Well, obviously all of the SNP are constitutionally obsessed separatists with no regard for other issues. But they do have one big advantage, the Yes campaign have something that unites them despite their radicallly different views on what happens after independence. Apparently it will be Scandanavian style social democracy with very low tax rates to stimulate business and a haven of freedom where you can’t criticise religious types for arguing against the government treating gay people equally. But that’s ok, they just need to hold together long enough to get to the line and it’s such a strong part of their identity that they’ll probably manage to hold it together long enough for the ballots to get counted.
Over on the other side of the fence, despite being regularly lumped together as “the Unionists”, those of us who oppose independence are similarly divided about everything other than independence. Labour disagree with Tories, Tories disagree with Lib Dems, Lib Dems disagree with Labour…
If, from a Nationalist perspective, Unionism looks incoherent, disorganised or lacking leadership that’s because it isn’t really a thing. Unionism just isn’t a widely held political philosophy in the way that nationalism is, and it hasn’t been for the better part of half a century. Demands that we produce a single agreed on line For The Defence Of The Union mostly meet with a confused look and shrug of the shoulders because there is no “we”.  Despite what’s commonly assumed there isn’t a secret Unionist conclave with decoder rings, complicated handshakes and a fraternal greeting of “Hail, fellow North Briton!” where we plot to keep the freeborn folk of Scotland servile to our London masters. Well, maybe there is, but I certainly haven’t been invited to join it.
Fortunately nobody’s going to be defending that. Yeah, ok, there’s a few loons who want to roll back devolution, but that’s rather to ignore that both the Scottish and British constitutions are evolving beasts and Holyrood’s here to stay a while. The real dividing line is how much further devolution is going to, with some wanting Full Fiscal Autonomy, others saying “this far and no further”. Malcolm Chisholm has a well written piece on the other place on this, the Lib Dems want a federal UK… there’s a range of options.
I actually think there might be a few too many options. Which is why I’m opposed to independence really – it offers no time for review, post referendum negotiations will necessarily get things wrong and we’ll have to live with consequences. We can’t go back from independence. Once it’s done it’s done, renegotiating our position on cross border institutions such as the Bank of England, the DVLA and whatever else we share will be difficult.
Devolution, on the other hand, does allow for that. Powers can be moved around as appropriate,some pushed from Holyrood to Councils, some from Westminster to Holyrood, some from Westminster to Brussels. But if, for some reason, that doesn’t work out or circumstances change then devolution can be reviewed, revised and altered.
But being opposed to large, rapid, irreversible change isn’t, as I said, a political philosophy. It’s not a shared prism through which we analyse politics, like Nationalism, Socialism, Liberalism and Conservatism are.
Just because Unionism isn’t a coherent political philosophy shouldn’t cheer those in favour of independence too much though. There’s a coherent, convincing case to be made for staying in the union – shared defence and commercial interests for instance, and also one against independence as both a process, outlined above, and a promise: Scotland’s problems are not a result of our constitutional arrangements. Becoming independent will not solve those problems, and remaining part of the UK will not prevent us from solving them.
ETA:Â this isn’t meant to be a grand “Defence of the Union” post, it isn’t even really about devolution vs independence, it’s about why very few people bind themselves together under the “Unionist” label
#1 by R.G. Bargie on November 9, 2011 - 11:57 am
“There’s a coherent, convincing case to be made for staying in the union – shared defence and commercial interests for instance”
That’s neither coherent nor convincing. Who does Scotland need defended against? Only one country has invaded Scotland in the last thousand years, and we all know which one it was. Meanwhile, UK government foreign policy – with its insistence on aggressive meddling in others’ affairs and “punching above our weight” – has put us at MORE risk of terrorist attack, not less.
As for “commercial interests”, that’s a term so feeble and woolly as to be meaningless. We live in a global economy now. Businesses trade with us because it’s profitable for them to do so, and they don’t give a toss what our internal political arrangements are so long as they don’t get in the way of that. If anything, being tied to the UK is currently damaging our commercial interests, for example with regard to corporation tax.
You’re going to have to do a lot better than this for the mythical “positive case for the Union”.
#2 by Aidan on November 9, 2011 - 1:09 pm
I’m not *trying* to make “positive case for the Union” here – I’m trying to elaborate a different point.
#3 by R.G. Bargie on November 9, 2011 - 1:36 pm
Then it appears you need to try a bit harder, because it doesn’t seem like anyone understands how the Union enhances Scotland’s defence or commercial interests. Who do we need defending against, and how does being in the UK help?
#4 by Aidan on November 9, 2011 - 1:42 pm
errr, you realise the point I’m trying to make is that opposing independence is an outcome of their political philosophy, rather than an integral part which is why it’s necessarily harder to define?
The grand defence of the union is, I’m afraid, another post for another day.
#5 by R.G. Bargie on November 9, 2011 - 1:46 pm
“The grand defence of the union is, I’m afraid, another post for another day.”
Yeah, we’ve been hearing that for seven months now. But as we’ve waited five years and counting for Labour’s promised alternative to the council tax, I won’t hold my breath. As for your main point, though, I address it below at #19, or at least I will if and when it passes moderation.
#6 by An Duine Gruamach on November 9, 2011 - 1:38 pm
Two countries! The Norwegians had a shot in 1263.
#7 by Gavin Hamilton on November 9, 2011 - 12:34 pm
What an incredibly coherent and sound assessment of the situation, in my opinion, Aidan. Than you.
#8 by HolyroodPatter on November 9, 2011 - 12:38 pm
Gah! I had a guest post planned on these very twinned subjects. I think your 4th from last paragraph probably epitomises where the Scottish people are at the minute. I think that is why theSNP have embraced devo max in the way that they have, but it is not a new idea. In their respective books, both Kenny Macaskill and Mike Russell called for a form of Devolution Mark 2, what we now recognise as indy lite/devo max. indeed you mentioned the DVLA, as macaskill did (I think using the line “is there any need to be a beaurocracy in Saltcoats aswell as Swansea”) .
It’s also why I remain bemused by the Lib Dems hostility to the halfway house, if the powers outlined in (the admittedly various) definitions of Devo Max arent federalism, I dont know what is.
Your problem is the lack of sensibility, and, if you’ll forgive the pun, unity in the Unionist ranks. It seems that there can be no all encompassing narrative. The “No campaign” can eithger be fought on practilicaties or idealogy. either a stirring churchillian recollection of what apparently makes us british, or a discussion on how our interests are apparently best served in a fiscal union. It cannot (and I am afraid it probably will) be fought on fear, myth, and obstifucation. Talk by Tom Harris and his ilk of “Salmond’s rigged referendum” might seem like a distraction, but it is quickly becoming the narrative of choice.
