In yet another exclusive guestpost for Better Nation, Labour leadership contender, Tom Harris MP, responds to Pete Wishart’s call with one of his own – and he doesn’t pull his punches.Â
What are the chances of an all-party campaign for “No to Independence�
Well practically zilch, if we are to listen to Pete Wishart, writing on this site on Friday.
It would seem that he and the SNP have set themselves up in a bizarre contest to be the keenest defenders of separatism, and in that defence they will be steadfast. But why have they allowed themselves to be so entrenched on the nationalist side of the debate, and is there any prospect whatsoever of them even entertaining the notion of Scotland continuing as part of the UK…?
You get the idea. Such is the arrogance of the SNP post their impressive Holyrood victory in May, that they are filled with scorn for anyone so dim-witted as to disagree with the central driving force within Pete’s own party.
Labour, writes Pete in that patronising tone that might have well been patented by the SNP, has a “proud tradition†when it comes to constitutional change. Well, that’s nice of him, eh? Scottish Labour Action was an excellent example of “free thinking†on Scotland’s constitutional future, he writes, patting Wendy Alexander and Jack McConnell on the head and offering them a lump of sugar. So why the poverty of thinking on the issue now?
Well, Pete, I have the answer to that one: it’s because SLA achieved their aim. Remember that? Remember when the Scottish Parliament was opened in 1999? Come on, it must at least ring a bell!
In calling for Labour Party members to support a pro-independence campaign, Pete ignores the fact that there are many, many more SNP voters who support the Union than there are Labour voters who support independence. And yes, Pete, you’re right that no-one joined the Labour Party to protect the Union; they’re a bit more concerned about the economy, poverty, inequality and progress – you know, important stuff. None of these issues is at the top of SNP members’ list of priorities – without their obsession on constitutional issues, they have no guiding mission.
That’s the difference between the politics of identity and the politics of progress.
Labour and all the other unionist parties, says Pete, risk irrelevance in a “new Independent Scotland†(although he doesn’t quite explain what is “new†about turning the political clock back 300 years, but I’ll let that one go) by not getting on board the independence bus now.
Do you see what he’s doing here? In the week that the SNP government were obliged to talk about what they’re most uncomfortable talking about – budgets, services, the economy – Pete wants us all to move back on to the nationalists’ ground – the constitution. Just as the media and much of Scottish business are beginning to suspect that the future being shaped by Alex Salmond isn’t quite as rosy as they had been led to believe, Pete wants us all to close our eyes, click our heels together three times and imagine that he was right all along to talk about the “inevitability†of independence. I wonder why?
To Pete (and, I assume, his attitude is entirely typical of his fellow SNP members), everyone of all parties and of none accepts that independence is as right as it is inevitable, but that only the SNP are honest enough to admit it. Nationalists are true and honourable, unionists are dishonourable and base. We’re all nationalists, if only we were brave enough to look inside ourselves and admit it.
The alternative – that some Scots genuinely believe that we’re better off in the UK than out of it – isn’t even considered by him as a possible alternative.
Memo to Pete: you’re wrong. Prepare for a fight.
#1 by Doug Daniel on September 25, 2011 - 3:38 am
I think this is probably the worst post ever published on Better Nation, a low point that I hope is never equalled. Ken Macintosh’s post yesterday might have been completely devoid of substance, but at least it wasn’t the seething mass of negativity on display here. Disagree with Pete Wishart’s post if you want Tom (and clearly you do), but I think you’ll find most people recognise there is indeed an element of Labour support that would be in favour of independence, so he was making a point that is worth thinking about. This diatribe suggests he’s hit some sort of nerve…
On another note, can we expect an EXCLUSIVE!!!! from Johann Lamont next? Maybe she could surprise us all and give us something other than “down with the SNP and their evil separatist agenda!”. The bar certainly hasn’t been raised very high by these past two posts.
#2 by Jeff on September 25, 2011 - 9:10 am
“I think this is probably the worst comment we’ve ever seen on…” etc etc.
Ironic that you talk about negative given your remarkably negatve opening line. We’re seeing a lot of ‘shouty’, unhappy comments from the more determined Nationalists out there (most of which are not passing moderation) and I am finding that a phrase comes to mind – ‘they don’t like it up ’em’. Far from being a “diatribe” it’s a lucid, logical unionist response to the reasonable arguments that Pete was making. It’s as good a debate on THE issue as you’ll see from two leading protagonists from the main parties these days so I am disappointed in your disappointment.
This is a belter of a post from Tom and the fight, the spirit is, I think, what could carry him through past Johann and Ken. People can disgree if they wish but we’re only really interested in comments that add to a post, not just unreasonably seek to chop it down.
#3 by Indy on September 25, 2011 - 9:28 am
Can’t agree that it is either lucid or logical since the basic premise is that nationalists have never really considered the arguments for the Union. That’s simply not the case.
You know what I think would be an interesting experiment? To get a nationalist to write 500 words on why Scotland should stay in the Union and to get a unionst to write 500 words on why Scotland should become independent.
I mean I could do it – I could dash off 500 words right now on why Scotland should remain in the Union. I know the arguments inside out I have heard them so often. Pete Wishart could do it too I have no doubt.
But could Tom, for example, do the same? Are unionists sufficiently familiar with the arguments in favour of independence that they could make them? Have they in fact ever really seriously considered the case?
#4 by Jeff on September 25, 2011 - 9:31 am
It would make for a very interesting series of posts but my concern is the same as your suspicion, that we’d get loads from one side of the debate and precious few from the other side. That doesn’t necessarily mean one side is right and the other isn’t; after all, my view is that Scotland can theoretically be all it can be inside of the UK or outside of the UK so I find most of it a hollow discussion, ironic given how much times it takes up, but I take your point that the instransigence to sit down and explain in detail why the UK is best is potentially really quite telling.
#5 by Indy on September 25, 2011 - 10:10 am
That wasn’t really my point. My point is that like most SNP members I was not born a nationalist. For most of my teens and early twenties I never even considered the arguments for independence. I just accepted the status quo and shared the belief that the SNP were a political joke. Then I started to think about whether the Union was actually in Scotland’s best interests – everyone has a trigger I suppose for why they start to think independence might not be such a crazy idea. For me it was the Miner’s Strike.
But the point is that I fully understand the arguments in favour of Scotland remaining in the Union, I subscribed to those arguments myself. So I can genuinely see both points of view. I just wonder if unionist politicians can. Because I suspect that if you asked Tom or another Labour politician to imagine that they are an SNP member and to explain why they believe in independence the article would start with something like I went to see Braveheart one day and then joined the SNP because I am a numptie. I just don’t think they have ever seriusly considered whether Scotland could succeed and flourish as an independent country.
#6 by Doug Daniel on September 25, 2011 - 7:00 pm
Touché Jeff! To be fair, I was never a fan of Tom’s blog before he “retired”, and could never really see why it was held in such esteem. I’ve also never really been a fan of “response” blog posts, as I feel the proper place to respond to someone else’s post is in the comments section. It all feels a bit “he says, she says”.
It was perhaps a pretty blunt way of putting it, but I basically feel this wasn’t up to the usual high standard of generally non-partisan blog posts on Better Nation. It was meant as a backhanded compliment!
#7 by Craig Gallagher on September 25, 2011 - 6:22 am
Honestly, I disagree. I think this a good post that displays a bit of personality and attacks Pete Wishart’s post the other day for exactly what was wrong with it: namely, its complacency. If politicians blindly follow the creed and start to take their positions for granted, they should expect this kind of rebuttle. It’s the same in academia, in journalism and in life, really.
