for six years, in arguments, in blogs, on Twitter, on YouTube, in letters to newspapers. Why? Partly to reassure myself, mainly to bolster the morale of the faithful and to encourage the undecided to look deeper into poll results. Such things are legitimate in politics because, rather like the stock exchange, it’s part rational but significantly irrational and emotional, and confidence plays a significant part in success in any endeavour. The hard core of independence supporters will never be persuaded to change their allegiance by a poll, but their energies can be blunted, their enthusiasm dulled, and some may retreat into a blame-the-stupidity-of-the-Scots-electorate mode, and reduce the amount of work they do for the cause.
I’ve been tempted myself to say - “I’ve done enough – they can have my vote on September 18th 2014, but that’s it. Hell mend Scotland if it votes NO…”
But so far, that mood has never lasted, because events have triggered my adrenalin flow, and exasperation, astonishment or even mirth at the latest manifestation of ‘Britishness’, unionism, or the ever-idiotic Better Together spokespersons has driven me back to the grindstone.
So what is the proper attitude to the polls? Saying they don’t matter, the only poll that matters is the ballot box, or perhaps what-we’re-hearing-on-the-doorstep-tells-us-different etc. is a counter-productive reaction.
An opinion poll, conducted by a reputable organisation with sound sampling and interpretation methodology, in its raw data at least, is a vital and valuable snapshot of opinion at a point in time. Like any snapshot, it can be crisp in detail and capture the essence of the moment, or it can be blurry and unrepresentative. And, like any snapshot, those viewing it can offer multiple interpretations of what it means; and in this regard, the psephologists are the art critics of polls and, if we have any sense, we will pay attention to what they say and draw our own conclusions as to what action is necessary to move the next poll in the direction of independence.
The focus tends to be, naturally enough, on the polls that are published, but additionally, all parties conduct private polls for their eyes only, to guide their strategists. On the rare occasions the media get wind of this, commentators generate much synthetic shock that a party should take a poll and not publish the results. This is compounded on occasion by the stupidity of politicians who are unable to resist the temptation to make veiled allusions to such polls, with predictable results – demands that they publish immediately, accompanied by accusations of skulduggery. (There has been one such example recently.)
THE POLLS
Here are some of the questions on a straight independence choice asked by pollsters -
YouGov
Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming a country independent from the rest of the United Kingdom?
Do you agree or disagree that Scotland should become a country independent from the rest of the United Kingdom?
Do you agree that Scotland should become a country independent from the rest of the UK?
ICM
Would you approve or disapprove of Scotland becoming an independent country?
TNS System 3
Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming a country independent from the rest of the UK
Survation
Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming an independent country, separate from the rest of the United Kingdom?
POLL RESULTS ASKING THE INDEPENDENCE STRAIGHT CHOICE QUESTION
In April 2005, TNS System 3 found 46% said YES, 39% said NO
In April 2006, same result by YouGov/SNP.
By November 2006 ICM/Telegraph got 52% YES and 35% NO. That might have been an indicator of the 2007 SNP win, then again it might not, because …..
January 2007, four months before the election, YouGov/Channel 4 poll gave 40% YES, 44% NO
Because of these poll – and because of the shock 2007 Holyrood result, unionists were jolted out of their complacency, none more than the supine Scottish Labour Party. “This wisnae meant tae happen, Tony!” bleated a shell-shocked Jack McConnell, and great menacing beasts stirred uneasily in the bowels of the British Establishment.
And so the first historic Scottish Nationalist Government was elected – a minority government, yes, but as a party in power, not as a coalition. And what happened at the next poll?
April 2008 YouGov/the Sun 34% YES, 51% NO
Spooky, or what?
14th January 2012 Survation/Mail on Sunday 26% YES 46% NO.
I hear your cynical cries already - “Ha! Mail on Sunday! and Survation? Who the **** are they?” etc. because the day before we had this -
13th January 2012 ICM/Sunday Telegraph 40% YES 43% NO. Had the electorate flipped overnight – or had the Mail on Sunday just behaved like the Mail on Sunday?
I could go on at length with poll results and interpretation of the mind-bending cross-relationships and implication of other questions to each other, on more powers, and support for remaining in UK, but I won’t, because my interpretations would be that of a layman, not a professional psephologist or political strategist, and would have correspondingly little value.
SELF-DELUSION AND MAGICAL EVENTS
What do we know?
Bluntly, that -
the polls currently show a minority of the Scottish electorate in favour of independence
we have a mountain to climb before September 18th 2014
we must start to see some upward movement in the near future if we are to have any chance of success.
Despite the fact that these three statements are undeniably true, simply to state them is to enough provoke cries of protest, and a range of ingenious interpretations of poll results, brandishing of poll results that were favourable, denial of the validity of poll results that were less favourable, attacks on the media, the pollsters and their allegedly flawed methodologies, and invocation of magical events in the past (the lead-up to the 2011 Holyrood landslide) and magical events in the future (the White Paper).
Bluntly, some independence supporters are going to have to grow up fast, politically and arithmetically, if we’re going to win.
I take comfort in my belief - which I hope to God is well-founded -that this mindset only exists among some of the support, that the SNP and YES strategists are rooted in hard psephological and political realities and can tell a standard deviation from a bull’s arse.
The 2011 result was astonishing, unpredicted by the politicians, but anticipated by the pollsters, albeit late in the day (because the shift in the electorate occurred late in the day), and nobody knows what caused it, although speculation, informed and otherwise, is rife. There is nothing in that past event – an election to a devolved Parliament – that is a reliable indicator to how voters will decide in a referendum of such historical importance, with such enormous constitutional implication as 2014 – except maybe hope …
It’s in the past, and the past is not a reliable guide to the future in politics.
The White Paper is clearly of enormous significance. It offers a huge opportunity for the independence argument, but also represents a huge threat to it. The formidable forces of the British Establishment, the monarchy (yes, the monarchy – the Queen has already pinned her colours to the mast), the UK Government, the UK Civil Service, the compliant media and press, the military/industrial complex, the nuclear industry - and shadowy overseas interests - are already preparing their attack plans.
The White Paper will be leaked in part (inevitable, leaving aside the presence of spooks in the Scottish Government!) and will be subject to a dissection and onslaught against it that has rarely, if ever, been seen in British politics.
The Scottish electorate in the main will not read it (how many of you have ever bought or read a white paper?) and will be offered partisan and simplistic headlines, mainly hostile.
The Scottish Government and YES Campaign will be unable to match that in volume and coverage, and won’t want to match it in virulence and misrepresentation.
They will therefore be totally reliant on the brevity, quality and originality of their message, delivered in the main online and through volunteers, and with luck, through the national public service broadcaster - the BBC - if the independence movement can stop trying to alienate and antagonise every last journalist, presenter and programme editor in the entire corporation.