#9 by Aidan on November 9, 2011 - 1:13 pm
That’s about trying to define an end state though. Indy vs Devo Max is about process.
Independence is a one off, somewhat muscular event that says “away with you, UK! (but maybe can we keep the pound? and the DVLA. And..)” where as devolution is a gentler, kinder process.
Also, and this really was the point of this post, there are *no* “Unionist ranks”. Very few people define themselves as “Unionists” except to mean “opposed to independence”, and mostly that’s done by the pro-independence lot as a vague smear.
#10 by soosider on November 9, 2011 - 12:39 pm
So to summarise. Unionism is difficult to define as it is not a political philosophy, what? if there is no philosophical rational for it then is there a political one?, a financial one? There has to be some rationale for it, doesn’t there?
Independence is bad because it is scary as you cannot change the position. No you cannot change independence but you can change your decisions as circumstances evolve and change and you can do it to reflect the best interests of your own country.
Has anyone else noted a distinct change in direction on this blog?
#11 by Aidan on November 9, 2011 - 1:19 pm
No, it’s not a political philosophy in the sense of an analytic framework through which politics is examined.
#12 by Jeff on November 9, 2011 - 2:01 pm
Genuine question, do you see all Scottish politics blogs as either ‘Unionist blogs’ or ‘Independence blogs’. It’s not necessarily ‘wrong’ if you do, but I’d be aghast if anyone thought that Better Nation belonged in one or the other bucket.
#13 by D. Cunningham on November 9, 2011 - 12:45 pm
Hello!
I want my country to be independent thank you with the powers that are normally associated with looking after all the income acrued and all the expenditure alloted.
In additon it’s not all about the money! I can tell you that since 6th May I have been much more upbeat and confident about the world and cant wait join in with the rest without having a hand on my shoulder from Westminster.
We’ll be OK and I think your reasons for the Status Quo indicate a lack of initiative , which we Scots normally have in spades.
Lets do it ! Independence is the only way forward.
#14 by Iain Menzies on November 9, 2011 - 7:26 pm
if you are much more up beat about the world since may then i can only assume you havent watched any news reports since may
#15 by Scotsfox on November 9, 2011 - 12:50 pm
Unfortunately “shared defence” means illegal wars and I have yet to hear any coherent argument for the “commercial interests” of Scotland in the Union.
#16 by An Duine Gruamach on November 9, 2011 - 1:42 pm
Shared defence means so much more than just illegal wars, Scotsfox. Don’t you see? It means we get to host nuclear weapons as well!
#17 by An Duine Gruamach on November 9, 2011 - 1:43 pm
And we get to pay for them, too!
#18 by Jeff on November 9, 2011 - 1:53 pm
And we get to utilise the full force of MI5, MI6, COBRA and the military, if necessary, when someone makes a suicide bomb attempt at Glasgow Airport, say.
#19 by Indy on November 9, 2011 - 2:00 pm
That’s a silly point unless you are suggesting that Scotland will not have a military, a police force or intelligence services and would be incapable of coordinating an emergency response. And these things operate increasingly on a pan-European scale anyway.
#20 by Jeff on November 9, 2011 - 2:03 pm
My point is that it is reasonable and certainly valid to argue that Scotland within the UK would have a stronger set of resources at hand than an independent Scotland (with less economies of scale) would.
I find it difficult to believe that Europe was involved anything beyond communication updates on the Glasgow terror attack.
#21 by Indy on November 9, 2011 - 2:14 pm
I’m sorry what is your point exactly? Are you suggesting that the Scottish police were not able to cope with the Glasgow attacks? Because I am not sure where you would get that from. Or are you suggesting that with independence there would be no contact between police in Scotland and in England?
#22 by Manny on November 9, 2011 - 3:38 pm
But with a different foreign policy, I think it’s a pretty safe bet that an independent Scotland would be less of a target in the first place, so it’s swings and roundabouts on that one.
#23 by Jeff on November 9, 2011 - 3:47 pm
We’d have a similar foreign policy to Sweden I’d imagine, who suffered a terrorist car bomb around this time last year.
It is swings and roundabouts, you’re right, I’m just trying to show that there are two valid opposing argument, contrary to what some would appear to have it.
#24 by Manny on November 9, 2011 - 5:15 pm
An inconvenient truth about Iraq too is that an unholy alliance of Labour and the Tories gave Holyrood’s approval of the invasion. There’s nothing to say that that wouldn’t happen if Scotland was independent, those same msp’s might give us a similar ‘special’ relationship with England to the one the UK currently has with the US.
All those unionist msp’s and Scottish mp’s that people like myself decry would still be in Scottish politics. We could end up in an independent Scotland with Jim Murphy or Douglas Alexander as Prime Minister, pledging Scotland’s troops to back the rUK and US in invading Iran and providing space on the Clyde for trident.
Which post independence a Labour return is highly likely – the SNP will have achieved their common goal and could split into different parties, all Scottish Labours best politicians will be back in Scotland to strengthen the party in Holyrood and supporters of independence might start voting for different parties since their main reason for voting SNP will have been realised.
It’s a damned scary prospect and one that I actually prefer not to think about if I’m perfectly honest…
#25 by Jeff on November 9, 2011 - 5:26 pm
There’s nothing undemocratic about that hypothetical imagining though of course.
#26 by R.G. Bargie on November 9, 2011 - 2:08 pm
“And we get to utilise the full force of MI5, MI6, COBRA and the military, if necessary, when someone makes a suicide bomb attempt at Glasgow Airport, say.”
What do we need them for when we’ve got baggage handlers? To be honest, though, the thing I fear about suicide bombers is them blowing me up, not being unable to find out who they were afterwards. And as being in the UK makes us more likely to be blown up by them, I’ll do without MI6, thanks.
#27 by Doug Daniel on November 9, 2011 - 12:51 pm
” There’s a coherent, convincing case to be made for staying in the union – shared defence and commercial interests for instance”
Stating a couple of things is not the same as making a convincing case. What is it about shared defence that makes it a reason to remain in the union? The fact that we would still have no say about what wars our troops were used in? The fact that we would still have no say about spending massive amounts of money just to keep the UK as a permanent member of the Security Council? Same goes for commercial interests – which shared commercial interests? How does being in the union help this, and how would independence hinder it?
