As Scotland prepares for the SNP to pop the question, whatever it turns out to be, the country deserves the broadest and most vibrant discussion possible about all the issues. The debate will take place in the media, in pubs and living rooms, and in the blogs and on social media (and, I almost forgot, in Parliament), but there’s currently quite a substantial gap. Specifically, there isn’t much level-headed argumentation out there for any form of the Yoonyon.
With that in mind, please welcome Mugwump, the new blog from freelance journalist David Torrance. Knowing our readership (hello all! waves fondly!) many of you won’t agree with him. But personally I think we need a debate where the best case is made by both sides. And where all the awkward questions are asked. His opening post is certainly that – are the SNP really planning to offer independence-lite, just an “ever-looser Union”? He’s tracked down some straws in the wind that suggest that might be the plan.
And don’t listen to the cynics who suggest that the two next letters in the pic to the left are R and Y. For one thing, I expect plenty of critique of the Tories. And for another, I suspect he’s actually a federalist.
#1 by ReasonableNat on June 20, 2011 - 6:31 pm
Jings, it isn’t just a gap in blogging, there’s a gap in the debate full stop. Lets hear some suggestions please unionists…
Truth is, there’s a multitude of ways to answer the concerns of unionists, and nats, at the same time, whether sovereignty resides at Westminster or Holyrood. Looks like the SNP are preparing to compromise a little, maybe if the unionists could stop pretending to be in love with that mutant Scotland Act we could get on and have a proper debate about whether devo-max or indy-lite is the better option. Now that would be a referendum worth having!
#2 by douglas clark on June 20, 2011 - 6:59 pm
What awkward questions? Whilst those committed to independence is still a lesser number in Opinion Polls than those for the status quo, the movement is in the direction of independence. And we haven’t even started an education campaign yet.
If you want a ‘gap’ try finding a positive unionist message. That is where the gap is, for the simple reason that there isn’t a positive case to be made.
#3 by James on June 20, 2011 - 8:05 pm
Douglas, I agree that there’s not been much positive on the unionist side (but I’d say there’s been very little clarity from the SNP either). But what awkward questions? We’ve mulled some here, and David T is asking another over at his site, surely?
#4 by Dr Bill Reynolds on June 20, 2011 - 8:07 pm
I rather think that all of the people of independent countries in Europe understand what independence means.That includes my wifes country of Finland.The concept independent lite is an invention of unionist supporters.It is designed to distract,confuse and denigrate the SNP.The concept has never properly been define and never been part of SNP policy.
The opinion polls actually show that independence and unionism are minority postions just now,with a lot of dont knows.Surveys also show that a majority support full fiscal autonomySince the Scottish public have constantly been fed a diet of anti-independence rhetoric,it is hardly surprising that there is a lot of uncertainty about independence.This is in spite of the fact that people can observe for themselves how independent nations organise their own affairs extremely well and how independence and internationalism sit very well together.
To shift the no voters and dont knows towards a yes vote requires that they recieve facts rather than being misled.That requires a level playing field which the BBC and mainstream media will not allow.However,there an online media and the electoral success of the SNP provides hope.If they can get the positive message about independence out into the public domain,it is possible to overcome fear.I am confident that the SNP and other pro-independent parties and organisations will work very hard to overcome the misleading rhetoric of the mainstream media.
While the SNP most certainly do not support independence lite,they have always worked on the basis that you take what you can achieve,and then work for more.In two referendums on devolution,the SNP campaigned for a yes voye.That did not mean that they had given up on independence.Using that logic,itwould not be unreasonable to offer two options,Independence and full fiscal autonomy.I think that would be smart because it would dilute the no vote,and would provide a strong base for moving on to full independence.It would not mean that the SNP had given up on independence.
#5 by James on June 20, 2011 - 8:08 pm
Have you read David’s piece?
#6 by Malc on June 20, 2011 - 8:28 pm
“The concept of independent lite is an invention of unionist supporters”
Jim Sillars has been called a lot in his time, but I’m pretty sure that will be the first time he’s been called a Unionist.
#7 by James on June 20, 2011 - 9:24 pm
You wait, he will be. If he’s busking one here (and I doubt he is, because I’m tempted by the Torrance analysis) then he’ll quickly be beyond the pale, which means only one thing – exile to the Younyonisht Conshpirashy.
#8 by Indy on June 21, 2011 - 11:47 am
Lol he is certainly busking it. Believe me there is no chance of Jim Sillars singing from the same hymn sheet as Alex Salmond!
Most of what he said was actually fairly uncontroversial. However his suggestion that we should be prepared to continue to host Britain’s nuclear weapons has damaged his reputation within the SNP probably beyond repair.
Much as the membership is prepared to pursue a policy of compromise to achieve our goals there are also things that really can’t be compromised on and that is one of them.
#9 by Anonymous on June 21, 2011 - 3:02 am
That’s obviously not true. Sillars was a firmly unionist Labour Party man before becoming an arch-devolutionist, then forming the breakaway Scottish Labour Party, then joining the SNP.
#10 by Malc on June 21, 2011 - 7:58 am
Fine. I’ll retract the “first time”. But it is probably the first time since he’s been involved in the SNP.
