Why do some Scots? …

Why do some Scots want control of everything by devolution EXCEPT the things that REALLY matter to their lives and their children's futures?

 

Why do some Scots want control of everything by devolution EXCEPT the right not to be made a prime target by UK for a first nuclear strike?

 

Why do some Scots want control of everything by devolution EXCEPT the right to have weapons of mass destruction removed from their soil?

 

Why do some Scots want control of everything by devolution EXCEPT the right of Westminster to withdraw any or all of that control at any time?

 

Why do some Scots want control of everything by devolution EXCEPT the right to control their relations with other fully independent nations?

 

Why do some Scots want control of everything by devolution EXCEPT the right to have their children being sent to die in foreign wars?

The ominous undertone of the Better Together alliance of Tories, Labour (and LibDems) becomes ever more pronounced.

Playing the foreign countries, foreigners and foreigness card becomes more prevalent, militarism is increasingly invoked - whether by threats over defence or appeals to an imagined glorious military past - and ex-servicemen are urged to rally to the defence of the union.

Sinister organisations with paramilitary links from Northern Ireland plan to visit those of like mind in the West of Scotland, etc.

Nuclear weapons of mass destruction, Trident, and the nuclear presence in Scottish waters is ever the backdrop ...

All of this is meat and drink to an increasingly insular, anti-European Tory Party, but what in God's name is the Labour Party doing at the very forefront of this brand of militant neo-conservatism? The spectacle of Kezia Dugdale, a politician of principle and patently genuine commitment to social justice in this company appals me.

Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon at ALEX.DENNIS, Falkirk 21st May 2013

Move to 10m mark for start of speeches. PAPER ALISTAIR DARLING on Good Morning Scotland

The Farage Affair continues to dominate media

Angus Macleod on Good Morning Scotland, wriggling uneasily over the Farage Affair, trying to square his native intelligence with the Times line. Poor Angus!

But Angus' dilemma is as nothing to the dilemma of Better Together and their media shills - to defend Farage or not? Scottish Tories have already fallen into the hole.

Joyce McMillan provides the calm voice of Scottish sanity and Robin McAlpine, of The Jimmy Reid Foundation, talks hard sense.

Angus Macleod more or less celebrates UKIP vote success in his attempts to justify its news value.

Farage Affair: Alex Massie on Good Morning Scotland

Alex Massie: "Left and Right no longer means very much ..." Don't make me laugh, it hurts my ribs, Alex. But I'm sure you wish it so!

Newsnight Independence Debate 13th May 2013–Chas Booth and Humza Yousaf

Nicola Sturgeon’s speech – 13th May 2013

(N.B. All emphases, italicisation, etc. are mine, and represent my view of significance. They were not present in the SNP transcription of Nicola’s speech.)

NICOLA STURGEON - THE BENEFITS AND POSSIBILITIES OF INDEPENDENCE

In 70 weeks' time, each of us will give our own answer to the question - 'Should Scotland be an independent country?' and the nation, collectively, will decide.

Over the next 70 weeks, people the length and breadth of the country will make up their minds on what is, undoubtedly, the greatest opportunity of our lifetimes. Many will change their minds – perhaps several times – before a final decision puts them in the Yes or the No camp.

Each side will argue its case vigorously and with a determination to win. The campaign will be passionate, noisy and, at times, heated. That is exactly as it should be.

But the division of opinion that is inevitable in a referendum - inevitable in any election - shouldn’t blind us to the fact that, Yes or No, Scotland is one country.

Yes or No, we all care about the future of this nation. We all want the best for the people who live here.

We have different views on how Scotland should move forward. But the day after the referendum, whatever the outcome, we will move forward together.

I have no doubt that, if Scotland votes Yes, those on the No side - elected representatives like Johann Lamont, Ruth Davidson and Willie Rennie - will be on Scotland's side, part of the team who will negotiate our independence. And Team Scotland will be stronger as a result.

So, it is with an eye firmly on the day after the referendum that I say this to both sides of the campaign -

We will all do everything in our power to bring about the outcome we desire – but let us also do everything in our power to make the campaign as good, as inspiring and as energising as it can be.

The national opportunity we have over the next 70 weeks - the opportunity to imagine the kind of country we want to be and decide how we best equip ourselves to become that country - is a rare one, and we owe it to the country to rise to the challenge.

Today I will set out the hallmarks of the Yes campaign. The distinctive features of our approach to winning the referendum.

And, be in no doubt, win is what we intend to do.

We have work to do, but our case is reasonable, rational and responsible.