As for your fears about independence being a one-off event rather than a long, drawn-out process, I always find it remarkably over-cautious and more like looking for excuses rather than finding valid reasons. The quicker we become independent, the quicker we can start making the most of our natural resources – but instead of taking the initiative, you think we should be worried that there will be problems renegotiating the DVLA? I mean, what on earth is going to go wrong regarding the DVLA in the independence negotiations?
“Scotland’s problems are not a result of our constitutional arrangements. Becoming independent will not solve those problems, and remaining part of the UK will not prevent us from solving them.”
Well, you state that as a fact, but it’s just an opinion. Many of Scotland’s problems (e.g. high levels of poverty in Glasgow) are a direct result of under-investment from Westminster, problems that could have been alleviated if the past 30 years of oil money had been used in Scotland, rather than being wasted on things like Trident and the Millennium Dome, and funding improvements in London’s public transport system. Other problems may not be a result of the constitutional arrangements, but they’re certainly not helped by them either, and continuing in the union stops us from properly focussing on these problems.
You say remaining in the union doesn’t prevent us solving problems. Well, here’s an example for you. Scotland has an alcohol problem. Labour opposes the SNP’s plans to introduce Minimum Unit Pricing, telling us that we should be using alcohol duty to increase prices instead. That’s a great idea, but unfortunately we’re prevented from doing this due to Westminster reserving alcohol duty (and correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s not in the current Scotland Bill either). You talk about maybe living with the consequences of an imperfect post-independence settlement, but we’re having to live with the consequences of an imperfect union right now.
Here’s another problem: nuclear weapons on the Clyde. Remind us, which devolved power has the Scottish Government forgotten to use that would rid Scotland of nuclear weapons?
#28 by Fraser on November 9, 2011 - 1:07 pm
Its interesting to note we have do not allow the US President or his/her congress to create our foreign policy. Yet we still have shared defense systems and many joint operations across the world. Unionist seem to ignore defense unions we UK is engaged in, or the fact we more or less only engage in coalition forces.
‘Commercial Interests’ – certainly the current set up of devolution doesn’t help here. Government gains little for its coppers if they increase Scotland’s competitive edge. Its difficult for them to measure, and so Scotland doesn’t really have much of an economic policy in place to deal with its deep social and economic problems.
#29 by Jeff on November 9, 2011 - 1:21 pm
I think it’s reasonable to argue that a shared army within shared islands can provide a more cohesive, joined-up approach to defence matters than two separate nations coming together at such times, while still recognising that both are eminently workable arrangements.
On Commercial interets I take a different view to Aidan. An independent Scotland would see more footfall through Edinburgh and Glasgow (witness the lengthy departures list at Copenhagen, Oslo, Dublin etc) and this, in turn, can only benefit Scotland’s economy.
#30 by R.G. Bargie on November 9, 2011 - 2:52 pm
“I think it’s reasonable to argue that a shared army within shared islands can provide a more cohesive, joined-up approach to defence matters”
Only if their defence interests are the same too, surely? Did Scotland want to go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan? Does Scotland want Trident? If not, you’ve got a bit of a problem, and one to which devolution provides no solution, but independence does.
#31 by Aidan on November 9, 2011 - 4:26 pm
All of Scandanavia were involved in the invasion of Afghanistan, Denmark and Iceland were also part of the Iraq war.
#32 by Dubbieside on November 9, 2011 - 4:54 pm
All of Scandinavia made a concious choice to be involved in the invasion of Afghanistan, through their governments and parliament.
Scotland at present does not have that freedom to make its own decision.
#33 by Aidan on November 9, 2011 - 7:55 pm
As did Scotland, through it’s Government and Parliament as part of the country to which it belongs and regularly gives it’s democratic consent.
#34 by Dubbieside on November 9, 2011 - 10:17 pm
When did the Scottish parliament give its consent for Scottish troops to be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan?
Each individual Scandinavian country’s parliament gave their consent for their troops to be involved in Afghanistan.
Scotland at present does not have that freedom to make its own decision.
#35 by R.G. Bargie on November 9, 2011 - 11:27 pm
That’s just disingenuous. Scotland’s “democratic consent” is entirely irrelevant to what government we get in Westminster 90% of the time. Vote Labour? Get a Tory government. Vote SNP? Get a Tory government. The only time we get the government we want is if it happens to coincide with the one England votes for.
#36 by Doug Daniel on November 9, 2011 - 10:01 pm
Which just goes to show that small countries can still take part in military action if required, thus debunking the myth that Scotland is too small to have its own armed forces.
#37 by Fraser on November 9, 2011 - 1:03 pm
Surely the SNP act as a home for Nationalism whilst allowing inner politics that the Lib Dems/Tories/Labour would have under a UKNP coalition against the SNP on this subject?
On the gay marriage thing – sorry its rubbish. The SNP are bringing the policy in and the Catholic Church is trying (absurdly) to pressure them, its having little affect and the SNP have shown a care towards Catholics and other religions (Catholicism just have the hieracrchy to put forward a common front of old men who don’t represent their followers) but its a respect to them and members of those religions. Not anything more.
At first I thought your first paragraph was sarcasm and you were then going to lead into an actual point, but the above doesn’t just ignore
What we do know is that the SNP have broadly left wing policies – hence Labour’s inability to find a selling point at the last Holyrood election.
In the end does Nationalism not move with the needs/wants of the Scottish people? Atm its fully acceptable but should their be more devolution I think your points of SNP’s inner politics could come to light – in the end their ‘ideologies’ of whats best for the Scottish people could come to blows over taxation powers and control over benefits.
I would say that Labour certainly arn’t coming across as ‘socialist’ even if its members very much. The party itself unfortunately is still in its anti-SNP world – which in the end has shown to alienate voters.
What I want to know is what exactly they feel they want for Scotland, and on devolution – what powers they feel their party needs to meet these aims.
As it stands Labour won’t really manage this until post-leadership contest (so far its depressing, seen little mention of Tom Harris’s newsnight interview, truly was a train crash – but beyond that its not really the big changing force it should be).
Until then the SNP can remain comfortable. But instead of criticising them for their individual thoughts, time might be better spent looking at their policies. In the end thats what it comes down to. And yes there probably will be a split in the SNP in the future once devolution increases. Is this a bad thing? No. In the end the 3 ‘unionist’ parties are so individual because they’ve been in positions to influence policy in Westminster – SNP not so much. Give nationalists the power over policy, you’ll likely see a similar moment – with new groups emerging who’ll eventually become parties.
