Scaremongering or legitimate points by NO Campaign–and questions of identity

The Unionist Tory/Labour/LibDem Coalition against the independence of Scotland when accused by the SNP of scaremongering and debasing the great debate, respond by saying they are raising legitimate points.

Here are some of them –

Claims by Lord Fraser, the former Tory Solicitor General, that England could have no choice but to bomb Scottish airports in order to defend itself from attack if Scotland became independent.

Claims by Tory Education Secretary Michael Gove that an independent Scotland would no longer have a National Health Service.

Claims by Home Secretary Theresa May that passport checks would be issued at Scotland’s border with England.

Questions published by the Westminster Scottish Affairs Committee querying if people could still buy wine from The Sunday Times Wine Club or whether the school curriculum would include ‘English’?

Claims that the Westminster Government would seize custody of the giant pandas at Edinburgh Zoo post-independence.

I hope that any Scottish voter listening to this nonsense gave a loud horselaugh. Only Iain Davidson’s Scottish Affairs Select Committee could have come up with the Sunday Times wine club one. (They’re currently considering Scotland’s defence, God help us all!)

Picking up on the last one – could someone on the NO Campaign “seize custody” of its spokespersons’ common sense before they debase this vital debate any further? It’s a difficult choice, but faced with either Alistair Darling boring us to death or the ********* who came up with the above rubbish making us laugh ourselves to death, I must, in the interest of the dignity of the great debate, resign myself to being bored to death.

QUESTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS ON IDENTITY

I asked a question on Twitter yesterday – I ask it again here.

What do people of other countries think of prominent Scots who argue against the independence of their nation?

I also now ask the supplementary question -

What will Scotland think of them after independence is achieved?

If I turn the questions around, as in fairness I must, we must ask -

What do people of other countries think of prominent Scots who argue for the independence of their nation?

What will Scotland think of them if independence is not achieved?

I think I know the answers, but those in this great debate must find their own.

There is much talk again today of dual identity, i.e. “I’m Scottish and I’m British” (and they don’t mean geographically resident in the British Isles – they mean the UK.)

I have no problem with dual citizenship of two different, independent countries, nor with a shared sense of values and common purpose with other independent countries. But when it comes to country – and the independent state either achieved or aspired to across the globe, there can be only one identity.

AMERICA AND INDEPENDENCE

We are not far away from the 4th of July, Independence Day in America. Remember what America secured its independence from – the British Empire, the rump of which is the present United Kingdom, clinging desperately to what it has left of that empire. I’m certain there were politicians – and ordinary people - in America before independence who claimed a dual identity, and who claimed to feel at ease as both Americans and subjects of the British Empire.

What I’m equally certain of is that no American would make such a claim today. They will happily celebrate their country of origin – as Scots, as English, as Welsh, as Irish, as indeed every country of the world that sent its people to the great melting pot – but their identity, their loyalty, and their heart is American.

I acknowledge and celebrate my Irish roots, I acknowledge and celebrate my shared history and cultural affinity with England and Wales, but my identity is  Scottish, my loyalty is to Scotland, and my heart is Scottish.  And when people talk of dual identity, the words of a great Englishman, Frances Bacon, in another context come to mind - “a heart that is double and cloven, and not entire”

The UK political establishment – an arse with three cheeks? Coalition plus fake Labour Opposition? George Galloway thinks so …

Last night’s Newsnight addressed some vital questions about the giant rotten borough that the United Kingdom has now become, using as a springboard for the discussion the fact of George Galloway’s bombshell victory in Bradford, which caught Labour, the Coalition and the Westminster Village media pundits by surprise.

Jeremy Paxman had as his guests George Galloway, Will Self, Diane Abbott and Mark Field. The programme centred around Galloway and Will Self – Abbott and Young effortlessly demonstrated the utter irrelevance of Her Majesty’s Coalition Government and Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to the reality of life in this Disunited Kingdom.

There was no LibDem, since they now don’t matter in any real sense, although Will Self oddly seemed to be representing a kind of LibDemmery – “I voted for them – I wouldn’t say I backed them!”.

Diane Abbott, probably a rich woman now from her long, cosy occupancy of a well-paid media sofa with Michael Portillo on the Andrew Neil show, still fancies that she somehow represents the ordinary people of England in these desperate economically and socially challenging times, living in that strange fantasy political dreamland inhabited by other rich Labour people.  Mark Field effortlessly epitomised the other party of privilege, private education and wealth, oozing the easy charm that cloaks the  brutal realpolitik of the Tory Party.

I have edited both of them out from my first clip selection: nothing they said mattered – they were the straight men, so to speak in the harsh social comedy duos of the stand-up comics, Galloway and Self, there as foils for the main action. (The full clip follows below.)

The discussion had a delightful opening sequence. Paxman, after a measured and calm introduction, then went for George Galloway in his normal, simplistic attack mode, which relies on politicians being polite and submissive in response, and relying on the advice their image consultants and spin doctors careful crafted for them, which of course results in them being eaten alive.

Interviewees who rely on their own experience, intellect and force of character therefore come as a rude shock to Paxman – one recalls our own First Minister, Alex Salmond reacting with tolerant amusement before demolishing Paxo, and I remember one Welsh academic who ate him alive some years ago by not playing his game.

Having floored Paxman and kicked him around the canvas a bit to demonstrate who was boss, George Galloway then made some vitally important observations, prompted by Will Self’s rather despairing but accurate analysis of the limits of Galloway’s real influence on the political process.

I would summarise the core of the discussion as follows -

Conventional three-party politics are breaking down in the UK, driven by distrust in UK political institutions caused by scandals on expenses, banking, cash for access, cronyism, corruption in the media and police and the manifest economic, foreign policy and social incompetence of two successive governments.

The growth of alternative forms of direct political action – “new ways of doing politics that don’t involve the political parties” -  in the form of demonstrations, alternative media groups and campaigning organisations such as 38 Degrees.

The gross inequalities in UK society, and the actions of successive governments that have widened them, rather than narrowed or eliminated them, coupled with active discrimination against the most vulnerable in UK society, and discrimination in favour of wealth and privilege.

The limitations and relative powerlessness of such groups to influence really big issues and legislation, still dominated and controlled by the Parliamentary system and the three big parties plus the unelected House of Lords.