That said, Tom is also hugely wrong on a number of points, in particular his insulting assertion that SNP members aren’t interested in the economy, poverty, inequality and progress. I think you’ll find that YOUR party’s ideas for tackling these problems were borrowed from OUR manifesto in May, so to assert we’re blinded by constitutionalism is as absurd as it is disrespectful.
Furthermore, and I doubt that you’ll ever accept this as a position, I don’t suppose you’ve noticed that the vast majority of comments on the constitutional situation since May have come from our mutual foes, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives? Labour have been woeful when it comes to engaging in this debate – and it is a completely valid debate, given the fact that people who voted for the SNP did so with the EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE that they would introduce an independence referendum if they won a majority – so I would suggest you spend less time disregarding suggestions that your party revive its proud history of committee-led action and actually consider it as an option.
#8 by Daniel J on September 25, 2011 - 11:30 am
While it’s true that Labour borrowed some of the SNPs ideas.. I think that says more about the dearth of ideas within Labour than the SNP being great at tackling the big issues.
#9 by Aidan on September 25, 2011 - 5:06 pm
The policy borrowing was going both ways, however there were distinctive Labour ideas such as the National Care Service.
#10 by Craig Gallagher on September 25, 2011 - 7:53 pm
Exactly, which makes a mockery of Tom’s assertion that SNP members only care about constitutionalism. If anything, the Labour Party should be ashamed that we’re roundly out-competing them in the eyes of the electorate on a lot of these issues. Plenty of SNP members see our party’s raison d’être as the only real route to a solution on a lot of the social problems afflicting Scotland, it’s not just about independence for its’ own sake.
I have been a Labour voter in the past, because of my family’s history with the party and their long and proud tradition on issues of social justice, but for any modern Labour politician – particularly one who served under the Tony Blair government – to say that they are the party who today most stand up for the poor and woebegone in our society is to exemplify everything that is rotten at the core of the organisation. It is why I am no longer a Labour voter, I was pushed away by the party’s disgusting double standards.
#11 by Indy on September 26, 2011 - 9:34 am
That’s nonsense. The SNP did not and does not support setting up a new National Care Service with presumably set-up costs and a whole bureacracy never mind the hassle of transferring existing staff with all the issues that would raise.
Rather, the Scottish Government intends to integrate the services which already exist.
#12 by Aidan on September 26, 2011 - 7:02 pm
I never said the SNP did.
#13 by Don McC on September 27, 2011 - 12:01 am
So you cite, as an example of policy borrowing going both ways, a distincly Labour idea such as the National Care service (implying that the SNP borrowed this policy idea) but then deny implying that very thing at all?
So can you actually cite an actual distincly Labour policy idea that the SNP borrowed or are you going to stick with insinuation?
#14 by Aidan on September 27, 2011 - 10:33 am
No, I cited the National Care Service as a *distinctive Labour Policy* – ie. one that differentiated Labour from the SNP.
In terms of things the SNP took from Labour how about the early cancer detection or apprenticeships? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/scottish-election-policies-voters-choose
#15 by Indy on September 27, 2011 - 8:05 am
So your comment that policy borrowing went two ways referred to what?
#16 by Davie Park on September 25, 2011 - 7:54 am
Tom wrote:
“But why have they allowed themselves to be so entrenched on the nationalist side of the debate, and is there any prospect whatsoever of them even entertaining the notion of Scotland continuing as part of the UK…?”
Erm… have you heard of ‘ Full Fiscal Autonomy’ Tom?
Or even ‘independence Lite’?
Been in the papers recently. I believe that the SNP are ‘entertaining the notion’ of having FFA as an option in the upcoming constitutional referendum.
You know, the way that the ‘dependence’ parties, (childish I know – almost as childish as your tiresome ‘seperatists’ refrain), decided to ‘entertain the notion’ of independence in the Calman Commission.
I won’t waste any more time on the rest of your piece as, in my opinion, your description of their last conference as a ‘hate fest’ debases any further views you might express about the SNP.
#17 by Erchie on September 25, 2011 - 8:19 am
I don’t know if I should be paranoid that three posts in two days have not made it through moderation.
But here’s a fourth.
Labour, like the LibDems used to be a Home Rule Party. Then again, Labour used to be a Socialist Party.
Labour used to be a radical Party.
Now it is the Establishment Party in Scotland. If you look at the undeclared background of media figures, when there is such a background to be concerned about, they are invariably Labour links.
Labour may have set up the Scottish Parliament (a few others were involved) but they declared that that was an end to it, that that was “The settled will of the Scottish People”
A bold claim since the Scottish People were never asked about Independence. If they were asked about that. The Constitutional Convention specifically excluded that. If the Scottish People has been asked, perhaps the settled will would have been something else.
If the Newsnetscotland/Wikileaks story is correct then Jim Murphy, the SoS at the time, was marshalling the forces against ever asking the Scottish People that question, including the Tories.
Perhaps Pete Wishart has a point
#18 by Indy on September 25, 2011 - 9:02 am
Bit over the top. Indeed the palpable sense of outrage that Labour members should even be asked to consider supporting independence would tend to confirm that their opposition to it is visceral and unthinking, rather than an outcome of careful consideration. I would say the same is true of this article, it appears to have been dashed off in a rage.
Also, it’s maybe worth while Tom remembering when he accuses us of not even considering the case for the Union that we haven’t had much choice about that lol. Us nationalists have grown up surrounded and permeated by the arguments for the Union – and by a culture of ridicule and contempt for the idea of Scottish independence. That’s been the standard establishment position for most of our lives. It has only been in the past few years that the idea has started to be taken seriously.
The charge of arrogance against the SNP is an interesting one, almost comical, When I joined the SNP in the 1980s my friends laughed in my face. They thought I had gone off my head. They saw the SNP as a ridiculous party full of people who wore Arran jumpers and listened to the Corries and spent their evenings knitting and reciting Rabbie Burns. The only serious political party in Scotland was the Labour Party. The SNP were a complete joke, a bunch of laughably naïve idiots at best, Tartan Tories at worst. Joining the party and facing the ridicule wasn’t easy I can assure you.
And if it wasn’t easy for me, it wasn’t easy for Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon or Michael Russell or John Swinney or any of the rest of our elected members either. They too faced ridicule, they faced the overwhelming assumption that any Scottish person who had a serious interest in politics, especially if they wanted to stand for election, joined the Labour Party. (Indeed that is an interesting point in itself – no member of the Scottish Government got involved in politics because they wanted to be in power).
And for a long time that assumption seemed justified as we struggled to get our message across and Labour’s total dominance of Scottish politics seemed unshakeable. Arrogant? When you have fought election after election and attended count after count and usually got nothing but a good kicking you don’t get arrogant on it, believe me, because you’ve got nothing to be arrogant about. Maybe if we continue to dominate Scottish politics for the next 50 years we might become arrogant, complacent even. If we do we will be taken down, and rightly so.
As for the assertion that Pete published his article in an attempt to distract people from the Budget – away you go. Much as I enjoy Better Nation, it is still a blog. The vast majority of voters have never heard of it or what is published on it. I hope the Better Nation chaps don’t take that amiss, but I assume they do not publish the blog in an effort to dominate the Scottish media!
#19 by Jeff on September 25, 2011 - 9:25 am
Agree with your last paragraph there Indy, I don’t see us nobbling BBC Scotland or The Scotsman now, soon or ever!
#20 by AliMiller on September 25, 2011 - 2:44 pm
Far better than the Hootsman though. Better Nation often gives fair and comprehensive analysis of matters which are sensationalised in the press.
#21 by Jeff on September 25, 2011 - 7:01 pm
Thanks very much. It probably helps that we don’t have to worry (too much) about circulation and profit margins.