One danger? With independence not on the cards, the dominant nationalist group gets all the power. If this is the right or the left who knows. Certainly atm its a mix of left and centre right.
#38 by R Louis on November 9, 2011 - 1:10 pm
Quote “There’s a coherent, convincing case to be made for staying in the union…”
Sadly the author omitted to say what it was.
I am open minded, however, and do look forward to hearing of the REAL quantifiable positive benefits which Scotland gets from the union. Merely saying “defence” or “commercial interests”, doesn’t really do it for me.
#39 by Aidan on November 9, 2011 - 1:25 pm
This post isn’t intended as a “defence of the union” magnum opus, it’s about the label “unionism” not really being applicable to most people.
#40 by R.G. Bargie on November 9, 2011 - 1:42 pm
“This post isn’t intended as a “defence of the union†magnum opus, it’s about the label “unionism†not really being applicable to most people.”
You’re shooting at a straw man here. Unionism doesn’t have to be a coherent and consistent policy platform for someone to be a Unionist, and I’m not sure anyone has ever suggested that it is. Sexism isn’t a coherent and consistent policy platform either – you can be a sexist conservative or a sexist socialist – but everyone who exhibits sexism is still a sexist.
So quibbling over labels seems somewhat akin to rearranging the deckchairs as the SS Union sinks into the icy waters of the Atlantic. We’re not talking about an election, we’re talking about a referendum, and referenda are single-issue matters. If you’re for the Union (in any form), you’re a Unionist, whatever else you believe in. No other question is being asked.
#41 by BaffieBox on November 9, 2011 - 1:11 pm
Demands that we produce a single agreed on line For The Defence Of The Union mostly meet with a confused look and shrug of the shoulders because there is no “weâ€.
Isn’t this the problem though? If there is no “we”, if you really dont have enough of a purpose to represent something with shared meaning, what is it you are defending?! Sure, you’ll say that we are “stronger together, weaker apart”, or claim some sort of “union dividend”, but in reality, do these actually mean anything of value to the electorate? I have no doubt that there is value is sharing and partnership, but not through the current constitutional model.
“Devolution, on the other hand, does allow for that. Powers can be moved around as appropriate,some pushed from Holyrood to Councils, some from Westminster to Holyrood, some from Westminster to Brussels. But if, for some reason, that doesn’t work out or circumstances change then devolution can be reviewed, revised and altered.”
I have no problem with devolution and the gradualist approach to governance… as long as the policy is implemented with genuine intent and it’s implemented efficiently. I defy anyone to look at the UK constitutional setup, and tell me it’s anything other than a dug’s breakfast, thought up on the hoof, to keep a minority happy. A wider look at UK policy suggests it’s rife, where we take an existing policy and bash it, mash it, poke it, prod it until it looks like something else. Once in a while, you need to start from scratch or you end up in a right mess. And that’s where we are at just now.
If Unionism doesnt exist, the Union wont either.
#42 by Aidan on November 9, 2011 - 1:29 pm
individually, “we” have lots of purposes. The glorious “defence of the union” isn’t one of them. Tories, Lib Dems, Labour and others all oppose independence for a variety of different reasons.
It’s a shared outcome of differing viewpoints, rather than the nationalist shared viewpoint (independence) with differing outcomes (low tax vs Scandinavia)
#43 by A Cairns on November 9, 2011 - 1:11 pm
I think Aidan makes some good points. I even heard Jim Sillars a few months back saying devolution would take 20-25 years to bed down.
Pingback: Wings over Scotland | The mysterious bogeyman
#44 by Indy on November 9, 2011 - 1:30 pm
To take the example of defence, which you used Aidan.
There is no reason why an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK couldn’t continue to cooperate on defence matters – for example, the armed forces could continue to do much of their training in and around Scotland. And clearly there would continue to be cooperation on border controls and national security.
But independence would give Scotland the power to decide on the terms of that cooperation and would allow the Scottish Parliament, not Westminster, to have the final say on what happens in Scotland.
So I guess you know where I am going with this and you would be right – we would be able to say to the UK Government we want you to start planning to remove Trident or its successor from Scotland and we are no longer going to give access to our land, sea or air space to nuclear weapons.
At the moment we can’t do that, despite the fact that repeated polls show a majority of Scots opposed to nuclear weapons, that the majority of Scottish MPs voted against Trident replacement and that the Scottish Parliament itself voted against Trident replacement and the stationing of nuclear weapons in Scotland.
Now it may be that you are pro-nuclear weapons and want them to stay here but, if you are, you are in the minority and the underlying point is that there is a world of difference between two equal partners deciding where and how to cooperate on defence or any other matter and a situation where one “partner” i.e. the UK Government has all the power and can simply impose what it likes on the other.
That’s the difference between independence and devolution in a nutshell and what you have to explain is the advantages of being in that subservient position, as compared to the advantages that would come with more autonomy.
#45 by Aidan on November 9, 2011 - 1:44 pm
Again, you’re missing the point I’m trying to make here and seeing this as “unionist vs indepence”. What I’m trying to get across is that being opposed to independence is an outcome of various political philosophies, rather than a political philosophy in and of itself (at least for the vast majority of people).
#46 by Indy on November 9, 2011 - 1:53 pm
Well you know I think you are kind of missing my point as well.
Because what is the point in having a political philosophy unless you have a way to put it into practice.
There are various politocal philosophies around the issues of nuclear weapons, no? There is a debate to be had?
Yet you voluntarily want to deprive the Scottish Parliament of any capacity to act and take decisions around that debate because you voluntarily do not want MSPs to have the power to do that.
It reminds me of a conversation I had with a mate who was chivvying me for not being more active in CND. I said what is the point? A majority in Scotland are already against nuclear weapons, what I am campaigning for is to give the Scotland Government the power to act on that. He called me a narrow nationalist because there were still lots of people in England who needed to be persuaded so I said fine, go down and persuade them and got called a narrow nationalist again lol.
There’s a certain kind of person in politcs who thinks principle is everything but it’s not. Power matters too.
#47 by Aidan on November 9, 2011 - 7:58 pm
Power does matter, and Scotland can act through the structures of the UK. It cannot act alone, but then neither could Forfar in an independent Scotland – that’s the thing about pooling sovereignty.
Nobody is proposing that Edinburgh be the sole seat of all political power, it’s necessarily spread around different places.
There’s a case to be made for some decisions being taken at a whole-UK level in which Scotland participates, but that’s a rather different matter from giving up all say.
