Sign for Scotland – the power of gesture

Margaret Curran MP’s ‘foreign’ interview with Derek Bateman on BBC Radio Scotland – Good Morning Scotland

THE ESSENCE OF IT

THE CURRAN INTERVIEW

PROFESSOR TOM DEVINE

The Currency – Jon Snow and Alex Salmond

Not a very inspired or economically literate interview from Jon Snow, in my view. He trots out old quotes and BetterTogether simplistic soundbytes to the manner born.

Once again - for Snow and other economic primitives - the options are these:-

ONE: Adopt the euro. COMMENT: Nobody in their right mind would do that at the moment.

TWO: Launch a new Scottish currency. COMMENT: As above - but after independence day and new Scottish Government in 2016, clearly an option, dependent on European situation.

THREE: Decide to abandon the referendum and stay with the failing, incompetent, corrupt UK/Westminster regime. COMMENT: Scots would have to be nuts ...

FOUR: Stay with sterling after a YES vote. COMMENT: No other choice till 2016 since we're not yet independent - re-evaluate sterling in the light of progress in negotiations with rUK over currency union - and the state of the eurozone ...

Quod erat demonstrandum, Jon Snow.

La règle du jeu – Michael Moore and the independence negotiations

It’s easy to cast Michael Moore as a villain, the arch-enemy of the YES Campaign, the current Scottish Secretary whose predecessors had a remarkably consistent record in acting against the interests of Scots, with the honourable exception of Tom Johnson, probably the only Scottish Secretary who conceived of the role as Scotland’s man in the UK instead of the other way round.

I have done my share of teasing and criticising Michael Moore, but have radically revised my view of him after analysing in close detail his responses to Iain Davidson’s Select Committee and his performance in the negotiations with Nicola Sturgeon over the referendum deal. I have no doubt whatsoever that this Northern Ireland-born son of a British Army chaplain is a committed unionist in his heart, and intellectually as a Liberal Democrat, and that he is totally opposed to Scotland’s independence and will campaign vigorously against it.

But he is also what the independence debate desperately needs right now – a pragmatic realist with a sound grasp of the principles  of negotiation, and a budding diplomat of the highest order. (His destiny in the UK or rUK should be the Foreign Office, where he would do a better job than the pompously  inadequate William Hague.)

Having managed to upset Davidson’s Commons Committee by refusing to play their dirty little game, he has now repeated the trick with the Lords’ committee, which also has thinly concealed anti-independence motives. So far, I only have press reports to go on, but the signs are encouraging -  Michael Moore savaged by Unionist peers over EU row

What enraged the unelected Lords was Moore’s argument that that there was no need to engage in a dialogue with the European Commission because a considerable body of information was already in the public domain- including EC President Barroso’s letter to the Committee - suggesting Scotland, as a new member state, might have to reapply and negotiate its membership.

In reply to an increasingly frustrated Michael Forsyth – who one of these days is going to birl uncontrollably and fly up his kilt into his own orifice, such is his exasperation at the prospect of Scotland’s independence – Michael Moore offered the following gnomic reply, which baffled the parcel of Lords, but brought a knowing smile to the faces of experienced negotiators -

Michael Moore: "There will be elements of this which are, to put it mildly, inelegant in terms of how well-informed people can be at the time of that vote. But short of doing that pre-negotiation, which as the UK Government I don't think it's our place to do, I believe we cannot resolve some of those issues."

Moore, in this and other revealing remarks, displays an real understanding of the dynamics and tactics of the pre-negotiation phase of negotiation, especially one that is going to be conducted in under a media searchlight and in a atmosphere of fevered and often highly ill-informed speculation and comment. He seems to have acquired a sophisticated understanding of such matters, matters that most politicians and media commentators are involved with throughout their entire careers without ever grasping their essence. Either he has an innate grasp of the fundamentals, or has had formative experiences in politics and government that shaped him, or – perhaps and/or – he is being advised by someone who can tell shit from Shinola.

These are qualities and skills that will be vital in the run-up to 2014 and in the negotiations that follow a YES vote. But relaxing in the knowledge that the Scottish Government negotiators will have a worthy opponent who understands La règle du jeu – with a nod to a great filmmaker, Jean Renoir – nationalists must also brace themselves to face a formidable opponent, one they must treat with wary respect.

Michael Moore will be, I hope, the last incumbent of the post of Scottish Secretary, but I entertain the hope that he will acquit himself honourably, in the spirit of the great Tom Johnson, lose with honour and with the respect of nationalists, and go on to a long and successful career wherever he choses to pursue it. For my part, I would like to seem him join in building the new Scotland after independence.

Sadly, if the Forsyths of this world have their way, he will be eclipsed or supplanted by some bumbling but highly vocal primitive Tory placeman, and the negotiations will be a bitter experience with a negative fallout.

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.

The UK Defence Committee–how it sees the future

David Miliband - Iraq War supporter and enemy of Scottish independence - in Danish television interview

The recent Danish political dram Borgen, a fine example of Scandinavian noir, was followed avidly by many Scottish viewers, notably the politicians, and I certainly found it riveting, with many parallels to Scotland’s present politics.

O, wad some Power the giftie gie us tae see oorsels as ithers see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, an' foolish notion … ROBERT BURNS

Danes take a keen interest in Scotland’s progress towards independence, and among the most influential television journalism in Denmark is the DR2 channel and Deadline 22:30 

(search  DR2/deadline 22:30 on Google and click the translate option. It is also on YouTube.)

Here’s what the programme says about itself on its website -

About Deadline 22.30

The program sent every day at. 22.30 on DR2. Deadline serves today's latest news, and with experienced and well-prepared hosts the program sets the perspective on current and future key issues.