We believe that Scotland should be governed here at home, from our own Parliament not from Westminster; that we should build a new relationship of equals with our friends across these islands; that we should hold the powers in our own hands to shape a nation that lives up to our ambitions of fairness and prosperity; and that we should have no-one else to blame if we fail to do so.

That is the vision that can win the argument and win the referendum.

I am convinced – from talking to people across the country – that there is a natural majority in Scotland for independence. What do I mean by that? I mean that people will vote Yes if we can persuade them that it opens the door to a wealthier and fairer country.

A poll published just last week showed that, even now, with 16 months to go, 47% will already vote Yes or be more likely to do so if we can persuade them that Scotland will be wealthier and fairer - compared to 45% who take the opposite stance.

So my job - our job - is to give people the confidence to be optimistic about Scotland's future; to back ourselves to build a better Scotland. That is our task. 

The approach of the Yes campaign will be to inform the debate, while being honest about the judgment Scotland has to make; to set out clearly both sides of the choice people face; and to focus always on the positive contribution Scotland has to make. These are the hallmarks of our campaign; our unique selling points.

The No campaign won't match us - because their campaign depends on fostering a climate of fear and uncertainty, on ignoring the inevitable consequences for Scotland of continued Westminster government; and on talking down what Scotland has to offer.

So, we will work hard to inform the debate - but we won't insult anyone's intelligence. People understand that there are uncertainties for Scotland – as there are for any country – whether we become independent or continue to be governed by Westminster. It is undoubtedly the case that certainty will be maximised if both the Scottish and UK Governments behave responsibly and agree to discuss now the negotiations that will follow if Scotland votes Yes.

But there isn't always an absolute objective truth to be found on issues where negotiation and the policy choices of governments yet to be elected will help shape Scotland. There are facts that will be set out, of course, but the referendum will not simply be a contest of competing ‘facts’.

Instead, when the Yes and No campaigns set out their stalls, people will be asked to make a qualitative judgment about which is more credible and compelling and about who they trust most with Scotland's future.

Is it more or less likely that a government elected in Scotland will reflect the views and priorities of the Scottish people better than a remote government in Westminster that is all too often elected against the clear wishes of Scotland?

Are we more or less likely to build a wealthier and fairer country by taking the powers over tax and welfare into our own hands rather than leaving them at Westminster?

These are the judgments people will make.

Our job is to inform those judgments and that process is already underway.

A range of detailed information has been published already on the structure, platform and potential of an independent Scotland.

In February, we published a detailed paper on the transition to independence - with a timescale described by one of the two legal experts who drafted the UK government's constitutional document as 'realistic' - and plans for a written constitution.

The report of the Fiscal Commission Working Group has set out comprehensive and considered proposals for retaining sterling as the currency in an independent Scotland - a policy described by Alistair Darling as "desirable" and "logical" and supported by two-thirds of Scots.

And a detailed balance sheet shows that Scotland can more than afford to be independent; that our finances are stronger than the UK's; that our share of Westminster's debt will be lower as a proportion of our national wealth than the UK's; that the tax take from Scotland has been higher in every single one of the last 30 years than it has been across the UK; and that pension and welfare costs are more affordable with independence.

And over the next few months, we will publish reports on a range of issues including Scotland’s vast economic potential, welfare and pensions, financial services, defence and foreign affairs.

The UK government is publishing its own papers - but it is already clear that their purpose is less to inform than to frighten.

The inherent weakness in that approach, in my view, is not just that the politics of fear has a limited shelf life.

It is that for the scare stories they tell to come to pass, the UK - presumably in a fit of pique after Scotland votes Yes - would have to act contrary to its own interests. That doesn't stand up to any serious scrutiny. And that's why the UK government won't sit down now and discuss, in a grown up way, the issues we will require to resolve between us after a Yes vote - something they would do if their concern was about informing the public rather than scoring partisan points.

But they won't do it because they know as well as we do that sensible discussion, entered into in good faith, will demonstrate the common sense of our plans for Scotland's transition to independence and our continued relationship with our partners across the UK, and therefore strip them of their ability to peddle fear.

I believe that, as we set out our case, people will increasingly see the tactics of the No campaign for what they are.

The Yes campaign will also set out the clear choice that people face - the benefits of independence and the prospects for Scotland if we don't vote Yes.

This referendum is more than just a decision between the status quo and independence – it is a choice between two very different futures.

One in which we take the power to shape our future into our own hands and another where we leave that power in the hands of a Westminster establishment that is set on a political, social and economic path that most people in Scotland would not choose - austerity and cuts in social protection, privatisation of public services, and possible withdrawal from the EU.

The No campaign won't set out that choice. They will attack the case for independence, but they won't be honest about the implications for Scotland of staying subject to Westminster government on issues like welfare, the economy and nuclear weapons.