#48 by Dubbieside on November 9, 2011 - 10:24 pm
Scotland can act through the structures of the UK. It cannot act alone.
Why not, you have just told us that all four Scandinavian country’s were involved in Afghanistan. What makes Scotland uniquely different from these country’s?
#49 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 11:41 am
That’s just a roundabout way of saying nothing.
Do you think it is right that Westminster can decide to spend our money on a new generation of nukes which will all be stationed here. even though Scottish people don’t want that?
That’s the philosophical question and I suspect your answer would be no.
The power question is whether you are pepared to accept that situation as part of the price of remaining in the UK and I suspect your answer would be yes.
So it is on that latter point that we disagree.
#50 by R.G. Bargie on November 9, 2011 - 1:54 pm
It doesn’t matter. In a referendum, all you’re asked is Yes or No. The referendum doesn’t give a toss why you select either option. If you vote (or intend to vote) for the Union, then I’m afraid by definition you’re a Unionist, however much you might protest or try to apply nuance to it.
Yes/No votes permit no nuance, and any that might conceivably exist is being doggedly resisted by all three parties who want us to remain in the Union. Hmm, “parties who want us to remain in the Union” is a rather unwieldy phrase, isn’t it? Tell you what, to keep things tidy why don’t we shorten it to, I dunno… “Unionist”?
#51 by Richard Lucas on November 9, 2011 - 1:42 pm
Thirling ourselves to a UK defence policy binds us to reprehensible policies such as this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/uk-backs-bid-to-overturn-ban-on-cluster-bombs-6259139.html
Seriously no, thank you very much
#52 by DougtheDug on November 9, 2011 - 1:52 pm
To be quite blunt Aidan this article is not particularly well thought out. In it you define nationalists as those who want independence and although you acknowledge that there is a Tory, Labour and Lib-Dem coalition against independence you refuse to label that as unionism. Even though opposition to Scottish independence is by definition unionism.
Scottish unionism is as easy to define as Scottish nationalism. Scottish nationalists want to carry a Scottish passport, Scottish unionists want to carry a British passport. It’s a simple and effective test.
Devolution, Full Fiscal Autonomy, Federalism, whatever, are just ways of reorganising internal government within the unitary British state and everyone carries a British passport. Despite the strange attempt to try and declare that devolution is not unionism it fails at the first hurdle. Everyone in a devolved Scotland still carries a British passport.
I’ve said this before but I’ll say it again. It looks good for the SNP when the opposition are desperately trying not to be labeled with the cause they are promoting.
#53 by Aidan on November 9, 2011 - 3:36 pm
I’m not saying it’s hard to define, or that I’m trying to avoid that label. What I’m saying is that as a coherent, unifying political philosophy it’s not really widely held.
Which it used to be. There used to have a whole bunch of genuine British Nationalists who perceived every political issue through the maintenance and strengthening of the union. Essentially the defence of the union is an inherent part of their politics.
That doesn’t really exist on a large scale now, not even within the Tories.
What does exist are disparate groups of people who oppose independence, but as an outcome of their existing political frameworks not as an inherent part but as a contingent result which could, in other circumstances, lead to a different result.
#54 by DougtheDug on November 9, 2011 - 4:10 pm
I would call the campaign to retain the British Establishment and the British state, which is a common campaign across the Lib-Dems, the Labour Party and the Conservatives, as a widely held unifying political philosophy.
If the refusal by all three parties to hold a referendum on independence, the constant attacks on the SNP and now the rumblings that Labour and the Lib-Dem/Tory coalition in Westminster are going to try and seize control of the independence referendum are not actions in defence of the union then they’re making a good imitation of it.
The defence of the union has been a common theme across all three parties and you can’t pass that off as not large scale.
What does exist are disparate groups of people who oppose independence, but as an outcome of their existing political frameworks not as an inherent part but as a contingent result which could, in other circumstances, lead to a different result.
The opposition to independence from the Tories, Labour and the Lib-Dems is nothing to do with left, right or centre politics, it’s all about the British nationalism and unionism of these parties.
#55 by Aidan on November 9, 2011 - 8:10 pm
You’re missing the point – I’m not arguing that most people aren’t in favour of the union (they are, both within and out with political parties).
My point is that those parties, by and large, don’t hold to that “British Nationalist” political philosophy you’re trying to impose on them.
Supporting the Union isn’t, for most people, about preserving the UK as end in itself. It’s an essentially more pragmatic belief that some decisions are best taken at UK level as some are at an EU level, some at a Scottish level, some at a council level and some by the individual person.
#56 by DougtheDug on November 9, 2011 - 8:43 pm
Supporting the Union isn’t, for most people, about preserving the UK as end in itself.
Yes it is Aidan.
Gerry Hassan has an interesting story in an article on his blog.
Forty one years ago when Labour gave evidence to the Kilbrandon Commission on the Constitution, the Labour delegation led by John Pollock were asked which they would choose if they had to: an independent, centre-left Scotland or a Conservative Britain, and they answered without reservation, a Conservative Britain.
That same answer would be given today by Labour. Witness the 2011 election when with a Conservative Government in London Labour and the Lib-Dems campaigned to keep the Union. If the Union was not the end game then Labour would be calling for independence now to rid Scotland of the recurrent Tory rule from Westminster.
Equating decisions taken in Westminster with decisions taken in Brussels just doesn’t fly. The UK is not a region in an EU-superstate it’s a sovereign treaty partner but Scotland is a region in a state which is 92% not Scottish. Comparing decisions in the two Parliaments makes no sense.
“…some decisions are best taken at UK level”, is simply a statement that you believe in the continuation of the British state because what decisions are best taken at UK level? Are you saying that Scotland isn’t competent to take some decisions about running a country or on foreign affairs and that it couldn’t stand on its own in the EU? Is this back to, “too wee, too poor and too stupid”, again?
#57 by Dubbieside on November 9, 2011 - 10:31 pm
Doug
The elephant in the room for the Labour party in Scotland is that they will defend to their last breath the right of a tory government at Westminster to rule Scotland.
No amount of spin will change that basic fact. A tory government at Westminster is price that Labour are happy to pay to support “the union”
Always has been, and always will be the case.
#58 by Aidan on November 10, 2011 - 11:15 am
No, but well done for bringing it round to what you want me to be saying.
#59 by DougtheDug on November 10, 2011 - 12:05 pm
The only thing I want you to say Aidan is that under a road sign to Damascus you decided that an independent Scotland is the best way forward for all Scots.
“…some decisions are best taken at UK level†are your words not mine.