In particular, the program focuses on analysis, discussion and criticism of 'power', that is, decisions and decision-makers in economics and politics. This is achieved through four weekly activities.

The “experienced and well-prepared hosts” (BBC take note!) do exactly what it says on the tin, and a recent edition featured an interview with David Miliband. Thanks to my invaluable Danish friend Troels Just, I have the link and a translation of the interviewer’s subsequent analysis of Miliband’s ideas and performance.

Here’s the edition that contained the Miliband interview  - the interview is about 40% of the way in, after the Commons scene with Speaker Bercow. Miliband speaks in English. (It’s a glimpse of the real life Borgen of Danish politics!)

My Danish correspondent, Troels Just, to whom I am indebted for all of this, plus much more in the past, sets the context thus -

David Miliband was on Danish TV tonight (12 Nov 2012), our equivalent of the BBC (Danmarks Radio or "DR" for short) have a program called Deadline 22:30, which I think is sort of like Newsnight Scotland or similar, news and debate basically. He was basically invited to speak about the euroskeptic attitude of the UK as a whole. During this interview he mentions Scotland, of course in this "separating" language that seems like a religious mantra for the Labour party.

The interview with David Miliband is roughly in the middle of the program, they show one part, and then talk about what he said, and then show another part and talk about it with a professor of European studies here in Denmark. The commentary is of course in Danish, the interview itself is in English.

I thought you might be interested in a translated transcript of the commentary on the interview with David Miliband, so I spent some time making one for you.  Troels Just

(My heartfelt thanks, Troels!)

I have tried capturing the Danish "tone" or assumptions made in this commentary, to give an idea of how we on the continent speak about the UK and Europe. This commentary shows this notion of "politics of necessity", which I personally think is a bag of nonsense, since there really is no such thing as "this and only THIS being totally and absolutely necessary" as one can always do something different if one is willing to break with the status quo (Think of Trident, for instance), but having said that, this does represent the sort of light mockery that the UK is, deservedly, subjected to in continental media.

TROELS JUST’S NOTES AND TRANSLATION

Presenter: Yes, another EU country that provides a headache in Brussels is Great Britain; the British government rejects any talk of letting the EU's budget grow and Prime Minister Cameron is pressured on the home front with a growing EU skepticism in the parliament.

*footage from the House of Commons*

The 31st of October was yet another notable day in Great Britain's long history of being skeptical towards the EU.

*Speaker of the House of Commons announces the results*

That was how it sounded when the the British lower house voted in favour of cuts to the upcoming EU budget and thereby against the British Prime Minister Cameron's policy of a freeze. Even though Cameron is not obligated to follow the parliament, the decision was noticeable a week later when Cameron had to formulate the British position after a meeting with Germany's Chancellor Merkel. As opposed to Great Britain, Merkel wishes for more European integration, which would mean more power and more money for the EU.

*Cameron speaking*

Presenter: Yes, welcome Marlene Wind, EU expert, your assessment, is there a realistic chance, one could say on the one side, or risk or whatever, of the the British actually leaving the EU within the next five years?

Marlene Wind: I am not sure about five years, but a lot of things at the moment would indicate that that they are moving towards the exit of the European Community*, because Cameron have almost promised a referendum and all polls show that if it comes it will be a "No".

Presenter: Okay, we will speak more in a little bit, now we will first listen to how Great Britain's former foreign minister and Labour politician, David Miliband, explains the British stance on the EU.

*archive footage of Milliband*

Presenter: Miliband was foreign minister from 2007 and, until Labour's electoral defeat in 2010, he was a candidate to succeed Labour's party chairman**, Gordon Brown, but then he was defeated by his brother, Ed Miliband. I asked David Miliband what the problem actually is with Great Britain and the EU.

*interview part 1*

Presenter: Yes, Marlene Wind – Miliband a Labour politician, of course, giving the competitor, Cameron, a real run here, but what do you take note of in what he says?

Marlene Wind: I take note of that he paddles a bit, that is to say he slides on several of your questions, but he apparently also imagines that the Europe we will have in 10 years is, on the whole, looks like that which we have now, albeit there will be a eurozone, he says, that that might be getting more federal elements in it, but otherwise all of us will probably be there, and then it will be as it always was.

But that is exactly the problem, that it is not as it always was! And everything seems to indicate that it will be a completely different union we will have within just a few years, not out of desire and great visions, but out of need.

If one wants to rescue the euro and get the euro back on track, then you just have to build more union on top, and at the moment there are those talking about - and here I am talking about high profile officials such as van Rompuy, the Chairman** of the European Council - who says that it could be necessary to divide up the European Parliament, and only let the countries who are members of the eurozone make decisions on behalf of the eurozone.

People also suggest that Commission perhaps should not divided up, but that there should be a special secretariat for the eurozone. We are seeing more and more a separation of non-euro countries and euro countries, and therefore it is naive of Miliband not to address that very real problem that exists for the British - and by the way, also for the Danes, but especially for the British - because they crawled that far up in a tree, and are finding it difficult to try to come up with some constructive proposals.

On that we, after all, are a bit better, but it is quite difficult when one is caught a bit with one's pants down that the British have been.

Presenter: Yes, but now Miliband here wants to appear as clearly more pro-European than Cameron, but is he at base really almost as critical, or is he forced to be so?

Marlene Wind: I think he, personally, is very pro-European as a person, but it is very, very difficult in Great Britain at the moment to be pro-European...

Presenter: So it does not matter just changing governments - or what one could say?

Marlene Wind: It does not matter, because Labour is also pressured into a very anti-European rhetoric, and I read an article as recently as today in Financial Times where it said that only the Liberal Democrats are left, but not even they dare say anything - in the public debate - that has anything positive at all as a message about the European Community. One could say that makes the domestic policy agenda dominate the policy on Europe so much in Great Britain that one has almost tied the political leaders' hands - and feet - despite of being like Miliband in reality: probably somewhat more pro-European than he is allowed to be.