CLOSING – AND HOPE!
There are really only three key questions as a guide to action for the time remaining till the referendum -
1. How many Nos and Don’t knows can be shifted to YES?
2. What are the arguments that will shift them and how can they be focused and targeted on the various demographics and interest groups?
3. How are the frustrated pro-union devo-maxers going to divide, denied their second question and faced with a polarised choice – YES or NO?
What I know to be true is that the vital and dedicated workers on the pavements, in the car parks and public places, at the letter boxes and on the doorsteps - and the less-important but still relevant backroom contributors such as me - are just getting on with spreading the message of independence as best they can to the widest possible audience they can reach.
Tuesday 8 January 2013
Nuclear issues – will we reach critical mass in 2014/2016?
A reprise, with stuff published before, but updated for recent events, e.g. NATO vote at SNP conference.
FACTS – NATO and TRIDENT
1. The entire UK nuclear deterrent - the Trident weapons system, and the nuclear submarines that carry it, together with nuclear-powered submarines that don’t carry it – is based in Scotland.
2. The permission of the Scottish people was never sought for this, but it is supported by all three major London-based unionist parties – Labour, Tory and LibDems. It is opposed by the SNP, the Greens and by the Scottish socialist parties.
3. The SNP has a non-nuclear policy, and is opposed to nuclear weapons. It was also opposed to an independent Scotland being a member of the NATO alliance because NATO is committed to the possession and use of nuclear weapons, and committed to an independent Scotland seeking membership of Partnership for Peace (PfP), a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) program aimed at creating trust between NATO and other states in Europe and the former Soviet Union; 22 states are members.
PfP members in the EU include Austria, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden. Other members are Switzerland, Russia, former Eastern bloc countries and former Yugoslavian states.
This policy was changed at Conference last year by a close-run vote after passionate debate. Two members of the Party resigned after the vote.
THE SNP and NATO: SOME FACTS - and MY PERSPECTIVE
Comparison of Scotland with Norway – a non-nuclear policy country in NATO (as are another 24) are repeatedly made by the SNP and by proponents of nuclear deterrence, but such comparisons are flawed and invalid because Scotland’s situation is unique within NATO, and infinitely more complex in its ramifications. (see blogs passim and further analysis in this blog.)
FACTS – THE REMOVAL OF THE DETERRENT
Step ONE: Deactivation of Trident weapons system – remove triggers and keys, remove certain components of missiles, and take submarines off patrol. Timescale: a few days.
Step TWO: Remove all weapons and store at Coulport. Timescale: approximately eight weeks.
Step THREE: Physically remove weapons from Scotland. Timescale: two years approximately.
Step FOUR: Dismantle weapons at Burghfield Timescale: four years approximately.
N.B. A key international principle of disarmament is the principle of irreversibility. (For example, steps one and two are relatively easily reversible in a short timescale unless special actions are taken to ensure irreversibility.)
These are the necessary immediate steps – the full decommissioning and cleanup of the nuclear facilities of the base are complex, as is the question of the continued use of the base by submarines, both the former missile carrying subs and the nuclear-powered non-missile carrying subs.
SNP, NUCLEAR WEAPONS and NATO ANALYSIS
Most of what I wanted to say – and was able to say, given that I am neither an academic nor a military expert nor a politicians – I have said in these blogs and, vitally, in my replies to comments (which were predominantly in favour of the SNP’s position on NATO). These blogs were mainly in the second half of 2012 – I have blogged many times at earlier dates on NATO.
Alex Salmond, the SNP and NATO - a Faustian bargain?
The SNP, NATO and the end of a dream of a nuclear-free Scotland
Scotland as NATO’s aircraft carrier–Jim Sillar’s shining vision for independence
Nicola Sturgeon on Trident on Question Time, 7th May 2009
More on Scotland and NATO–the Vienna Convention
Scotland’s NATO membership – a deeply flawed concept and a retreat from principle
Truth and transparency in politics – unrealisable ideals or practical necessities?
Sitting on de fence on defence
A nuclear letter over three years ago …
A NEGOTIATOR’S PERSPECTIVE
The Scottish Government’s policy on NATO membership of the Robertson/MacNeil motion was carried and the stated policy of the SNP is now as follow -
“Scotland will inherit its international treaty obligations including those with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and will remain a member, subject to agreement on withdrawal of Trident from Scotland.”
“With agreement on the withdrawal of Trident and retaining the important role of the UN, Scotland can continue working with neighbours and allies within NATO.”
“ … An SNP Government will maintain NATO membership subject to an agreement that Scotland will not host nuclear weapons and NATO continues to respect the right of members only to take part in UN-sanctioned operations. In the absence of such an agreement, Scotland will work with NATO as a member of the Partnership for Peace programme, like Sweden, Finland, Austria and Ireland. …”
Let’s take the first part of that -
Negotiation on the removal of Trident will take place with the UK Government after YES vote in 2014 and before independence day – not with NATO.
So membership of NATO is contingent on two things – prior agreement with UK negotiators on “the withdrawal of Trident” and then a subsequent agreement with NATO “that Scotland will not host nuclear weapons and NATO continues to respect the right of members only to take part in UN-sanctioned operations”.
In other words, after agreement with the UK negotiators on the ‘withdrawal’ of Trident, the SNP Government will graciously ‘maintain NATO membership’, subject to – etc.
As a negotiating position this is on the face of it, naive. It raised horse laughs from the Wee Lord of Islay, George Robertson and the SNP’s political enemies last year, despite the fact that their defence thinking is at least as naive, and compounded by the MOD’s monumental incompetence and corruption, allied to NATO’s deep confusion and uncertainty about their role in the modern world.
In point of fact, any defence-related negotiation on the deterrent will take place with one party on the other side of the table - the UK – but two heavyweights in the backroom, the United States Defence Department and NATO, and no deal will be done that does not have the broad consent of this nuclear trio. The prospect of Philip Hammond, David Cameron and William Hague, three politicians of limited political experience and worse judgement, trying to deal with the hard-eyed men of America and NATO is not one to inspire confidence, especially since a UK general election will take place in May 2015, only six to eight months after the Scottish referendum.
In effect, Scotland’s hopes of getting rid of Trident are inextricably linked to NATO and the United States, and therefore the second part – membership of NATO, etc. must of necessity be a part of the negotiations with the UK. What the SNP objective means in effect is
“We will attempt to destroy NATO UK nuclear capacity, remove its Northern European aircraft carrier, Scotland, then tell NATO the conditions on which we will join, then be welcomed with open arms.”