Anyway, the point was “independence lite” came from Sillars – a fundamentalist Nat – and not a Unionist.
#11 by John Ruddy on June 22, 2011 - 10:56 pm
NO, I’ve already heard Jim Sillars described as a traitor to Scotland for his comments. As per usual, if you disagree with Saint Alex, you are beyond the pale.
#12 by Andrew on June 21, 2011 - 11:03 am
You would be surprised. Jim Sillars made his reputation in 1968 with a pamphlet called ‘Don’t Butcher Scotland’s Future’. It was a staunch defence of the Union and, after he was elected to Parliament as the Labour MP for South Ayrshire, he became known for a while as ‘The hammer of the Nats’. Since then, he has been on an interesting journey.
#13 by Malc on June 21, 2011 - 11:11 am
I have conceded the point! Pre-SNP, he wisnae a Nat. I get it!
#14 by douglas clark on June 20, 2011 - 8:30 pm
James,
I think the whole case for independence is out there, whereas the case for the union just isn’t.
I however do think that the SNP needs to make the economic case at – a human level – a bit clearer. Unionist fears of independence appears to be strongest amongst older citizens, and having read the fairly complex pension arrangements some of them have, we do need to give reassurance to people like that in clear and unequivocal language.
But that should not – really – be a difficult thing to do. For instance:
We will match or better the State Pension.
We will match or better Public Sector occupational pensions.
(Including splitting UK Pension Funds as necessary)
We will encourage private pension funds to relocate to Scotland by removing the tax introduced by Gordon Brown on investment assets.
etc, etc.
#15 by Bryan Potter on June 20, 2011 - 8:49 pm
In fairness, it is difficult for unionists to join in the debate without knowing what kind of independence will be voted on, how it will be worded and the number of questions. So currently they mutter about the break up of the union without knowing if that will happen.
All the unionists can do at present is tell us how great the status quo is and that’s an impossible sell. However, that is what they must do if they hope to stop the Salmond juggernaut. Even if Scotland didn’t vote for independence at the last election (which I think they did), they certainly did vote for increased fiscal responsibility and not the status quo.
The unionist parties need to give the Scotland Bill extra beef and sell that status quo. It’s their only hope.
In my humble opinion 🙂
#16 by Bugger the Panda on June 20, 2011 - 10:59 pm
Bryan
Precisely, and the SNP is playing their cards well, outdancing the Unionists.
#17 by ReasonableNat on June 21, 2011 - 12:33 am
Type your comment here
See, we all get that, it isn’t exactly rocket science, so why all the ‘we believe corporation tax is best done at a UK level’ and ‘we’re not convinced by the arguments’ and ‘they’ve not given us a report yet’ nonsense? To unionists I say, use it or lose it!
#18 by Bryan Potter on June 21, 2011 - 11:57 am
I agree! They are dancing around trying to argue for a ‘no’ vote when they don’t know what ‘yes’ equals.
Alex holds all the cards.
#19 by douglas clark on June 21, 2011 - 1:25 am
Bryan,
Interesting. I’d have thought the case for the status quo would be staring us in the face.
The arguments in favour – after all they must have been around for 300 years – should be self evident.
Not so, apparently. The unionists appear to be unable to advance a single positive case from a Scottish point of view. Frankly.
#20 by Bryan Potter on June 21, 2011 - 12:01 pm
Douglas,
I agree but the election result says otherwise. Unionists would just look silly arguing for status quo when we’ve just returned an SNP majority to Holyrood.
I guess they’re looking for a status quo-max!!!
#21 by Dr William Reynolds on June 21, 2011 - 8:21 am
Okay I take your point about Jim Sillars.However,Jim is no longer an active SNP member,He might not even be a member,although I am certain that he is still pro-independence.I think my point has been missed.It is,that while some SNP members(like me) would like full independence today,and others are happy with gradual progress towards full independence,the SNP are not advocating something called independence lite.Yes there are different views about how to progress towards full independence,but the SNP does not have a policy of giving up the aim of full independence.The idea that they are has been advanced by pro-unionist mainstream media and is definitely politically motivated.The motive is to damage the SNP,not to promote a scholarly debate on Scotland’s future,or what independence would look like.The selective interviews with a chosen few (such as Jim Sillars who I highly respect),does not have the purpose of understanding,the aim is to promote the idea that the pro-independence movement is confused and split.
As a member of the SNP since 1974,I have often been amused by mainstream media’s attempts to analyse the aims and motives of the SNP.Of course some members (and former members) fluctuate between so called fundamentalism and gradualism,but all of them have the same end goal.The debate is about how best to achieve the end goal.Of course as the SNP become more successful and as the end goal becomes more achievable,members probably become more prepared to be patient.I can understand that since the SNP has grown from a minor party to a party of majority government,with a larger membership than the labour party.The consequence has been a growing confidence in the leadership.Many of us have also been encouraged by the fact that there is support for independence beyond the SNP.and that full fiscal autonomy is supported by a majority.All of this has probably contributed to the present mind set among SNP members.However,it has not resulted in a desire to accept an end goal that is short of the independence enjoyed by other EU countries,including my wife’s country of Finland.