I'm told they have asked us 500 questions about independence. I welcome that. The more the focus is on the opportunities of independence, the better.

But the fact is No has its own questions to answer. For people to make an informed choice about whether Scotland will be better off as an independent country, they need to know what the alternative is – what the future holds for Scotland in the UK.

So, let me today ask some very direct questions of the No campaign.

Questions about what will happen to Scotland if No gets its way.

Let's call them the UK 2020 questions.

Will the UK still be a member of the European Union in 2020?

How much more means testing will have been introduced into the UK benefits system by 2020.

What will the UK retirement age be in 2020?

How many more children in Scotland will be living in poverty by 2020 as a result of Westminster welfare cuts?

What will have happened by 2020 to funding for Scotland’s NHS, via the Barnett formula, as England’s NHS is increasingly privatised?

Will there still be a bedroom tax in 2020?

How many more billions of pounds will have been spent by Scottish taxpayers on keeping UK Trident nuclear weapons on the Clyde?

Will the UK still have a Human Rights Act in 2020 and, if not, what will the implications be for Scotland's distinctive legal system?

Will the UK still be the 4th most unequal country in the developed world in 2020 or will it have moved closer to the top spot, with the gap between the richest and poorest even wider?

Will Scotland’s long term economic growth rate still lag behind our competitors in 2020?

Is there any guarantee that Scotland will have voted for the Westminster government that is in office in 2020 - or will it be yet another government elected against the wishes of the Scottish people?And will the Scottish Parliament have any additional powers, beyond those in the Scotland Act, by 2020 – and, if so, what will they be?

To those in the No camp who say these questions can’t be answered because they depend on the policies of future governments, let me gently point out that exactly the same can be said of many of the 500 questions asked of the Yes campaign.

And while the exact answers might be beyond reach at this time, the direction of travel for Scotland under continued Westminster government is all too clear.

In relation to a No vote, this quote from our national bard Robert Burns sums it up best: "An' forward, tho' I canna see, I guess an' fear!"

Ever greater cuts in public spending, a welfare state dismantled beyond recognition, people working longer for less, higher levels of child poverty, a growing gap between rich and poor, billions more wasted on nuclear weapons and no real prospect of any more powers for our parliament.

That is the bleak prospect of sticking with Westminster government - and that’s why a No vote is a real gamble with Scotland's future. A massive gamble with our children's future.

There is a better way. Scotland 2020 can be a better place. It won't happen overnight. We will need to work at it, use the powers and the resources at our disposal to change things for the better.

But it can be done.

Take social protection. We know the welfare state is under attack by Westminster like never before. And we know that welfare is more affordable in Scotland than in the UK, not less.

Independence will give us the chance to recast our social security system for the future. To see it - alongside our NHS and our education system - as the commitment we make to each other in a mutual society, a way of helping people to live full and independent lives, to help people into work, but also to make sure they have a safety net when they can't. A system that supports a growing economy, not one that is written off as a drain on it.

That will take time - but, make no mistake, it can only be done with independence.

And we will be able to make some changes immediately.

A few weeks ago, I pledged that an SNP government in an independent Scotland would scrap the bedroom tax.

Today I am making the second in a series of announcements that will set out our intention to undo the worst impacts of the Tory welfare cuts, particularly as they affect women and children.

The new universal credit system discriminates against women. It undermines the independence of women. Unlike the current system, which makes payments to individual claimants, it will be paid in one single household amount - which will more often than not mean to the man in a household. And because it applies a single earnings disregard when people move into work, it reduces the incentive to work for second earners in a household - who will usually be women.

So when a woman, whose partner already works, gets a job, she will gain very little in return - her marginal tax rate will be upwards of 60%.

It is no wonder that Universal Credit has been described as reinforcing the notion of the male breadwinner - a concept that is outdated and totally out of touch with the reality of many modern families.

So, I can confirm today that we would move away from single household payments and give women back the ability to receive support in their own right. And we would equalise the earnings disregard between first and second earners, making work more attractive for women, more rewarding for women and more likely to lift children out of poverty. 

It is just one, very specific change, but the start of a series of policy announcements that, over the months to come, will illustrate clearly and vividly the benefits and possibilities of independence.

Because the fundamental difference between Yes and No is this: No leaves these choices in the hands of Westminster governments – Westminster governments that all too often Scotland doesn’t vote for.

It is only with Yes, with the powers of independence, that Scotland can decide our policies in these and all other areas according to the votes and views of the people who live and work here.

It is only with a Yes vote that we get a parliament and government 100% accountable to all those living and working in Scotland. That is the essence of independence.

It is why I so passionately want Scotland to vote Yes next year.