#22 by Doug Daniel on September 25, 2011 - 7:03 pm
That’s basically what I meant to say in the first comment, except I wrote mine at 3:30am…
#23 by JPJ2 on September 25, 2011 - 9:57 am
“Pete ignores the fact that there are many, many more SNP voters who support the Union than there are Labour voters who support independence2
I hope Tom Harris is daft enough to believe that because I have seen the evidence and it is not true 🙂
#24 by Jeff on September 25, 2011 - 10:00 am
I believe The Modern SNP by Gerry Hassan has that statistic and, if memory serves right, it was 2% of SNP members that don’t believe in independence. I would imagine, as you say, there are more Labour members who think the other way.
#25 by Indy on September 25, 2011 - 10:15 am
Tom was referring to voters not members.
I think anybody frankly who thinks they know what the level of support for independence is out there is kidding themselves, whether they are for or against indepedence.
Opinion is so fluid that I don’t think opinion polls tell us very much. We may start to see opinion settling over the next few years but it wouldn’t surprise me if many people don’t finally make up their minds until the referendum campaign is actually underway.
#26 by DougtheDug on September 25, 2011 - 11:16 am
It’s not bizarre at all that the SNP are the keenest defenders of, “separatism”, as that is the raison d’etre of the party, an independent Scotland. Scotland continuing on as part of the UK is the unionist argument and it’s up to the unionist to make that argument not the SNP.
I’m not sure where Tom gets his idea that the SNP is arrogant and scornful of those who disagree with them and a few examples would be worth quoting but it is a bit rich for the party which is only now really coming to terms with its loss of hegemony in Scotland to accuse others of being arrogant.
I wouldn’t agree with either Pete Wishart or with Tom that Labour has a, “proud tradition”, when it comes to constitutional change. The only major constitutional change the Labour party has implemented is some tinkering with the House of Lords and the passing of the devolution bill in 1998 under pressure from the SNP. As Alex Salmond said, “Labour’s devolution bus runs on SNP petrol”.
One thing to remember about devolution is that it didn’t create an independent Scots Law system, Education System or NHS as these things were already separate. All it did was collect the pre-existing separate Scottish strands of Law, Education, Health and Government and put them under a Scottish Parliament. What powers weren’t there weren’t created as exemplified by the Welsh Assembly.
Labour’s second attempt at constitutional change under the Calman Commission where it had no pre-existing Scottish powers to play with is a weak and powerless mess where fear of change seems to have been the overriding principle.
I’m surprised at Tom’s assertion that no-one joined the Labour party to protect the Union because that has been the Labour party’s aim and obsession since the SNP started to grow in electoral power. In the last decade it appears to have been the Labour party’s only aim.
If Tom’s called the SNP arrogant and scornful then it’s the pot calling the kettle black when he assumes that only the Labour party cares about the economy, poverty, inequality and progress. These are issues which were in my mind when I became a nationalist because we can improve them all in an independent Scotland. It’s odd to see a man describe the Labour party as the champion of these causes when the Labour party fought tooth and nail in 2011 for Scotland to stay under the control of the Tory Government in Westminster and its slash and burn attitude to public services.
If I’d joined the Labour party to fight for a better economy, a reduction in poverty and inequality and for progress in society I’d be seriously worried by the Labour party’s obsession with defending the Union to the detriment of all these causes.
John Swinney is doing his best with the Block Grant handed to him by the Tory Party, a situation that Tom is very happy to see continue, and under those circumstances Tom just doesn’t see the irony when he says, “That’s the difference between the politics of identity and the politics of progress”.
Labour’s playing a game of parochial regional politics in Scotland while the SNP is playing a game of nations. That’s the difference in aspiration between the two parties.
#27 by Aidan on September 25, 2011 - 5:14 pm
That’ll be the same SNP that withdrew from the institutional convention that worked out what the initial phase of devolution would look like?
2011 wasn’t about staying under control of Westminster, independence was only rarely brought up, almost never by the SNP and always with a “don’t worry about it, you can vote no in the referendum”. It just wasn’t an issue.
Issues such as poverty, inequality etc. can be improved on in an independent Scotland, but they can also be improved on in a devolved Scotland – as they have been. They are the avowed first priority of the Labour party.
(please don’t now go “oh no! we cannot do anything about any of these until we are independent!” it’s very tedious)
#28 by DougtheDug on September 25, 2011 - 6:07 pm
No, that was the Constitutional convention that refused to discuss the option of independence and would only look at options inside the union. The Calman Commission did the same thing. Nothing changes.
2011 wasn’t about staying under control of Westminster…, yes it was. It was either a vote for the SNP who believe in an independent Scotland or a vote for Labour and the other unionist parties who believe that a Tory Block Grant is the best solution for Scotland.
(please don’t now go “oh no! we cannot do anything about any of these until we are independent!†it’s very tedious) It’s almost as tedious as those who claim they want the best for Scotland and then fight to keep Scotland under the cosh of the Tories.
#29 by Aidan on September 25, 2011 - 6:20 pm
Nobody in the Labour party fights to keep Scotland under the Tories, and neither Labour nor the Lib Dems think the Tory Block Grant is the best solution for Scotland – that’s why Calman includes substantial changes to that.
Independence isn’t the only answer.
#30 by DougtheDug on September 25, 2011 - 9:00 pm
Actually Aidan, the Calman proposals don’t make any substantial changes at all. In terms of revenue the Scottish Government will get exactly what it gets now which is the Barnett formula funding.
The only change is that the Block Grant is now to be made up of an assigned tax element and a top up block grant element. Add them both together and you will get the Barnett formula funding level.
The only substantial change in revenue powers is that the original 3p in the pound variable rate on the basic tax band has now changed to a 10p in the pound variable rate across all the tax bands and it has been admitted that the 10p limit was worked out on the back of a fag packet.
Unless the next Scottish Government wants to start cranking up the income tax rates across all bands in Scotland the Block Grant will be the Block Grant will be the Block Grant. Though I do admit it will come in two separate bits with added bureaucracy and probably an annual HMRC charge to do that.
#31 by Aidan on September 25, 2011 - 10:47 pm
Under Calman Holyrood would get a lot more flexibility over the Block Grant and it becomes much more of an administrative question about where the money is gathered and distributed.
If Holyrood chooses to spend less it can cut spending and cut taxes. if it wishes to maintain spending while the rUK is cutting it it can raise taxes to cover the difference or borrow.
You’re right to point out that locking the difference rates together is problematic, it’s not full fiscal autonomy, and it’s not a federal system, but it is quite a substantial difference from the status quo.
#32 by DougtheDug on September 25, 2011 - 11:05 pm
But the 3p limit SVR in the current legislation could always do that. The only difference is that it is now 10p limit in Calman and it’s across all the tax bands.
The 1998 Scotland Act already allows borrowing to provide, “sums required for meeting temporary excess in expenditure over income or providing the devolved administration with a working balance.”
The Scotland Bill does pretty much the same thing except it also has to take account of the inherent instability of the new funding mechanism.
Calman a very minor change to the status quo.
#33 by Aidan on September 25, 2011 - 11:22 pm
more than trippling the variability and pushing it across all the tax bands is not a minor change – it vastly increases the amount of extra revenue brought in and does so in a progressive manner. That makes it a much more usable power than the 3p SVR.
#34 by DougtheDug on September 25, 2011 - 11:34 pm
It vastly increases the amount of revenue brought in only if you want to push Scottish income tax rates up to 30%, 50% and 60% from 20%, 40% and 50%.
If you want Scots to pay the same tax as the rest of the UK it changes nothing.
#35 by Aidan on September 25, 2011 - 11:38 pm
No Doug, it can be up to 10%, could be 21, 41 and 51.
If you want Scots to pay the same tax as the rest of the UK then surely you should be content with the Block Grant?