#22 by Malc on June 21, 2011 - 8:29 am
I take your point. Mine was simply that SNP activists shouldn’t make the case that it is “Unionists” that are calling for “independence-lite” since it is one of their own doing the calling. And Sillars is, I’m pretty sure, still an SNP member – he writes regularly for Holyrood Magazine in that capacity. In fact this article sets out the independence-lite case. That’s all I was saying.
Anyway, let’s not hijack the thread. Welcome to David Torrance on the old blogging scene. And I hope you can make sense of the Unionist case for the Union!
#23 by ReasonableNat on June 21, 2011 - 9:30 am
I must admit, I don’t particularly object to the indy-lite label. Obviously there’s a natural favouring of anything ‘max’ over anything ‘lite’, or maybe that’s just me. However, as a label it does neatly encapsulate the notion that you can have sovereignty at Holyrood without busting the best of the cross border institutions, and while retaining some of the protections of the union; these are the two main fear factors surrounding independence so the label, and certainly the current debate around it, could help the case rather than diminish it. It wouldn’t be the first example of the welcome adotion of a label that had been intended as pejorative.
#24 by James on June 21, 2011 - 9:32 am
As in, “Nat” used to be seen as insulting, for instance?
#25 by ReasonableNat on June 21, 2011 - 10:08 am
Sure, exactly.
#26 by A Cairns on June 21, 2011 - 10:02 am
Is the SNP returning to the confederal/new union idea that Mike Russell touted back in 2006?
#27 by James on June 21, 2011 - 10:08 am
From David’s piece it does seem perhaps so.
#28 by ReasonableNat on June 21, 2011 - 10:16 am
I hope so. Coming up with a solution that mitigates some of the downsides of independence is a lot more honest, and more likely to win support, than pretending they don’t exist.
#29 by Alex Buchan on June 23, 2011 - 2:31 am
The problem is that Alex Salmond has been very categorical over the last few weeks in saying independence will be on the ballot paper, while leaving open the possibility of another option. I can’t really see how he could campaign for anything less than withdrawal from Westminster regardless of any cross-border co-operation and, if so, it does not really stop him from being targeted by a strong “No” campaign emphasising the economic perils of independence, so it doesn’t achieve the aims that Torrance sees as the basis for the adjustment.
Or am I missing something? Is there some way that, regardless of Westminster’s antiquated notion of the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament which makes it impossible for anything in the UK not to be subordinate to Westminster, it would still be possible to carve out a Scottish sovereignty without, either withdrawing from Westminster, or rewriting the whole British constitution (which of course would require agreement in referendums in all the nations of the union).
The problem with so much of this conversation is that there are certain irreducible facts that can’t be nuanced unilaterally to suit Scotland, and what would be London’s incentive to do so? In many ways it’s the British constitution that makes it hellishly difficult to get away from a straightforward in or out choice, and the London parties will want to emphasise that fact in order to make the choice as stark as possible because they are convinced that Scots will baulk at such a stark choice.
#30 by Dr Bill Reynolds on June 21, 2011 - 10:12 am
I think the article written by James is very cleverly argued.I was only pointing out that the concept of independance lite did not come from the SNP.I have had discussions with Jim Sillars when he joined the SNP.I am convinced that any reference he made to independance lite was misrepresented by (I believe) the Scotsman.My impression is that Jim wants independence quickly but is pragmatic about the fastest route to independence.That is my position also.For example,when I voted yes for Devolution,that was not my settled will,as labour claimed.I took the view that it would speed progress towards independance.Well it took 12 years but we did get a pro-independance majority in a Scottish parliament.Even during the groundbreaking elections of 1974,we could not envisage that.
It seems self evident what independance means in the context of the modern Europe.If you were to ask Finns what independence means,they would be puzzled and tell you that it was self evident.However,I take James point that there is a need to define what independence will look like,for Scottish voters.In spite of modern travel and the internet,decades of being misled,and misinformed by the media,make that necessary.In spite of wanting independence today,I would also be comfortable with a question about Fiscal autonomy.That is not my settled will either but I see it as highly desirable to grow jobs and another step in the right direction.I think that we live in interesting times.
#31 by Richard on June 21, 2011 - 10:38 am
Could it be that the reason that there is “a gap in Scottish blogging” with regards to the unionist position, is that there is no real relevant argument left to keep the status quo, other than a bit of rose-tinted nostalgia and potential loss of face?
I’ve yet to hear any cogent argument for retaining the union, be it from blogs, newspapers, politicians or anywhere else.
#32 by Indy on June 21, 2011 - 11:04 am
I think David Torrance is quite right in many of the things he says. My only question would be why does all this come as a surprise to anyone? When Jim Mitchell says that “there will always be a United Kingdom in some shape or form” what is the big deal about that? That is only surprising if you assume that the SNP wants to build an electrified fence along the border and shoot anyone who tries to get in or out!