Both Jeremy Paxman and Will Self – albeit driven by very different motives – forced George Galloway to acknowledge what his limitations had been -  and would be - in the Parliamentary system. He was compelled to defend his low voting record in his previous incarnation as an MP for Bethnal Green, in the opening acrimonious exchange with Paxo, by acknowledging that his vote wouldn’t have mattered, and to admit to Will Self that the same would essentially apply to his new position as Bradford MP.

Will Self referred to the phenomenon of political clan politics in Bradford – Bradree or Braduree, as good old Tammany-style politics, then telling said that there was a Braduree system operating at UK level – the political class offering sinecures in a closed loop. Galloway’s response referred to a parallel universe of privilege, wealth and private education, using the affable Mark Field as his example, saying he “might be from Mars to the streets of Manningham”. He defended himself against accusations of ethnic politics by citing the fact that the University ward of Bradford West - ethnically diverse and reacting to real issues rather than ethnic politics - had voted for him. But, asked by Self how he was going to reverse the policies, he said he could not reverse them but would “speak out” for his constituents. Will Self’s gentle rejoinder was that he would essentially be “sideswiping” Parliamentary politics as a lone MP.

Voices crying in the wilderness do matter, but only democratic politics changes things – that’s my firm view. One has only to look at CND, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, now just past the 54th anniversary of its founding. It pains me to say it – and others feel strongly that I shouldn’t say it – that despite the huge efforts and personal sacrifice of thousands of people, often at the price of their safety and liberty over half a century, CND has achieved essentially nothing, in terms of its core aim – nuclear disarmament.

Each of the three major UK parties remain committed to WMDs, to Trident and the so-called ‘independent’ nuclear deterrent as a central plank of NATO.

The UK and the world has remained at risk of nuclear Armageddon since the start of the atomic age on 6th August 1945 – just after my tenth birthday – when the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, followed three days later by the Nagasaki bomb, indiscriminately killing, burning and maiming hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children and leaving a lethal legacy for many more.

In contrast, the independence of Scotland will achieve unilateral nuclear disarmament for Scotland, and may well force the reluctant rump of the former United Kingdom into abandoning their nuclear folly. This can only result in a reduction of nuclear tensions globally, and may well serve as a beacon of sense to the rest of the world.

This, when it is achieved – as it must be achieved, and will be achieved – will have been achieved by the ballot box, by the will of the Scottish electorate engaged in democratic politics and by the Scottish National Party.

(It is worth noting that Scotland and the Scottish National Party’s massive victory were treated as a footnote in the analysis offered by this programme.)

Galloway, a flawed, brilliant populist politician, a formidable orator, albeit one who has dissipated his talents, perhaps a bit of a political carpetbagger, nonetheless has his heart in the right place, and has the right human, international values.

He summed up the political system of the UK in his own inimitable way as an arse with three cheeks – The Tories, the LibDems and the Labour Party.

But it should be remembered that Galloway very recently was prepared to stand for election to become a pimple on one of those cheeks – the Labour Party in Holyrood.

The ‘experts’ and the referendum questions

In my recent blog on the Scotsman’s report of Prof. John Curtice’s reported two question referendum Ask the bloody question(s) I analysed the contradictions and weaknesses of his second question - but I was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, feeling that he had been misreported by the Scotsman. He hadn’t, as the clip below shows …

  As far as the rest of the world is concerned, I have been wasting my breath on these matters for some years now – there is a persistent and determined failure to come to terms with this by politicians, by the media and by political commentators. I think it makes their wee heids hurt …

As for the rest of what is laughably called the ‘debate’, the misrepresentations, factoids and downright lies continue unabated from the unionist side and from semi-informed academics who should know better. I want to believe that so-called experts are truly that – expert – and that they tell the truth and do not politicise it, but I am regularly forced by their behaviour into an invidious choice as to which of these attributes is true, because on recent form, they can’t both be true. Either they don’t know what they are talking about or they are being economical with the actualité.

Let me try, almost despairingly, to yet again nail the nonsense to the floor -

THE FACTOIDS – that which everyone knows is true, except it ain’t (Norman Mailer)

Factoid one: The SNP and the Scottish government keep changing their definition of independence, and are unclear as to what it means.

Since their election in 2007 as the Government of Scotland, the SNP and the Scottish Government have been clear about what independence means – and so have the majority of the electorate. It means Scotland running all its own affairs as an independent country, while retaining the Queen as constitutional monarch, being part of a currency union (now preferred as sterling) and being part of the EU, of the UN and of suitable defence partnerships and treaties.

It means intelligent and free cooperation with others in an interdependent world, especially the nations of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, our long-term friends and neighbours, but also with the free Scandinavian countries who are also our good neighbours. It means playing our part in international affairs, including international peace-keeping operations and alliances, based on our free, sovereign judgement as an independent country. It means non-nuclear, Trident-free Scotland.

Factoid two: The SNP and the Scottish Government actively want a second question in the referendum ballot as a fallback position in case they lose the independence referendum.

The SNP and the Scottish Government are totally committed to achieving the full independence of Scotland, will have a referendum to determine the Scottish people’s support for that, and would prefer a single YES/NO question to determine the matter. Only by full independence will Scotland have control of defence and foreign policy and truly be a nation.

But, since being elected as the Government of all the people of Scotland, not just the nationalist supporters of independence, the Scottish Government has recognised that a substantial body of Scottish public opinion and the electorate favour substantially more powers being devolved to Scotland by Westminster, but wants to remain part of the UK.

It is the view of the SNP and of the Scottish Government that it is their duty to ascertain what choices the Scottish people would therefore want to be allowed to make in the biggest political decision of their lifetime, indeed, the biggest for over three centuries. That was the Scottish Government’s position in the 2009 consultation, and it is their position in the 2012 consultation now underway. It is also quite evidently the position of a very substantial and influential body of opinion in Scottish society and beyond Scotland.

Devolution of powers may be defined along a spectrum from zero – the pre-1997 position – to total, the so-called devo max option. Devo max, far from being undefined, is clearly defined by common sense – it means everything except defence and foreign policy.

Anything less than devo max, e.g. devo plus, Calman, Cameron’s vague promises and the various vacuous and nebulous suggestions of other unionist politicians demands definition. Only Reform Scotland has attempted this in devo plus, and the ill-fated and doomed Calman-inspired Scotland Act has defined the other.