But, whatever the outcome of the referendum, I also want Scotland to emerge from it as a more confident and self-assured country.

And that is why the Yes campaign will always be positive about Scotland and about the ties that bind us - the ties will always bind us, no matter our constitutional arrangements - to our families, friends and partners across these islands.

What I find deeply troubling about the No campaign is not its opposition to independence - it is absolutely legitimate for anyone to argue that Scotland is better off staying with Westminster government, if that is what they believe.

What troubles me is the No campaign's apparent willingness to paint Scotland as the poor relation that would have nothing to bring to the table as an independent nation. When they say that Westminster wouldn’t want us in a currency union, or the EU wouldn’t want us as members, they write off at a stroke the massive resources, talents and attributes that mean that we would - in reality - be a welcome member of the international community and a valued partner to our friends across these islands.

Yes, we will have to pay our way and drive hard bargains – but we will do so with the massive advantages we have as a nation and we will be able to speak with our own voice to better protect our own interests.

To suggest otherwise seems to me to wilfully diminish the country and all that we are for purely partisan reasons.

So there is no doubt that an emerging divide in the referendum debate is between those of us who attach merit and value to Scotland in its own right, and those whose case appears, increasingly, to devalue what Scotland has to offer.

Indeed, one of the great ironies of the referendum debate so far is that the tone and content of the No campaign is actually the antithesis of the traditional case for the Union in Scotland.

The theory of Unionism from 1707 through to the 20th century - although not the actual Scottish experience - was that Scotland was an equal partner within a wider venture, just as good and just as worthwhile as our larger neighbour south of the Border.

But the entire approach of the No campaign disparages and destroys that notion.

Given that the core content and arguments of the No campaign are based on material produced by a Tory government at Westminster - with George Osborne in the driving seat -  that should come as no great surprise.

But the fact is that the entire No campaign appears to have completely abandoned any pretence that the Union is about an equal partnership between Scotland and England.

According to their notion of 'Union', an independent Scotland is not equal at all - according to them, we have no entitlement to the shared assets of the UK, such as the currency and central bank - though we would be expected to shoulder our share of the national debt!

Presumably it is this thinking that led the UK government to publish a paper earlier this year suggesting that Scotland had been "extinguished" in 1707. But the ideology of Union - if not the reality - was that, far from being extinguished in 1707, Scotland was enhanced as a partner with England.

No seems to have abandoned any pretence of believing in that idea - and it is why as a campaign it is empty and disconnected and, when the scares no longer work, will find itself with nowhere else to go.

Ironically, but significantly, the Scottish aspiration to equality of status which is daily disparaged by the No campaign is what the Union was meant to establish but didn't. And, today, by openly denouncing the very notion of equal status within the UK, the No campaign is proving the point that only a Yes vote can and will deliver equality for Scotland.

In that and so many other senses, independence represents a continuation of Scotland's journey as a nation.

Independence is the right choice for the 21st century.

Our job over the next 70 weeks is to persuade and inspire people across Scotland to make that choice.

And I believe that people do want to be inspired to vote Yes, not frightened into voting No. That is our opportunity.

So, our task from this day forward is to lift the campaign out of the foothills of fear that others want it to languish in. To lift it to a new height where we can see clearly the choice that is before us and the possibilities that independence opens up.

The Yes campaign will be one of optimism and aspiration. It will represent the best of Scotland. That is why I believe it can win and will win - and when it does, Scotland will never look back.

END OF SPEECH

(N.B. All emphases, italicisation, etc. are mine, and represent my view of significance. They were not present in the SNP transcription of Nicola’s speech.)

Confessions of a Cybernat.

I would have liked to title this blog I Was a Teenage Cybernat – just like the ‘B’ movies of the 1970s – but I wasn’t, because I wasn’t a nationalist back then and there was no cyberspace outside of science fiction.

But now I must acknowledge the fact – I am what I am – a nationalist who uses cyberspace to try and get the independence message across. These days just about everyone under forty-five is a cyber-something-or-other, together with an increasing percentage of the older population.

The term is used pejoratively, like separatist, to beg the question, i.e. try to induce a conclusion without advancing any evidence. It is an attempt to stereotype a group, a class – rather like racist terminology.

It has been used in many ways, but rather spectacularly this week to justify the use of racist terminology on Twitter – a kind of double whammy.

The Ian Smart Affair doesn’t have the memorable theme song of The Thomas Crown Affair, nor the charismatic, glamorous leading man (if it had, it would be The Wind Turbines that upset the Nimbys) but it has Byzantine twists and turns to the plot that would have stretched the credibility of a Hollywood scriptwriter, with unlikely critics, allies, heroes, heroines and villains. The stellar cast included a Scottish Labour Lord and former First Minister of Scotland, a radio phone-in host, the indomitable – and anonymous - Gordon of Dundee, a host of powerful women, a quite a few spear carriers like myself – bit players in the drama – and mighty BBC.