#36 by Doug Daniel on September 26, 2011 - 12:48 am
Aidan – you said “vastly increases” the amount of revenue, which is why my namesake went for the full 10%. 1% is not “vast”.
And how is it progressive if the only way to raise the top rate is by also raising the standard and lower rates? Surely a truly progressive change would be to allow the top rate to be increased while simultaneously decreasing the other rates?
#37 by DougtheDug on September 26, 2011 - 1:08 am
If you want Scots to pay the same tax as the rest of the UK then surely you should be content with the Block Grant?
I don’t follow your logic. I don’t see why Scots should have to pay more taxes just to preserve our current level of public services in the face of Tory cuts in England. Scottish control of the Scottish economy is what I want. Unlike the Labour party who regard Tory control as better than independence.
Scotland produces more oil per year than the Gulf state of Qatar. We must be the only nation in the world to strike oil and get poorer.
It’s the Union Benefit. Dontcha love it?
#38 by Aidan on September 26, 2011 - 7:06 pm
DougDaniel – it vastly increases the amount raised for any given increase because it *also* applies to the 40p and 50p rates, not just the 20p rate.
Secondly, it’s a progressive because raising *just* the 20p hurts those on lower incomes much more proportionally than it hurts those on higher incomes. Raising all the tax rates the same amount is better.
It’s not *as* re-distributive as raising the 50p by a penny and knocking a penny off the 20p rate, no – and I would wholeheartedly support changing the Scotland bill to allow that.
#39 by Doug Daniel on September 26, 2011 - 1:13 am
“it has been admitted that the 10p limit was worked out on the back of a fag packet.”
I found that to be a pretty startling confession from Calman, and I’m surprised far more hasn’t been made of it. Why is the 10p figure being accepted if there is no actual basis for the figure?
#40 by Aidan on September 26, 2011 - 7:09 pm
It’s been admitted that there’s not much evidence for, say, 10p vs 11.5p but that a figure in the region of 10p allows enough leeway for it to be a demonstrably more useful power than the 3p rate in a way that 7p wasn’t.
The line that it was decided on with no justification at all is a blatant twisting of his words – ” “It was a relatively straightforward figure which allowed, rather than 7.5% or 7.5p or whatever it might be, which gave a significant drop in the block grant which the Scottish parliament would have to raise.
“That’s why we chose it. There was no, I don’t think, magic formula that said it had to be 10p.” from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14897989
that’s not “we worked it out on the back of a fag packet”, that’s “it’s an easy to grasp figure which achieves our goals which significantly lower figures did not”.
#41 by Malc on September 25, 2011 - 6:39 pm
Actually, the Constitutional Convention of the late 1980s-1990s wasn’t a closed shop, and actively wanted the SNP on board. The fact that they chose not to join it was because they saw devolution as a block on independence rather than a stepping stone towards it.
#42 by Erchie on September 25, 2011 - 7:04 pm
They may have wanted the SNP, but Independence was not going o be considered as an option, only Devolution.
Devolution, we are old, is “The settled will”. Not so, the Unionists have never trusted the Scottish people enough to ask them any question that involved Independence
#43 by Malc on September 25, 2011 - 7:49 pm
That’s a fair point. But the SNP could have been involved – and could have helped to shape the process – and chose not to. They could have steered it further in a independence-direction, but chose not to. The Convention was agreed by “consensus” – they took no votes, and no parties were forced to accept objectives contrary to their opinion. Had the SNP been involved, that process would have been more difficult, and would have been less likely to yield a result. But they could have been involved.
#44 by Indy on September 26, 2011 - 9:31 am
We did actually go along to the Constitutional Convention initially but we left when they said they wouldn’t consider independence as an option.
That is ofen held up as an example of SNP intransigence but consider the fact that the SNP has repeatedly said that we are happy to have a third option – devo max however it is defined – on the ballot paper for the referendum.
The Constitutional Convention refused to even discuss the independence option, never mind allow it on the ballot paper.
So who is rteally intransigent?
#45 by DougtheDug on September 25, 2011 - 7:07 pm
Malc:
I can speak about this from the inside because I was involved in the events which led to it…At first, the CSA was fairly confident of the SNP and of the Liberal Democrats. We were less sure of the Labour Party and it was crucial because of its dominant position in Scottish politics at that time. Labour hesitations disappeared when Jim Sillars won the Govan by-election in October 1988; it has always been more pro-Scottish when it perceives a threat from the SNP. It opted for a Constitutional Convention formed mainly from existing MPs and councillors which gave it a strong majority in it. Partly for this reason and partly because Labour insisted that the objective was to strengthen the Union by devolution within the UK, the SNP felt obliged to withdraw.
From an article, “The most influential document this century”, by Paul H. Scott originally in the Herald now on http://www.alba.org.uk
#46 by Malc on September 25, 2011 - 7:44 pm
That’s one man’s opinion. The accounts I’ve read, by Canon Kenyon Wright – who chaired the Convention from a non-partisan position – and by Bob Maclean, suggest otherwise. Indeed, Donald Dewar gave a speech at Stirling Uni in 1988 – months before the Govan by-election – saying Labour were going to be involved. The SNP thought they were going to storm the palace after Sillars win, and changed their mind about joining.
But it was never about “strengthening the Union” – look at all the documents written by the Convention; the Claim of Right for Scotland, the document outlining the plans for the Scottish Parliament. Neither mention the Union – their focus is on delivering a Parliament for Scotland.
#47 by DougtheDug on September 25, 2011 - 8:14 pm
Neither mention the Union
Why would they Malc? The Parliament envisaged was always embedded in the Union and was never intended to be a threat to it. All the Labour politicians who signed up to the Claim of Right would have run a mile if they thought they’d been asked to sign a document which called for an independent Scottish Parliament.
Neither mention the Union, is proof that independence was never considered as an option. If independence is in play as an option you have to talk about the Union.
#48 by Malc on September 25, 2011 - 8:50 pm
You argued that “it only looked at options inside the Union”. I would have thought if that were the case, either would have mentioned that somewhere. But they did not.
Read “A Claim of Right for Scotland”. It does actually make a case about self-determination that is sufficiently vague to allow the idea of independence, not just devolution. Of course it was taken to mean devolution because it was the Campaign for a Scottish Parliament – and they wanted Labour, with their 75% of Scottish MPs, involved. It was nothing like Calman – nothing was explicitly ruled in or out. That was all my point was.
#49 by Indy on September 26, 2011 - 9:43 am
The SNP never thought we were going to storm the palace. As I recall it, Gordon Wilson and Jim Sillars went along to the meeting of the Constitutional Convention. It was established at that meeting that the Constitutionak Convention would not consider independence in any way, at all. Gordon and Jim then reported back to SNP National Council and National Council decided that we wouldn’t stay a part of it. What was the point?
It’s the same as the argument that the SNP should have taken part in the Calman Commission – what would have been the point in attending that? They were looking at what extra powers could be devolved, SNP person would pipe up “all of them”. What powers should stay reserved? SNP person pipes up “None of them”. Same answer over and over again. Really, it would just have been silly.
#50 by Malc on September 26, 2011 - 10:12 am
As I understand from my reading, Sillars and Wilson (and someone else, but I can’t remember who – maybe Margo?) did go along to the early meetings – as you say – but had three demands: more SNP representation on the Convention, no voting structure (so they wouldn’t have to accept anything they didn’t like) and independence as an option in a referendum. The Convention (to the surprise of the SNP) agreed to the first 2, but wouldn’t agree to the last on the basis that they were not deciding upon options for the outcome at that stage – they wanted to do a thorough Convention process before making recommendations. That didn’t exclude independence, but it did not endorse it. That wasn’t that they wouldn’t consider independence specifically, but that they were an organisation designed to campaign for a Scottish Parliament. They wouldn’t consider federalism specifically either, but the Lib Dems stayed on board – which isn’t quite the same thing, but you surely see my point?