SUMMARY

Following the conclusion of the consultation exercise now underway - and after the local elections in May - the Scottish Government and the SNP will set out progressively - over the referendum lead-in period until Autumn 2014 - their full prospectus for independence. This will represent their negotiating position with the UK Government after a successful referendum outcome, i.e. a YES vote to independence. In the event of a NO vote to independence, all bets are open.

There is no confusion and absolute clarity on the nationalist side.

There is deep confusion, lack of clarity and a lack of any coordinated approach on the unionist side. This is unhealthy for democracy and for a referendum outcome that will be supported by all the people of Scotland - and the UK - whatever it may be.

For the UK’s sake and for Scotland’s sake, Tories, Labour and LibDems - get your unionist act together and start behaving like mature adults. And try to find some experts who can talk objective sense, and  a statesman or stateswoman to lead your campaign …

Alex Salmond on the World at One–BBC radio 29th December 2011

An open letter to Johann Lamont

Dear Johann Lamont,

Congratulations on winning the leadership of your party in Scotland. I hope that your win gives you a clear mandate among all Scottish Labour supporters, and that it is perceived as a valid mandate to lead the main opposition to my party, the SNP, who received a very clear mandate to govern Scotland last May. It is vital that your mandate is seen in this way not only by Labour supporters but by the Scottish Government, by the SNP, by the other opposition parties and by the Scottish electorate.

The only way to ensure this is to publish as soon as possible the full, detailed breakdown of the votes cast in the leadership election, in the interests of transparency in Scottish politics. (I am confident that you will wish to do so, indeed, by the time this blog comes up, you may already have done so.)

I listened to your acceptance speech closely, because as a committed SNP supporter, voter and party member, I believe that the existence of an effective opposition in any Parliament is vital to democracy. I was a Labour supporter for most of my life, and I will never return to Labour because of the depth of the betrayal of all my hopes and expectations over decades by the Labour Party as constituted up until this election.

But I do believe that you, and at least some in the Scottish Labour Party want to make a new beginning and to place the interests of Scotland first. You outlined in your acceptance speech a vision statement for Scotland. Few Scots of any party would disagree with the bulk of its content, and for that reason, it could have been made by any party leader, at any time, in almost any country.

I don’t want to appear to suggest that it was an empty ‘motherhood and apple pie’ statement – I do believe that you are committed to these ideals and broad objectives, and so am I. And I am delighted that you and Scottish Labour appear to have rediscovered your Scottishness.

But given this consensus on what we all want for Scotland, it is evident that what gives our respective parties their identity is the means by which these objectives are to be achieved. If my memory serves me accurately, you and other members of the Labour Party have accused the SNP of stealing your vision. That was unfair and inaccurate – we have closely similar visions because we are both social democratic parties, committed to a strong, effective public sector and a vibrant, entrepreneurial private sector.

In a certain kind of Scotland, the SNP and the Labour Party could recognise a shared vision while differing vigorously on key aspects of achieving that vision. We both recognise that the Tory vision as presently exhibited in all its uncaring, incompetent awfulness, is inimical to the interests of Scotland, and indeed the peoples of the UK. The LibDem vision has been badly – perhaps fatally – compromised by their poisoned and supine alliance with the Tories in Coalition.

But there is a great yawning gulf between your vision as outlined today and the Scottish National Party’s vision, and that gulf is created by your commitment to keeping Scotland in the United Kingdom. At this moment, this profoundly mistaken policy – the only real one you have at the moment – is main barrier to your achievement of Labour’s new Scottish vision.

The reasons for this are plain to see, and the Scottish electorate understood them plainly last May, and voted accordingly. I accept that not all of that vote was a vote for Scotland's independence, but it was decisively a vote for Scotland holding all the economic levers necessary to transform Scotland, indeed the the pressing need at the moment is to have them to enable Scotland to survive the cold, cold global wind that is blowing.

But there are other great barriers between us while you and Scottish Labour are committed to the UK – they are nuclear weapons, i.e. weapons of mass destruction, foreign policy and the unelected, undemocratic House of Lords, now perceived by many Scots as the lucrative bolthole for failed politicians, including Scottish Labour politicians.

While Scottish Labour is committed to the UK, it will be seen by many Scots as the party that supports illegal or dubious wars that kill the flower of our young servicemen and women, the party that is committed to ruinously expensive WMDs that endanger Scotland by their presence - and pose an ever-present threat to world  peace - and the party that is committed to the undemocratic House of Lords, whatever hollow statements about reform, never acted upon, may say.

A great watershed in Scotland’s history is approaching – the referendum on Scotland’s independence – a pivotal moment in our history that will shape Scotland and the other three countries of the UK for a generation and perhaps for ever.

As we approach that fateful day, it is vital that all parties with a core shared vision for the people of Scotland approach the great debate that will be continuously conducted from now on with objectivity, with facts, with some degree of mutual respect, with the common objective of allowing the Scottish electorate all the information they need to make their great choice.

That need not – and will not – inhibit vigour in debate, but if we can draw on the great intellectual political and social traditions that have always characterised Scots and Scotland, we can offer Scottish voters a real, rational choice.

I wish you and your party well in this new and critical era. I cannot of course wish you electoral success in local elections next year, nor in the referendum when it comes.

from one Weegie tae another – awra’ best,

Peter Curran

Scottish Labour Leadership Results
December 17, 2011 2:59 pm

Leadership result:

Deputy Leadership result:

Cameron’s EU fiasco–a failure of negotiation and an act of political cowardice

Independence and the voters - where are we at?

I try to maintain a perspective that reflects that of an ordinary voter. This is almost certainly a vain attempt, since ordinary voters are not SNP party members, or indeed members of any political party, nor do they expend a considerable amount of effort on writing about politics, and although I am no sense a political or legal expert, I have acquired an awareness of the main political issues that is greater than that of most voters, but falls well short of political sophistication.