Since the protagonist is a lawyer, well-connected and a past President of the Law Society of Scotland, I must choose my words carefully in describing the events that followed a tweet by Ian Smart. I don’t intend to go over the tweet and the ones that followed it – they’re all a matter of record – other than to say Ian Smart’s intention appeared to be to suggest that attacks by fellow Scots on two ethnic groups - members of the Scottish Polish and Pakistani community - would follow if an independent Scotland did not prosper economically.

This tweet was picked up by a number of late evening tweeters, including myself, who after initial horrified astonishment, tried to persuade Ian Smart to delete the offending words, something he was patently not prepared to do at that point.

What followed over subsequent days served to highlight the complexities of the great independence debate, and in particular, differences of opinion on how those committed to independence should react to the Smart tweets. I would identify three main strands in this – those who felt that it was a significant event and must be countered forcefully, those who felt that it should be ignored so as not to frighten the horses, and voices from Women for Independence who felt that acrimonious exchanges that were predominantly – but not exclusively – male (there was talk of testosterone in the air!) served as a turn-off to the female demographic among the Scottish electorate, a group that is vital to a YES vote.

(The little that’s left of my testosterone was pumping as best it could, and I was – and am – firmly in the counter forcefully brigade.)

By any normal journalistic standards, this was a story, and a story with legs. But normal journalistic standards rarely prevail in the pre-independence Scottish media, and I and others feared the worst. It was pretty evident that a dilemma existed for the Better Together media, or at least those embedded within in it in various roles ranging from proprietors through producers and editors to media presenters and journalists, namely, that the villains in cyberspace were firmly cast as nationalists – independence supporters – the cybernats – and Unionist Central Casting would be reluctant to induct a prominent member of the No Campaign into the plot as a villain. Quite simply, it didn’t fit the script …

So, fending off as best I could suggestions and mini-attacks from what I had thought of as my own side, I waited for the media. In one sense, I was pleasantly surprised!

Four newspapers carried the story – on 7th May, the Scottish Sun, the Scottish Express and eventually today the Herald  and The Scotsman. Last night, Scotland Tonight carried the item in a discussion between Ian Smart and Natalie McGarry. Most bizarrely, Call Kaye carried the item inadvertently, to the evident horror of Kaye Adams, thanks to the formidable Gordon of Dundee, a caller who intended to do what he thought he had been invited on air to do – talk about the implications of prominent figures in Scottish Society behaving badly.

Kaye Adams, who has been presenting her BBC phone-in programme five days a week for many years, and is a presumably a weel-kent frequenter of BBC studios, said she didn’t know Ian Smart - a prominent lawyer, former President of the Scottish Law Society, Labour activist and frequent presence on BBC programmes such as Newsnight Scotland.

BBC Scotland, astonishingly to me, but all too predictably to its many critics, appears to have considered the story as either being beneath its notice, or beyond the pale for some other reason. I could, of course, have missed some vital news item of discussion …

Yes facts on Twitter - @moridura

 

Peter Curran ‏

FACTS, FACTS: If you are undecided about Scotland's independence, or know someone who is, the answers can be found here …

 

Peter Curran ‏

The Big Question; If Scotland is so wealthy, why aren’t YOU better off? I think Scots know the answer. Our wealth is being drained south.

 

Peter Curran ‏

Scotland tops the UK charts for levels of inward investment by foreign companies.

 

Peter Curran ‏

Scotland's public finances are stronger than UK's. For each of the last 30 years Scotland has generated more tax revenue per head than UK.

 

Peter Curran ‏

Scotland has around 25% of Europe’s potential offshore wind and tidal energy and 10% of Europe’s wave power potential.

 

Peter Curran ‏

Scotland's universities compete at the very top of the world leagues for the quality of their research.

 

Peter Curran ‏

Scotland has highly successful food,drink, tourism, construction, agriculture sectors worth £39bn p.a. Three of world's top 100 universities

 

Peter Curran ‏

Independent Scotland will be the 8th wealthiest country in the world. Oil reserves up to £1.5 trillion = 10 our share of UK national debt.

Expand

Peter Curran ‏

Even those who favour Westminster rule and say No to independence agree that an independent Scotland is viable and can prosper and thrive.

 

Peter Curran ‏

One in five children in Scotland are in poverty. One in five young Scots are unemployed. An independent Scotland will tackle these evils.