Presenter: We will speak further in a moment, but we will just go back to the interview with David Miliband, because I also asked him whether he is worried about the EU being separated into a euro and non-euro part.

*interview part 2*

Presenter: Yes, Marlene Wind, before it called it naive that one could find way back to ... sort of "the old EU", but could one not imagine that Merkel and Hollande, would want the British to stay in, and therefore one could find some solution where one has a core of euro countries that integrate on fiscal policy and that sort of thing, but while on the broader scale is more loosely integrated nation states?

Marlene Wind: The problem is whether one can keep the institutions together, the Commission, the court and the parliament and the supranational institutions and whether that is possible.

Presenter: Put simply, why could one not do that?

Marlene Wind: Well there are those, whom I mentioned before, who are of the opinion that the European Parliament does not represent all 27 countries anymore, because there are some that are outside the eurozone, therefore it is not "democratically okay" for countries outside the eurozone to have influence - through the European Parliament - on those things to be decided for the eurozone.

One can easily therefore imagine that the EU can break into two - and people are also quite worried about the internal market – which the British are actually very very fond of - and there isn’t actually anybody wanting the British to leave the EU.

One would prefer them to be there, but an elimination race will be done into sheeps and bucks, where countries like Denmark and the Central and Eastern European countries will, most likely, be those which David Milliband called "pre-ins", who will say "We do want, we try all we can to stay on and adapt our policy to that which goes on in the eurozone to the extent that it is possible", but Great Britain just cannot do that, because they tripped themselves up over this.

They have adopted this very anti-European rhetoric that makes it very, very difficult to any political leader, also for Ed and David Milliband - if they came to power again - to play the European card. I was sitting and thinking that it would be really wonderful if David Miliband had given this speech to the British people at home in Great Britain on the BBC - but he does not do that!

Presenter: One could say that if  you are pro-European on that - but if one is an EU skeptic in Denmark, could one not imagine that if England (****) pulls -  almost out, or all the way out - then one would get a stable platform to relate to if one does not wish for this close integration with Europe?

Marlene Wind: Absolutely, and that would be the perspective the British actually would want for themselves. They would probably do the same as Norway, namely, join the looser EEA cooperation...

Presenter: Could it pull Denmark along?

Marlene Wind: Well there are also many in Denmark –or some at least - that are of the opinion that it would be attractive: but we should take note that the Norwegians actually pay more per capita towards the EU budget than the British do.

I saw an account of it recently, and the Norwegians have to accept all internal market legislation - and copy it into their own legislation - without having any influence on that which is adopted. So the question is how attractive it is in reality is to be outside, wanting to sell one's goods into the internal market, yet having to accept all the legislation, or whether it is better to be on the inside?

It is exactly the dilemma the British are dealing with, and it is that struggle they are having with themselves at the moment. In other words where do their real interests lie?

Presenter: You say that Merkel and Hollande, they would like to have the British on board, but then we are seeing this budget fight, could there come a time when they will say, okay ...

Marlene Wind: Yes, we actually saw it with the fiscal pact - which David Miliband himself mentioned - where David Cameron had hoped that because he he said no to it, then everything would come to a halt, and then people would have said – OK then, we will wait or drop this fiscal pact. What did the EU countries do? They said - Not on your nelly, we will go outside the treaties and we will make the agreement outside! That was the blow to the British. At that point they realized that it is not everyone waiting for them, so now they have a few things to think about themselves.

Presenter: They sure do, and I think we do as well after this programme tonight! Thank you. That was all for Deadline, we will be back tomorrow, first time at 17, thanks for now.

TRANSLATOR’S NOTES

*) In Danish we use the term "det europæiske fællesskab" (Lit. "the European Community") to refer to "the commons", ie. that which Europe has in common, of the EU, it does not refer to the former name of the EU, "the European Communities".

**) In Danish we use the term "Chairman" (I almost feel as if we're Maoists, haha) every time the rest of Europe uses the term "President", I guess we are such butt-level royalists that the word "president" scares us.

***) In Danish we call it the "internal" market, and not the "common" market, I have no idea why.

****) Translator's note, yes, he did indeed say England!

 

Alex Salmond on NATO and nuclear submarines – Radio Scotland 18th Oct. 2012

Gary Robertson: On the issue of NATO, which your party is discussing at your conference, is a change in policy crucial to reassure Scotland when it comes to voting in the referendum?

Alex Salmond: No, I think a change of policy is the right thing, because all parties should change their policies to equip them for the modern, and the long-term consistency in SNP policies has been our opposition to nuclear weapons. I mean – the SNP in my lifetime has been pro-NATO, we’ve been anti-NATO, we’ve been in favour, as we are now, of Partnership for Peace, which is a NATO organisation. So that’s been an emphasis in the policy, but the underlying consistency is our opposition to nuclear weapons and the best way to remove Trident from Scotland.

Gary Robertson: So would an independent Scotland allow nuclear-armed vessels from allied countries to enter Scottish waters or ports?

Alex Salmond: Well, an independent Scotland would not have possession of, or allow nuclear weapons on Scottish territory …

Gary Robertson: So you’re saying no to to NATO members with nuclear armed vessels ..

Alex Salmond: As you well know ..

Gary Robertson: .. to enter Scottish waters?

Alex Salmond: As you well know - that – the presence of nuclear weapons on a vessel is never confirmed by any power. There’s many examples of this, but 26 out of the 29 countries in NATO are non-nuclear countries. It’s perfectly feasible for Scotland to be one of these, but still engage in collective defence with our friends and allies.