This entirely begs the question of why the hell NATO would want us in membership under these circumstances. To become the 26th member country, with no power or capacity to influence the NATO Big Three’s nuclear policy or the decision to initiate a nuclear strike without political approval?
(At the moment NATO effectively has been given a political blank cheque by the USA, France and the UK to launch a nuclear strike instantly on the strategic judgement of its command structure, without reference to any of their three elected decision-making bodies – e.g. the House of Commons - but with the token endorsement of their heads – the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of France and the Prime Minister of the UK.)
What will actually happen when the SNP negotiating team, flushed with the success of the 2014 YES vote, actually sits down to prepare its opening position on the nuclear issues?
I can’t answer that, since I have no idea how their team will be structured and how it will be advised, nor how they will define their range of negotiating objectives. So I can only say what could happen, and, tentatively, what should happen from the standpoint of good diplomatic and negotiating practice.
The pre-negotiations analysis is a critical phase in any negotiation. Under certain circumstances, especially if it is done badly, it can become the critical phase.
Over-simplifying, the first steps are to determine negotiating objectives, i.e. the desired outcomes of the negotiation, to prioritise them, to quantify the range of acceptability within the objectives, and to determine which objectives are linked, and how. Clearly defence related matters are interlinked, but defence as a total issue may have critical linkage to other issues, e.g. jobs, environmental matters, investment.
Two key aspects exist in relation to prioritisation of issues – significance and urgency. Issues may be of high significance but low urgency in terms of when the objective or at the other extreme may have high urgency but low significance. As in project planning, sequencing of issues is necessary – achievement of one may be contingent on prior achievement of another.
Let’s try to look at the removal of Trident and NATO membership from a simple perspective -
The achievement of the removal of Trident objective, in the SNP defence paper, must be negotiated with the UK before membership of NATO can be negotiated – that is, if one accepts that it must, or even can be negotiated with NATO.
Both are presented to the SNP membership as deal breakers, i.e. crucial objectives that must be achieved. A nuclear Scotland is a totally unacceptable outcome in the negotiations with the UK. Membership of NATO is unacceptable if, after negotiating a nuclear-free Scotland with the UK, NATO requires Scotland to host nuclear weapons or participate in non-UN sanctioned operations. But all objective, even crucial objectives, have measurable elements defining how acceptable the agreement is on a spectrum of acceptability.
If it is essential, say for example, that I buy a car, there is almost certainly a minimum and maximum price that I will pay. If I must have the car by the end of the month, I may take delivery today or on the last day of the month. I therefore have entry and exit points on price and time.
And so it is with the crucial objective of the removal of Trident after independence – in an ideal world, Trident would vanish the day after independence, painlessly and without any cost to the Scottish people. The reality is more complex, and the SNP’s ‘withdrawal of Trident’ will have to be defined on a spectrum of acceptability on a number of measurable criteria, with an ideal position as entry point and a deal-breaker definition on the same measures as an exit point.
Theoretically the entry point is immediately and the exit point is at some point on a loosely-defined or undefined timescale – a case of now or sometime …
In the magical thinking of many SNP supporters, independence is a magic wand that will conjure away all difficulties, as my correspondents are regular witness to, but realpolitik – and life – just ain’t like that.
The dangers of the spectrum between entry and exit point on the removal of Trident are more or less signalled – defined almost – by the stage shown above -
Step ONE: Deactivation of Trident weapons system – remove triggers and keys, remove certain components of missiles, and take submarines off patrol. Timescale: a few days.
Step TWO: Remove all weapons and store at Coulport. Timescale: approximately eight weeks.
Step THREE: Physically remove weapons from Scotland. Timescale: two years approximately.
Step FOUR: Dismantle weapons at Burghfield Timescale: four years approximately.
Bear in mind these are John Ainslie’s and CND’s estimates (supported by some experts) – but the UK side of the negotiation has very different views, as the loaded questions of the Select Committee MPs demonstrated very clearly. (Whether they actually believe their estimates or not is immaterial – they have a vested interest in inflating them, and in inflating costs and exaggerating difficulties.)
Saturday 5 January 2013
Negotiating issues after a YES vote
The two principal negotiating interfaces will be
1. With the UK Government to agree the processes leading to independence.
2. With the EU to consider the implications of an independent Scotland for Scotland’s EU membership
There will be many other negotiating interfaces, but until the key heads of agreement are reached with UK and EU, they will either be held in abeyance or very tentative in character, since they are in significant part dependent on the outcome of the two primary negotiations.
UK Government negotiations
Two main issues will dominate the negotiating agenda – defence (crucially the nuclear issue), and the division of assets and liabilities.
The two key secondary issues will be a currency union and the status of the Bank of England, and complex administrative issues across a wide range of topics, e.g. pensions, tax, benefits, records.
Classifying the issues as either conflicts of right or conflicts of interest, with the legal dimension (UK law, Scottish law, EU law, international law) of conflict of right issues potentially introducing unacceptable delay factors, will be crucial.
EU membership negotiations
These will focus principally on the Scottish government’s position that Scotland is still a member versus a possible EU view that they must re-apply for membership.
The reality is that independence is a game changer and nothing can be taken for granted, legally or otherwise.
The EU that negotiates after a 2014 YES vote is likely to be a very different EU from its present form (Europe is in near-chaos and a ferment for new possibilities, e.g. much tighter monetary union).
NEGOTIATING – DYNAMICS AND PROCESSES
Negotiating is a technique - one of many - for reaching agreement between parties - force, authority, legal process, joint problem solving, selling, persuasion, etc.
It may be used as part of a portfolio of techniques, and may or may not be the principal technique. It may be used alone.
Broadly, negotiations between parties can by classified as one of five types -
1. Negotiation between independent parties to reach a specific limited, one-off agreement
2. Negotiation between independent parties to create a new relationship for a limited period
3. Negotiations between independent parties to create a new, ongoing open-ended relationship
4. Negotiation between independent parties in an attempt to redefine the terms of an existing relationship
5. Negotiation between parties to bring an existing relationship to an end.
(Another broad distinction can be made in dispute negotiations, that of conflict of right and conflict of interest, that is a dispute over claimed existing rights or an attempt to establish new rights. For example, a dispute over alleged breach of contract is a conflict of right, and a dispute over an attempt to redefine the terms and conditions of a contract e.g. a wage increase, is a conflict of interest.)
The first two types above characterise most commercial negotiations – one-off deals, deals delivered over time, short-term employment contracts, etc.
The last three are the ones that concern us in relations to Scotland’s independence. The Act of Union was type 3, the negotiations over the terms of Scotland’s EU membership will be type 4, and the negotiations over Scotland’s independence will be type 5.