Other than Jim Mitchell, I think the “outside” person who has the best grasp on the SNP’s approach to independence is an academic called Allan Trench. I heard him on a radio programme which was discussing “independence lite” and he said basically that the SNP does not have a romantic view of independence, the SNP has a very pragmatic view of independence. We know why we want it – we know which policy areas we want to control & which powers we want to be able to exercise and why. And that’s how we will argue for independence.
But we don’t have an absolutist approach to independence – we’re quite happy to share a currency, whether that is sterling or the euro, we are quite happy to cooperate on conventiional defence, we’re quite happy to look at reciproacal arrangements on welfare benefits, the health service etc. We’d be quite happy to continue to share some integrated services such as the DVLA or even perhaps the BBC. We are not fighting to “break up Britain” in other words or to create a North Korean type separatist state, we are fighting for Scotland to have the same decision making powers and the same freedom as most other countries of our size in Europe.
And I think this is where the argument starts to get a bit weird – as we saw on a recent blog post here. Because a lot of unionists seem to assume that the SNP are somewhere on the fascist spectrum basically – that we are narrow minded nationalists who want independence because we hate the English and what really motivates us is wanting to remove every English element from Scottish society, bteak up Britain, dig a trench along the border and sail away from England with the SNP.
And clearly – if that is what they believe the SNP is like – they are not going to “get” the type of debate that the SNP is going to be leading. So we could end up in the quite bizarre situation of the SNP making a case for independence in the 21st century while the “unionist” side makes a case against the danger of woad painted swivel-eyed separatistism – a danger which exists only in their fevered imaginations.
#33 by ReasonableNat on June 21, 2011 - 2:34 pm
Spot on, absolutely spot on.
#34 by Stuart Winton on June 21, 2011 - 8:28 pm
Indeed, but your post perhaps rationalises this assymetry in the debate.
That’s because the SNP don’t precisely know what they mean by independence, as your post neatly demonstrates.
For example, you contrast a ‘pragmatic’ approach to the issue with an ‘absolutist’ one, which is all very well, but no one really knows precisely how each of these approaches is defined, although you do make a pretty good stab at it in your post.
But that’s obviously all part of the debate within the Nationalist movement, which is essentially trying to come up with a position that they know the public will buy, but without too much SNP bloodletting arising in coming to such a position.
There’s clearly lots of testing the water going on and that’s creating tensions and confusion within the independence movement, and in turn there are attempts to deflect attention from this by making non-points such as claiming that the terminology being bandied about – FFA, independence-lite, conferderalism etc – are Unionist inventions. Well perhaps they are, but that’s because, of necessity, there’s nothing concrete emanating from the upper echelons of the SNP as yet.
And of course all this also necessitates the several-year delay in the referendum.
So to that extent you can hardly blame the ‘swivel-eyed’ Unionists for perhaps talking past the Nationalists if the latter aren’t at one and don’t even know precisely what it is the Unionists are portrayed as talking past.
And, for example, you persistently use the term ‘independence’ to describe concepts that seem anything but, while of course that serves your purpose of trying to maintain unity in the SNP/independence movement generally.
Thus if you continue to use the i-word – irrespective of what you’re describing – to serve your own ends then you can hardly be surprised if ‘swivel-eyed’ opponents portray a one-dimensional view of what it all means, irrespective of whether they deliberately misrepresent things or not.
In essence you’re trying to make your opponents look unyielding because you’re trying to deflect attention from your own uncertainty.
#35 by Indy on June 22, 2011 - 2:34 pm
Choosing Scotland’s Future published August 14 2007.
Your Scotland Your Voice published November 30 2009.
Draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill published 25 febriary 2010
These documents are all available on the Scottish Government website.
If you had read any one of them I think you would have had a better grasp of this debate. If you read all of them you might be in a position to analyse the SNP position.
Since you have clearly read none of them your insistence that the SNP does not not know what they mean by independence remains meaningless.
#36 by Stuart Winton on June 22, 2011 - 3:35 pm
Well it would certainly be fun to wade through these documents and pick out the inconsistencies between the three, but I’m just an ordinary member of the public and thus the chances of me doing so are remote.
But I do pay more attention than the vast majority of voters, thus if I’m unclear about all of this then what chance everyone else?
It’s up to the SNP to articulate these issues in as straightforward a manner as possible, but they’re singularly failing to do so, as indeed the comments by pro-independence contributors on here ably demonstrate.
Thus in effect shifting the blame onto ‘swivel-eyed’ unionists for supposedly misrepresenting the SNP’s position is a bit much, as is trying to claim that my own poor grasp of the issues is because I haven’t waded through reams of detailed papers on the issue.
But perhaps you could clarify one simple question, Indy.
As opposed to the ‘third way’ on the ballot paper – and ignoring what precisely that would be, because I don’t think the SNP know themselves – what would the independence option mean, ie the full monty?
I suspect you know the answer to that, so if the SNP want to have that option on the ballot paper then why accuse unionists of being ‘swivel eyed’ for their portrayal of that option on the ballot paper?
Or are you saying that neither of the non-status quo options on the ballot paper will amount to full blown independence?
Anyway, I suspet it’s the swivel-eyed nationalists that you have worry about ;0)
#37 by Stuart Winton on June 22, 2011 - 3:39 pm
Indeed you’re surely not claiming that these papers represent settled SNP opinion on these matters?