And as I take from the reading, Sillars was actually in favour of continuing, but Wilson put forward a stronger case to the National Council, and membership was rejected. The SNP – as you say – didn’t see the point. Of course, had they been dominated by gradualists rather than fundamentalists at the time, the story might have been slightly different.
Calman, I can understand – it was a totally different process, designed to undermine the SNP’s core aim, when the party were in government and had a chance to deliver it. But, in my view, the Scottish Constitutional Convention was simply a means of moving forward the devolution debate, of taking on a hostile government to deliver home rule for Scotland.
#51 by Indy on September 26, 2011 - 9:26 am
I am going to suggest an exercise for you Aidan.
Imagine that you are Prime Minister of an independent Scotland. Your government has a mandate to tackle poverty and inequality and – here’s the thing – you don’t have to worry about what you are allowed to do because nothing is reserved to Westminster any more. And you don’t have to worry about alienating the voters of Middle England beause the Daily Mail says whatever you want to do will make house prices fall as the voters of Middle England have no say over Scotland any more. The only voters you have to worry about are the voters of Middle Scotland.
So imagine what you might be able to do and then come back to us and tell us why it would be better not to be able to do that but insread to put all your energy, commitment and hope into a desperate effort to use devolved powers to tackle reserved issues while, simultaneously, the Tories continue to control our economy, our tax and benefits systems and so on.
Because that just doesn’t make sense from any angle. If you support Scotland remaining part of the UK accept the consequences of that. The British people put the Tory/Lib Dem Government into power so stop whinging about their choices. The people are never wrong.
Alternatively, if you really really don’t want the Tories running Scotland’s economy then consider the alternative. That we run it ourselves.
#52 by Jamie on September 25, 2011 - 11:43 am
“economy, poverty, inequality and progress – you know, important stuff. None of these issues is at the top of SNP members’ list of priorities – without their obsession on constitutional issues, they have no guiding mission.”
Yeah… ’cause nobody supports independence as a means to tackle these things.
I believe you used the words “arrogant” and “patronising” in your post.
#53 by Aidan on September 25, 2011 - 5:15 pm
How do the constitutional arrangements directly affect those issues?
#54 by Jamie on September 25, 2011 - 11:10 pm
I never said they did. What I believe is that with a different constitutional arrangement than we currently have, we could better tackle those issues. You also believe that. I would not dream of saying you are obsessed with refining devolution and that you do not care about other issues. That would be both incorrect and incredibly patronising.
#55 by Aidan on September 25, 2011 - 11:24 pm
You referred to ” independence as a means to tackle these things” which is a pretty clear statement.
#56 by Don McC on September 27, 2011 - 12:19 am
Aidan, if you believe that independence would have no direct impact on the economy, poverty, inequality and progress then, out of curiosity, just why do you think the SNP push for independence. Hatred of the English? Mad for power?
#57 by Indy on September 26, 2011 - 9:53 am
Well, let’s take a specific case. Your colleague over at Labour Hame Gerry Keegan has written very eloquently of the quite appalling impact of reforms to the benefit system on people with mental health problems. That’s something I know a little bit about through my work, it’s something many people in Scotland are deeply concerned about.
There is absilutely nothing the Scottish Parliament or Government can do about it – and you don’t want the Scottish Parliament or Government to do be able to anything about it.
You are quite happy to imply that Scottish local authorities would fail in their duty towards vulnerable people in their care but it appears you are not so interested in how vulnerable people are affected by Westminster-controlled policies, are you?
So that’s an example of how the constitutional arrangements have affected your perception for a start.
#58 by Aidan on September 26, 2011 - 7:13 pm
I’m quite happy for control of the benefits system to be devolved.
Obviously benefit structure matters, but benefit policy wasn’t the policy under discussion. Independence was. How does *Independence* – Scotland as a nation state distinct from the UK – solve issues such poverty?
#59 by Don McC on September 27, 2011 - 12:28 am
Aidan, no one is discussing devolving the benefit system. It’s certainly not part of the Scotland bill so we’d be looking to at least another 10 years to make that happen if the timetable of the Scotland bill is anything to go by.
Independence could happen in less than 5 years and give Scotland direct control of the benefit system.
Bear in mind that Labour, in full control of Westminster for 13 years, distinctly failed in the policy to eradicate poverty for children. Why you won’t consider giving someone else the opportunity free from the restraints that have led to such a failure is beyond me.
#60 by Aidan on September 27, 2011 - 10:35 am
The independence referendum won’t happen until 4 or 5 years time, and that’s only to begin the negotiations – actual independence is unlikely to begin operating for much longer.
#61 by Don McC on September 27, 2011 - 4:08 pm
Still likely to in place a lot sooner than any possibility of the benefit system being devolved to Scotland.
#62 by Indy on September 27, 2011 - 8:16 am
Because an independent Scotland would have full control of the benefits system as well as the tax system, the economy etc. If I could a buzz word from Labour’s first term in the Scottish Parliament it’s about joined up policy-making.
Under devlution the Scottish Parliament controls some elements of policy which could go towards creating a more requal society but not all of them. So whatever government was elected – even if they were elected on a mandate to put reducing poverty as their top priority – would not be able to do it. Especially when there is a government in London pulling in the opposite direction, as we have now.
Essentially, your argument that a devolved Scottish Government could tackle poverty and inequality with the powers it has is like saying that someone could cut down an old oak tree with a carving knife rather than an axe. I mean it would be difficult enough to cut down an old oak tree with an axe but it’s basically impossible with a carving knife.
#63 by Aidan on September 27, 2011 - 10:35 am
This completely ignores my question Indy.
#64 by Topher Dawson on September 25, 2011 - 12:29 pm
I also thought this post by Tom Harris was pretty well written. It is a genuine reply to Pete Wishart, he has actually read Pete, unlike Ken Mackintosh who has supplied us with a party political broadcast.
He shows us how many Labour supporters view the SNP, as people obsessed with independence to the exclusion of the economy, education and so on. We in the SNP often view Labour supporters in the same way, i.e. visceral Unionists and knee-jerk opponents of any SNP idea, however sensible.
In fact neither stereotype is true, all of us want the best for Scotland, we just have slightly different views about how to achieve it. We are all, as Tom puts it, nationalists.
I was amused by his turning Pete’s argument on its head to show how Pete achieved his effect.
We are near the tipping point in the argument for some kind of independence, as yet undefined by the Government. The polls have been travelling our way for some time. Pete’s point, which I agree with and which so outrages Tom, is that there is some support within the Labour party for independence and at some point they will stand up and be counted. No politician likes other parties appealing directly to their supporters.
Both Pete and Tom want their stance to be acknowledged as the majority view, but we are so close to the tipping point neither can make that claim.
In my opinion Scottish voters are quietly moving towards independence via fiscal autonomy and the case for the Union is currently being made so badly that the SNP need say nothing. Tom’s article at least addresses the issue and shows a spark of fight, and so I think it raises the level of the debate we so badly need.
#65 by Aidan on September 25, 2011 - 5:19 pm
Err, Kens post wasn’t a response to Petes. That’s why it didn’t sound like he’d read the post, he probably hadn’t.
#66 by Observer on September 25, 2011 - 12:36 pm
”the economy, poverty, inequality and progress – you know, important stuff.”
I would agree that this is the important stuff, that is why I vote for the SNP because I want a Scottish Parliament to be legislating on all of these issues. I don’t want important stuff like fiscal policy, taxation, or welfare benefits reserved to Westminster, when that means you can get the Tories deciding the policy even although people in Scotland do not now & haven’t voted Tory since the 1950s in any great number.
