346 days to go - Scotland the Brave or Scotland the Feart?

346 days to go to decide if we’re Scotland the Brave or Scotland the Feart – independent for ever or cap-in-hand dependent on UK’s grace and favour, and shamed in the eyes of the world.

HTTP://COUNTINGDOWNTO.COM

Scotland – the Invisible Country (from the perspective of BBC Daily Politics and UK educational Establishment)

There is only one Daily Politics programme on BBC, and it purports to address the whole of the UK.

There is a Sunday Politics and a Sunday Politics Scotland, from the same Andrew Neil stable, and there is a Newsnight and a Newsnight Scotland, to the all-too evident frustration of Jeremy Paxman.

Under normal circumstance, one would therefore expect the Daily Politics to reflect Scottish affairs regularly, in proportion to population at least, and to pick up on Scottish stories of special interest to Scotland and the UK as a whole. After all, the first B in BBC stands for British Broadcasting Corporation!

But we are most certainly not in normal circumstance – we are living in perhaps a uniquely challenging period of history for the integrity of Britain - i.e. UK  - as a political entity. Scotland is 348 days away from a referendum that will determine, not only the future of Scotland but of the United Kingdom, and which will have major implications for the EU, for Scandinavia and for US/UK NATO strategy.

A YES vote will effectively end UK, the British Empire and quite possibly spell the end of the UK nuclear deterrent.

THE DAILY POLITICS 4th October 2013

Today’s Daily Politics addressed the impact of tuition fees on UK universities and students. I repeat - on UK universities and students.

This was evidenced by the presence of Dr. Wendy Piatt of The Russell Group (“Our universities are to be found in all four nations and in every major city of the UK”), Nicola Dandridge of Universities UK (“Universities UK has offices in Edinburgh (Universities Scotland”) and Toni Pearce of the National Union of Students (“We are a confederation of 600 students' unions, amounting to more than 95% of all higher and further education unions in the UK”)

One of the great policy divides, reflecting widely different social values and priorities of two nations growing increasingly further apart – Scotland and England – is tuition fees and education policy.

1. There are no tuition fees in Scotland.

2. There will be no tuition fees in a devolved Scotland while the SNP is in government.

3. It is almost a negligible possibility that there could ever be tuition fees in an independent Scotland, regardless of which party or coalition governed. (The likelihood of a Tory Government regaining power in independent Scotland with a policy of tuition fees is zero.)

4. Free education in Scotland poses major problems for the UK Government and impacts on the EU and the world – the world comes to Scotland to be educated.

Despite this, the Daily Politics managed an entire 14 minutes discussion, (preceded by a report) chaired by Jo Coburn, without once mentioning Scotland (except for a fleeting mention of “their English members” at  1m30s mark) despite the presence of three representatives whose organisations and roles purport to have a UK-wide remit, and who have Scottish universities and students as members.

There are only two credible explanations for this extraordinary omission -

The BBC, the Daily Politics - and the participants and organisations they represent - regard Scotland as a marginal region somewhere north of the Watford gap which merits no real attention whatsoever.

or

To discuss the reality of the situation would have pointed up one important aspect of the widening gulf between Scotland and England and would have assisted the cause of a YES vote.

If this is the contempt in which Scotland is held before the 2014 referendum, one can imagine all to clearly the utter contempt in which it would be held after a  No vote.

Vote Yes for Scotland!

A couple of my comments on scotland-us.com

COMMENT ONE

The oft-repeated statement that there is a lack of information about independence, when it is not politically motivated, often comes from those who have made no real effort to find it, or prefer to ignore it when confronted with it.

There is more information about the independence choice available than has ever been available to electors and business in any political decision taken in centuries. Many calling for information are in fact seeking certainties about aspects of legislation, finance and banking that are not available in the UK as presently constituted, in a time of unprecedented global economic and social turmoil, never mind in 2016, after eighteen months of complex and wide-ranging negotiation between Scotland and rUK.