Gary Robertson: But it is a nuclear – broadly, it’s a nuclear umbrella as it were – so it’s all very well saying on one hand you’ll get rid of Trident – but you are suggesting here that, if nuclear weapons arrive on Scottish shores from NATO members, they would be welcome.

Alex Salmond: I didn’t say that, Gary, as you’re well aware. I’m just pointing out that no country ever confirms the presence of nuclear weapons on its ships. But what you’re trying to tell me is that the policy, for example, pursued by the Canadian Government is somehow inconsistent, or the policy pursued by 26 out of the 29 NATO countries is inconsistent. I mean, I can’t wish away nuclear weapons of the United States of America: what I can do is remove the nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction from Scotland called Trident – and I can do that if Scotland votes for independence in two years time. and we can devote the enormous resources that are wasted on these nuclear weapons just now to things like employment for young people and further investment in Scotland’s colleges.

Gary Robertson: But when we go back to Kosovo – when you called that an act of unpardonable folly, you also talked about it being “an act of dubious legality”.  Why would you want to be part of an alliance that acts in a dubious legal way?

Alex Salmond: Because we are under no requirement to follow any provision of international policy which is not sanctioned by the United Nations. If you look at my attack on the Kosovo policy, it was specifically because it wasn’t sanctioned by the United Nations – and if I can take you to a more recent example ..

Gary Robertson: But Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty says an attack on a member is seen as an attack on all NATO members, so you could well find yourself being involved in conflicts that you don’t agree with …

Alex Salmond: An attack on a member state – it’s a  - it’s a collective security alliance. Kosovo was not an attack on a member state – and I if was going to point out to you a much more recent example, of course … If you remember back to the famous debate between two nuclear – two NATO countries, that is France and America over the illegal war in Iraq, with the American Government along with Tony Blair and the UK Labour Government and Conservative parties arguing to get into that illegal war – and the French Government and other NATO countries arguing against that illegal war ..  Membership of NATO doesn’t commit you to taking part in international engagement which are not sanctioned by the United Nations and of course, the motion before the party conference explicitly makes it clear that we’d only be in NATO on condition that we were a non-nuclear country, like the vast majority of members, and that we had the right to follow United Nations precepts on international engagements. That doesn’t tie our hands at all in engaging in collective security with our friends and allies.

COMMENT

The essence of this vital short exchange is in the following questions, posed by Gary Robertson, and the First Minister’s responses. I won’t say answers, because he didn’t answer them. But in failing to answer directly, his responses, despite the evasion, gave a vital and, for me decisive insight into just what is in the SNP leadership’s mind.

EXCHANGE ONE

Gary Robertson: So would an independent Scotland allow nuclear-armed vessels from allied countries to enter Scottish waters or ports?

Alex Salmond: Well, an independent Scotland would not have possession of, or allow nuclear weapons on Scottish territory …

Gary Robertson: So you’re saying no to to NATO members with nuclear armed vessels ..

Alex Salmond: As you well know ..

Gary Robertson: .. to enter Scottish waters?

Alex Salmond: As you well know - that – the presence of nuclear weapons on a vessel is never confirmed by any power. There’s many examples of this, but 26 out of the 29 countries in NATO are non-nuclear countries. It’s perfectly feasible for Scotland to be one of these, but still engage in collective defence with our friends and allies.

Gary Robertson: But it is a nuclear – broadly, it’s a nuclear umbrella as it were – so it’s all very well saying on one hand you’ll get rid of Trident – but you are suggesting here that, if nuclear weapons arrive on Scottish shores from NATO members, they would be welcome.

Alex Salmond: I didn’t say that, Gary, as you’re well aware. I’m just pointing out that no country ever confirms the presence of nuclear weapons on its ships.

No, you didn’t say that, First Minister – you didn’t say very much at all …

The question is avoided completely in its initial. straightforward, crystal clear formulation , by a simple repetition of SNP nuclear policy by the FM. When Robertson persists. the FM retreats behind the eyes closed, don’t know, don’t want to know position, followed by yet another repetition of the mantra of what the non-nuclear NATO member countries do.

But in not answering, the First Minister has answered, by default.

An independent Scotland in NATO will offer, without question, safe havens to any nuclear submarine of any NATO nation without insisting on an inspection – perfectly feasible – to determine whether they are carrying nuclear weapons.

In other words, we will become a passive, notionally non-nuclear dock for nuclear armed vessels of a nuclear alliance committed to first strike, NATO.

SECOND EXCHANGE

Gary Robertson: But when we go back to Kosovo – when you called that an act of unpardonable folly, you also talked about it being “an act of dubious legality”. Why would you want to be part of an alliance that acts in a dubious legal way?

Alex Salmond: Because we are under no requirement to follow any provision of international policy which is not sanctioned by the United Nations. If you look at my attack on the Kosovo policy, it was specifically because it wasn’t sanctioned by the United Nations – and if I can take you to a more recent example ..

Gary Robertson: But Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty says an attack on a member is seen as an attack on all NATO members, so you could well find yourself being involved in conflicts that you don’t agree with …

Alex Salmond: An attack on a member state – it’s a - it’s a collective security alliance. Kosovo was not an attack on a member state – and I if was going to point out to you a much more recent example, of course … If you remember back to the famous debate between two nuclear – two NATO countries, that is France and America over the illegal war in Iraq, with the American Government along with Tony Blair and the UK Labour Government and Conservative parties arguing to get into that illegal war – and the French Government and other NATO countries arguing against that illegal war .. Membership of NATO doesn’t commit you to taking part in international engagement which are not sanctioned by the United Nations and of course, the motion before the party conference explicitly makes it clear that we’d only be in NATO on condition that we were a non-nuclear country, like the vast majority of members, and that we had the right to follow United Nations precepts on international engagements. That doesn’t tie our hands at all in engaging in collective security with our friends and allies.