Yes, the Scottish Parliament can protect us from the worst excesses of Tory social policy – but that isn’t enough. We have Gideon Osborne like the evil villain in a Bond movie saying there will be no Plan B. He is calling the shots, despite the fact that if Tom was honest there is very little difference between Labour & the SNP on what is the most important issue facing us right now – trying to save the economy & protect jobs. Most politicians in Scotland believe that he is wrong, but he is still in charge. Despite the fact that Scots didn’t vote for him. There is still a democratic deficit. It is staring us in the face.
That’s why I vote SNP & I suspect that is why a lot of other people vote SNP. It’s not because we are nationalists (I am not a nationalist & never will be) it’s because of the important stuff.
#67 by Aidan on September 25, 2011 - 5:21 pm
There’s definitely a strong case to be made for more tax and borrowing powers that go beyond what’s currently in the Scotland Bill – but that needn’t mean independence.
All those things, the things that effect issues such as poverty, can be delivered through further devolution without going through the tortuous, expensive, uncertain process of independence – that’s the real key difference between Labour and the SNP on this.
#68 by Observer on September 25, 2011 - 5:39 pm
Aidan – that is your view (& I suspect there is not much difference between what you want & what I want) but it isn’t the Labour Party view, or if it is they haven’t said it.
They are still committed to keeping most of the important stuff in terms of taxation, borrowing, & overarching fiscal policy reserved.
If they moved away from that line then we would have a whole different ball game.
I am in favour of independence but could be persuaded that it is not necessary as long as the important stuff could be decided here & not down there.
#69 by Aidan on September 25, 2011 - 5:53 pm
There’s certainly a lot of people within the Labour party who hold that view, and Labour has consistently worked for more powers for Holyrood. The only thing that isn’t really devolved somewhat in the current Scotland Bill is the benefits system.
Yes, the Scotland Bill has problems – not being able to vary the tax rates independently is a big one – but that can be improved upon, the important stuff devolved with much less fuss and hassle than full independence and we can get on with focussing on *using* the powers that Holyrood already has to address the problems that exist today.
#70 by Doug Daniel on September 25, 2011 - 7:21 pm
“Labour has consistently worked for more powers for Holyrood”
I don’t recall Labour making much noise about increasing Holyrood’s powers before the SNP were elected and the possibility of independence suddenly started looming on the horizon. What did Labour do between 1999 and 2007 to make Holyrood more substantial that merits saying they’ve “consistently” worked towards more powers?
As for the Scotland Bill, we certainly HOPE it can be improved upon, but I don’t hear much noise from Labour (or the other two) to suggest that’ll happen. The SNP seem to be the only ones making any effort – the others seem to be pretty happy with the proposals, probably because they’re the ones who set them out.
I’m intrigued as to what it is you see in Labour to make you think they’re suddenly going to turn around and start saying Scotland should be able to raise the top rate of tax independently from the standard rate, and so on. It’s certainly pretty well hidden from the rest of us.
#71 by Aidan on September 25, 2011 - 10:51 pm
Folk like me and, if you’re looking for someone with a bit more weight on such issues, Eric Joyce, Henry McLeish have also been pushing this.
I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable that Labour didn’t immediately try to get more powers for Holyrood in the first two sessions given that it was an entirely novel system…
#72 by Doug Daniel on September 26, 2011 - 12:39 am
I had a feeling you’d use the “first two sessions” line. There may be some merit in the reasoning, but it certainly doesn’t show a “consistent” push for more powers. If there had been rumblings about it towards the end of the 2003-2007 session, I might just about give you that one.
However, no offence intended here, but I hardly think an activist, a backbench MP and a former MSP count as proof that Labour as a whole are going to have a Damascene conversion any time soon. It’s clearly going to take a bit more than Henry’s sporadic TV appearances to push Labour onto the right track, as Tom Harris and Ken Macintosh show no signs of doing so, which does not bode well for Labour’s immediate future.
Now if Henry was to get back into Holyrood on the other hand…
#73 by Aidan on September 26, 2011 - 7:16 pm
Labour established the Parliament with the popular backing of Scotland having worked for years with civic Scotland and then work with other parties and civic Scotland to devolve further powers to it.
Should Scottish Labour be clearer and more daring on this? Yeah, you won’t get any argument from me on that.
Is Labour institutionally bound to keep as much control of Scotland at Westminster as possible? Err, no…
#74 by Davie Park on September 26, 2011 - 12:10 am
“and Labour has consistently worked for more powers for Holyrood”.
Yes, that sounds just like the party whose aspiration in Holyrood was,
DO LESS BETTER. That’s right, DO LESS BETTER!
They, of course, far exceeded this aim and did bugger all quite brilliantly.
Come on Aidan, Labour enthusiasm for further powers is just unprincipled politicking and all about self preservation. Indeed, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth since May has been about finding a way back to Labour hegemony in Scotland – and to hell with doing a job for the Scottish people.
#75 by Observer on September 25, 2011 - 12:56 pm
If the unionist parties don’t get their act together & come up with a solution to the continuing democratic deficit which exists in Scotland, & which leaves a government we did not elect in charge of major decisions which can have very detrimental effects in Scotland, then I believe that independence is inevitable. I have no desire to see an independent Scotland just for the sake of it, I would be quite happy with the union if it worked. But on the important stuff it doesn’t. It’s really up to people like Tom whether independence happens. It could be stopped, but only if a decent alternative is put in its place. Over to Tom.
#76 by M G on September 25, 2011 - 1:03 pm
The look of horror on Tom Harris’s face on the night of the Inverclyde by-election I think is more of a driving force behind his more vocal contributions to the Scottish political scene than the debate about Independence.
Just how shocked were you Tom ,when you actually visited and wondered ,”what the hell ?”.
Its grim in parts and having seen first hand ,the housing ,the unemployment and the standard of living that some people are expected to live in ,there was only one conclusion. People have been let down -badly! Oh and on whose watch?
You can debate the finer points with another politician all you like but the truth is ,Labour at various different levels of Government did not work for the people it was supposed to and even if you win your arguement and Scotland stays in the union, the Labour Party should never and can never go back to how it was.
#77 by AliMiller on September 25, 2011 - 3:22 pm
Tom Harris: “although he doesn’t quite explain what is “new†about turning the political clock back 300 years”
This sentence demonstrates one of the big misunderstandings the Labour Party has in regard to the SNP.
I think both Tom and I both beleive that there needs to be a great deal of change in our society and economy to improve Scotland. An example of this I would suggest is an economy and education system which can combine to offer sufficient opportunities to young people (particularly boys) who do not want to go down the academic path.
In the SNP, we see the route to making these improvements as being fully in control of what we do. We look at the path that UK democracy and governance has forged for Britain over the past 40 years, and more importantly the direction it wants to continue in. And that direction looks far from where we want to go.
So thinking that the SNP exists to take us back 300 years is a mistake. The SNP is about about the future, not the past. It is about creating a democracy in Scotland which can steer its Society, Economy and Government in the path it wishes to, free of the adverse headwinds that are inescapable as part of the Union. Indeed, I would compare it more to turning the clock forward 300 years.
#78 by DB on September 25, 2011 - 3:22 pm
I can understand why the first poster and others were offended.
Sure, there may be ‘spirit’ and a few good soundbites, but the majority of the post implies SNP voters don’t care about the “important stuff”.
Only constitutional change in itself, rather than as a means to a better society.
To me, this is as ridiculous as a typical braveheart style anti-English rant.
#79 by Barbarian on September 25, 2011 - 3:31 pm
Well, that is one of the best articles I’ve seen! It is aa solid response to Pete Wishart’s article and sparks off a good debate, something missing in Holyrood.