Leaving aside the fact that is obvious to professional negotiators such as myself, namely that the opposing parties in the referendum debate are not going to blow their respective strategies in advance of the Referendum vote in 2014 and before sitting round the table, the UK Government and notably the Ministry of Defence seem to be in a state of denial about the realities facing them if Scotland votes YES. They are terrified that an adult dialogue of key issues might imply acceptance of Scotland as an independent state with diplomatic autonomy.

The Scottish Government White Paper, due in late Oct/Nov will set out a clear prospectus for an independent Scotland, and will be met a massive hostile response from the full resources of the UK civil service and defence apparatus. Meanwhile, across Scotland, more and more ordinary Scots voters are informing themselves, with the help of complex online networks, active groups covering every profession, ethnic group and the Arts, and a countrywide series of events mounted by YES Scotland.

No electorate has ever been better informed, and by the end of the campaign, the Scottish electorate will be one of the most sophisticated in the world.

Unless some businesses break out of their complacent status quo bubble, they will find themselves competitively disadvantaged in the new reality of independent Scotland and rUK.

I have spent my life in business, working for multi-national companies both in senior management and as an external consultant. Much of what is said by the C.B.I. Scotland is partisan political posturing on behalf of that lazy – and unrepresentative – status quo, and is seen as such by the key movers and shakers in Scotland and internationally.

COMMENT TWO

Ruth Davidson says “Alex Salmond doesn’t speak for a majority of Scots. In fact, he never has..” Alex Salmond speaks for all Scots because he was democratically elected with an overall majority in 2011 to do just that.

In 1997, Scotland was a Tory-free zone as far as Westminster MPs: now they have one – just one – MP. That was in part because Scottish Tories opposed devolution and a Scottish Parliament with ever fibre of their being.

Since 1945, Scottish Tories have only returned more MPs to Westminster than Labour once, in 1955 – 36 to 34, with the number declining inexorably since. Since then, the number of Tory MPs has steadily declined to its present parlous state of one MP.

Only once, in 1955 have they had a majority share of the Westminster vote – 50.1%. Despite Scotland voting for a Labour Government in every general election since 1945, with the exception of 1955 – Scotland has only had the UK/Westminster government it voted for in a minority of general elections.

Scotland elected its first SNP devolved Government in 2007 and in 2011 returned them with a massive majority – an overall majority of seats. Only proportional representation gives the Tories any real presence in the Scottish Parliament.

The Tories are almost moribund as a party in Scotland, yet Tory Governments in the UK destroyed Scottish industry and piloted the hated Poll Tax in Scotland, and are now engaged in an assault on the poor and vulnerable in Scotland. Scottish oil revenues since 1979 saved the Thatcher Government and the English economy, and bankrolled three foreign wars – Falklands, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ruth Davidson is accurate in one respect only – the Tories are the only party to have had a majority share of the Westminster vote in Scotland. That was 58 years ago. Since then, the Scottish electorate have seen through the Tories, but the structure of UK has prevented them from acting on it to dump them.

Only full independence for Scotland in 2016 will end this democratic deficit between two nations, and Scots will vote for that in 2014.

One year to go – Scotland the Brave or Scotland the Feart?

 

BBC Five Live independence debate – Glasgow 16th September 2013

A lively, sometime raw and raucous but passionate and illuminating debate, with useful insights into the minds of the Scottish electorate. Congratulations, Five Live!

Don’t knows and the Devo More or Devo Zero question are the twin keys to YES

  

The Black Ink Art of Spin by Headline – or is it just about selling papers?

I take a keen interest in media, especially print media. I am one of a dying breed – a newspaper subscriber (the the Herald/Sunday Herald) – and I believe a free press is vital to a functioning democracy. Print media may not matter as much as it once did to political campaigns (some would argue that it never has!) but despite apparently inexorably declining circulation figures, it still matters to many, and it definitely matters during the one year run-up to the Referendum.

I am not a journalist, and have no direct experience of what goes on in a newsroom, except that gleaned from news, drama, films and television, but I have some experience in my industrial career of news management – or attempts at it – by major companies and organisations, usually through journalists in their PR departments who did have inside knowledge.