With regard to the EU, type 4 is the one that interests us - negotiation between independent parties in an attempt to redefine the terms of an existing relationship.
LOCKED RELATIONSHIPS
Many type 4 negotiations can be described as locked relationships from a negotiating perspective, that is to say, relationships that are expected to continue over time, and where negotiations that result in deadlock or failure to agree do not threaten the ultimate continuity of the relationship.
The technique falls into broad categories – analysis, structure, strategy and tactics and, crucially, behaviour, i.e. the face-to-face interaction of the negotiators.
Negotiators may be accountable to no one but themselves, that is to say, they are their own Principals and have absolute discretion over their side of the process.
Negotiators may also be accountable to a Principal (or Principals) who are not present at the face-to-face negotiation but who play an intimate role in preparation and strategy formulation and have ultimate authority to ratify or reject deals. In such cases the negotiator is the Agent of the Principal (like the lawyer/client relationship).
In a large organisation – or a democracy – the Principal will be accountable to a wider, larger group or groups – the Board, the shareholders, the employees, the customers and the politician to the Government, the Party and ultimately to the voters.
A negotiator may negotiate alone or as part of a team of negotiators. Negotiating team roles, discipline and behaviour are a crucial determinant of negotiating success.
In multi-element, complex negotiations, a back-up team of experts is a vital resources – lawyers, technical people, finance experts, etc. It is not unusual for complex negotiations to be modelled – i.e. to have computer based simulations and models – and to have complex spreadsheets and algorithms to compute the impact of possible changes.
A negotiation that that will take place in the public eye (government, major company or government terms and conditions bargaining, strikes and industrial action – actual or threatened) requires a sophisticated media strategy, not least because everything said – or not said(!) to media – communicates something to the other side of the negotiating table (whether intended or not).
DISTRIBUTIVE vs INTEGRATIVE BARGAINING IN NEGOTIATION
In zero sum games (Games Theory) what one negotiator gains the other loses and vice versa – a finite pot is divided unequally. This is sometimes called distributive bargaining (Walton & McKersie).
Such negotiations are possible, but are highly stressed, prone to deadlock and breakdown, and any deal reached is perceived as having a winner and a loser, relatively speaking. (The recent Fiscal Cliff negotiations are a good example)
Wherever possible, negotiators should strive to add value for both sides by showing new potential for gains to both sides that do not involve win/lose scenarios – the so-called integrative bargain or win/win scenario.
This demands lateral thinking, vision and creativity.
Tuesday 11 December 2012
Scotland, the EU – and Barroso …
Scotland's independence will create a situation for which there is no real precedent, and no clarity or certainty in European law or EU history. We have the farcical situation that a Tory Party that shows a distinct wish to leave Europe are arguing against Scotland's independence on the basis that the rUK would be in and Scotland out. There is also the fact that a significant number of Scots, including many nationalists, would be delighted to be out of Europe too ...
I have never doubted that one of the many complex questions raised by Scotland's independence would be the terms of its EU membership, and that it would have to be negotiated. Since a YES vote in 2014 does not confer independence, but only fires the starting gun for negotiations to achieve it, the very earliest date for conclusion of the core negotiating issues would be 2016, with the formal independence date well beyond that, during which time both the UK and Scotland/UK membership would still be in force.
Since the incompetent UK parties can't forecast what will happen to the economy and the currency in the next three months, I lose no sleep over Scotland's ultimate membership of the EU in say, 2017, if indeed the EU still exists by then! But if it does, Scotland will be in - the idea of them being out, or being blackballed is risible historically.
First we had the leaked – but never sent – letter, and now we have Barroso's latest public statement
Here's my view, informed and assisted by invaluable help from my Danish friend Troels who is expert in EU law, and keenly interested in an independent Scotland.
Barroso talks of "a part of a country that wants to become an independent state", i.e. analogous to Catalonia (something he's deeply worried about) not a "union state" being dissolved and two successor states emerging. His use of the phrase "a part of a country" indicates that Barroso is rather confused on the history and structure of the United Kingdom.
He seems to perceive "Britain" as a country (like Spain or Portugal) and not as a unitary union state, which it what it is. This is evident from the end the television clip, where he clearly believes that the UK will still exist after Scottish independence like, say, Spain after Catalan independence, or Denmark after Greenlandic independence, where the old state continues to exist, but a part of its territory becomes independent.
In fact, in the case of the UK, it would be the union state dissolving, and at least two successor states emerging, very much akin to Czechoslovakia.
Barroso's view is poles apart from the kind of opinion that the European Court of Justice would give. It is worthy of note that Barroso, speaking for the EU Commission only, offers no legal arguments or references that can be debated or be refuted.
In other words, his statement is self-serving and purely political - a piece of realpolitik gamesmanship. There's a lot of that about - and there will be a lot more of it before 2014. The old order is breaking down, and like all ancien regimes, it doesn't like it.
Thursday 6 December 2012
Friday 27 July 2012
Olympic tweets–flags, propaganda, commercialisation–and sport?
Tweets
Peter Curran The London Olympics are beginning to resemble a North Korean rally. I'm sad for dedicated competitors coerced into UK political propaganda.
Olympic message from BetterTogether to No.10 - Try and create as many Scottish knights as you can if we get any golds. Maybe even Lords?
Olympic message from BetterTogether: Just shut up about attempts to politicise it, wave a Union Jack, cheer the competitors and think Brit!
Do I admire the sportsmen and women in the Olympics? Yes, I do. Do I admire its sordid commercialisation and politicisation? No, I don't ..
The other countries competing in the Olympics are truly countries. TeamGB is not: it is a state conglomerate - 3 countries (2 reluctant) +NI
Ludicrous UK Olympics argument - big countries compete more effectively. Oh, aye? Why not TeamEU, then, or TeamWesternWorld vs WickedEast?
Can the Olympics find any more Scots athletes to festoon with Union Jacks? Has the Olympics become part of the BetterTogether campaign?
The sporting element in the Olympics has been hijacked for commercial interests and 'Britishness' propaganda. The Times is full of it today.
Sunday 20 May 2012
Sunday 15 April 2012
Seven key strengths of Scotland’s economy – SNP response to The Economist
15/04/2012
The Scottish Government today outlined the positive case for independence, highlighting Scotland’s economic strengths.
Scotland’s Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon MSP, highlighted seven key strengths of Scotland’s economy.
1. Overall Wealth: An independent Scotland would be ranked 6th in the OECD in terms of GDP per head, compared to the UK's sixteenth place (in 2010).
2. Oil: There is up to 24 billion barrels remaining in the North Sea. Such a figure equates to a wholesale value of some £1.5 trillion in today's prices.
3. Renewables: Scotland has around 25 percent of Europe’s potential offshore wind and tidal energy, and a tenth of Europe’s wave power potential.