The First Minister’s response to Gary Robertson’s simple question - Why would you want to be part of an alliance that acts in a dubious legal way? – is distorted to make it sound as if he said that the Kosovo was an attack on a member state, thus allowing the FM to mount a defence based on his strawman. Robertson did not say that. If I may offer my understanding of his question, it was -

The Kosovo attack was an illegal, unilateral attack on another nation by NATO. Why would anyone, least of all Alex Salmond who had rightly condemned that attack, want to be part of an alliance that had so recently been capable of such a crime?

What follows in the FM’s closing statement offers a fairy tale world, in which moral, non-nuclear Scotland is partners with this international nuclear gangster, NATO, permitting it to come and go as it please with it WMD-armed submarines in Scottish waters, using non-nuclear Scotland as a key base to launch attacks at any time that would carry unimaginable destructive power to the four corners of our planet, but somehow escapes any responsibility for what it does because the Scottish Government prefers not to ask what the subs are carrying, and can draw its skirts back in mock horror, disassociating itself from anything morally dubious.

This is the morality of someone who rents his property to a whoremonger, but claims no knowledge of what is done on his premises.

Has your pragmatism and flexibility come to this Blairite position, First Minister? Do you expect the Scottish electorate to endorse such a contemptible course of action on their way to – independence?

“A new and better nation … “ Views of young Scots on independence

“The day of the Earls are over …” Not in the UK, but soon, in Scotland

The British Establishment and the Aristocracy

Earl of Dartmouth

Dany Cohn-Bendit: “Mr. Earl – why can’t you understand that the time of the Earls are over – they are not the solution of the democracy – can’t you understand this? That we are in a time – when we are in a time that, in thirty years, none of the European nation states – neither Great Britain, neither Germany, will be part of the G8.

Earl – why can’t you understand that the time of the Earls are over – they are not the solution of the democracy.  … This is a time over – you can write poems about it and be sad about it – I understand that an Earl is sad about it, but it’s the cruel reality of the modern world.

Can’t you, Mr. Earl understand the modern world?”

No, he can’t, Dany – he is a member of the British Establishment and a UKIP MEP. That combination and the modern world just don’t go together. But their days are over – the only question is just how much damage they can do before they fade away.

With my thanks to my friend Troels of Denmark!

Scotland’s soul – as perceived in 2009 –before the Faustian bargain with ‘Britishness’ and NATO began to rot it.

Scotland's soul - before devo-max ideas, before consultants got a hold of it, before 'Britishness', before the NATO U-turn, before the removal of Trident WMDs from our waters became an ever more fuzzy concept in timing and execution, before those who had some idea of what that soul really was became described as fundamentalists and were advised to close ranks and stop rocking the boat.

The boat being rocked is, of course, a Trident, NATO-controlled, effectively American-controlled nuclear submarine carrying a destructive power beyond the understanding of some who should know better.

Nicola Sturgeon on Trident on Question Time, 7th May 2009

Nicola in May 2009 in Dunfermline - only two years into the SNP's first term of minority government, filled with passion and deep anti-nuclear commitment. I wonder what she would have said then about NATO membership proposals?

If only the SNP could summon some of that clarity and vision before October, and the debate on the deeply misguided proposal to join NATO - in fact, we need more vintage Nicola, and need to hear more of her clear voice and passion for Scotland in the critical two years ahead of us.

Better Together in the rotten UK? Naw …

Is Scotland really Better Together in the UK?

In a country where the criminal powerful are rarely called to account? "Once you've broken through a certain membrane of power, whether in politics or in business, you are untouchable ..."

Where politicians condone and facilitate corporate irresponsibility?

Where 'double messages' are given out by senior politicians? "Every government, whichever colour the government is, tries to play a double game" by fund raising from rich bankers while giving out  critical moral messages?

Where there is a 'crisis of legitimacy' in institutions?

Where 'an extraordinarily rich class' avoids its responsibilities?

Where a million children don't have enough to eat, and are malnourished?

The UK is a state in 'a big malaise'. In fact it's rotten to the core of its failing institutions, a conspiracy of wealth and power moving ever further away from the people.

Better Together? With this? Scotland must say YES to its independence in 2014

Is Scotland really Better Together in the UK for defence?

The critical issue is defence - the nuclear 'deterrent', Trident, and the UK's outdated concept of itself as a world power.

Devomax, devoplus, devo-whatever - nothing short of full independence will deliver Scotland from the obscenity - and utter irrelevance - of nuclear weapons - of their fundamental immorality and inhumanity.

Say YES to Scotland's independence, and let our defence forces be truly for defence, not for brutal aggression against other nations.

A nuclear letter over three years ago …

My letter to the Herald of 21st February 2009 letter in full - it was edited in some aspects in the Letters page of the Herald. It was prompted by an Alf Young article, who then and now opposes Scotland’s independence and supports nuclear power. (Where he stands on the nuclear deterrent I don’t know.)

Since that letter, over three years ago, we have a majority SNP government, an independence referendum scheduled, and the continued implacable opposition of the SNP to nuclear weapons in Scotland, an opposition that I hope continues to include an equally implacable opposition to an independent Scotland being a member of NATO, a nuclear alliance, implacably committed to the possession and use of nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

Letter to the Herald of 21st February 2009

Dear Sir,

Alf Young (20th Feb) advances the case for nuclear power in Scotland, and criticises the SNP’s implacable opposition to nuclear. I am one of the very large number of Scots who, in 2007, abandoned my previous political allegiance (Labour) and transferred my vote and my commitment to the SNP. A major factor in that decision was precisely the fact of the SNP’s implacable opposition to nuclear weapons and nuclear power. In spite of my strong commitment to an independent Scotland for many other reasons, I would resign my membership of the party instantly if that commitment ever wavered, however, I am sure that will not happen.