#60 by Aidan on November 10, 2011 - 2:13 pm
I’m saying that somethings are best done by a bigger group than just Scotland. I’m not saying that Scotland isn’t competent, or couldn’t stand on it’s own, but is better off when acting together than alone.
#61 by Dubbieside on November 10, 2011 - 1:47 pm
How No?
Unless I am totally miss reading this and all your previous post on the subject you are a unionist and support the right of Westminster to rule Scotland.
If you support the democratic right of Westminster rule, you also by definition support the right of the elected government to rule. We can get into semantics about coalitions but at present Torys rule propped up by their Lib Dem poodles.
You may not like the fact that at present there is a Tory government in power at Westminster, but that is what the largest majority (ie England) voted for. Scotland will always get what England votes for, that is fact and also arithmetic.
So the London Labour party will always support the right of a Tory government to rule Scotland. You and they cannot have it both ways.
The part about Scotland always getting what England votes for is what drives most nationalists who want Scotland to be governed by Scots in Scotland for the benefit of Scots.
#62 by Aidan on November 10, 2011 - 2:16 pm
This completely ignores the existence of the Scottish Parliament.
#63 by Dubbieside on November 10, 2011 - 2:41 pm
This completely ignores the existence of the Scottish Parliament.
No it does not, it highlights how few responsibilities the Scottish Parliament has.
All meaningful control of finance are under the control of Westminster, a position that the Labour party are content with and see no reason to change.
The Scottish parliament was set up with the absolute minimum responsibility that the London Labour party could get away with. The position of the Labour party has hardly changed since 1997, give Holyrood as little as we can get away with, and make sure all the meaningful levers are retained by Westminster.
The fact that at present the Torys rule in Westminster and control and squander Scotlands resources is to Labour a price worth paying for where they want control to remain.
#64 by DougtheDug on November 10, 2011 - 3:35 pm
Aidan, the Scottish Parliament lives on a block grant which is directly proportional to England’s spend on public services.
If the Tories slash and burn English public services then the block grant gets slashed and burnt too. If the Tories slash and burn welfare payments they get slashed and burnt in Scotland too.
The Scottish Parliament also has absolutely no control over the economic levers of power in this country. Taxation, money supply and interest rates.
#65 by pg on November 9, 2011 - 1:52 pm
“I actually think there might be a few too many options. Which is why I’m opposed to independence really – it offers no time for review, post referendum negotiations will necessarily get things wrong and we’ll have to live with consequences. â€
That seems to be a very frail excuse for being against the right of Scots to decide their own destiny. It assumes that we do not have the ability to negotiate, and that we will make a mess of it.
Is this not just another way of saying “too wee, too poor, too stupid etc. â€
Every other country seems to manage independence OK, why should Scotland be any different.
#66 by Jeff on November 9, 2011 - 1:57 pm
Well, Aidan isn’t saying he is against “the right of Scots to decide their own destiny”, he is against independence which is a totally different kettle of fish.
There’s a growing appetite for a super-state of Scandinavia to replace the four nations of Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark so I wouldn’t be too quick to assume everyone’s happy with independence. Just because most people prefer the status quo (and Scotland according to the polls is no different) it doesn’t mean that independence trumps unionism.
#67 by Indy on November 9, 2011 - 2:02 pm
Is there? That comes as news to me and I suspect would come as news to most Finns, Norwegians, Swedes and Danes as well lol.
#68 by Jeff on November 9, 2011 - 2:27 pm
“Nearly half of all Danes, Finns, Norwegians, Swedes and Icelanders would like their countries to unite in a federal state, according to a poll published as members of the Nordic Council met Tuesday.”
http://www.thelocal.se/29980/20101103/#
How does that compare with current support for Scottish independence?
Also, I find your regular “lol”s to be quite disrespectful. Something to reflect on perhaps…
#69 by R.G. Bargie on November 9, 2011 - 2:40 pm
A margin of 16% against (58-42) is stretching the definition of “nearly half” just a little. And 42% in favour of merging compares pretty closely to the last figures in favour of Scottish independence, which was 39% (with over 20% undecided, an option not available in the Scandinavian poll).
#70 by Indy on November 9, 2011 - 2:40 pm
When asked what they thought of the idea of creating a common Nordic state, 11 percent said they were “very favourable” and 31 percent said they were “favourable,” according to a poll conducted by the Oxford Research institute on behalf of the Nordic Council.
A majority of the 1,032 people questioned meanwhile remained sceptical to the idea, with 40 percent saying they were “opposed” and 18 percent saying they were “very opposed.”
Maybe my maths is a bit shaky but I make that a majority against the idea?
Plus a common state is defined as having a common head of state, a common foreign policy and a common judicial system.
So I am not sure how that comparison works really. Scotland does not have a common judicial policy with the rest of the UK now. With independence we would still have the same head of state. And the foreign policies of the Nordic states are so similar that they may as well have the same one.
In fact here is an idea. What about Scotland leaving the UK and joining a new Nordic super-state?
#71 by Jeff on November 9, 2011 - 3:18 pm
I never said it was a majority. But there is a higher proportion of Swedes that want to be part of a Super Scandinavian union than there are Scots who want to be part of an independent Scotland.
I found that quite interesting, that’s all.
#72 by DougtheDug on November 9, 2011 - 2:49 pm
Jeff,
The poll actually found that 58% were either opposed or very opposed to the idea.
There’s also the problem that the poll sample was conducted across five countries.
If a lot of Swedes loved the idea of a united Scandinavia that could quite easily skew the poll as they are the largest group there. To get a genuine idea of what each country thought the poll would have to be run again with a sample size of over a thousand in each country. Then you’d get the true idea of what each country thought about it. As an example the Finnish sample was only 201 as part of a Scandinavian wide poll.
#73 by Jeff on November 9, 2011 - 2:59 pm
I didn’t say it was a majority view. It’s a much higher figure than support for Scottish independence though.
#74 by R.G. Bargie on November 9, 2011 - 3:01 pm
“It’s a much higher figure than support for Scottish independence though.”
It’s 3% higher, not “much” higher, and as I noted it’s in a poll where you weren’t allowed to choose “Don’t Know”. Distribute the DKs proportionately in the TNS independence poll and it’s 51-49 in favour, significantly higher than the 42% for the Scandinavian super-state.
#75 by Jeff on November 9, 2011 - 3:26 pm
Didn’t the last poll have support at 28%? You can’t just pick the highest percentage over the past 12 months and cling to it.