4. Food & Drink: The latest food and drink export figures show exports are at an all time high of £5.4 billion, and growing.
5. Public Finances: In terms of our public finances, Scotland is better off than the UK as a whole to the tune of £510 for every man, women and child in Scotland in the most recent year (2010/11).
6. Education: Scotland has five of the top 200 universities in the world.
7. Inward Investment: Scottish Development International are an award winning agency, with major companies continuing to locate in Scotland.
Ms Sturgeon said:
“Whilst The Economist blundered into the economic debate on Scottish independence, it is clear that Scotland has a strong economy – despite the global recession – and that we have huge potential for further growth and development.
"Scotland today has a highly skilled workforce, an acclaimed record of business investment, a large oil and gas asset base, huge natural resources, including our job-creating green energy industry, and an excellent export record, especially in the food and drink sector.
“There is much to be done to make Scotland even better, but Scotland’s Seven Key Strengths will remind every Scot that our nation is one we can be proud of now, and confident about for the future. While Scotland has a higher rate of employment and lower economic inactivity than the UK as a whole, we need to do more to reduce unemployment and tackle poverty.
"But we know that we have huge potential as a nation – and that with the powers of independence we can do more.”
Related information
FURTHER INFORMATION ON SCOTLAND’S SEVEN KEY STRENGTHS
1. OVERALL WEALTH: RANKED 6TH IN OECD
An independent Scotland would be ranked 6th in the OECD in terms of GDP per head, compared to the UK's sixteenth place (in 2010).
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0039/00390896.pdf
2. OIL: NORTH SEA RESERVES WORTH £1.5 TRILLION
Oil and Gas UK estimate that the North Sea has up to 24 billion barrels of oil remaining. Such a figure could equate to a potential wholesale value of nearly £1.5 trillion in today's prices suggesting more than half the economic value of the North Sea's reserves have still to be extracted
In January, a leading industry player Wood Mackenzie published a report showing that in 2011 capital investment in North Sea Oil was £7.5 billion – the highest ever. It is expected to stay high with £2 billion being invested in the West of Shetland field alone in 2012.
3. RENEWABLES: HUGE POTENTIAL FOR FURTHER GROWTH
Scotland’s natural energy resources are not restricted to oil and gas. We have around 25% of Europe’s potential offshore wind and tidal energy, and a tenth of Europe’s wave power potential.
An extra 45% of renewable energy was generated in Scotland last year according to the latest figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change – meaning that around 35% of Scotland’s electricity needs came from renewables in 2011 – surpassing the Scottish Government target of 31%. The Scottish Government aims to generate the equivalent of 100% of Scotland’s electricity from renewables by 2020.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Statistics/source/renewables/et6_1.xls
4. FOOD & DRINK: EXPORTS AT ALL TIME HIGH
The latest food and drink export figures, published last month, show exports are at an all time high of £5.4 billion, and growing.
Our top food and drink exports markets were France (up 18 per cent to £825m) and USA (30 per cent increase £726m). Strong growth was achieved in Asia, with 44 per cent increases in both Singapore (£319m) and China (92m).
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2012/03/foodanddrinkexports270312
5. PUBLIC FINANCES: £510 BETTER OFF PER HEAD
In terms of our public finances, in 2010/11 Scotland was in a stronger fiscal position relative to the UK as a whole by £2.7 billion, according to the latest Government Expenditure Revenue Scotland (GERS) report.
The equates to Scotland being better off than the UK as a whole to the tune of £510 for every man, women and child in Scotland in the most recent year (2010/11).
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/03/9525
6. EDUCATION: SCOTS UNIVERSITIES AMONGST BEST IN THE WORLD
Scotland has 5 of the top 200 universities in the world, all of which are benefitting from unprecedented funding. We therefore produce some of the best graduates in the world to support economic success.
The Scottish Government is providing an unprecedented number of modern apprenticeships tailored to business needs as part of its Opportunities for All initiative guaranteeing a learning or training opportunity for all 16-19 year olds in Scotland not already in work. We are delivering a record 25,000 Modern Apprentices this year and in each year of this parliament.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-16532440
7. INWARD INVESTMENT: AWARD WINNING SUCCESS
Scottish Development International are judged one of the most successful international development agencies in the world.
Scotland’s inward investment record punches above its weight in international markets. Our foreign direct investment agency is independently recognised as one of the most successful in the world with the most recent Ernst & Young UK Attractiveness Survey, highlighting Scotland’s leading position in the UK for job creation from international investment.
http://www.sdi.co.uk/about-sdi/who-we-are.aspx
Most recently, Gamesa announced last month a £125m investment creating 800 new jobs in renewable energy at Leith in Edinburgh, rather than Hartlepool.
In addition, leading international companies such as Scottish Power, Samsung Heavy Industries, Glaxosmithkline, Amazon, Avaloq, Dell, Gamesa, BNY Mellon, State Street and Mitsubishi Power Systems have all recently announced significant investments demonstrating confidence in Scotland.
Wednesday 4 April 2012
The UK political establishment – an arse with three cheeks? Coalition plus fake Labour Opposition? George Galloway thinks so …
Last night’s Newsnight addressed some vital questions about the giant rotten borough that the United Kingdom has now become, using as a springboard for the discussion the fact of George Galloway’s bombshell victory in Bradford, which caught Labour, the Coalition and the Westminster Village media pundits by surprise.
Jeremy Paxman had as his guests George Galloway, Will Self, Diane Abbott and Mark Field. The programme centred around Galloway and Will Self – Abbott and Young effortlessly demonstrated the utter irrelevance of Her Majesty’s Coalition Government and Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to the reality of life in this Disunited Kingdom.
There was no LibDem, since they now don’t matter in any real sense, although Will Self oddly seemed to be representing a kind of LibDemmery – “I voted for them – I wouldn’t say I backed them!”.
Diane Abbott, probably a rich woman now from her long, cosy occupancy of a well-paid media sofa with Michael Portillo on the Andrew Neil show, still fancies that she somehow represents the ordinary people of England in these desperate economically and socially challenging times, living in that strange fantasy political dreamland inhabited by other rich Labour people. Mark Field effortlessly epitomised the other party of privilege, private education and wealth, oozing the easy charm that cloaks the brutal realpolitik of the Tory Party.
I have edited both of them out from my first clip selection: nothing they said mattered – they were the straight men, so to speak in the harsh social comedy duos of the stand-up comics, Galloway and Self, there as foils for the main action. (The full clip follows below.)
The discussion had a delightful opening sequence. Paxman, after a measured and calm introduction, then went for George Galloway in his normal, simplistic attack mode, which relies on politicians being polite and submissive in response, and relying on the advice their image consultants and spin doctors careful crafted for them, which of course results in them being eaten alive.