For example, the last major document – ie the draft referendum bill – seemed to suggest a three question ballot paper, while a couple of weeks ago Alex Salmond seemed to suggest that merely as a possibility.
#38 by douglas clark on June 21, 2011 - 12:10 pm
Indy,
I think that just about nails it for me. I should have figured it out for myself on the other thread. We, unionists and independenistas are both actually talking past each other.
Should make for a fascinating few years!
#39 by Jeff on June 21, 2011 - 1:05 pm
Never thought of it that way Douglas/Indy, but I agree.
What’s worse, I bet if there was a TV debate between the two camps, they would still talk past each other!
Here’s hoping that the issue will be forced to such an extent over the next few years that a real dialogue and a real debate ensues. Think tanks have a big role to play too (assuming they are independent of course)
#40 by GMcM on June 21, 2011 - 1:39 pm
I think it’s quite clear that Salmond doesn’t know what level of separation is the most pallatable to Scots (if any).
He has two problems currently – 1) He doesn’t know whether to go for full independence or some fluffy ‘full fiscal autonomy’ 2) He doesn’t know what slant he should put on any future argument i.e. should he seek to create a moral cause or an economic cause for independence.
The case for independence cannot be made on both fronts.
In both cases I think he is onto a loser. The simple fact is we are not treated unfairly as a part of GB and economically we benefit by contributing to one of the world’s largest economies.
If the SNP really believe that Scotland would be better off economically then they have to chart an economic path (what shape would our economy take; in what ways would we change from the current GB model; in what ways would we continue to mirror the GB model).
If they say it’s not about finances but the principle of independence then they have to show where Scotland is treated in a oppressed manner.
The onus is on the SNP to say why things should change; not the other way round.
#41 by ReasonableNat on June 21, 2011 - 2:30 pm
I just can’t agree with that at all, particularly your last statement. Both ‘sides’ need to declare what form they think our democracy should take over the coming decades/centuries. If unionists want people to vote for a union it stands to reason that they need to explain what type of union they are in favour of. Is the Scotland Act the final version of the union? With a majority in favour of FFA – will that ever be delivered?
Just as importantly, unionists need to explain how they intend to tackle the problems that tend to make Scots convert to independence. There are real problems in our society, and more of the same stuff under which they came about in the first place isn’t going to wash as a solution to them (even if it isn’t actually the cause).
#42 by GMcM on June 21, 2011 - 5:08 pm
The point I was making with my final statement is that although both sides have to make their respective positions and visions clear; the SNP will have the greater burden on them to convince the public that ‘independence’ is in their collective best interests.
The other ‘side’ will have to set out a positive agenda for the future, as well as pointing out the benefits to Scots in the past, of the Union.
By pointing to a positive future within the Union this will address the concerns you have about the problems we face. The difficulty the SNP will have is that they have to make the case that the problems faced by Scots at this time are because of the Union and only affect Scotland and that by leaving the Union Scotland will overcome these problems. This is an impossible task for Salmond.
#43 by Indy on June 21, 2011 - 5:33 pm
“The difficulty the SNP will have is that they have to make the case that the problems faced by Scots at this time are because of the Union and only affect Scotland and that by leaving the Union Scotland will overcome these problems.”
What?
The problems faced by Scots are not all that different to those faced by other countries They don’t just affect Scots and would not magically be solved by leaving the Union.
What independence would bring, however, is the same decision-making powers that other governments and other countries have access to in order to tackle the problems and challenges they face. That would put us on a level pegging with everyone else.
And it would open up new options. If we look at an issue like child poverty for example, we might be able to look at some of the policies the Scandinavian countries have implemented which have been quite successful. Could Scotland follow a similar path? At the moment the answer is no because most of the relevant policy areas are reserved to Westminster.
Perhaps that’s a simple exercise we could ask people to do when they are considering the future.
Take an issue such as child poverty and then imagine what the Scottish Government would be able to do to tackle it if it had the full powers of an independent country.
Then take the same issue and imagine what the Scottish Government would be able to do to tackle it if it only had the powers of devolution.
Then ask yourself which option would be better.
#44 by GMcM on June 22, 2011 - 9:05 am
The point I’m making is that the problems facing Scots are the same as those facing the English and Welsh. If you accept that then you accept that the problems are not caused by Scotland being being treated as less than equal in the Union.
I do accept your point that the argument can then be attempted that, although the problems are not caused by the above, Scotland could make a better fist of tackling these problems.
I don’t think that argument can be made effectively with child poverty – child poverty in Scotland fell from over 32% in 96/97 to 13% in 07/08 (it subsequently rose for the first time since the Tories were in power when the SNP gained power at Holyrood). The action taken by Labour at Westminster and Holyrood led to this massive drop and I believe it shows that with the correct government, the strength of the UK economy can be harnassed to provide greater results in tackling child poverty than an independent Scotland could.
#45 by Indy on June 21, 2011 - 2:40 pm
“I think it’s quite clear that Salmond doesn’t know what level of separation is the most pallatable to Scots (if any).”