Peter Curran ‏

UK welfare cuts will take a further £210m out pockets of hard-working Scottish families. But Government cuts taxes for a few on top incomes.

 

Peter Curran ‏

UK - 4th most unequal country in developed world. Income inequality increased over decades, regardless of which UK party in power.

Brookings: Scotland as a Good Global Citizen – Alex Salmond lecture and Q&A

My YouTube audios clips of the Brookings lecture by the First Minister were an attempt to get the audio up fast in YouTube format in manageable chunks. However, in the process, I had a glitch at the 2.5m mark on Part 4.

Here is the full Brookings site link to Scotland as a Good Global Citizen.

I have also used the embed code supplied by Brookings. The section referred to above occurs around the 1hr 10m mark for those who want to fill the gap in the YouTube video.

The independence argument is shifting – but to what and where? A time for boldness?

Brian Taylor (BBC) observed before his SNP Conference interview with Nicola Sturgeon - referring to his earlier webcast  - that the questions asked by voters were very precise, focussing on specific facts and issues. The old American question “Where’s the beef?” is increasingly being asked – and answered. Since the Edinburgh Agreement and the question of the question(s) being settled and most recently the date of the referendum, the extreme long shot and the long tracking shots have moved towards pin spots and rack focus on hard issues. Come October/November, the advent of the White Paper and the deep detail and, come September next year, the dénouement after the découpage classique.

The launch of YES Scotland was a highly significant event. The objective was clear enough, and many of the consequences intended by its architects  are beginning to show through, especially the welcome release for many non-SNP supporters from the imagined constraint that to support independence was to support the SNP and its economic concept of a Scottish social democracy. I am struck by the number of new YES volunteers who have no party political allegiance, show no inclination towards one, but who work effectively and easily with their SNP, Green, Socialist and Labour for Independence colleagues (perhaps even a sprinkling of Tories?) and the rest of the broad coalition that is the YES Campaign.

But there are always unintended consequences of any course of action, any decision, and these may be welcome or unwelcome (the devious political strategist always claims credit for the welcome outcomes and denies responsibility of the unwelcome).

One significant one that has been recognised by more than one commentator – some pro-independence, some anti-independence and some affecting a lofty journalistic neutrality – is that the YES Campaign has catalysed and re-energised the Scottish Left and their vision of what a new Scotland might be, which at many pressure points doesn’t fit at all neatly with the current SNP economic and social vision. (My own belief is that the SNP is unperturbed by this, and may even welcome it, as evidence that the SNP doesn’t own the YES campaign, nor does it claim a monopoly on visions of Scotland’s future. )

To be electable, the SNP had to appeal across a wide spectrum of Scottish society, and in my view, they have been successful in doing this without being all things to all voters, or blurring and compromising their own social democratic vision, in the fashion disastrously pursued by Labour under Blair and Brown, where they in effect became the thing they affected to despise – right-wing, money-grubbing, warmongering, uncaring Tories.

In my lifetime the perception of the Scottish National Party by Scots has shifted from ‘tartan Tories’ to the SNP being a centre-left social democratic party. The former jibe was never accurate: the latter description is a reasonable description of the party, except of course to commentators on the extreme right or left of the political spectrum, whose viewpoint is as polarised and skewed on this – and as divorced from any political reality - as on everything else.

The SNP strategists have always recognised the potential that lay in converting those political and social groups to the cause of independence who were instinctively suspicious of the SNP as a party of government, partly because of political/social conviction, partly because of deep loyalty to other parties, and in some cases because of aspects of religious belief, tradition, (even sporting allegiance!) etc. It is known with reasonable certainty – to the degree that such things can ever be certain – that some of the electorate who contributed to the SNP’s spectacular 2011 electoral victory were endorsing them as a party of government in a devolved administration but were not voting for Scotland’s independence.

It was necessary therefore for the SNP to send a message to the electorate – and to the influential commentariat and powerful social groups – that voting for independence was not a vote for the SNP, nor for a particular economic or social vision of Scottish society after independence, but for the right of Scots to run their own affairs as a sovereign nation. For a political party to deliver such a message demands extraordinary courage, and involves great political risk. It is to Alex Salmond’s credit that he and his ministers have displayed such courage and have willingly accepted the risk. Greater love hath no one than this, that one risks a political career for his core beliefs!

However, the unintended consequence may well be that the message has been received and is being acted on by the commentariat and the social groups - e.g. the political theorists, the Greens, the Scottish socialist parties, the artists’ collectives, the think tanks of left and right, Labour Party members, trades union members, religious groups - but is going straight over the heads of the electorate, who want those arguing for independence to act as one as though they were a single political party offering its manifesto for an independent Scotland.