So what about the voters – how do I see them? A politician or a psephologist will see them  through a web – or a prism – of demographic tables, social groupings and with the benefit of research, questionnaires, focus group, etc. and I can only offer a perception. Here it is …

A core group comprises party activists, not necessarily party members – voters who have a very tangible allegiance, understand the issues, the options and the policy differences and who make a fundamental contribution to our democracy in a range of ways. This group entertains few doubts as to how they will vote in any key political event, be it election or referendum, unless of course a major policy rift opens in their party, or a crisis of confidence creates the possibility of a change of allegiance, e.g. disaffected LibDems. (I myself was such a disaffected Labour voter, and jumped the dyke in 2007.)

There is also a highly aware sector of the electorate who know what they are talking about in certain areas, including some who are clearly professional in their fields, and can claim authority for their views, and some who are not and cannot, but are nonetheless well-informed. In almost any day’s letters in the Scottish press I can find correspondents who seem to be ordinary voters, but who are better informed than I am on aspects of the political debate, whether it be legal, constitutional, scientific or economic.

Among my range of friends, relatives and contacts, there is a clear majority who give little attention to politics or world affairs on a day to day basis, unless or until a major event impinges on their consciousness, or, significantly, when a major political decision point is imminent, such as a local election, a Scottish Parliamentary election or a general election – or a referendum! Then they focus, and try to make up lost ground and evaluate the arguments. I cannot claim that my range of contacts in any way constitutes a representative sample, but I suspect this may constitute the majority group of voters.

Within this group there are those who are essentially apolitical, holding no party allegiance, and who would not place themselves anywhere on the left/right spectrum. Nonetheless, they do occupy a position on that spectrum – and a few key questions rapidly establish it – but they simply do not label themselves as such, and conceive of themselves as pragmatists. Members of this group are sometimes described as floating voters – they must by definition exist, or governments would never change and MSPs and MPs would never lose their seat nor new candidates be elected.

I have to reluctantly face the undeniable fact that there are also political primitives out there who know little, are not well-informed, but nonetheless hold strong opinions. This group, always an uncomfortable one for a democrat to contemplate – and the malleable raw material of the demagogue and the anti-democrat – nonetheless have a vote, and most of them probably exercise their right to vote. They may also have long-term, fixed party allegiances. This is the group that terrifies the Labour and Tory Parties among whose support they are concentrated, lest they defect – and they have, notably in May 2011. As a democrat, I must respect this group’s right to exist and to vote, and fight down my elitist instincts to patronise or even despise them, if for no other reason than the fact that most of the people I grew up with and loved were part of this group, and in a sense so was I.

And of course there are those who have opted out of the political process – or say they have – the “Politicians are all the same, out for themselves – I wouldn’t vote for any of them …” brigade, a group for which I have mainly contempt, leavened with a little pity – but not much. My fear about this group is that when the chips are down, in a big political decision point, such as a referendum, they do actually vote, and for the most reactionary option they can find.

What messages are coming across to all of these groups on independence?

You’ll have to wait for my answers to that, if indeed I have any – I’m still sorting my thoughts out on it …

Scottish Labour leadership candidates–The Politics Show

There they are, ducks in a row – Johann Lamont MSP, Ken Macintosh MSP and Tom Harris MP.

What do they stand for? Well, they're all for fairness and equality - aren't we all - but they're against the independence of the country they want to represent, Scotland.

And by definition, they're

in favour of retaining nuclear weapons and WMDs in Scottish waters

against Scotland having an independent voice in the EU

against Scotland having a seat at the UN

against Scotland having its own foreign policy and its own defence forces

against Scotland having the right to decide when its servicemen and women are sent to die in foreign wars.

Do we really need to know more than this?

A CONTRAST TO THE ABOVE

What Scots thought about government in 2010 - Scottish Social Attitudes Survey

A fascinating document, the findings of which are not as easily attacked by the Unionists as the ComRes poll and other samples.

But the big question is where does Scotland stand today? And where will it stand on the fateful day when its electors cast their votes on independence?

On that day, be on the right side of history, Scots - vote YES for freedom.

The state of the parties – the Holyrood Opposition

Last night’s Newsnight Scotland, with Raymond Buchanan in the Grand Inquisitor’s chair and Sarah Boyack and Jackson Carlaw in the firing line came pretty close to my idea of what this vital Scottish programme should be, and can be.

It had a theme, and questions that really mattered to Scotland, and it addressed them vigorously and forensically. The state of the main (sorry Greens!) opposition parties should concern any democrat, because a strong and representative voice for the core values of their supporters is a vital component of the necessary consensus that underpins any democracy, as is the conviction that, even when a voter’s chosen party does not form the government, that they can exert a proper influence over its policies and its programme. The checks and balances of democracy cannot function without this, and the fact that my party, the SNP, is now dominant in the Scottish Parliament, and that I was ecstatic about their decisive victory, does not lessen my concern over the parlous state of the opposition parties.

The LibDems have their new leader, Willie Rennie, but, to what I hope is their shame, the other two main opposition parties do not. The fact that they do not, almost five months after the election, and are unlikely to have until at least six months after the election, is a disgrace, but  accurately reflects the confusion and  lack of focus of their election campaigns. The Tories, thanks to the political courage of Murdo Fraser, at least have the issues in focus, and face a clear and unambiguous choice between old Toryism, epitomised by Michael Forsyth, and a new, revitalised centre right party, with two candidates for the old Tory values – Ruth Davidson and Jackson Carlaw - and one for the new centre right, Murdo Fraser.

The Tories are focusing on what they believe in, something they are very clear about, and the political processes are simply a vital tool to pursue those values. Most of their values, leaving aside the common shared values that cross all civilised political boundaries, are anathema to me, but they and their supporters have a right to hold them. The Tories know what they are for – they currently disagree about the political identity and structure necessary to achieve their goals.

Labour, in contrast, have no idea what they are for anymore, having long since degenerated into a mindless power seeking machine, a blind, destructive, venal and significantly corrupt juggernaut created by Blair, Brown and Mandelson that spectacularly ran off the rails, having destroyed the British economy and devastated two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan in the process. They have succeeded in enriching  their leaders and some of their cabinet ministers through the juggernaut of blood and death they unleashed, while impoverishing the country.

All three of the opposition parties (sorry again, Greens) are significantly defined by their opposition to the independence of the Scottish people, a blind opposition called Unionism. At least the LibDems and the Tories have other things they believe in – Labour has nothing left except its Unionism. It has become the thing it always falsely accused the SNP of being – a one-issue party. It is neither left nor right, neither centre left nor centre right: it floats aimlessly around the political compass, adrift – sans values, sans principles, sans everything …

UK and No. 10 complicit in torture and rendition in Libya - Is this 'Britishness'?