Some of the comments attacking Tom’s piece here are the bog standard response to any deviation from absolute support to the independence cause, a political heresey if you like.
Simply attacking the article accusing of negativity, then going off on a rant about “what has the union done for us”, is a little bit hypocritical.
Tom makes a point: “Nationalists are true and honourable, unionists are dishonourable and base.” That argument sums up one of the problems that the SNP leadership is trying to deal with. Look on some of the more pro-independence blogs, choose almost any article, and that is the sort of argument you will see.
This is the first time that I have seen a Labour politician actually using a reasonable argument to criticise the SNP. It is essential for Scotland that such debates are allowed to take place.
I do not support Labour, the Tories or the Lib Dems. I support the SNP. But I want to see some constructive debates instead of the normal childish insults that come out from all sides in cyberspace.
Excellent idea for these articles. The more the better!
#80 by Indy on September 25, 2011 - 4:39 pm
Seriously? To me this article shows clear signs of having been written in a bad temper. Look at some of the language used:
“Such is the arrogance of the SNP””
“..that patronising tone that might have well been patented by the SNP”
“(Labour members are) a bit more concerned about the economy, poverty, inequality and progress – you know, important stuff. ”
Actually looking back at it, the juxtaposition of Tom’s accusation that “the SNP” is arrogant and patronising with that that last sentence is quite amusing. But unintentionally I fear.
Then we have: “Pete wants us all to close our eyes, click our heels together three times and imagine that he was right all along”.
It’s all very personal isn;t it?
Which is fair enough in a debate or even a discussion on a blog – although I think politicians should avoid the kind of laboured irony evident in some of these remarks, like suggesting the 1999 elections ought to ring a bell.
But I am genuinely surprised that someone who sat down deliberately to write an article – as opposed to simply responding in conversation to a point somone else made – would use that kind of tone. It just sounds angry.
#81 by Barbarian on September 25, 2011 - 6:47 pm
Go and read the comments that are posted by some people on other blogs. They are the ones that appear to be written in a bad temper!
In fact, I can think of one site in particular, where if this article was reproduced, you would see precisely what I mean.
We need a sensible debate over the future of Scotland. Hotheaded arguments will simply switch people off.
#82 by Indy on September 26, 2011 - 9:58 am
That’s my point exactly Barbarian. We all dash off comments without really thinking about it because it’s part of a conversation. It’s a slightly different thing if you are sitting dwn to write an article for publication.
It’s about the tone. We’ve all heard Alex Salmond exchange barbed comments with people at FMQs for example, but if he were to sit down and put some of those comments into writing I think a few eyebrows would be raised don’t you?
#83 by Jeff on September 25, 2011 - 7:19 pm
To be honest, I don’t see what’s necessarily wrong with something being written in anger or in a bad temper.
I guess I’m too cynical for my own good but my guess is that Tom has calculated that a passionate response on certain topics is what is required and this is somewhat synthetic, though truly held nonetheless.
#84 by Observer on September 25, 2011 - 8:17 pm
Well he’s certainly got everybody talking & if Aidan is representative of Labour opinion in Scotland then the future might be even more interesting than we already know it is going to be. So on that basis I’d say Tom has been a hit!
#85 by Aidan on September 25, 2011 - 10:52 pm
I really wouldn’t want to be taken as some barometer of Labour opinion, I’m all for nationalised monopoly cooperative drug stores. 😉
#86 by Random Lurking Scotsman on September 25, 2011 - 5:33 pm
I voted SNP last time as I felt that Labour didn’t have the right kind of attitude for the Parliament – “now that the Tories are back” they said, and in Scotland they weren’t, and they really didn’t have the correct answers for Scotland. The SNP did, and I think still does for the moment.
The need for a referendum on independence is actually quite a pressing one – simply so we can see what Scotland thinks rather than have politicians and internet commenters banging on that “the majority in Scotland do/don’t want independence, and we speak for them”.
I actually agree with some of the sentiments expressed by the article, if not entirely convinced by Labour at the moment. He says that the “nationalists true and honourable, unionists dishonourable and base” attitude prevailing among the comment pages of the internet is incorrect and wrong-headed is quite true – I think that what gets lost is that this is an argument about what is best for Scotland, continuing political union with England or some form of political independence from Westminster (increasingly hazy with the EU and a seeming march towards eurozone fiscal union). Both sides have an idea about what is best for Scotland, and it isn’t really “remain dominated by the English or be ‘free'”, but rather how much autonomy for Scotland is necessary.
This is really why I can’t join a single political party – I was once a Lib Dem, but then grew disillusioned with them and subsequently gave the SNP my vote in 2011. The idea (expressed by Salmond himself) that one party can have a complete monopoly on ideas regarding Scotland’s future is wrong, and to dismiss Labour’s contribution to the political landscape of Scotland is rather insincere – they were once reformers, they lost touch with the public, and there is the possibility that again they will again have something to say in future. Indeed, by forming a distinct Scottish Labour they might be able to say and do different things up here rather than ask permission from Westminster every five minutes, which would deflate the “London Labour” image in the eyes of the electorate.
I look forward to more thought provoking articles like this posted on Better Nation. The huge advantage it has over the likes of the Scotsman is that the comments section is actually a pleasure to read, rather than something to be avoided due to the “four legs good, two legs bad” rantings of hysterical posters who want to silence the other side. Indeed, perhaps Johnston Press could turn to those who run this blog for an idea of how to run an intelligent comments policy…
#87 by Observer on September 25, 2011 - 5:47 pm
I think Tom actually sounds a bit like a Scotsman poster, the bit about turning the clock back 300 years for example.
But I enjoyed his post, if only to see what the view from the other side is. He seems to think that the constitutional question is to the front of the SNP argument. Perhaps it is if you are a nationalist, but for me the constitutional question is the conclusion to the argument. You analyze what’s wrong, & you see how you can change it.
Tom genuinely doesn’t seem to get that. We are not all Bravehearts.
#88 by Allan on September 25, 2011 - 5:14 pm
Sorry, but this piece is the type of all heat and no light that Unionists really really have to get away from if they are to retain the polling advantage they have. Harris should instead be focusing on what the Union can do for us rather than attack Nationalists for obsessing over the constitution.
While Harris was attacking Salmond’s policy announcements this week, prehaps he should spare a thought as to what alternative Labour put forward in the Spring. Most of their policies collapsed under the full glare of the media. Again, another example of Labour puting forward a less than positive argument.
#89 by Gavin Hamilton on September 25, 2011 - 7:41 pm
Oh what a stushie this post has caused 🙂
Well the thing I really like about it is this: He picks out that many nationalists seem to see an innevitability in independence and the idea that the UK does not work is a given without really running the case and examining the issues.
Yesterday Ken Mcintosh said ‘separatism is clearly not in scotland’s interest’ without really expanding on why.
That was just as foolish. Both assertions need to be argued and I believe there is a clear case for each possibility.
The SNP have got the right to hod a referendum on this. We now need to discuss the choices, fill in the details and make a decision.
I think Tom is also getting at the fact that many many of us Scots see ourselves as part and parcel of the UK. I certainly feel there is more that binds us than separates us and some of those factors are the very essence of who and what we are, not just artificial bits of cultural binding.
Others will differ of course – many who read Better Nation – but the argument for devolution needs worked especiall yas I see that as closer to what more people want and closer to the most logical solution for Scotland.
This desire for devolution goes across people of all parties and people of no party (even some Tories nowadays)
Finally, I think Tom runs eloquently the argument that the SNP is more comfortable on the constitution than on issues like the economy and services. I have noticed that run a post here on a constitutional nicety and there are many many empassioned comments. Run one on another issue and the noise is quieter.