My views, for what they are worth on newsroom and newspaper values and objectives (and to some extent television) can be condensed into the following core beliefs -

1. The first duty of a newspaper is to sell newspapers, just as the first duty of a politician is to get elected, and the first duty of a manager to get appointed. None of the higher, more noble objectives can be pursued, none of the key values can be expressed, nothing can be achieved until the power to pursue and achieve them has been secured, and that position, that power is always under threat.

(Many supporters of independence – I won’t speak for the other side – seem largely oblivious to these simple facts.)

2.  Journalists, editors and newspaper staff don’t own the newspapers that employ them, at least in traditional print media. They are either salaried employees or freelances, they have to earn a living, and to earn a living they have to get their work published or carry out editorial functions, etc.

3. Those who have the resources to establish newspapers, or buy existing newspapers  must have one thing only - money.

They may not be journalists, they may have no media experience of any kind, nor are they required to have political values, ethical values or a political viewpoint. All that is required of them is that they conform to the law of the land, and as we have seen recently, they don’t always do that.

As proprietors, they may or may not try to exercise influence over editorial freedom, they may or may not espouse a particular political or social viewpoint.  Examples of both extremes of involvement exist, and just about every point on the spectrum between them. Editors must make their own decisions when they accept a post where their editorial freedom is or might be constrained.

4. Exceptions or at least partial exceptions to the above are the Guardian Media Group, and the BBC – a public service broadcaster.

5. Journalists, salaried or freelance, must accept the right of the editor to alter their copy.

Whether they challenge this or not depends on the reasons advanced for the edit, and their professional judgment as to whether it distorts what they want to say, and a realistic assessment of the likelihood of being published if they do. The journalist who constantly disputes an editor’s decisions is likely to have to find another newspaper – or maybe another job.

6. A journalist and by extension a newspaper, owes a duty to the readers, to truth as they see it, to objectivity and to facts – and to the society of which they are a part.

That does not mean impartiality, or that elusive and usually unattainable concept of balance. Journalists and newspapers have the right to espouse causes, to take a political stance.  Where would the balance have been in reporting the holocaust, had the information been available at the time had we not been at war? Would Hitler and Himmler have been given equal space and airtime? The distinguished journalist John Pilger would have been shocked had he been accused of ‘balance’ in some of his most famous reports.

HOW THE NEWS IS PRESENTED

Certain facts seem evident to me as a reader and a voter, despite my lack of direct newsroom experience.

From all their sources of information, newspaper editors must decide what stories to run, their relative significance and how they will be presented.

In the ideal world that many independence supporters aspire to – understandably, since they are trying to create a better Scotland that more closely approximates their ideals – there would be rigorous fact checking, an attempt to ensure that all viewpoints are equally reflected (the elusive balance), news would be presented as news, and opinion would be separately reflected as comment. Stories would be presented in accordance with their relative significance, i.e. big, significant stories would make the headlines and the inside spreads, and lesser stories be given fewer column inches and humbler placement.

At the highest level of the Fourth Estate, this ideal is sometimes approached, but rarely completely achieved. The Financial Times, for instance, deals with the hard business of business and finance, and charges a premium price to its mainly well-heeled readers for presenting fully-researched news, data, information and informed opinion.

The Guardian, run by a trust, has a long honourable record dating back to its days as The Manchester Guardian – a newspaper avowedly of the Left, but committed to telling truth to power, investigative journalism of a high order. The Times, a paper of the right (though it might argue that it isn’t) has high journalistic standards and is rarely cavalier with facts. And there are other honourable examples among the broadsheets and the regional press. The less said about the Telegraph under the Barclay Brothers proprietorship the better.

NEWS STORIES: SELECTION, SIGNIFICANCE, PLACEMENT, HEADLINES

Here’s Hollywood’s version of a legendary editor, Ben Bradley of The Washington Post, discussing the embryo Watergate story. Hollywood hokum? In part, yes, but based on the real story as told by the reporters, so probably accurate in essence.

Bradley considers the facts, and the risks of running the story, confronting in the process the inescapable and unpalatable facts that he has to trust his reporters and they have to trust their source.