Watch the first five minutes or so of this, and listen to the categorical denials of senior UK spooks about involvement in rendition and torture.

MI6 is the intelligence arm of the UK government - the one that denied involvement in rendition and torture, denied complicity with Moussa Koussa and the brutal Gadaffi regime - the government that presumed, with barefaced hypocrisy, to criticise the Scottish Government’s legal, moral, principled and humane release of a dying criminal, Megrahi.

The hands of New Labour and Blair and Brown are all over this one, and the benighted Coalition were involved until the Arab Spring caught them with their pants down.

Is this the special nature of the quality of 'Britishness' that is used to justify arguing that Scots should not seek their freedom from a discredited regime, the UK and Westminster government and the poisoned Union that is now crumbling by the day?

Number 10 were up to their dirty necks in the Gadaffi regime, until Cameron expediently jumped on board a NATO and French initiative when he saw which way the wind was blowing. The UK will piously back democracy and freedom anywhere in the world when its suits their purpose - except of course Scotland's democratic and human right to end a union they were bribed and coerced into over 300 years ago.

“It’s the nukes, stupid!” - the Herald finally comes clean.

On another Sunday, the 17th of April, in the final stages of the Scottish election campaign, I wrote a piece entitled Oh, what a beautiful morning for Scotland and the hopes of its people!

It ended with the following paragraphs -

The new Sunday Herald thinks Tavish Scott is the big story, then follows with page after page of negativism about the SNP, including a sad little piece on party manifestos by Ian Bell. It does, however, give full coverage to Cardinal O’Brien’s admirable attack on Trident and WMD’s in Scottish waters  while managing to ignore the elephant in the room - the fact that the SNP are the only significant party in Scotland and the UK that is totally opposed to nuclear weapons, WMDs and nuclear power.

The Sunday Herald prefers to present Partick Harvie and his Green Party of two, and CND, - which sadly has been totally ineffectual for half a century in opposing nuclear weapons - as the bulwarks against nuclear power.

Well, as champions of the UK (pro-nuclear) and of Labour (pro nuclear), the Sunday Herald would say that, wouldn’t they? They mustn’t support the only organisation that can actually deliver a nuclear-free Scotland, the SNP - if they get re-elected and ultimately secure an independent Scotland, they will undoubtedly do it.

I have written extensively on the central, but carefully played down nature of the nuclear and defence issues to the independence question. A few from the last year -

Scotland’s First Minister–The Politics Show–and nuclear aspects of independence

The new Scotland - where to from here?

A 2009 view of the nuclear question - vitally relevant to May 5th election

Afghanistan–the futile killing fields

War, the monarchy, the poppy – blood, death and glory?

Scottish Labour and Defence–follow the money

Baron Prescott and Iraq

Religious fundamentalism in the American military

But, lo and behold, The new Herald on Sunday has suddenly wakened up to the realities of nuclear defence policy and Scottish independence - maybe it was that ‘new’ in the title, or perhaps they have just decided to acknowledge the stark reality buried beneath all the highly selective and distorted economic statistics and sentimental pap about Britishness that usually constitutes the anti-independence unionist argument.

An exclusive report by David Leask comes clean about what’s really behind the British Establishment’s hysteria about Scottish independence - to borrow Bill Clinton’s phrase “It’s the economy, stupid!” during his 1992 campaign, - It’s the nukes, stupid!

David Leask nails the dilemma in two paragraphs -

“The break up of the UK - and its military - is a realistic, if far from certain prospect.

Whitehall defence mandarins are slowly realising that a third of the UK land mass - and their entire nuclear deterrent - could be in a foreign country within a decade. “

I’m glad the Whitehall defence mandarins - and the New Sunday Herald - have finally caught up with me. Better late than never, guys. 

(George Bernard Shaw once observed that the incompetence of successive British governments and the Civil Service was easily explained by the fact there was simply not a sufficient pool of intelligence among the scions of the British aristocracy and  Establishment to meet the demands of government, so mediocrity and incompetence were the inevitable result of their control of positions of power and influence.)

Next to the Leask article, Trevor Royle, the Herald’s political editor has his say. He is well-equipped to comment - as author of many books on the military, the Scottish military and its history, and from a military family himself, essentially he sees things as a soldier might - objectively and professionally.

But he cannot be wholly objective, because Scottish military tradition matters deeply to him, unlike the cynical politicians who have never served, and make damn sure that their children are never in harms way, but who profit politically and often financially to an obscene degree from sending young people to their deaths, and to bring about the deaths of others, both the innocent and the guilty.

He places the question properly in its historical context, and his final paragraph is the pragmatic view of a historian, and will be the view of the less-blimpish among the senior echelons of the armed forces.

“As states come into being they need to possess their own means of defence. In Scotland’s case that would entail a division of the existing assets, because once the United Kingdom ceases to exist, so too will the armed forces. As those charged with responsibility are beginning to discover, there will be no other option.”

Going back to the Leask article, however, we find that the RUSI - the Royal United Services Institute - “the think tank closest the Britain’s smartest military minds” while appearing to pragmatically accept the likelihood of Scotland’s independence, is not ready to accept the inevitability of its nuclear and military independence, and presumes - and it is an outrageous presumption - to advise the UK to play hardball during negotiations.

David Leask quotes one Mark Lynch as recommending that the UK play hardball, e.g. trading Faslane for not blackballing Scotland’s membership of the EU. Mark Lynch believes that Scotland’s “interest in removing the nuclear threat (!) is far outweighed by its need for membership within the European Union, and thus is likely to accept these conditions.”

Just how Lynch has reached the judgement that this would be acceptable to the Scottish Government negotiators is fascinating. He clearly has reason to believe that his realpolitik will be mirrored  in the minds of Alex Salmond and his senior team, but the question arises if this is informed speculation, or based on more substantial inside knowledge. We must look more closely at Mark Lynch to see what his experience and qualifications are to offer such potentially inflammatory advice to “Britain’s smartest military minds”.