This is an important issue for everything the SNP administration does must be seen through the prism of achieving their endgame. The argument about the Supreme Court was a good example of this.
Also there is the idea that they (the SNP) are a competent administration – well yes they have a solid front bench – they can make their mark in Holyrood when perhaps some might struggle in Westminster. But I’m not entirely sure what great things they have done apart from free prescriptions and a council tax freeze. The previous Lib/Lab admins arguably did as well and maybe better – Smoking ban, free personal care for the elderly and no tuition fees. Two of them even saw the LibDem partners as central to the development and delivery of good achievements.
The point is the SNP do need challenged on their constitutional agenda and they do need questioned on whether they are quite as effective as they present themselves to be.
A good political debate can only make the choices we have as a nation and the execution thereof better for all of us.
#90 by Erchie on September 26, 2011 - 12:06 am
It’s a touch unfair to cite involvement of the LibDems as a positive of Labour compared to the SNP since the LibDems exempted themselves because if the Referendum (not because of Independence, just holding the Referendum was enough), a decision many LibDems thought was wrong at the time and mire now regret
As to the social issues. The Unionist parties decided to oppose. Labour even stated at their conference that they opposed to deny the SNP any achievement. We saw the ridiculous Labour alcohol commission which made stuff up to try and support Iain Gray’s position
The SNP didn’t lack other ideas, they had to work in a minority, and survived four years of hostile opposition
#91 by Doug Daniel on September 26, 2011 - 12:18 am
No offence Gavin, but it really gets my back up whenever I see a Lib Dem supporter or MSP trying to claim the Lib Dems got rid of tuition fees. You got rid of up front tuition fees, correct – but then you just shoved them on the end of the degree instead. I had to pay £1,125 every year of my second degree, and at the end of it, I still had to pay the graduate endowment fee on top of that. This actually led to me not graduating until the SNP came in and abolished the graduate endowment fee, because I just couldn’t justify spending the money on a degree which, by that point, already looked likely to be worthless as I was back into the industry pertaining to my first degree.
So no, the Lib Dems did NOT get rid of tuition fees – they just moved them back a couple of years and renamed them. Let’s call a spade a spade here. That was actually the point I lost any respect for the Lib Dems, and perhaps if people had paid more attention to that little charade, it wouldn’t have come as such a shock when they reneged on their tuition fee pledge in Westminster.
#92 by Craig Kelly on September 25, 2011 - 8:18 pm
Whilst I think Harris’ article lacks substance or any positive arguments for the union, in fairness, that’s not what he’s trying to achieve. I actually think this is a very good post and an excellent starting point for further debate.
Tom rightly points out that in the minds of many nationalists the constitutional debate is polarised, they fall foul to a vanguard mentality; that those who unflinchingly support independence are the enlightened few. If Tom would only flip that argument and see that there is as little tolerance on the unionist side, then he would have a fuller picture.
I am worried by Tom’s final statement. Of course it is helpful and necessary to have a discussion about the economic benefits, or lack thereof, of independence against remaining part of the union. But this should be a larger, more conceptual argument. As Margo MacDonald once put it, ‘you either feel Scottish and believe in sovereignty, or you don’t.’
What I’m getting at is this: I support independence for a plethora of reasons, but the foundation is that I identify myself as a Scot. I understand my place in the world through the perspective of a shared history, culture, and value system with other people who inhabit the geographic landmass of Scotland. I believe that there are economic benefits to independence, but that is secondary to my belief that my nation should exercise self-determination like other nations on this planet.
I am acutely aware, however, that there are others in Scotland who identify themselves as British; who share a collective identity with the rest of the people of the British isles. I want to hear their side of this debate. No polarisation, no scaremongering or pointing fingers from either side; a genuine moratorium upon what ending the union means for our shared history, culture, economy, and peoples; and what the reaffirmation of Scottish statehood could mean as we make the tentative steps forward. What does Scotland look like post-independence? And what would Scotland become if it remains part of the union? Are we talking about status-quo or are their progressive views on the changing nature of unionist Scotland?
Pingback: Scottish Labour’s Ratner Moment |
#93 by Mike on September 26, 2011 - 12:03 am
How odd.
It’s actually quite depressing that Tom Harris, by far and away the best candidate is so confused. How else could he write: “Why have they allowed themselves to be so entrenched on the nationalist side of the debate?”
Er, because they’re the SNP? I fear that Labour members are so accustomed to being ideologically awash that they are completely confused when they come across political organisations that actually believe in something.
Hi sign-off ‘prepare for a fight’ sounded reminiscent of Wendy’s call to bring it on, all very interesting but completely incoherent.
#94 by Andrew BOD on September 26, 2011 - 12:30 am
I’m all for having a debate like this, I think it’s healthy and indeed essential before any referendum. Although Tom has made a couple of good points, the main point that comes across is one of indignation, negativity, and yes, denial. Someone said on an earlier post that Pete Wishart had struck a nerve with Tom Harris, and that is how this post reads.
I want to know what Labour have in store for Scotland now. Clearly, a large proportion of people in Scotland want constitutional change, and I want to hear what Labour will do with that information. Will they ignore it, pay it lip service, or actually try to understand what the people of Scotland really want? Is it OK to deliver devolution and then put your feet up? Have they taken stock or are they going to continue on their previous calamitous course? Tom has answered none of these questions.
Yes, some SNP voters (not members) may still prefer the Union with England, but I get the distinct impression that it’s not the type of Union that exists currently, and it appears the only way that they have a chance of changing that is by voting SNP.
Here’s some indignation Tom: how dare the Labour Party that I voted for half my life turn into some centrist establishment party bereft of talent and innovative social justice policy; how dare they stand still while the Scottish Liberals and Tories, yes the Tories for god sake, take heed of the Scottish people and redefine themselves in our devolved nation. Come on Tom…
#95 by James Morton on September 26, 2011 - 12:49 am
The simple truth is this: If the unionists cannot or will not put to rest these idiotic attacks against Scotland that you see more often in the English press – then more Scots will I think, find it hard to support the case for Union.
If the unionists decide fight a dirty campaign based on all the hoary old nonsense that the Scots can’t be trusted to go it alone – or would end up like the Greeks so wouldn’t it better if we stayed and let the compassionate English pay our way through the world – then they are most likely to lose, for if that is what they think of us then why humiliate ourselves by seeming to agree with it by voting yes to keep the union – because believe you me, the press will go to town about the poor wee subsidy scrounging Scots who clearly knew which side their bread was buttered on. I do believe in the union or at least I thought I did. But I cannot stomach much more this bile we are seeing and I am getting more angry at the pro-unionists silence on the whole affair. If they think this of us I think then perhaps the Union has outlived itself and should end. Better that than to listen to unbearable smugness from black hearted unionists north and south of the border. Increasingly they alone could be presented as evidence as to why separation maybe needed.
If they cannot communicate a positive and passionate vision of the UK – they will lose. The battle space is for the hearts and minds of the undecided voters. It is they who will tip the scales.
If the unionists do not raise their game they will lose before the first vote is cast.
#96 by Indy on September 26, 2011 - 1:16 pm
Well I was a gradualist at the time and still am but I was in favour of withdrawing because there just wasn’t any point. It wasn’t that the SNP were against the Constitutional Convention or indeed against the Scottish Parliament when it came about, it’s more that it just wasn’t our thing. They were going to make the case for a parliament within the UK, we would make the case for independence. Two parallell processes – but it didn’t mean the party opposed devolution if you see what I mean (although some individuals did – they were the real fundies but they represented a very small number of members) and there was a lot of cross-over between Labour and SNP activists in some of the non-party bodies like Scotland Forward etc.