That’s a single big story. But what happens on any day in the wider editorial conference? I speculate, because I have no inside knowledge -

The editor gets his/her key staff together and considers the potential content of the paper for the following day – new, features, sport, etc. Let’s focus on say, The Herald and one item -  a political story.

The political editor and his/her team will have had a pre-meeting, checked facts, sources and made a preliminary assessment of significance, and the core story will be written, possibly with a tentative headline. The political editor will have a view of how big the story is, but the editor must decide, perhaps in the face of competing non-political stories – entertainment, world events, celebrity, Royalty – even sport, because if a sports story is big enough, it can make the front page. (Rangers ongoing saga!)

It should be noted that a paper has to run a front page story every day as its main story, regardless of whether there is a big news story or not. On a dry day for news, this can result in a relatively minor story acquiring rather more prominence than it deserves.

Catch a paper on such a day, give them a good story, properly researched and presented and a headline hook to hang it on and they’ll run it! (I have personal experiences of this in an industry context.)

Despite all the claims, however justified, of mainstream media anti-independence bias, this is a lesson YES Scotland and the SNP need to re-learn over and over again. Sadly, it is a lesson Better Together and the well-resourced and shadowy interests who bankroll them have learned all too well.

Back to my analysis and my political story scenario -

The political editor makes his pitch to the editor, and let’s say the paper is The Herald – it’s Wednesday and the Thursday edition for 12th September is under consideration. Two big stories are competing for attention: the ongoing crisis in Syria, with key talks imminent between Obama and Putin, and the Scottish Budget and the row over the Bedroom Tax impact. 

What does the editor, Magnus Llewellin, decide to run with? He opts for neither, but instead for a story from the Highland correspondent, David Ross, based on an Audit Scotland report, Renewable Energy. This report clearly has political significance, so Magnus Gardham, the political editor (who takes a keen interest, as he must, in the independence debate) would have been a significant voice in the decision to run it as the front page main story. Audit Scotland’s website headlines their story on their report as follows -

Scotland's strategy for renewable energy is clear but achieving goals will be challenging

What headline did Llewellin and Gardham decide to run?

What was it in the report that led them to choose this headline from the report’s comments, topics and conclusions that they could have chosen to offer as capturing its essence? What were the other influences and considerations that led to this choice of headline, and indeed to the choice of  this sober Audit Scotland report as the front page story?

Let’s look at what quotes they could have picked from the report summary by Audit Scotland -

“The Scottish Government has a clear strategy for renewable energy that links with other policy areas, and it has made steady progress so far.”

“Renewable energy projects are progressing more slowly than expected, due to the economy and changes in UK energy policy.”

“"Scotland's strategy for renewable energy is a good example of clear leadership and direction supported by integration across other policy areas.” Caroline Gardner, Auditor General for Scotland

“The Scottish Government needs to estimate how much public sector funding will be needed after 2014/15 to attract private sector investment and meet its goals for renewable energy.” Caroline Gardner, Auditor General for Scotland

Now, I could have crafted a punchy headline from any of those, and caught the sense of what Audit Scotland and Caroline Gardner actually said, e.g.

Scots renewables policy makes steady progress, but is hit by UK economic factors and changes in UK energy policy says Audit Scotland

or

Watchdog cites good example of Scottish leadership and direction on renewables, but calls for tighter funding estimates

“… cast doubt on Scots renewables policy” is a partial and misleading comment on the thrust and conclusions of the report in my view.

What led the Herald to choose this story over, say, Syria or the Budget for the front page?

What influenced them to choose this headline?

I can think of two alternative reasons that might have influenced the editors -

1. Renewables policy is vital to Scotland’s energy policy, jobs and industry infrastructure, Scotland leads the world in renewables, Scotland has unrivalled natural resources of wind and wave to exploit renewables, and alternative energy matters to Scotland, to the UK, to Europe and to the planet.

2. Any story that can be spun to attack the SNP Government, and by extension the independence debate, and any story that attacks renewable energy and by implication favours nuclear power is worth the front page.