According to his Linkedin.com profile, he is a graduate of St. Andrew’s University, an MA with a first-class honours degree in politics, specialising in nationalism and human Rights. No surprise there - St. Andrew’s is not exactly a hotbed of Scottish nationalist politics, and is would not be my first port of call for an objective look at Scotland’s independence. But it would certainly be a reflex choice for “Britain’s smartest military minds”, at least those of them utterly hostile to that independence.

Mark’s thought on Scotland’s independence are set out in his recent publication The Security Implications of Scottish independence, in which he attempts to link Scotland’s independence with dissident republicanism in Northern Ireland, suggesting that it would be an “inspiration” for nationalist movements in the UK and Europe. His use of the word inspiration is pejorative in this context. I quote - “The increasingly violent actions of dissident republican groups in Northern Ireland would be in danger of increasing exponentially in the face of an apparently weakened UK.”

Mark Lynch goes on to the following statement, which is perhaps illustrative of his approach  -

“Indeed, Gerry Adams suggested that an independent Scotland would cause 'seismic shifts' for the future of the UK creating lasting concerns about the stability of the region”

Reading this, one might be forgiven for thinking - even “Britain’s smartest military minds” might be forgiven for thinking -   that Gerry Adams “seismic shifts” quote also included a belief that it would cause “lasting concerns about the stability of the region”, but since Mark Lynch quotes his reference for this - Belfast Media - we are able to read the actual report of the remarks.

SNP Leader Alex Salmond has vowed to hold a referendum on Scottish independence, and Mr Adams said the situation there would cause “seismic shifts” for the future of the UK.

Not quite the same thing … Indeed seismic shifts, the movement of tectonic plates, earthquakes, tsunamai, etc. have been the rather debased currency of commentary on the SNP’s astounding victory, usually by aghast unionist commentators since May 6th of this year. Some have even got their earth science metaphors mixed up with baseball, suggesting that right-thinking unionists everywhere, especially in St. Andrew’s, their natural home, should “step up to the tectonic plate” in opposing Scotland’s, a feat that would pose some interesting geological challenges.

SUMMARY

I am grateful to the Sunday Herald and to David Leask for getting this sort of thinking up front, where it belongs, in the debate leading to the independence referendum. The issue has been the elephant in the room for too long, but after Liam Fox’s mask dropped during his announcement in the commons of the new defence deployments in Scotland, where he made it abundantly clear that he saw this as one of the prime lines of defence for the continuation of his beloved UK as a political entity, the defence elephant has escaped from the room, and is rampaging about, looking for someone to gore.

I hope that his timely article gives the SNP leadership some cause for thought, because in my view, they need to say much more about the defence plans of the Scottish Government in relation to independence than they have done so far, especially in relation to the nuclear bases.

I am not so naive as to believe that I am capable of thinking political thoughts that Alex Salmond has not already thought - and a dozen for every one of mine. This superb political tactician and statesman, towering head and shoulders above anything Westminster has to offer, must however share his thoughts with his wider support, not just with inner party circles.

I appreciate that he must keep his negotiating powder dry, faced with a widely-dispersed, powerful and unscrupulous unionist opposition, but he and Angus Robertson must reassure those in the party and beyond it who are utterly and totally opposed to the retention of nuclear bases and the nuclear deterrent in an independent Scotland that these are deal-breakers in the independence negotiations.

In the approach to Scotland’s freedom, all thing are not possible.

Some things must not be on the negotiating table, either overtly or implicitly. Many unionists are implacable in their opposition to independence for Scotland. Many nationalists are implacable in their opposition to any compromise on the deterrent or the bases. I am one of them.

Clear the air on this, please, First Minister, and sooner rather than later.

Hackergate Debate 20 July 2011 - a selection of questions

This is a selection of questions from the early part of the debate. It is almost exclusively confined to Labour questions, since virtually all of the Tory questions were of the "How wonderful you are David, Labour was twice as culpable, why are we discussing this at all?" variety.

I share the view that Labour were at least as culpable with Murdoch, however, they are not the Government - the Tory-led Coalition is, and the exposure of the shameful behaviour of News International and Cameron's cosy relationship with it came from an indefatigable Labour MP, Tom Watson, and of course, The Guardian newspaper.

Hackergate - Delegation and abdication

Yesterday’s select committee enquiries revealed rather more than most media commentators seemed to think, and that perhaps says a lot about the nature of press and media comment in the UK today.

There were many fulsome tributes paid to the reputation and integrity of those on the receiving end of the interrogation, especially the senior police officers, tributes that came mainly from themselves. I use the word fulsome in its correct meaning as excessive, cloying or insincere, not in the sense used by our semi-literate journalists and media pundits. I must invoke Shakespeare yet again: Hamlet asks his mother the Queen how she likes the play, to which Gertrude replies “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”, using protest in the contemporary sense of affirm or profess.

My experience of true integrity in my life is that no man or woman of integrity ever asserts their own integrity - they demonstrate it by their actions and leave it to others to judge it.

The other fascinating aspect of the two enquiries was the way in which those being interrogated chose to interpret their managerial roles, especially in relation to decision-making, delegation and the acceptance of assurances. Without exception, they appeared to adopt instinctively -and perhaps unwittingly - what I call analogously, and with no suggestion whatsoever of criminality, some of the Mafia Godfather principles of management.

The Seven Godfather Principles of management are designed as a firewall against accountability or responsibility for personal actions to an external authority. They are not, of course, the actual operating practices or principles of Mafia Dons and capi de regime - they are designed for external perception and consumption only. They are -

THE 7 PRINCIPLES

1. I believe implicitly everything I am told by my subordinates and professional advisers, and never feel any requirement to check, cross check or verify the veracity of what I am told.

2. I delegate responsibility absolutely and completely, and any failure by the person to whom I delegate is entirely down to them, not to me.

3. I never monitor employee performance or compliance with policy or procedural directives, but I punish failure instantly when it is pointed out to me by third parties, or events leave me no choice but to recognise it. I am never, ever reluctant to blame others for failure.

4. I ensure, by whatever means possible, that I am never told anything that in any way could call my decision-making into question at a later date, or make me accountable or responsible for the actions of a subordinate.

5. When receiving advice to aid my decision-making, I require a single recommended course of action for me to take, even if the adviser has identified a range of options. I dislike intensely having to choose between a range of options, because such a choice would make me responsible, instead of the adviser.