Interviewees who rely on their own experience, intellect and force of character therefore come as a rude shock to Paxman – one recalls our own First Minister, Alex Salmond reacting with tolerant amusement before demolishing Paxo, and I remember one Welsh academic who ate him alive some years ago by not playing his game.
Having floored Paxman and kicked him around the canvas a bit to demonstrate who was boss, George Galloway then made some vitally important observations, prompted by Will Self’s rather despairing but accurate analysis of the limits of Galloway’s real influence on the political process.
I would summarise the core of the discussion as follows -
Conventional three-party politics are breaking down in the UK, driven by distrust in UK political institutions caused by scandals on expenses, banking, cash for access, cronyism, corruption in the media and police and the manifest economic, foreign policy and social incompetence of two successive governments.
The growth of alternative forms of direct political action – “new ways of doing politics that don’t involve the political parties” - in the form of demonstrations, alternative media groups and campaigning organisations such as 38 Degrees.
The gross inequalities in UK society, and the actions of successive governments that have widened them, rather than narrowed or eliminated them, coupled with active discrimination against the most vulnerable in UK society, and discrimination in favour of wealth and privilege.
The limitations and relative powerlessness of such groups to influence really big issues and legislation, still dominated and controlled by the Parliamentary system and the three big parties plus the unelected House of Lords.
Both Jeremy Paxman and Will Self – albeit driven by very different motives – forced George Galloway to acknowledge what his limitations had been - and would be - in the Parliamentary system. He was compelled to defend his low voting record in his previous incarnation as an MP for Bethnal Green, in the opening acrimonious exchange with Paxo, by acknowledging that his vote wouldn’t have mattered, and to admit to Will Self that the same would essentially apply to his new position as Bradford MP.
Will Self referred to the phenomenon of political clan politics in Bradford – Bradree or Braduree, as good old Tammany-style politics, then telling said that there was a Braduree system operating at UK level – the political class offering sinecures in a closed loop. Galloway’s response referred to a parallel universe of privilege, wealth and private education, using the affable Mark Field as his example, saying he “might be from Mars to the streets of Manningham”. He defended himself against accusations of ethnic politics by citing the fact that the University ward of Bradford West - ethnically diverse and reacting to real issues rather than ethnic politics - had voted for him. But, asked by Self how he was going to reverse the policies, he said he could not reverse them but would “speak out” for his constituents. Will Self’s gentle rejoinder was that he would essentially be “sideswiping” Parliamentary politics as a lone MP.
Voices crying in the wilderness do matter, but only democratic politics changes things – that’s my firm view. One has only to look at CND, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, now just past the 54th anniversary of its founding. It pains me to say it – and others feel strongly that I shouldn’t say it – that despite the huge efforts and personal sacrifice of thousands of people, often at the price of their safety and liberty over half a century, CND has achieved essentially nothing, in terms of its core aim – nuclear disarmament.
Each of the three major UK parties remain committed to WMDs, to Trident and the so-called ‘independent’ nuclear deterrent as a central plank of NATO.
The UK and the world has remained at risk of nuclear Armageddon since the start of the atomic age on 6th August 1945 – just after my tenth birthday – when the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, followed three days later by the Nagasaki bomb, indiscriminately killing, burning and maiming hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children and leaving a lethal legacy for many more.
In contrast, the independence of Scotland will achieve unilateral nuclear disarmament for Scotland, and may well force the reluctant rump of the former United Kingdom into abandoning their nuclear folly. This can only result in a reduction of nuclear tensions globally, and may well serve as a beacon of sense to the rest of the world.
This, when it is achieved – as it must be achieved, and will be achieved – will have been achieved by the ballot box, by the will of the Scottish electorate engaged in democratic politics and by the Scottish National Party.
(It is worth noting that Scotland and the Scottish National Party’s massive victory were treated as a footnote in the analysis offered by this programme.)
Galloway, a flawed, brilliant populist politician, a formidable orator, albeit one who has dissipated his talents, perhaps a bit of a political carpetbagger, nonetheless has his heart in the right place, and has the right human, international values.
He summed up the political system of the UK in his own inimitable way as an arse with three cheeks – The Tories, the LibDems and the Labour Party.
But it should be remembered that Galloway very recently was prepared to stand for election to become a pimple on one of those cheeks – the Labour Party in Holyrood.
Friday 2 March 2012
Saturday 11 February 2012
The Holyrood Budget - Labour arithmetic 2+2=5
John Swinney responds to Tory and Labour demands for budget changes demanded without their offering any idea about where the money could come from - except for Jackie Baillie's ludicrous suggestion that the cost of the referendum (£10m) could pay for them.
The Finance Minister has plaudits for Willie Rennie's responsible approach, and brickbats for Labour and the Tories. The Scottish Labour Party has learned nothing from their repetition of their blind opposition during the 2007/2011 Holyrood term. Then they managed - in conjunction with the LibDems and the Tories - to block major items of legislation that would have benefited Scotland, e.g. minimum pricing for alcohol.
As a result of that, the Scottish electorate gave a resounding and historic mandate to the SNP, an outcome that Scottish Labour has still failed to understand. But they can no longer mindlessly block budgets, or anything else. If only the Scottish Tories and Scottish Labour could have been big enough to grasp the olive branch held out to them by the SNP - the manifest willingness of the Scottish Government to work for consensus in the Parliament, despite their majority.
But that would have required a political approach from Labour and Tories that rose above political expediency - and a grasp of basic arithmetic ...
Friday 13 January 2012
Douglas Alexander and Dimbleby gang up on Nicola Sturgeon on Question Time
Douglas Alexander rejects "A politics of grudge and grievance." Judge for yourselves from this clip who is engaged in such a policy, entirely representative of the entire programme, where all the panellists, including the Chairman, David Dimbleby, were ranged against Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy First Minister of Scotland, who acquitted herself with dignity in spite of the contemptible and bullying tone of the programme..
Lord Ashdown was the epitome of grandiose and vacuous British imperial pomposity, and was therefore given extended licence to pontificate by Dimbleby. It is deeply ironic, yet highly significant that the only member of the panel who was seen to extend reasonable courtesy to the lone representative - yes, I repeat, the lone representative of Scotland's interests, was Kelvin McKenzie.
For the benefit of Douglas Alexander, I repeat and endorse Joan McAlpine's comments - the behaviour of the three opposition parties, on full display at the Commons debate on the referendum, was a shameful example of Parliamentary bullying, and their opposition to the Scottish Government being allowed to carry out its mandate to call a referendum and hear the voice of the Scottish people is an attack on Scotland's interests and does betray a lack of concern for Scotland.