If the editors were driven by the first reason, they made an odd choice of headline, and should have followed up with a centre page spread offering a full analysis of the report and of renewables policy.

If the editors were driven by the second reason – and I hope, as a lifetime Herald reader and a current subscriber that they were not – then it is a bad example of spin-by-headline, something that belongs in the tabloids, a relic of the yellow journalism of William Randolph Hearst.

They have just one year, as editors of a great Scottish newspaper – and as every Scot has – to decide how they can play an honourable role in the great debate, at this pivotal moment in Scottish history.

They might look to their sister paper, The Sunday Herald, to find a model of responsible journalism to equip them for such a role.

The Question and No Answers session – Nicola Sturgeon to Anas Sarwar – Scotland Tonight

Nicola question: "Give me three specific examples of welfare cuts that Ed Miliband will reverse?"

Anas answer: No answer

Nicola question: "Will you reverse the £250m cut to disabled benefits?"

Anas answer: No answer.

Nicola question: "What's Labour's policy on the savings credit for low income pensioners?"

Anas answer: No answer.

Nicola: "The fact is - you won't reverse ANY of these Tory welfare cuts."

Nicola question: "What universal benefits will be protected by Labour?"

Anas answer: No answer.

Nicola question: "Free prescriptions - Yes or No?"

Anas answer: No answer.

Nicola question: "Tuition fees - Yes or No?"

Anas answer: No answer

Nicola question: "Free personal care - Yes or No?"

Anas answer: No answer

Nicola Question: "I'll give you another chance- free prescriptions, Yes or No?"

Anas answer: No answer

Nicola: "Free tuition - Yes or No?"

Anas answer: No answer, but effectively a no.

Nicola: "I don't understand how you came here tonight defending the right of the Tories to impose welfare cuts on Scotland ... You haven't answered a single question you've been asked."

Well, Anas Sarwar earlier in the programme had rather rashly - and unilaterally - committed UK Labour to reversing the Bedroom Tax, something his leader, Ed Miliband, has so far refused to do, and something that Johann Lamont, Scottish 'leader' has also avoided to date.

Doubtless he's had his arse kicked on that by London Labour and the hapless, beleaguered Ed Miliband …

After the Referendum? A lyric …

I wrote this lyric, and tried to sing it to a latin beat, but my singing voice is not good, so I took the YouTube track down.

It works reasonably well with the melody of “After the Ball”, and can be used in various beats and grooves. Give it a try and see if you can do better than me with the musical side of it.

LYRIC

After the referendum
After the talking's done
In a September sunset
After the race is run

After we've made our choices
After the people speak
What kind of voice will sound then
Strong, clear - or weak?

After the voting's over
After the ballot's done
What will the count reveal then
Who will it show has won?

After the votes are counted
Then we will know our fate
Will we regret chances lost then
When it's too late?

After they seal the boxes
After the die is cast
Will we have seized our moment
- or let our moment pass?

After the referendum
After the people speak
Will we be Scotland the Brave or
- Scotland the Weak?

© Peter Curran 2013

CHORDS IN KEY OF D

INTRO

D/// | Bm///| Em7/// | A7///

CHORUS

D/// | G/// | D///|  D///
D/// D/// A7/// A7///
Em/// |  Em/// | B7/// | Em///
A7/// | A7/// | D/// | A7///

D/// | G/// |  D/// | D///
B7/// | B7/// | E7/// | E7///
A7/// | A7///| D/// | B7///
E7/// | A7/// | D/// | D///

Henry McLeish

15 key questions on independence answered by Alex Salmond – First Minister. Sound clips.