6. I always recognise as mine decisions that produce successful outcomes. I never recognise as mine decisions that produce unsuccessful outcomes - they were, effectively, the decisions of my advisers, which I accepted because I had no choice but to do so, because I trusted the adviser absolutely and uncritically.

7. My memory is strangely and bafflingly selective - I have total recall, usually backed up by detailed documentation and contemporaneous notes, of anything that supports my decisions and my integrity, but I am frequently unable to recall matters that could call my decisions or integrity into question, I never take contemporaneous notes on such matters, and documents relating to them unaccountably disappear.

-------

Since none of those appearing before the committee were criminals, and indeed, were people of the highest probity, reputation and integrity - we have their unequivocal word for it - we must accept that the apparent adoption of some of the above principles - inferred from their answers to questions - actually  did reflect their true management behaviour and operating principles, or at least that of some of them.

But this leads me, at least, to the inevitable conclusion that, if they actually did operate in this way, they would have be grossly incompetent and unfit for the high offices they occupy, since the Godfather Principles set out above are a denial of all modern management standards of competence and accountability.

I am therefore faced with the paradox that, if I am to retain faith on the police and in the Press, neither explanation satisfies me.

Even more worrying is that David Cameron and his government appears to either want us to believe that they are operating under such principles, or worse still, actually are …

Since most journalists and media commentators are direct professional contributors, and with few exceptions, have never managed large-scale operations, we can expect little insight from them on such arcane matters - as they used to say in the auld Glesca, “they couldnae run a menage …”

I await today’s Parliamentary debate with a mixture of anticipation and trepidation.

A preamble to my independence blog to follow, a kind of scene-setting …

I received this communication today from a long-term friend and colleague, an Englishman, living in England, who knows and understands Scotland deeply from a long association with the country, and one who has made a highly significant contribution in a wide range of fields to the United Kingdom and all its component countries over his lifetime.

You should ignore the Westminster politicians - the YES campaign is already under way in England. If your referendum is extended to voters south of the Border, you can be assured of a landslide victory! Also for Wales and for the rapid reunification of Ireland. On the latter, perhaps HM can do a deal this week?

I quote this to underline the point that nationalism, in its true sense, is not simply the objective of Scots, Welsh and Irish - the great country of England and its people are awakening to the fact that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is heading rapidly towards its inevitable dissolution, and that England must become a nation once again.

The true nationalists in these countries are not separatists - although I confess to rejoicing in that term in the recent past, in an ill-considered reaction to pejorative use of the term by unionists - but are deeply concerned that the ancient and modern ties of blood, family, friendship, and  common economic and defence priorities in certain areas are not damaged by the return of national sovereignty to the nation states in these islands. In this, they are no different from the nation states of the European Union, or the Commonwealth, or indeed of any international grouping based on areas of common interest.

The common thread that unites these nationalists is the conviction that the United Kingdom - and the Westminster Parliament as presently constituted - are no longer fit for purpose, and that the present constitutional settlement cannot hold, containing as it does an increasing and disabling series of contradictions, especially as it relates to devolved government. No form of devolution max or independence lite will remedy this structual defect - only national sovereignty will be sufficient.

The UK is also completely out of step with global events, the Zeitgeist, and the new spirit of self-determination that grips the peoples of the world - confused about its international role, devoid of direction or a vision of the kind of society it wants to be, lost in nostalgia about a lost past, one that in significant part never existed, except in the imagination of the South East of England and rapidly diminishing areas of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and there mainly among the privileged and those among the less privileged naturally dependent on their patronage .

Please don’t talk about us when we’re gone …

There’s an old jazz song – “Please don’t talk about me when I’m gone” With some adaptation, it fits very well with the less generous UK commentators on Scotland’s new dawn and its impending departure from the Union.

Please don't talk about us when we're gone
Although we hope we can be friendly from now on
And if you can't say anything real nice
Then UK, please don't talk at all is my advice

You go your way and I'll go mine
It's best that we do
Here's a thought I hope will bring
Lots of love to you

It makes no difference how you carry on
But UK - please don't talk about us when we're gone

We’re on our way, Scotland!

Snow in England - but why no demands for resignations? Three Scots on Andrew Marr Show

England gridlocked by snow - snow headlines in Sunday papers - travel paralysed - motorists stranded. But the Andrew Marr Show tries to laugh it off.

Three Scots in a row - Marr, Charles Kennedy and Rory Bremner - all invited to keep the tone light and humorous by Marr. Bremner goes along with it, but Charles Kennedy - ever direct - reminds them of the uncomfortable fact that the Scottish Transport Minister was forced to resign over snow problems.

Andrew Marr moves swiftly on. Serious problems in England, transport disrupted - people may die, but nothing must suggest that the Scottish Unionist Opposition were wrong in their contemptible witch hunt against Stewart Stevenson, and God forbid, that anyone should call for resignations at Westminster.

 That would never do ...

The Falklands Islanders can leave the UK whenever they want to–but what about the Scots?

The Daily Politics, Wednesday  the 15th of December.

THERESA VILLIERS, TORY MP

"Our legal rights to the sovereignty of the Falklands is clear, and we've always said we will never give the Falklands back, unless the people in the Falkland Islands wish to make a change to the current arrangement ... The Falkland Islands stay British unless the Falkland islanders want to change that."

ED BALLS, LABOUR MP

"These are British people, who have a right to self-determination ---"

So say the two largest parties in the UK.

But what of Scotland, a country that voluntarily entered into a union with England as the UK - a country with its own ancient, proud, independent history, traditions and culture, its own church, its own legal system, its own Parliament.

What if a substantial proportion of the population of Scotland - a majority in the last opinion poll - want a referendum to determine their wishes?

The answer is a flat, unequivocal NO from all three of the largest UK parties. They are afraid even to ask the question. So billions can be squandered on maintaining a remote, tiny relic of the faded British Empire, but Scotland cannot even seek the opinion of its citizens.

The question must be asked again and again - why does the UK want to hold Scotland? The answers are clear - defence, i.e. nuclear, policy, revenue from oil and Scotch whisky, and finally the fact that if Scotland goes, the pretence of Empire can no longer be sustained.

And of course there is the secret terror that Scotland might well prove to be more economically successful than England, and might continue to display a concern for its poor, its vulnerable, its aged, and for the education of its young people that is increasingly absent in England.