Anyway, we’re moving off topic here.
#76 by R.G. Bargie on November 9, 2011 - 3:34 pm
Come on, Jeff. Apples and oranges. You can’t compare a two-option poll with a three-option one, particularly as the way things stand the referendum will only have two options.
#77 by Jeff on November 9, 2011 - 3:36 pm
Yep, fair challenge that.
I only originally mentioned the poll though because there was a suggestion that there is no direction of travel towards countries forming unions. I just wanted to challenge that, and I think I pulled it off. Just! 😉
#78 by Indy on November 9, 2011 - 3:25 pm
That comes down to the question though doesn’t it?
Because the members of this putative Nordic super-state would stay about 90 per cent independent if all they had to share was a head of state, a foreign policy and a judicial system. You know if you said to me Scotland can have that tomorrow I would say ta very much. It’s not full independence but it’s as near as dammit.
But if you had said to the Nordic peeps do you want to be part of a Nordic super-state on the same terms as Scotland is part of the UK i.e. with no national control over your budget, with no powers to set national taxes, to decide on welfare & pensions, no power over fiscal or monetary policy or defence, broadcasting, the constitution, electoral law, the civil serrvice, immigration, data protection, trade & industry, consumer protection, postal services, telecomms, weights & measures, oil & gas, coal & nuclear, maritime and air transport, employment laws, support for childcare & child support, equal opps, time & space etc etc – i.e. all the things that are reserved – do you think the Nordic peeps would have been quite so keen on that?
Apples and pears isn’t it?
#79 by Dubbieside on November 9, 2011 - 7:43 pm
Jeff
I wonder what the results of the poll would be if they said,
As we are too wee and the price of oil is too volatile for us to handle we will pass responsibility for all our money to Sweden and they in turn will return to us what they think Norway needs.
With all the oil money Sweden proposes to buy Trident which naturally they will site near Oslo so we can get the benefit of all the security that entails.
Should guarantee about 100% yes from Norway particularly if the Norwegians are told that in return for Trident, Norway can ban airguns if they like to compensate.
#80 by Jeff on November 9, 2011 - 7:51 pm
What’s your point….? 😉
No, you’re right, non-Norwegian countries want to join up with Norway because it has all the oil. You’ve pierced the gaping hole in my comparison.
#81 by GMcM on November 9, 2011 - 3:10 pm
UK polls are conducted over 3 countries with a total population of 60m. This was over 5 countries with a total population of 25m. UK polls are reasonably accurate.
Was there not a poll recently that had a sample size less than 200 with 39% in favour of independence to 38% against? Were we not told that this indicated a shift towards independence?
In the same vein could this poll not show, quite simply, that there is a strong support for the status quo but a large minority in favour of a Nordic Union?
#82 by R.G. Bargie on November 9, 2011 - 3:36 pm
“Was there not a poll recently that had a sample size less than 200 with 39% in favour of independence to 38% against?”
No, there wasn’t. You’re thinking of the one that showed 49% for independence, which had a very small sample size (in fact a subset of a UK sample) and should be disregarded. The 39-38 one was a full-size Scotland-only poll and entirely legitimate.
#83 by GMcM on November 9, 2011 - 4:06 pm
Accept my apologies.
Its nice to know some questions are answered on here 😉
#84 by Manny on November 9, 2011 - 4:15 pm
One thing worth pointing out here is that in terms of population, the Scandinavian union would be a lot more equal than the union of the UK.
In the UK, one country has a higher population than the combined populations of the other three, which means the different nations will never have an equal voice. It’s really a fundamental flaw in the UK.
If Scotland feels it needs the security of a union with others, it might be better served joining a Scandinavian one rather than the one we are currently in.
#85 by Jeff on November 9, 2011 - 5:02 pm
That’s not the case, there is no country within the UK, we’re all part of the same country.
You can compare the population of Scotland with Yorkshire, Cornwall or other areas. Scotland doesn’t deserve special treatment until it votes Yes to independence (or Yes to devolution, which has already happened of course).
Scotland might feel the need to join up with Scandinavia, but until a political movement stands on that platform and campaigns on it, it’s just words.
What we have on the table is independence or United Kingdom (and, maybe, or Devo Max) and I for one am delighted that we’re finally going to take a decision as a nation and move on in a certain direction.
#86 by Manny on November 10, 2011 - 8:43 am
I disagree, the UK is not a country, it’s a union between countries, a partnership. No matter how many times Iain Gray refers to England as ‘the rest of the country’ it will not change the fact that Scotland and England are different countries.
By the same rational you could come to the conclusion that the EU is a country and the UK is part of that same country, no?
I do agree though that Scotland doesn’t deserve special treatment. In fact it may well be fair that England making up such a large majority of the UK gives it more of a say.
However, the massive differences in population mean it can never be a fair and equal union, which is a fundamental flaw from a Scottish perspective.
#87 by R.G. Bargie on November 9, 2011 - 2:11 pm
“There’s a growing appetite for a super-state of Scandinavia to replace the four nations of Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark”
There is? I would be most interested to read of it. Links please!
#88 by Jeff on November 9, 2011 - 2:40 pm
http://www.thelocal.se/29980/20101103/#
#89 by R.G. Bargie on November 9, 2011 - 2:59 pm
Cheers, a fascinating read – though to nitpick, it doesn’t prove your claim that support for the super-state is “growing”, only that it exists. The piece *says* it is, but doesn’t back it up with any evidence.
But if that’s what the Scandinavians want, good luck to them. The idea of a combined state makes a lot more sense when all the nations involved are roughly the same size, rather than one of them being five times larger than all the rest combined.
(And I think most SNP supporters would quite happily take a federal UK, if only as a step towards their ultimate goal. It is, after all, only the SNP that are currently willing to offer the Scottish people something somewhere between the status quo and independence.)
#90 by Indy on November 9, 2011 - 3:32 pm
I would rather join a federal Nordic state. I mean seriously. If that’s on the cards I would be in favour of joining it.
It would solve at one stroke the objection that is ingrained into so many Scots people that we are too small and weak to be independent.
We could still be part of a wider entity only one which allowed its members to remain 90 per cent independent and which was much more sympathetic politically than the UK is.
Bring it on!
#91 by R.G. Bargie on November 9, 2011 - 3:38 pm
“I would rather join a federal Nordic state. I mean seriously. If that’s on the cards I would be in favour of joining it. ”
I’d be all in favour of that politically, but having to learn Swedish would be a bit of a pain in the clackers.