Q1 What's wrong with Scotland remaining in UK? Q2 Polls show a majority for NO and YES vote relatively static - implications? Q3 Will rUK allow Scotland to keep 95% plus of oil revenues? Q4 If Scotland stays in EU after independence, does that mean it is really independent? Q5 What currency and lender of last resort - assets and liabilities? Q6 Could Edinburgh rival London as a financial sector in independendent Scotland? Q7 How much will it cost Scotland and a Scot to be independent? Q8 Why go for independence - why not more devolution - devo max? Q9 Free tuition - can this be maintained after independence? Q10 What about UK's threat to declare Faslane sovereign UK territory to protect their WMDs? Q11 What are you going to do with Trident nuclear weapons and subs after independence? Q12 What about nuclear proliferation and rogue states - say, Iran or North Korea? Q13 Won't Scotland, as a small country compared to UK lose influence and power - clout - after independence? Q14 What do you think of BBC coverage of the referendum - will it be fair and effective? Q15 What wil you do if there's a No vote, FM - Will you resign?

Indy Rock and Roll – Mark Diffley Ipsos MORI and Steve Richards, The Independent

Ipsos MORI Scotland Indy Rock 'n' Roll from Ipsos MORI

Devo Zero – Scotland after a No vote – a democratic wilderness.

 

NOTE: I could not find who created the above to get permission to use it. If it's yours and you're unhappy about me using, let me know and I'll take it down immediately.

Artists and Independence – the Festival?

Tweet, tweet – Scotland’s NHS

Tweets

1. Peter Curran ‏@moridura

   Should Scots be scared over independence? They should on two major issues - nuclear weapons and Scotland's NHS. Two reasons we MUST vote YES

2. Peter Curran ‏@moridura 

   I owe my life several times over to the Scottish NHS. I'll defend them to the death, so to speak ...

     Peter Curran ‏@moridura

3. New blockbuster thriller out soon "What happened to Johann - the Invisible, Inaudible Woman?" Read this riveting story of a vanished leader!

    

4. Peter Curran ‏@moridura 

   Do you provide vital service in the public sector, want to protect the service, your job and your terms and conditions? Vote YES if you care

5. Peter Curran ‏@moridura

   If you're a Scottish NHS worker and plan to vote No, think again. If you don't know, make up your mind quickly - Vote YES for NHS

    

6. Peter Curran ‏@moridura

   The purpose of the bedroom tax is to force vulnerable people out of their homes, either by forced choice on cost or eviction on rent arrears

    

7. Peter Curran ‏@moridura 

   We should have a weekly independence poll from now till referendum. It can't cost too much to ask 1000 people the YES/NO/Don't know question

    

8. Peter Curran ‏@moridura 

   Vote YES for Scotland's NHS - keep the Tory/Labour/LibDem backroom pals - private healthcare companies - off Scotland's land, out of its NHS

   Expand

9. Peter Curran ‏@moridura

   #NHS Vote YES for NHS! Vote No for privatised NHS. If you're an NHS worker, YES will protect you from the horrors of creeping privatisation

   Expand

10. Peter Curran ‏@moridura

    English NHS moves relentlessly towards privatisation. SNP Gov. is totally committed to keeping Scotland’s NHS in public sector. Vote YES NHS

Kings and queens – 2016 and all that: the Monarchy, YES and the SNP

Dennis Canavan makes a remark about the monarchy and the media are on to it like flies on to shit - “splits in YES campaign” etc.

Let me try to help our feeble media, assuming that they are not just shills for Better Together – a big assumption admittedly – and are simply badly informed and not actively hostile to independence.

1. YES Scotland is a loose coalition of all parties committed to an independent Scotland – SNP, Greens, SSP etc. – and individuals and groups committed to independence, including those who are committed despite the policy of their main party or organisation, e.g. Labour for Independence, trades unionists for independence, union branches who have come out for indy, e.g. CWU and those of no party affiliation whatsoever. It includes artists, Women for Independence and many other ad hoc groups formed to support YES.

2. By definition, such a disparate grouping can have no manifesto for government in an independent Scotland. 

Its members and groups have different visions for indy Scotland in every aspect of government policy, economic, social, cultural etc. This reflects the same range of opinions on almost every topic as those held by the wider electorate.

Their only unifying beliefs are that Scotland is capable of running its own affairs, has the natural resources, talents and economic competence to run its own affairs, and should run its own affairs. They therefore believe that Scots should vote YES in 2014 to independence. 