I will not rehearse the arguments against nuclear power generation versus alternative sources of energy in relation to the global warming priorities, for the simple reason that I would rather accept the energy deficit and all that goes with it – although I do not believe that this will happen – because of the link between the civil nuclear power and the nuclear arms industry. Every advocate of civil nuclear power generation I have read, heard, or met personally is either an advocate of nuclear weapons, nuclear defence policies and the so-called ‘nuclear deterrent’, or, frankly, must be naive, and unaware or badly informed about this insidious linking of the civil and military aspects.

The facts are these, and in setting them out, I would remind readers of the famous quote by American senator, Daniel Patrick Moynahan – “You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts ...”

Any country that has nuclear power has the undeniable potential to make nuclear weapons. This is why the West is making such a fuss over Iran’s nuclear programme, and was the ostensible reason for invading Iraq. The UK is a massive exporter of nuclear technology and uranium enrichment processes, and this is at the core (forgive me) of nuclear weapons production. If the UK abandoned this deadly trade and never built another nuclear power station it would be taking a major step towards reducing international tension, nuclear proliferation and creating a safer planet.

The International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEA) is charged with investigating the regular, and sinister, transfer of nuclear material between civil and military stockpiles, but its powers are limited, and by the UK government’s own admission, its acceptance of inspection was not intended to provide an assurance that such material would not be used for defence purposes. In any case, the notorious ‘national security reasons’, the final refuge of totalitarian, militaristic governments everywhere, can be used to stop the inspections at any time.

In America, in Britain and in France, where one might assume that there were safe and secure procedure, unaccountable and unexplained discrepancies exist on plutonium. It is not just Russia that has problems of the theft and smuggling of nuclear material, not to mention inadequate and permeable storage arrangements.

I am a grandfather, and this status provides a special focus, a special viewpoint. I may not live long enough to experience the appalling consequences of our present nuclear obsession, but my children may, and my granddaughter almost certainly will. I was born in the 1930s, the decade of an unprecedented rise in militarism, and the lead-up to war. I sat in 1945 in the Park Cinema in Glasgow (formerly The Marne Cinema) as I watched with fascinated horror the dropping of the Hiroshima nuclear bomb and its appalling aftermath. I grew up in the 1950s with the spectre of nuclear annihilation hanging over my world. I followed with apprehension the Cuban missile crisis in the 1960s, when that threat became real and immediate. I don’t want my beloved granddaughter to have to live her life under this radioactive cloud.

The nuclear power industry and the nuclear arms industry are conjoined twins, locked forever in a deadly embrace, and cannot be separated. You can’t have one without the other.

Until homo sapiens evolves into a greater maturity, the world can afford neither nuclear power generation nor nuclear arms. We owe it to ourselves, our children and our grandchildren to reject these deadly twins. Alf Young used the word ‘meltdown’ in the title of his article. I hope it does not prove prophetic in a context other than the one he intended.

Alex Salmond tells San Francisco about independence on 15th June 2012

San Francisco Chronicle

“The eyes of the world have been on Scotland as we move toward independence, and since the start of this year we have taken important steps forward on that historic journey to rejoin the family of independent nations, many of whom have themselves become independent in recent decades.

When the United Nations was formed, there were only around 50 independent countries in the world - now there are almost 200, many of them smaller than Scotland. And of the 10 countries that joined the European Union in its most recent big expansion in 2004, half a dozen have become independent since 1990, all of them smaller than Scotland.

So, far from running counter to international trends of integration and cooperation, as some of the anti-independence camp try to assert, Scotland's constitutional progress is clearly running with the grain of history as more nations seek independence in an interdependent world.

With independence, Scotland will take its place as a member of that international community while continuing as a friend and good neighbor to the other nations of the United Kingdom.

Independence will mean that decisions about what happens in Scotland and for Scotland are taken by the people who care most about Scotland - that is, the people living, working and bringing up their families here. No one else can do a better job.

The people of Scotland will be in charge. Our future, our resources, our opportunities will be in our hands. Independence will give us, the people of Scotland, the opportunity to make decisions in Scotland's best interests. And that means we will be able to make Scotland the country we all know it can be - a wealthier and fairer nation, a country that speaks with its own voice, stands taller in the world and takes responsibility for its own future.

Independence is about Scotland rejoining the family of nations in our own right. We can be both independent and interdependent - we can stand on our own two feet while working closely with other nations, our friends and neighbors. Independence is what we seek as individuals. It is the natural state for people and nations around the world. Not being independent is the exception.

The Parliament in Edinburgh already makes all the important decisions when it comes to running our schools, hospitals, police and much else. Independence will mean we are also responsible for raising our own money.

Scotland is a land of unlimited potential. Our culture, history and reputation for innovation are renowned throughout the world, our universities are world-class, and our energy resources are unrivalled in Europe. Indeed, as an independent nation, we would have the sixth-highest wealth per capita in the developed world. At the same time, as the United Kingdom's debt has now smashed through the 1 trillion pound barrier, Scotland has a 1 trillion pound asset base in the shape of North Sea oil and gas.

With independence, we will have a new social union with the other nations of these islands. We will keep the pound and will continue to share Her Majesty the Queen as head of state. But we won't have our young servicemen and women dragged into illegal wars like Iraq, and we won't have nuclear weapons based in Scottish waters.

I want Scotland to be independent, not because I think we are better than any other country, but because I know we are just as good as any other country.”

Gaun yersel, Alex! 3000 miles away from the language polis and you can say that word as many times as ye like …

(with my thanks to Anthony Little for drawing my attention to the interview.)