But we already know that separation is quite palatable to Scots in terms of devolution. Voters are content to have a separate education system, health service and so on and separate policy-making in devolved areas.
It is true that nobody knows what further level of separation of decision making would be palatable – but it is pretty clear that Scots like what they have seen so far.
Otherwise unionists would be arguing for a single UK health service, single UK education system and so on.
#46 by Angus McLellan on June 21, 2011 - 4:44 pm
Good luck to David Torrance. But while the first article is interesting enough, I was left with the same unanswered question that I always have when anything other than a simple yes or no vote on independence is suggested.
It is generally accepted that a vote on independence is a matter for people in Scotland, perhaps with Lords Hope and Rodger having a veto. It seems altogether less obvious that a vote on reconstituting the UK – which “indy lite” or “devo max” would require – is a matter for Scotland alone.
It also seems less than certain that a UK Government would be under any obligation to take a unilateral demand for not-independence seriously. After all, that’s a matter for Westminster, where Scots are already represented by a fine body of men and women. And unlike independence, no leading UK politician has ever opined that Scots have a right to “devo max” if they vote for it.
Until someone sets out the practical steps which could lead to “indy lite” or “devo max”, the whole concept of there being a meaningful alternative to a choice between independence and the status quo seems like wishful thinking.
#47 by ReasonableNat on June 21, 2011 - 5:58 pm
Maybe it comes from my personal bias, but I suspect all that Westminster resistance to a vote for devo-max could ever achieve as a greater push towards independence. Particularly given that there is no real reason why the currently bizarre asymetric devolution set-up could not continue with devo-max.
#48 by DougtheDug on June 21, 2011 - 6:13 pm
I put this comment on the Mugwump site just after 22:00 last night and it showed up in the browser I was using. Since it’s not there now I can only assume that it’s still waiting moderation or been taken off for some reason.
David:
“Perhaps -independence-lite (a concept yet to be repudiated by any senior Nationalist)”
And also a concept which has never been advocated by any senior Nationalist. In the same vein Obama hasn’t publicly repudiated the concept of annexing Canada even though he’s never advocated it.
If Alex is going to put independence-lite on the ballot paper there is one big, simple problem. Unless Scotland becomes a sovereign nation such as Finland or Norway or Switzerland then the only parliament which has the power to implement any independence-lite solution which falls short of independence is Westminster.
So for Scotland to get independence-lite Westminster needs to agree to the substance of independence-lite, the law-making powers, the tax powers, the control of resources and also it has to agree to implement the new independence-lite.
If independence-lite is not actually independence then Westminster can just refuse to fully implement it as it doesn’t fall under the right of a people to self-determination as it’s just reorganising internal government inside a unitary state.
So here’s how it works. If Scotland votes for independence then Westminster can’t stop it. If Scotland votes for independence-lite which isn’t actually independence then Westminster gets to choose what powers it gives to Scotland and when it gives them. Which one do you think Alex is going to go for?
“Seemples”, as the Meerkats say.
#49 by Indy on June 22, 2011 - 10:22 am
I think devo max and indy lite are two separate things.
Indy lite is the label that has been put on the way that the SNP has set out what independence means in the 21st century i.e. that it is not separatism. The fact that this is nothing new – that it was all set out and debated and discussd through the white paper and the national conversation seems to have escaped many commentators and opposition politicians..
I think the reality is tha tthey did not pay a blind bit of attention to what the SNP has been saying about independence for years because they never thought it would be put to a vote.
Now they are catching up – but because the SNP’s approach to independence does not meet with THEIR preconceptions of what independence is about they have decided to label it indy lite and to say that it is not “really” independence. As Stephen Noon correctly says they are envisioning independence through 18th century eyes whereas we are looking at it through 21st century eyes.
This is tedious and does a disservice to the voters but they will eventually have to engage with what independence means in the modern world because we are not going to talk about anything else.
Devo max on the other hand is the label for people who support more powers within the Union. We did offer to put it on the ballot paper in the last session but that was rebuffed as the unionist parties decided to go with the Calman arrangement. So strictly soeaking the contents of the Scotland Bill represent devo max. That is the maximum that the unionist parties are prepared to concede.
However there is another understanding of devo max which represents full fiscal autonomy within a kind of federal UK where Scotland becomes economically and financially independent but remains part of the Union and continues to be governed by Westminster in areas like foreign policy and defence.
I think there is some confusion between this version of devo max and indy lite in the sense that the SNP has made comments about cooperation in areas lke conventional defence – this is seen as being the equivalent of Westminster retaining sovereignty in those areas when of course that is not the same thing at all. However we are perhaps getting into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin territory here as far as most normal punters would be concerned!
The major problem with devo max (in the sense of it being full fiscal autonomy within a federal type UK)is not simply that Westminster would have to agree to moving to asort of federal structure – and how likely would that be?!. The main problem is that no political party in Scotland actually supports it.
There is nobody to articulate the case for devo max being included on the ballot paper or to persuade voters to support that option. No political party supports full fiscal autonomy within the Union. The SNP supports full fiscal autonomy obviously but we do not support remaining within the Union. So that is the basic problem. Unless those who support full fiscal autonomy within the Union can persuade one of the unionist parties to adopt that policy or can perhaps create some kind of convention or organisation which can put forward the policy in a coherent way then how can it be included in a referendum?