3. Across the United Kingdom, opinion on the monarchy is divided in every sector of society and within sectors, and that includes significant numbers of voters within the three major Unionist parties and the trade union movement. It should be no surprise to anyone that such differing views exist within the YES campaign.

Nonetheless, the media give every appearance of being astonished by such a revelation – or maintain the pretence that they are.

WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?

In one sense, there is no problem. For example, I am an SNP supporter (not a party member), committed to independence, and I am a republican. I believe the monarchy is the heart of the British Establishment, that both are inherently undemocratic and that they are inimical to the welfare of the people in a democracy.

But the SNP is committed to a constitutional monarchy, to retaining the Queen as constitutional monarch – and her lawful successors – in an independent Scotland.  How do I know this? Because Alex Salmond has said so repeatedly, and also states that this has been SNP policy since 1934. (There seems to be some division of opinion on just when and how this came to be SNP policy right now, and some voices have challenged it.)

So what, say some strident republicans – the SNP may not form the government of an independent Scotland – there’s an election in May 2016, and if another party, or coalition of parties is in government, then things may change.

But there’s an inconvenient additional fact to be considered – the SNP are the current government of Scotland, the SNP delivered a legal referendum, and the SNP Government has a full range of policies for independent Scotland.

And crucially, the SNP Government will negotiate with the UK Government the terms of the independent Scotland that will be born in 2016 if there is a YES vote in 2014. They will doubtless consult fully – including with YES Scotland - and respect the rights and privileges of the Holyrood Parliament – but they – and no one else - will ultimately decide the content of the negotiating agenda, the composition of the Scottish negotiating team, and the entry and exits point on every substantive issue - and the deal breakers.

(The autumn White Paper due in a few weeks will set down fundamental policies and principles that will underpin that negotiation.)

These political realities are all too easily forgotten in the heady atmosphere of the YES campaign, but there is no easy way round them. The strength of the campaign lies in the fact that it is a very broad church and can embrace just about any political belief and none, providing its members subscribe to the two core beliefs – Scotland can be fully independent and will be fully independent. But let me leave the monarchy for a moment and look at another reality – the nuclear issue …

Most commentators accept as a fact that an independent Scotland will reject nuclear weapons and ensure that they are decommissioned speedily and removed from Scotland as soon after independence as possible. But this is not a YES policy, it is an SNP party policy. There is nothing that debars a pro-nuclear individual or group  from affiliating to YES (as far as I know) since YES has no such policy or indeed any policy. They would probably feel more than a little uncomfortable in the near consensus of anti-nuclear views in YES, and might well be regarded as flat-earthers by their colleagues, but if they are prepared to knock on doors, canvass, stuff leaflets and generally contribute to a YES vote, who is going to say nay to them?

And they would have to accept the reality of the SNP Government incorporating its anti-nuclear policy as a prime, deal breaking objective in the negotiations. And so it is with the monarchy, although for me - and I would hope for most - the monarchy is by no means as fundamental a position as the No to Nuclear policy.

However, if social media and traditional media are any guide to YES opinions, there is more than a little ‘magical’ thinking going on – a kind of “with one bound we’ll be free and can do anything” mindset over what happens after indy.

I am of the left in politics, a lifelong Labour supporter and voter up to the 2007 Holyrood election, and for much of my life I would have - perhaps a little reluctantly latterly - have acknowledged that I was a socialist. But these days I would describe myself as a social democrat loosely on the Scandinavian model, and I don’t expect the old ideal of a socialist state ever to be realised, nor do I expect renationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy or a total abandonment of the concept of the market, although I would like to see a radical change in the way we structure our economy, our banks, our health service, our public services, our society and the values we live by. 

But we have more than enough to do to first win the referendum, then negotiate our exit from UK, hold an election and begin the complex process of wriggling out of an old, stale chrysalis of the Union and tentatively flexing our new wings.

So, on the monarchy and on a vast range of issues, I accept that the SNP Government will determine the shape of the new Scotland by negotiation, by reaching agreement on the mind-boggling range of things that come with un-entangling Scotland from a three centuries- long union. That will involve making legally-binding commitments with long-term ramifications, not just for Scotland and rUK, but for our relationships with Europe, America and indeed the entire world community.