Independence

independence noun (often followed by of or from) the fact or process of being independent.  Concise Oxford

INDEPENDENCE

I support Scotland’s independence.

Independence is what I’ll vote for.

I will try to persuade people to vote for independence.

The independence of Scotland is what I hope for.

I like the word independence – it conveys a precise meaning to me.

I have a powerful aversion to doubletalk and PR speak in politics – and in life.

I believe Scots are known for saying what they mean and meaning what they say.

As an advocate of Scotland’s independence, I fully intend to use the word independence at every opportunity

 

Vote YES in the autumn of 2014 for independence

Jim Murphy looks foolish on who leads for Labour on the Union – “BBC will pick the Labour Leader for the referendum debate”

Even by Murphys' standards, this was a bummer. "The BBC will pick the Labour Leader for the referendum debate" Goad help us a' ...

His persona, one of slimy charm coupled uneasily with old-guard Scottish Labour bluster fails miserably, as it did in the lead-up to Scottish Labour's 2011 disaster at the polls. I wish he would lead the anti-independence campaign.

Some media commentators refer to Murphy as a Labour 'big beast'. He reminds me of the sad, mangy lion in the old Wilson’s Oswald Street Zoo in Glasgow when I was a child. Wilson's Zoo

Big beast my ****. I almost prefer the unctuous, pompous Douglas Alexander. At least wee Dougie has some intellectual candlepower flaming between his ears.

Who are we? - or - Who were we in 2007/08? Mitchell/Bennie/Johns report

Scotland on Sunday yesterday …

Well, Scotland on Sunday - and The Scotsman - are yesterday – they have little to do with political realities in Scotland today. The Herald, to their credit (I hope it reflects in their circulation soon) is awakening to Scotland as it really is, as Glasgow starts to emerge from its long, dark Labour night.

In an edition that reeked of superficial negativism and hostility to the SNP, the party of government, chosen so overwhelmingly by the Scottish electorate last May, SoS homed in on The Mitchell/Bennie/Johns report - who are the SNP members?

This report deserves much more serious examination than Scotland on Sunday’s and Kenny Farquarson’s tabloid analysis gave to it.

The Mitchell report is a four-year old snapshot of a party - the Scottish National Party - in a nation, Scotland, that is changing very rapidly indeed, a party that is the major change agent in that revolutionary historical process, a process which in its turn is a part of great social and economic upheaval in the United Kingdom, in Europe and across the globe. We are living in interesting times, times that the Scotsman and Scotland on Sunday either fail to, or choose not to understand.

THE REPORT BACKGROUND

A report like this is valuable in the way looking at the stars is valuable  - the delayed light we see tells us a lot about what happened in the past, but not about the present. When the survey was taken, there were 13,203 stars in the SNP sky – now there are over 20,000.

The SNP was into the second half of its first year in minority government, and the unelected Gordon Brown was just beginning to exacerbate the disaster of the Blair years and the process of bankrupting Britain. Megrahi was two years away from release, Wendy Alexander had been leading Labour in Holyrood for three months, George W. Bush was President of the United States, the Iraq War was only just over half way through it murderous progress, and a lot of men, women and children were still alive whose whose subsequent brutal deaths are now a shameful testament to the British Government and NATO’s supine deference to the Blair/Bush axis.

So whatever the SNP was, thought and said in the late 2007/early 2008 period, they have moved with these radically changing times. But it is still relevant to look back – and learn …

The report writers set themselves three objectives –

To offer a socio-demographic view of SNP members, to explore attitudes and identities, and to look at how these attitudes translated themselves into activity. They expected activists to be more radical, and to be more inflexible in their position on independence.

I, knowing sweet ****-*** about May’s Law of Curvilinear disparity (1972), interpret that as meaning that those who work hard in a party committed to the independence of their nation will want to radically change things, and not be easily shifted away from that. It’s how ye tell ‘em …

For the detail, read the full report – The Mitchell/Bennie/Johns report - who are the SNP members? It is well worth the effort for anyone who wants to understand how the SNP were four years ago. How that 13,000 members has changed in four years, and what the demographics and views of the new 7,000 are will have to wait for a new report.

But here are my perceptions of the Mitchell Report, as a kind of mouthwash to clear the bad taste left by Scotland on Sunday.

As the  report acknowledges, devolution changed the SNP’s status as a party with little presence in the Westminster Government and negligible influence on government, with an organisation largely of unpaid volunteers into Scotland’s second party, and the party organisation was transformed almost overnight into one of elected members supported by salaried professionals. The skill sets and experience changed, but there was a time lag of almost five years – till 2004 – before the constitution changed. There has now been a power shift from activists to MSPs, the leaderships, salaried party officials and, perhaps most significantly to the wider membership.

I would also observe that in the period since the report surveys were taken, there has been an explosion in the use of alternative media, and the lessons of their use in the Obama campaign  for the presidency of the US were not lost on SNP strategists, although to some degree the bloggers, twitterati, YouTubers and facebookers drove the agenda and the party followed.

I would argue that the experience of minority government and the skill sets forged in that challenging four year period – which was only 6-9 months old during the survey – not only changed the parliamentary party and its full-time professionals, but also the membership, old and new.

(If that experience could drive an old man like me, already in his seventies, looking forward to a quiet life of playing music and writing a bit of fiction, a lifetime Labour supporter, into the arms of the SNP and into a kind of unpaid activism and commitment, sustained through two heart attacks, a quad bypass and a cardiac arrest, then I take leave to think that it must have changed the mindset, the values and the priorities of those who had given their lives to the party in ways that the Mitchell Report could not of necessity reflect.)