Fate – and events, dear boy – have conspired to let the independence movement come closest to achieving its great goal at a time of unprecedented global economic uncertainty, when a frightened electorate desperately wants reassurance and stability, and when there is no shortage of politicians willing to feed on that uncertainty and fear by exacerbating it and offering simplistic solutions to it and alleged safe havens from it. There has been a great deal of complex and valuable research done in the last half century on how people respond to economic choices presented to them involving risk, gain and uncertainty.

What we can be certain of is that there will be no shortage of half-baked psychobabble being offered to politicians by consultants and theorists who have assimilated the superficialities of such research without understanding a single word of it – that’s what many management and political consultants do …

At such times politicians must trust their instincts while holding fast to their core principles, and create simple - but not simplistic - messages for the electorate. The greatest risk at time of uncertainty is the refusal to take any risks – risk is inescapable and a choice between risks must be made.

THE DILEMMA

The dilemma created by the unintended consequences of the message centres around the fact that while Blair Jenkins and the YES Campaign can say that they are not a political party, do not have a manifesto, and offer no policies but instead, the arguments for being free to decide Scotland’s future in a sovereign state, the Scottish Government must accept that they are a political party, elected on a manifesto, and they must govern within their constrained devolved powers now, bang in the middle of an unprecedented economic and social crisis which won’t wait on the outcome of a referendum over sixteen months in the future and an independent Scotland – and a Scottish Parliamentary election - that is three years away. 

And there is the additional inconvenient fact that there is a UK general election in two years in May 2015 that will occur in the by then historical context of a YES or a NO vote back in September 2014.

The Scottish Government’s position in the face of this complex set of challenges, events and watershed dates is to do what it can within the constraints on its powers placed by the devolution settlement and its budget and blame its impotence to do more on the Union, reinforcing its independence objective.

The question is – will this wash with a Scottish electorate groaning under the right wing lash of the Westminster political machine, an electorate that wants action now, and cannot wait until 2015 to make its democratic voice heard by the UK, nor until 2016 to hear the solutions offered in party manifestos by politicians hoping to govern Scotland in a new fully-independent Scottish Parliament.

This is in sharp focus right at this moment over at least two egregious issues – the Bedroom Tax and public service pensions. These issues, although they present an undoubted challenge for Scottish Labour and Coalition parties, still leave them the scope to expediently exploit them by clamouring for the Scottish Government to take immediate action on them, with no regard for the realities of the Barnet Formula and budget priorities, nor  the recognition or acceptance of any personal responsibility for offering alternative spending plans, other than to attack the principal of universality of benefits, and cuts to benefits through a Means Test that would yield tiny savings that would be wiped out by administrative costs.

What can John Swinney, who has achieved a masterly disposition of finite resources – resources that are under attack right now from Westminster - do in the face of this? Short of defying Westminster and accepting £100m penalties for doing so – a kamikaze act that would delight the cynical, economically illiterate and ethically bankrupt Labour Party – very little, it would seem.

But the Scottish Government, constrained or not, must be seen to govern – and govern boldly – even within the constraints it faces.

This threat to the YES Campaign demands boldness of the kind that Scots have the right to expect from a government and a party seeking full independence, and a ratcheting up of the courage that the SNP have displayed to date over many issues.

I have some ideas of how this might be done, but since I am unqualified by economic expertise or front-end political experience, I will refrain from offering them. I have faith in the ability of people within the broad YES Campaign who do possess such expertise to advise the Scottish Government on how it might face this challenge and mount a decisive foray from the Torwood.

An extract from my 2011 blog -

A great Englishman once said "There is a tide in the affairs of men, which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune."

A great Scotsman, Robert the Bruce, was faced by a stark choice on the night of 23rd and 24th of June 1314 - to be prepared to give battle against superior forces or retreat. Emboldened by his victory over an English knight, Henry de Bohun, in single combat, and by the unexpected route of a force of 300 hundred English knights under Clifford, he still was faced with the decision to either give battle or retreat. He chose to give battle, and to risk all for Scotland’s freedom.

Alex Salmond is not a 14th century knight, and he is not playing 14th century politics. But he will not be oblivious to the parallels. Bruce had not intended to give battle, but he reacted to rapidly changing circumstances, especially to the knowledge of the impact of his two unexpected successes on the already low morale of the superior force.

The Hippocratic oath - WMDs and alcohol – dilemmas for doctors

A blog from winter 2010 – still relevant to WMD and to the minimum pricing for alcohol debate

Friday, 12 November 2010

The Hippocratic oath – old and new

I have been aware of the existence of the Hippocratic Oath for most of my life, have probably glibly referred to it on occasion, but until last night, I have never actually read it or understood its exact place in modern medicine.