If we are to have any credibility as a new state, we cannot be seen to enter this new era in a mood of “well, we can renege on any deal we make or agreement we reach after independence” – one, because such a position would be contemptible, and two, because it just ain’t practicable …

Of course, no government can bind its successors politically, but there are practical realities that mean that, on the very big issues, there is little likelihood of short to medium term change. We can’t go holding referendums every other quarter to determine the will of the Scottish electorate.

However, we are already committed to one post-independence referendum, on adoption of the euro - if that ever becomes an option again - so perhaps it is feasible to commit to one on retention of the monarchy. If we are going to go down that route, we had better announce it pretty damn quick, since the Scottish electorate has a right to know before the vote on September 18th 2014.

Saor Alba, but maybe not Vivat Regina?

The Black Gold – Scotland’s Oil – media links from Moridura on YouTube

Scotland's Oil: David Bell, Robin McAlpine and Brian Wilson on GMS with Isabel Fraser

 Alex Salmond on Scotland's Oil GMS 23 Jul 2013

 Scottish economy snapshot - July 2013

 Scottish Oil - the manipulations and deceit of the UK to steal Scotland's natural resource

 Ken Macintosh grilled over Scottish economy - and dodgy donation!

 Humza versus Johann and Coalition allies - who fight like ferrets in a sack

 Alex Salmond on Marr Show - 21 Mar 2013

 Scotland's Financial Strength - John Swinney's closing speech at Holyrood

 Oil in the sea? Oil in the rocks? Scotland's natural resources

 Orkney and Shetland - and oil: home rule for Tavish?

Lamont and Davidson, the Bitter Together Sisters, get oil facts and timescale wrong

Two sides of the oil debate - Newsnicht. Swinney and Rennie

 Oil - the Latin American experience and relevance for Scotland - BBC Good Morning Scotland

 Oil and Scotland's Independence - BBC Good Morning Scotland - Isabel Fraser and Derek Bateman

Scotland's Oil and Scotland's future - Alex Salmond – FMQs

 Oil - a finite resource? Newsnicht 2013

 John Swinney and the Lords 6 - the economy, oil and gas - various Lords a-leaping

 Hosie and Macintosh on Scottish oil and the IFS report

 Scotland's oil and the IFS report - Douglas Fraser reports

 Darling and Hosie on oil and independence - Alistair talks down his country

 Gavin McCrone - assets, oil, pensions and embassies

Rotten, dysfunctional UK on display – what the headlines say …

 

Scrap Trident before it scraps humanity!

 

The only sure way to get rid of the obscenity of the Trident weapons system – a system of mass destruction on a scale the planet has never experienced – is to secure the independence of Scotland and give a moral lead to the world.

Scots – young and old, old and new! You can do it, we can do it - and will do it, by voting YES on September 18th 2014

Would it really have been independence? Should we resign ourselves to less?

"Will it really be independence?" stuff still touted by those hostile to Scotland’s independence, by the fearful and confused – and by quite a few prominent journalists and pundits. (The latter group are either fearful and confused – or they’re being ingenuous…)

Clarity of thought is vital at this point for independence campaigners, so turn it around - anything that leaves ultimate control with Westminster won't be independence. (e.g. federalism or any one of the multiple variants of devolution being touted – devo max, devo plus, full fiscal autonomy.)

While the Scotland Act is in force, Scotland is not independent - everything is in the gift of Westminster, which electorally means England. And it can be modified or withdrawn at any time … The Union remains intact, dominant, with total control over Scotland.

If Scotland decides on its defence policy, its foreign policy - including when to engage in armed conflict - elects its own Parliament and Government and makes it own laws, it's independent. Anything less and it's NOT independent.

The core principle is fully independent within an interdependent world – independence that recognises the reality of interdependence in a rapidly changing and unstable world.

Independence is the freedom to choose, with no limits or constraints on those choices, except ones we freely make and enter into - and can freely unmake and exit from.