And even if that happened you would still then have the problem of getting Westminster to agree to it because it would be their call entirely and I tend to think the position would be that if Scotland doesn’t want independence that’s the end of the debate. They are hardly going to rip up the whole British constitution because people in Scotland fancy a bit of federalism are they?
#50 by ReasonableNat on June 22, 2011 - 10:44 am
Your comments on devo-max are very interesting. I concede that there are no parties or groups of any kind supporting it yet countless polls and surveys show that if the two question referendum proposed in 2010 were to be held tomorrow it is very likely indeed that devo-max would win. I don’t think one can simply state that it is the people’s preferred option – it looks like about 30-40% support it as an end in itself, but the vast majority of nats would also vote for it so it is almost certain to get majority support.
Obviously you can argue that the coming years of debate might change that position but there’s no evidence of any shift as yet.
The really interesting question is what would happen if we did vote for it. Surely refusing it after it won 60-70% popular support in Scotland would be suicide for the union? If the electorate knows that they have a straight choice between Calman and Independence, and that anything else in between will basically be refused by Westminster…
#51 by DougtheDug on June 22, 2011 - 11:09 am
ReasonableNat:
The problem with, “devo-max”, is that it is just a buzz-word at the moment.
1. No-one knows what it actually means in terms of powers granted.
2. It cannot be taken, only granted by Westminster if it so wishes.
If it was to go onto the ballot paper it would have to be a fully worked out framework of powers, taxes and resource control and Labour and the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems would have to promise to implement it if it won. It couldn’t just be an ambiguous wish list of, “more powers”.
And as Indy said, the only parties which have the power to implement it within the Union don’t want it.
#52 by ReasonableNat on June 22, 2011 - 12:25 pm
Here’s a bit of the proposed ballot paper from last year:
“The Scottish Government, in the paper Your Scotland, Your Voice (published on 30 November 2009), set out a proposal for extending the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament while Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom.
Under this proposal the Scottish Parliament would, with certain exceptions, be responsible for all laws, taxes and duties in Scotland. The exceptions, which would continue to be the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament, are-
defence and foreign affairs,
financial regulation, monetary policy and the currency.”
I know it’s pretty simple, and short, but it seems very clear to me. The obvious result surely would be that Holyrood would raise all taxes in Scotland and would pay an annual bill to Westminster for those exceptions that it describes.
I realise that none of the unionist parties favour this – in fact I think their main objection (unofficially of course) would be that it answers the question of financial viability in a way that means that it could no longer be disputed. If a Scottish government under FFA were to balance the books the unionist parties would suddenly lose their biggest argument against independence. My question is – if this is what the public wants, and if the are given it as an option, and if they choose it over all other options, what would be the result if Westminster refused to deliver it?
#53 by DougtheDug on June 22, 2011 - 2:10 pm
I don’t see how this question could go on the ballot paper unless Westminster (the three other parties) had agreed to it beforehand.
#54 by ReasonableNat on June 22, 2011 - 2:55 pm
I don’t think they really have that choice – the SNP can certainly put that on the paper if they want to. In any case a refusal to even allow it as an option is not much different, politically, from refusing to carry it out. Whatever moves the unionist parties make to prevent devo-max from happening could still only make it clear that the electorate can then only choose between indy and the sq – hence indy becomes the only option offering ‘more powers’.
#55 by DougtheDug on June 22, 2011 - 10:54 am
Indy, I understand your points but the problem with terms such as, “independence-lite”, “devo-max” and “fiscal autonomy”, is that in general use they are taken to mean some form of autonomy for Scotland within the current Union and that is the option that David Torrance assumes that the SNP will put on the ballot paper in order not to frighten the horses.
So it makes sense to ask just one question which, if he’s feeling brave, he’ll call “independence†or, if he’s a more cautious frame of mind, he’ll style in some other way, perhaps calling it “sovereignty†or, even more cleverly, “Home Ruleâ€. Now, if you’re one of the many Liberal Democrats who voted SNP last month, are you honestly going to vote against Home Rule? More to the point, how will the other Unionist parties argue against what is essentially just fiscal autonomy with knobs on?
#56 by Indy on June 22, 2011 - 12:57 pm
Yes I take your point. I think both your point and Reasonable Nat’s point are answered by what Alex Salmond said in the introduction to the draft referendum bill,
“I believe that the future prosperity and development of Scotland is best served by Scotland becoming independent. The case for an independent Scotland is stronger and more urgent following recent economic events. It is exactly the flexibility that is offered by independence that Scotland needs if it is to deal most effectively with such challenges in the future. But I recognise that there are also those who argue that the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament should be extended in more limited ways. The draft Referendum Bill set out in this document would give the Scottish people the opportunity to have their say on two questions: first, whether the Scottish Parliament should have more devolved responsibility; second, whether there should be an additional transfer of the power to enable Scotland to become an independent country. The document seeks views on the best option for the question on further devolution: full devolution including fiscal autonomy, or the more limited proposals for the financing of the Scottish Parliament made by
the Commission on Scottish Devolution.”