Let Scotland go! You must be nuts - the Union Jack would rot on the flagpole! There would be riots in the streets of London! Members of the Royal Family would be assaulted in public! (aside from Sir Humphrey – Ahem, that has already happened, Minister ...”)

And what would happen to the post of colonial governor, the current Vidkun – the Scottish Secretary?

Why that would pass, unmourned, into the sordid pages of the history of that benighted position.

Are the wheels coming off the Union?

The Daily Politics today – Jo Coburn, with guest commentators Nick Watt, chief Political Correspondent of the Guardian, and Iain Dale, a Tory blogger, talks to Linda Fabiani, MSP of the Scottish National Party about Scotland and the Barnett Formula.

The lead-in to this was a piece about the Barnett Formula, and featured its eponymous inventor. The Noble Lord has mixed feelings about his long-running invention, taking some pride in its longevity and the fact that his name will be remembered for a formula, but unhappy about the way it favours Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland), as he sees it.

Linda Fabiani acquits herself more than honourably in the face of Jo Coburn’s rather hostile – and confused - questioning and what rapidly became ill-concealed indignation from Iain Dale, a Tory blogger and commentator with views that could fairly be described as right of centre. Political programmes seem to have a great affection for Iain Dale, but are less inclined to feature equally influential bloggers of other political persuasions. (I do not include myself in this category, but the question is academic, since the likelihood of an SNP blogger appearing on The Daily Politics roughly equates to the possibility of Alex Salmond being invited to grace the benches of the House of Lords.)

Jo Coburn’s opening question set the anti-Scottish tone firmly -

“Is it fair that Scotland receives more public spending per head than anywhere else in the UK? In fact, it’s £1500 more per person than England?”

Linda Fabiani replied that a recent survey showed public expenditure per head being higher in London.

Jo Coburn simply ignored this, and repeated that Scotland got more than anyone else except Northern Ireland, which seemed to contradict her earlier assertion that Scotland received more than anywhere else in the UK. Perhaps Jo thinks Northern Ireland is not in the UK?

Linda patiently developed her earlier point, and said that when examined regionally, certain English regions received more than Scotland and Wales.

Jo Coburn resolutely stayed in her don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts mode of questioning, repeatedly using the words fair and fairness. She then moved into a ludicrous line of questioning about why Scottish students should not have to pay tuition fees, nor students from other European countries, when English students do have to pay fees.

Why on earth she - or anyone – thought that this was a question for Scotland to answer beggars belief. Scotland spends its allocation as it sees fit – that is what devolved government is about. The answer as to why English students pay when the others don’t is a matter for the UK and the EU, not Scotland.

It would appear that, in the Alice in Wonderland world of UK political commentary, it is expected that Scotland, with a devolved government, should somehow limit such fiscal freedom as it has to avoid doing anything different, or necessary, in order to maintain consistency with the backward social and educational policies of England.

To do this would negate the whole purpose of devolved government in the first place.

Linda Fabiani heroically restrained herself from stating the blindingly obvious – that a party committed to the independence of Scotland does not base its social policy on what the failing and confused UK chooses to do. But she could not resist offering the comment that England was free to treat its student how it saw fit, but based on the evidence of the last few days, was not making a very good job of it. Linda was anxious to help the confused Jo Coburn understand the realities of devolved government.

Jo rapidly changed tack. “Can you guarantee that you’re still going to be able to guarantee that you’ll still have free Scottish universities?”

Linda did not fall into this most obvious of elephant traps, simply saying that there was a review in the light of the budget cuts, and when that review was completed, decisions would be made. But she reiterated that there would be no fees for students in Scotland.

It fell to Nick Watt, the Guardian’s man, make the point that Linda Fabiani was too courteous to make – that she, as a Scottish MSP and a member of a a party committed to leaving the United Kingdom, didn’t really care what people in England think, nor what England did.

He wrenched the floundering Jo Coburn back to the realisation that she and The Daily Politics should be putting the question to the Unionist parties, Labour and the LibDems, who agreed that Scotland should get this funding. not to the SNP or the Scottish Government.

He also posed the $64,000 question for the Scottish Unionist parties – and the UK government – how can you justify the continuation of a perceived inequality – remaining in the Union with favourable treatment? Scotland was having it both ways …

Iain Dale, who had been fizzing quietly with Unionist indignation, entered the discussion, saying that it was “an absolute outrage” that English taxpayers were subsidising Welsh and Scottish students at the English universities. “The only solution is devolved government for England …

Well, no – it’s not, Iain. The other solution is independence for Scotland and Wales, with Northern Ireland left as the sole remaining colony of the resulting rump of the United Kingdom, which has been a very disunited kingdom for some time now.

Dale concluded by adding “ …if we had a proper English Parliament, we wouldn’t be sending all this money up to Scotland to waste.”

There you have it – providing free higher education for the generation that holds the future of Scotland in their hands is waste, in Iain Dale’s view: providing free personal care for the elderly, free bus passes, or indeed any of the deeply human social policies of the Scottish Government is waste, in the Unionist world view. We know that, Iain – that why we want to get the hell out of the Union, sooner rather than later.

The UK social policies that he espouses, and defended earlier in the programme, have led to riots on the streets of London, and the disaffection and alienation of the flower of England’s youth. The unionist conspiracy of big business, the monarchy, the rich and the military industrial complex, aided and abetted by the last labour Government and compounded by the ConLib Coalition has wrecked the countries economy, and is now attacking the poor, the vulnerable and the young.

The young people of England have nowhere to go politically. Betrayed by Labour for thirteen years, betrayed by the Liberal Democrats and now by the Tories and their LibDem puppets, they are left asking themselves what political avenues are left open to them.

 There are sinister forces at work who will be only to eager to exploit their confusion and despair and their youthful energy and idealism. It is already happening – the Heir to the Throne and his consort have already been threatened and humiliated in the heart of their capital city, despite a massive police presence.

Scotland can only watch, saddened by what is happening to England and England’s people, and hoping fervently that they find a democratic and peaceful political solution to their problems.

But Scotland’s young people and the Scottish electorate have a choice, one that will determine the future of Scotland for a generation or more, and that choice must be made wisely in May 2011. Choose the SNP – and choose to stand as a free and independent nation once again.

Saor Alba!