All of these factors led to the most radical sea change ever experienced in Scottish politics since the 1945 Labour landslide, and the most significant event in UK politics for a generation – the May 2011 SNP landslide victory.

How have the demographics changed since 2007/2008?

What are the demographics of the 50% increase in the membership?

How have the attitudes of the 13,000 members changed and what are the attitudes of the 7000+ new members?

These are the exciting questions, and the party that has become the most professional political machine in Britain since the Mitchell survey, the envy of many European parties, possessed of opinion poll and confidence ratings that most UK and European leaders would die for, is addressing them daily in pursuit of its goal – the independence of the nation of Scotland.

The Scotsman and Scotland on Sunday could have been a dynamic part of these great events, could have addressed these questions, in the great traditions of journalism and a free press. Instead, they are locked in a dying past, and Scotland is moving past them with pitying glances.

Saor Alba!

The Question(s) and the ballot paper

A series of comments I received from Holebender on my proposed ballot paper have proved a slow burn for me, and led me to review my ideas. But first, my ballot paper -

MY BALLOT PAPER ( Ballot blog )

CONSULTATIVE REFERENDUM

Answer only one question - tick only one box.

If you answer more than one question, your ballot paper will be null and void. CHOOSE ONLY ONE OPTION - GIVE ONLY ONE ANSWER

I want a fully independent, sovereign Scotland.

I want Scotland to remain in the UK with no increased in current devolved powers to Scotland.

I want Scotland to remain in the UK with some additional powers devolved to Scotland.

I want Scotland to remain in the UK with all powers devolved to Scotland except defence and foreign policy.

N.B. If you have answered more than one question, i.e. ticked more than one box, your ballot paper will be null and void.

________________________________________

A reprise:

This is not the ballot paper I want - I want a single question on independence - but I believe that if the consultation exercise, plus perhaps the polls, shows a clear wish for other options to be presented, then as a democrat, I believe they must be offered in the referendum. I should add that I believe that devo max would be dangerous for the SNP, that it would be unlikely to be delivered after a NO vote on independence even though a majority of the Scottish electorate voted for it. Despite that, I still feel it must be offered if the electorate want it.

My ballot paper offers what I consider to be the maximum reasonable number of options, with only one option being selected. i.e. it is equivalent to a first past the post Westminster election ballot for an MP in a constituency - no proportionality, only one choice made, only one choice can win.

It has the following advantages, in my view -

1. It offers clean-cut choices.

2. It doesn’t allow double counting, resulting in a contested outcome, e.g. 51% vote for independence, 70% devo max.

How could double counting happen? Well, on a ballot paper that allows voting for one or both options, no voter who wants to retain the Union will vote for independence, but some independence voters might hedge their bets and also vote for devo max. For example, on a ballot of 100 voters: 51 vote independence, 49 anti-independence voters vote for devo max, but 21 of the independence voters also vote for devo max. Outcome = 51 indy, 70 devo max.

If all the independence voters also voted devo max, the risible outcome would be 100% for devo max, 51% for independence, and both sides would claim a win.

The various ways round this dilemma all involve some form of conditionality on the ballot paper voting instruction, all of which, despite strident assertions to the contrary by their proponents, involve potential problems of understanding, complexity, etc.

However, there is another argument (Holebender’s argument) against my methodology, and it deserves serious consideration. It involves a hypothetical outcome to the ballot - using my ballot paper - such as the following-

30% vote for independence, 20% to remain in UK with no further powers, 21% to remain in UK with some further powers, 29% for devo max, i.e all powers except defence and foreign policy.

On my methodology, independence would win, even though there is a combined 70% that want to remain in the UK. Such an outcome would clearly create a furore if independence was declared the winner, and it offends against all democratic instincts, including mine.

Yet this is the basis on which Westminster MPs are elected in a general election constituency election - it is called first past the post, and it was fought for in a bitter and divisive - and dirty - referendum campaign, with the ftp camp emerging as the winners.

Critics of my argument will point out that it is not, however, the basis on which governments are formed, where an ability to command an overall majority in the Commons must be achieved or demonstrated by a coalition agreement before the Queen gives her assent. Alex Salmond managed to form and successfully run a minority government by having the most seats, yet not having an overall majority in Holyrood.

But these are false parallels - a referendum is normally understood to be a choice between two options and is neither a constituency election for an MP, nor a Parliamentary election.

Is there an answer to the worm in my ballot apple? Yes, there is, but it is not one that I’m comfortable with it. It requires that the outcome must satisfy a minimum percentage vote for the winning outcome, e.g. 51% of all votes cast. While this is clearly required for a single question ballot paper, it takes us into dangerous areas when applied to multi-question papers - into the area of the rigged referendum, of requiring more than 51% of votes cast to qualify, or worse still, requiring a minimum percentage of the electorate to vote. In fact such dangers exist for a single question if more than a simple majority is required. The ghost of Gerry Mander stalks the scene …

But what if the above nightmare scenario - 30/20/21/29 - represents the actual balance of preferences of the electorate closer to the referendum period, as revealed by the polls at that time?

As a democrat first and a nationalist second, I must say that without a minimum percentage proviso, which would declare the referendum null and void, such an outcome could not be deemed acceptable and would be a recipe for conflict.

I wish I could say that I have confidence that somebody somewhere is coming up with the right answer, one that will be immediately acceptable as fair and workable and unbiased by all parties. At the moment, given the inane questions of the media and the politicised, polarised solutions of some nationalist and most unionists, that confidence has not yet been established.

And I have no answers, and must fall back on cutting the Gordian knot and returning to my instinctive first preference for a single question, and a simple 51% majority.

Democracy is a messy business, but what alternatives do we have except dictatorship and fascism?

The Big Question(s) - Scotland’s independence debate - Edinburgh