So there was an effort made to get some agreement on what devo max would mean and to identfy who was supporting that position. But the unionist parties were not interested.
In principle I think that there probably ought to be a question on devo max in the referendum which we now know will happen for the reasons Reasonable Nat gave – because there are indications that a substantial body of opinion would support this position and therefore it ought to be tested.
However in practice I can’t see how this is going to happen – unless the SNP offered both options and that would just be daft in my view. There would need to be somebody to put the devo max option to the people but there is no-one at present either willing or able to do that.
That’s the backdrop to the conclusion David Torrance is jumping i.e.that the SNP will put the devo max question rather than the independence question but call it independence because we would think that we would stand a better chance of winning that question. Clearly that is not what is going to happen – he has put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5. He has assumed that because we have shown willing to have a multi-option referendum it is because we think we can’t win independence but can win devo max when the reason was simply as stated, we wanted to provide the opportunity for all options to be debated and voted on.
#57 by ReasonableNat on June 22, 2011 - 3:45 pm
I can certainly see your point, but I’m not sure that it would be daft to offer the devo-max option. It would split the opposition and confuse their message. It is easy for unionists to argue that independence is risky – but how risky is devo-max? It is easy to argue against the split up of Britain – but difficult to argue against more powers within the UK when that appears to be exactly what the people want. A ‘no,no’ campaign would be out of tune with around 60-70% of the electorate before it even started, and importantly it would be out of tune with the majority of those that would currently vote no to indy. I don’t think that a ‘yes,yes’ campaign is difficult for the SNP to justify – it is a fully positive stance. Looking at it for the longer term, assuming a yes for devo-max and a no for indy, at least it would change the argument. I for one would relish the prospect of a change in the argument for indy, from a position of having already achieved devo-max. I’d equally relish the prospect of arguing for indy in the context of a yes for devo-max and a UK government refusing to implement it.
You’re right about Mr Torrance’s confusion though – and he’s far from the only one getting confused by these concepts.
I wonder if there are any unionists out there that could get on board with a confederation?
#58 by Alex Buchan on June 23, 2011 - 3:26 am
Here, Here! and this is what those in the London press who think Alex Salmond is the most acommplished contemporary politician assume he will do, not out of some Machiavelian attempt to lure him into failure, but out of admiration for his political nouse.
#59 by Alex Buchan on June 23, 2011 - 9:57 am
It’s interesting that the UK government has shown itself aware of the potential of the two things commentators have suggested Alex Salmond should do to avoid losing the referendum. The first was to agree to two referendums, making it much less risky for Scottish voters to vote yes. Michael Moore was quickly shot down for suggesting this for precisely that reason. The second is to have a third option on the ballot and last Sunday David Mundell made it clear that, following the first meeting, chaired by Cameron, of the cabinet committee on the issue, the has PM made it clear that he is totally opposed to a third option and wants Alex Salmond to work with the UK government on the wording of the question to ensure that they have some control over this.
#60 by Angus McLellan on June 22, 2011 - 1:59 pm
I wonder if Eddie Barnes over at the Scotsman might have been on to something with his “Crown Dependency” analogy. After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. It’s the first article I’ve seen on “indy lite” or “devo max” that provided a practical example – something like the Isle of Man – of what it would look like in practice. It might even be something that could legitimately be put on a ballot paper.
#61 by ReasonableNat on June 22, 2011 - 3:28 pm
Interesting read. His focus on their taxation model is a bit strange though – their constitutional arrangements do not depend on that. They are very interesting sources of inspiration for a consitutional arrangement that could tick a lot of boxes for both sides.
#62 by DougtheDug on June 22, 2011 - 6:25 pm
The biggest crown dependency in area is the Isle of Man which is about 572 square km and the biggest in terms of population is Jersey with a population of around 92,500. The common thread linking them all is that they are small islands with relatively small populations off the coast of England.
If you’re looking for a governance model for a country of 78,772 square km and a population of 5,222,100 then a much better model is Norway or Finland or Slovakia or Denmark or Switzerland and the model they use is that of a sovereign state.
If Scotland was an island about the size of Islay with a population equal to Paisley and Penicuik off the coast of Cumberland the Crown Dependency idea might work.
This is just the latest idea as unionists thrash around trying to find a governance model for Scotland which doesn’t involve independence.
#63 by John Ruddy on June 22, 2011 - 11:06 pm
“This is just the latest idea as unionists thrash around trying to find a governance model for Scotland which doesn’t involve independence.”
While nationalists thrash around trying to find a governance model for Scotland which they can get the voters to agree to.
#64 by ian glass on June 26, 2011 - 6:47 am
thanks very much, was just thinking the other evening as I was watching newsnicht that neocolonialism is short of space and a voice in scotland these days. we’ve only been bombarded with it from london media in all its forms since 17oatcake.
that said, this chap’s writing isn’t bad, though imho his subsequent irish one (“The freedom to achieve freedomâ€) is actually better than the first rather strawmanish blog that you’ve linked to.
Ian