To my surprise, Michael Moore was the only member of the combined Tory, LibDem and Labour parties to come out of that debate with some credibility. I actually think he was embarrassed by the behaviour of his allies in their mob tactics against the Scottish nationalist group.
Saturday 17 December 2011
An open letter to Johann Lamont
Dear Johann Lamont,
Congratulations on winning the leadership of your party in Scotland. I hope that your win gives you a clear mandate among all Scottish Labour supporters, and that it is perceived as a valid mandate to lead the main opposition to my party, the SNP, who received a very clear mandate to govern Scotland last May. It is vital that your mandate is seen in this way not only by Labour supporters but by the Scottish Government, by the SNP, by the other opposition parties and by the Scottish electorate.
The only way to ensure this is to publish as soon as possible the full, detailed breakdown of the votes cast in the leadership election, in the interests of transparency in Scottish politics. (I am confident that you will wish to do so, indeed, by the time this blog comes up, you may already have done so.)
I listened to your acceptance speech closely, because as a committed SNP supporter, voter and party member, I believe that the existence of an effective opposition in any Parliament is vital to democracy. I was a Labour supporter for most of my life, and I will never return to Labour because of the depth of the betrayal of all my hopes and expectations over decades by the Labour Party as constituted up until this election.
But I do believe that you, and at least some in the Scottish Labour Party want to make a new beginning and to place the interests of Scotland first. You outlined in your acceptance speech a vision statement for Scotland. Few Scots of any party would disagree with the bulk of its content, and for that reason, it could have been made by any party leader, at any time, in almost any country.
I don’t want to appear to suggest that it was an empty ‘motherhood and apple pie’ statement – I do believe that you are committed to these ideals and broad objectives, and so am I. And I am delighted that you and Scottish Labour appear to have rediscovered your Scottishness.
But given this consensus on what we all want for Scotland, it is evident that what gives our respective parties their identity is the means by which these objectives are to be achieved. If my memory serves me accurately, you and other members of the Labour Party have accused the SNP of stealing your vision. That was unfair and inaccurate – we have closely similar visions because we are both social democratic parties, committed to a strong, effective public sector and a vibrant, entrepreneurial private sector.
In a certain kind of Scotland, the SNP and the Labour Party could recognise a shared vision while differing vigorously on key aspects of achieving that vision. We both recognise that the Tory vision as presently exhibited in all its uncaring, incompetent awfulness, is inimical to the interests of Scotland, and indeed the peoples of the UK. The LibDem vision has been badly – perhaps fatally – compromised by their poisoned and supine alliance with the Tories in Coalition.
But there is a great yawning gulf between your vision as outlined today and the Scottish National Party’s vision, and that gulf is created by your commitment to keeping Scotland in the United Kingdom. At this moment, this profoundly mistaken policy – the only real one you have at the moment – is main barrier to your achievement of Labour’s new Scottish vision.
The reasons for this are plain to see, and the Scottish electorate understood them plainly last May, and voted accordingly. I accept that not all of that vote was a vote for Scotland's independence, but it was decisively a vote for Scotland holding all the economic levers necessary to transform Scotland, indeed the the pressing need at the moment is to have them to enable Scotland to survive the cold, cold global wind that is blowing.
But there are other great barriers between us while you and Scottish Labour are committed to the UK – they are nuclear weapons, i.e. weapons of mass destruction, foreign policy and the unelected, undemocratic House of Lords, now perceived by many Scots as the lucrative bolthole for failed politicians, including Scottish Labour politicians.
While Scottish Labour is committed to the UK, it will be seen by many Scots as the party that supports illegal or dubious wars that kill the flower of our young servicemen and women, the party that is committed to ruinously expensive WMDs that endanger Scotland by their presence - and pose an ever-present threat to world peace - and the party that is committed to the undemocratic House of Lords, whatever hollow statements about reform, never acted upon, may say.
A great watershed in Scotland’s history is approaching – the referendum on Scotland’s independence – a pivotal moment in our history that will shape Scotland and the other three countries of the UK for a generation and perhaps for ever.
As we approach that fateful day, it is vital that all parties with a core shared vision for the people of Scotland approach the great debate that will be continuously conducted from now on with objectivity, with facts, with some degree of mutual respect, with the common objective of allowing the Scottish electorate all the information they need to make their great choice.
That need not – and will not – inhibit vigour in debate, but if we can draw on the great intellectual political and social traditions that have always characterised Scots and Scotland, we can offer Scottish voters a real, rational choice.
I wish you and your party well in this new and critical era. I cannot of course wish you electoral success in local elections next year, nor in the referendum when it comes.
from one Weegie tae another – awra’ best,
Peter Curran
Scottish Labour Leadership Results
December 17, 2011 2:59 pm
Leadership result:
Deputy Leadership result:
Tuesday 6 December 2011
Last chance saloon for Scottish Labour leadership candidates–Newsnicht
Here they are for the last throw of the die - those who would lead Scottish Labour. A policy and ideas vacuum.
But of the three, it is clear that Ken Macintosh, on this showing, is the most intellectually able and articulate. If only he had something to say ...
Johann Lamont repeats her mantra of "better life chances for children". Who does she think was in power in Scotland for 50 years or so before 1997. Who was in power in the UK for 13 of the last fourteen years? Why, Labour of course! Who then destroyed their life chances in the first place?
Nobody asked that question, although a couple of questioners came close. Not even the redoubtable Raymond Buchanan, who was otherwise excellent and incisive, asked it.
AN EDIT
FULL CLIPS
Monday 5 December 2011
Attitudes to independence – ScotCen and the economy
The September 2011 figures are out today on attitudes to independence from the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey conducted by ScotCen, part of the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen).
Here’s the Guardian’s report Scots back independence – but at a price
And here's a trailer to tomorrow's Guardian - Look north, Scotland
The Herald carries a picture above the statistics of Michael Moore, who looks as if he had just been performing a strange dance – or even a strange act - with three other people who have suddenly been removed – probably David Mundel, Margaret Curran and Willie Bain, the Anti-Scotland Coalition.
As with all polls, the advocates for opposing sides rush in where angels fear to tread to offer their partisan interpretation of the figures, and lofty, disinterested academics lay claim to a dispassionate analysis. I am not always easily persuaded that those claiming heroic objectivity truly are objective: there are quite a few Scottish academics around who are anything but objective, not to mention one or two captains of industry, and it is true that an expert can usually be found to say whatever those seeking his or her services wish to be said, e.g. experts called as ‘objective’ trial witnesses for a fat fee.