Events in the Scottish Parliament this week led me to find out a bit more about it, and I now realise that most of what I believed was based on various misconceptions.

1. I believed that it had existed in an unchanged form since Hippocrates – the father of modern medicine - first set it down several hundred years before the birth of Christ. It hasn’t,  and in fact Hippocrates may have had little to do with it …

2. I believed that every medical practitioner was obliged to take the Hippocratic oath. They are not, at least not in recent years …

In fact, the wording of the original Oath, in translation, astonished me. I had hoped to find something in it that would help me to understand what influence, if any, it might have on medical doctors who get involved in politics – say, Dr. Liam Fox, for example. (You may be able to think of others.)

Would anything in the Oath, in its original form or in the more modern principles favoured by the BMA, that try to hold on to some of the essential sense and principles of the original act as any guide to the ethical and moral behaviour of a doctor involved in the pragmatic and often dirty business of politics?

How, for example, could Liam Fox interpret his responsibilities under the oath when acting as a Defence Minister, commissioning weapons of death and mass destruction, and sending young men and women to kill other human beings, and perhaps to be killed or maimed themselves?

Would he take the ethical position that, since he was not practising medicine in this role, the oath was irrelevant? After all, doctors are not like priests, claiming to draw their authority from their god – they are high-level professionals, with high ethical standards, but ordinary mortals nonetheless.

No answer there – the question is beyond my philosophical and analytical abilities.

But how about, say for example, a doctor/politician who in his or her role is obliged to bring medical knowledge specifically to bear on decisions affecting the health of the population?

Say, over egregious abuse of alcohol in a society?

A thorny question also, but perhaps more amenable to Hippocratic analysis, but certainly not hypocritical consideration.

Doctors, like scientists, often reach different conclusions faced with the same facts, the same evidence: doctors debate, discuss, in fact in recent months, I’ve heard them doing it many times at the end of my beds in St. John’s and the RIE, and at the beds of other critically ill patients. It struck me as a vital dialogue - not always between equals, because the medical profession is hierarchical in the extreme - but one where every view is invited, heard and weighed.

Back to the Hippocratic Oath …

I’ll take the classic version rather than the original, which frankly sounds more than a little odd to a modern ear. (It’s also a little odd in the classic version.)

It’s hard to seize on anything relevant to a modern topic such as, say, dealing with the enormous harm to the health, wellbeing, safety and economic strength of an entire nation because of abuse of a legal and freely available dangerous drug – alcohol.

“I will apply dietic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.”

I couldn’t find dietic in my Oxford dictionary, so I presume it means dietetic – relating to diet, i.e. the nature of food and drink ingested.

Alcohol, misused, clearly does harm, and undoubtedly causes injustice, in its supply to people who are by age, immaturity or predisposition to addiction and excess vulnerable to this drug, and to others, who are harmed by violence, by disturbance in public places, in the home, by the overstretching of the caring and public order services, by economic factors – the list is a long one.

Keeping them all from harm and injustice due to alcohol abuse seems to me an appropriate interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath.

“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make suggestion to this effect.”

A difficult one to interpret in the context of a licensed drug and a licensed trade, especially when that drug forms a central part of the economy of my country. One might reasonably expect a doctor to recognise that the drug is only deadly under certain circumstances, and consumed in moderation may actually be beneficial, but to look long and hard at it becoming available too cheaply and too easily to vulnerable groups especially the young and immature.

But where there is a widespread consensus, in the society of which that doctor is a part, by virtually all doctors, the professional association that represents doctors, by the police force of that society, by the established Church of that society, by health workers, addiction workers, careworkers in that country, one might reasonably expect that a doctor/politician would tend to follow that consensus, a consensus of his or her peers and virtually every authoritative voice.

Of course, one must allow for the fact the majority are not always right; that lone voices, driven by burning personal conviction, must follow their consciences, and speak out against the majority if necessary. Such men and women have rendered invaluable service to their profession and to society at great personal cost on occasion.

It would of course be unthinkable that anyone would be influenced significantly or even totally by purely political considerations in going against that consensus, would it not? Let’s hope it never happens …

Well, I am not a doctor, but I owe my life to the medical profession in Scotland, not once, but several times over the last year, and I experienced their dedication,  professionalism and deep humanity at first hand. I also saw how the abuse of alcohol in Scottish society overstretched them, consumed an inappropriate amount of scarce resources, and exposed them personally to violence and intimidation.

So in that respect at least, I feel that I have a right – and a duty - to speak.

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.

Blair Jenkins: “Who on earth would vote for that package? Who on earth would vote for that Union?