However, over the years, there is at least one Scottish expert that I trust and that is Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University, who is also a consultant for ScotCen. He gives his objective view of the figures, one with which I don’t quarrel. It is that the appetite for a more powerful Scottish Parliament and for independence has grown in the last year, but it is still no higher than it has been on previous occasions since devolution, and the SNP has a long way to go before the referendum to persuade the electorate to vote for independence.
I will try to avoid the selective juggling with figures that goes after the publication of poll results, and simply focus on the three key facts, as I see them -
32% of those polled want full independence. So did 32% of Scots in 2004, and in 2005, 35% of Scots wanted out of the UK. Since devolution (1999) the figures have fluctuated narrowly around a low of 23% a year ago to the 2005 high of 35%.
58% of those polled want to stay in the UK with devolved powers to Scotland. Last year it was 61%. Since 1999, the figures have ranged from 44% in 2005 to that 61% figure last year.
Money matters – support for independence changes radically if voters believe they will be in pocket or out of pocket.
The poll has been properly conducted by a reputable organisation of integrity, and its sampling procedures and methodology are sound. (The sample size is significantly lower this time than in every previous years, under 1200 as compared with the 1500/1600 of all previous years.)
Repeating the core conclusion -
The support for a fully independent Scotland has increased since the same poll last year,
The support for continued membership of the UK and for devolution has fallen since last year.
Economic perceptions matter a helluva lot.
SOME MORE OBSERVATIONS
Over the last 12 years, somewhere between a quarter and a third of Scottish voters polled wanted full independence.
Over the last 12 years, somewhere between half and 60% of Scottish voters want to stay in the UK and have a devolved Parliament.
Those who want to go back to pre-devolution status and remain in the UK are in the minority, say around one in ten
The don’t knows are about one in twenty.
Something odd happened to preferences around 2004 and 2005, and anybody who claims to know why is engaging in speculation.
Some unknown factor or factors are at work when one tries to relate the figures to the election of a nationalist minority government in 2007 and the return of that government with a massive majority in 2010.
If this poll is predictive of how Scotland will vote in the referendum, the outcome would not be full independence.
Neither unionists nor nationalists can take unalloyed comfort from these figures.
THE BACKGROUND TO THE POLLS
The decade and a bit since devolution has been one of the most unpredictable periods in recent history, not just in the UK, but in Europe and globally.
Devolution, a radical enough event in its own right, designed by the Labour Party, still at their power peak after their landslide UK victory, to kill Scottish nationalism dead, failed in that primary objective, as forecast by the the likes of Michael Forsyth and Tam Dalziel.
On the 9th of September 2001, a single catastrophic event changed the nature of global politics, and led to the invasion of Afghanistan.
In 2003, the US and the UK launched an illegal war against Iraq, supported by an uneasy coalition of other nations.
In 2005, Tony Blair was returned as Prime Minister with Labour holding 355 MPs but with a popular vote of 35.2%, the lowest of any majority government in British history. (His popularity had been in decline even before the disastrous Iraq War.) Blair resigned in the same year, and Gordon Brown became Prime Minister.
In May 2007, the first ever Scottish Nationalist Government was elected by the Scottish electorate.
In 2008, the global financial and banking system went into near-meltdown, and catastrophe was narrowly averted by massive borrowing and effective nationalisation of some of the UK banks.
In May 2009, the UK Government and the UK Establishment finally failed in its long legal battle to prevent the British people knowing the truth about MPs – a blocking action led by the Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, a Scottish Labour MP - and the initial sordid facts of its investigation into MPs' expenses were published by The Telegraph, including claims by the Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw that they were forced to repay. The Speaker resigned in disgrace, and criminal prosecutions followed against MPs and members of the House of Lords, resulting in imprisonment in some cases.
In May 2010, a UK general election outcome created the potential of a hung Parliament, the radical difference between the voting patterns of Scotland and the rest of the UK became even more starkly apparent, with Scotland returning only one Tory MP. A Tory-led Coalition Government was hastily formed after John Reid, a Labour peer and others deliberately wrecked the possibility of a Rainbow Coalition involving Labour, the LibDems and the nationalist parties.
In May 2011, the Scottish electorate returned Alex Salmond and the SNP Government for a second term with a massive majority.
In England, serious criminal rioting that started in London spread to other English cities, but not to Scotland.
As of this moment, there is another European and global economic crisis that carries even greater dangers of economic meltdown than the 2008 crisis.
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
All of the above is the context in which the Scottish peoples views on independence were canvassed. The Scottish electorate is one of the most sophisticated in the world. Having been betrayed by UK politicians, betrayed by Scottish Labour politicians and betrayed by the Liberal Democrats, they see a Tory-led government that they didn’t vote for attacking their living standards.
Sophisticated or not, they can be forgiven for being confused, and for feeling that no expert, media pundit or politician can be wholly trusted. But despite that, they made a massive act of trust in trusting the SNP, a party unequivocally committed to independence with their future for what will be five unpredictable and turbulent years. They also consciously and deliberately punished the Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish LibDems for their betrayal of their hopes. They never trusted the Tory Party anyway, and never will again.
Anyone who tries to confidently explain the narrow fluctuations in the support for independence in polls over 12 years such as these is either a fool or a charlatan.
But the latest poll seems to confirm this– it’s the economy, stupid! It won’t be Braveheart politics or nostalgia for an imagined vanished golden age that determines how people will vote in the referendum, nor will it be intellectual and emotional commitment to the principle of independence – it will be their perception of which party has their economic and social interests at heart, can protect jobs and incomes and has the competence and the resolve to shield them from the global storm that is raging around them.
But can such a question as the independence of the nation really hinge on whether the voter is £10 a week better off or £10 a week worse off? I hae ma doots on that one – answering a simplistically loaded survey question is one thing – making the huge leap to freedom is a much bigger question. I believe the majority of Scots will decide based on a more complex argument than a tenner either way, even though the real difference between a YES or a NO might be £20 – not inconsiderable to many, and to a working family, £40 a week or more.
Since voters will be subjected to a barrage of contradictory statistics, whose version will they believe?
Will they gamble their future and that of their children and grandchildren on a crude monetary criterion? The demonstrably economically incompetent Labour, Tory and LibDem parties, or the party in which they placed their trust in May 2011?
In uncertain times, people have an instinct to “keep a hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse” (Hilaire Belloc). But when they look at Nurse UK, they see something that all their instincts now tell them does not have their interests or Scotland’s at heart. Yet before they let go of that clammy embrace for ever, they will have to be certain that the new hand that they clasp will guide them through the storm.
The SNP has a window of somewhere over two years and a lot less than four to give the Scottish electorate the confidence they need to take that decisive step into an unpredictable, but exciting future.
The Scottish electorate will vote in the referendum as if their life depended on its outcome - because it does …
Posts