#92 by Indy on November 9, 2011 - 4:27 pm
Ach they can all speak English anyway. Better than us probably.
#93 by GMcM on November 9, 2011 - 4:27 pm
Indy I’m struggling with your logic here.
Leaving one union to join another will prove we are not too small and too weak (etc etc usual nonsense) to be independent?
Am I reading that right?
#94 by Indy on November 9, 2011 - 6:22 pm
I am trying to see it from the point of view of those who are against independence – and the reason for that is usually because they think that Scotland is too small or too weak to go it alone. We would be isolated, separate, adrift in a sea of uncertainty and alone. That’s the basic anti-independence argument right?
So, for the sake of argument, let’s accept that premise and accept that we want Scotland to be part of a wider unit which would provide a safety net. Well if that was the case, wouldn’t it be far rather be part of a Nordic Union than the UK?
Surely every Labour supporter would prefer that. After all the Nordic countries are better than the UK in almost every respect aren’t they? They have lower rates of poverty and inequality, better housing, lower crime, better childcare, better performing economies and so on.
So if you don’t want to go it alone surely it would make more sense to be governed as part of a Nordic Union than by the Tories, no? Do you not agree?
#95 by Indy on November 9, 2011 - 2:33 pm
Also on a really basic level being opposed to independence is the same as being against Scots deciding their own destiny.
That doesn’t equate with Scots being oppressed or saying they don’t have choices anything like that.
What I mean is that as long as Scots choose not to be independent they are choosing not to be in charge of their own destiny.
That is inarguable surely? As part of the Union Scotland does not have the power to decide its own destiny. On a whole range of issues from major decisions like whether to go to war to relatively minor decisions like what the license fee should be, Scotland as a country has no power to take a decision one way or another. So Scots do not decide their own destiny in that respect. The UK decides what destiny Scots will follow. And if you are a unionist, as Aidan is, then that’s how you want it. It doesnt really matter what political philosophy you have because indepedence or non-independence is not about a political phiosophy as such, it is about the exercise of power.
And it’s a perfectly respectable position – not one I agree with of course but it’s an arguable case and has the advantage of history on its side, since Scots have chosen not to control their own destiny since 1707! But what you can’t do is try and play it both ways and say Scots can be in charge of their own destiny and also remain within the Union where Westminster is sovereign. If Westminster is sovereign the Scottish Parliament isn’t and therefore Scots, as a nation, are not in charge of their own destiny.
#96 by pg on November 9, 2011 - 6:01 pm
Well, Aidan isn’t saying he is against “the right of Scots to decide their own destinyâ€, he is against which is a totally different kettle of fish.
I’m sorry Jeff, but I don’t see any difference. If he is against independence then he is in favour of Scots destiny being decided in London by non-Scots.
There’s a growing appetite for a super-state of Scandinavia to replace the four nations of Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark so I wouldn’t be too quick to assume everyone’s happy with independence.
As far as Scandinavia is concerned I’m pretty sure that none of those countries would agree to being a pocket money country like Scotland is. They would
remain financially independent within any Nordic federation that is proposed.
I have been at Norwegian Independence day celebrations and it doesn’t seem to me to be something they are trying to get rid of.
#97 by Jeff on November 9, 2011 - 7:36 pm
If Scotland votes No to independence, then they are deciding their own destiny.
I can see where you’re coming from with the opposite argument though, it’s coming down to semantics again. I just thought you were suggesting Aidan was arguing against Scotland’s right to even hold a referendum so just wanted to couter that, if that was the case.
#98 by pg on November 10, 2011 - 9:32 am
Type your comment here
#99 by GMcM on November 9, 2011 - 2:28 pm
Why do people try so hard to be offended?
I recommend you read Aidan’s post again. He doesn’t say anything to talk Scotland down – in fact his post could be about any country as he is talking about how people come to certain political decisions.
Lab/Tory/LDs have different politics but come to the same conclusion – that doesn’t mean you can just lump them all together under one banner. They will probably have similar arguments in favour of keeping the UK together but because of their different politics they will have some different reasons behind supporting the UK as well.
#100 by R.G. Bargie on November 9, 2011 - 3:40 pm
“Lab/Tory/LDs have different politics but come to the same conclusion – that doesn’t mean you can just lump them all together under one banner.”
In the context of a single-issue referendum where the only choices are Yes or No, it in fact means PRECISELY that. The referendum isn’t a vote on a package of policies, it’s a vote on independence. You’re either for it or you’re against it, there’s nowhere on the ballot for you to also explain your position on welfare reform or the 50% tax band.
#101 by Aidan on November 9, 2011 - 8:12 pm
We’re on the same side of this issue, just as the SNP and Labour are on the same on issues such as the Tory cuts – same result, different routes to get there.
#102 by Angus McLellan on November 9, 2011 - 11:09 pm
That’s debatable.
The SNP offer a policy which all but guarantees no more Conservative governments in Scotland for many years to come. Labour stand for resigned acceptance of Tory rule as the price worth paying for the nebulous benefits of Union. Not all that similar then.
#103 by Aidan on November 10, 2011 - 11:40 am
Not really, that’s why Labour supported devolution in the first place and has worked to strengthen it.
#104 by R.G. Bargie on November 10, 2011 - 12:22 am
“We’re on the same side of this issue, just as the SNP and Labour are on the same on issues such as the Tory cuts”
The difference is, there isn’t going to be a referendum on Tory cuts.
#105 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 10:17 am
No Aidan we are NOT on the same side on issues such as the Tory cuts. We are on totally opposite sides of that debate!
You want the Tories to be able to control Scotland’s budget and have the power to make whatever cuts they please both to our domestic budget and to other budgets – like the welfare budget for example – creating horrendous consequences whch we then have to deal with, while at the same time they waste billions of pounds on nuclear weapons so they can keep their place on the UN Security Council and boast about being one of the Big Boys.
That’s the side you are on. You may complain about the consequences – but you don’t want to take Scotland out of the equation because independence is, er, too muscular and irreversible.
#106 by Aidan on November 10, 2011 - 11:39 am
Well, no, I don’t want the Tories to control Scotlands budget. I’m all in favour of devolving welfare and vastly greater tax powers to Holyrood.
#107 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 11:52 am
But nobody in your party is in favour of that Aidan – at least, nobody who has the slightest chance of being elected to a position of power. It’s just not an argument to say that I personally would like to see the Scottish Parliament control this, that and the next thing, even though there is no real chance of it happening. Unless people in leadership positions in the Labour Party and Lib Dems are prepared to say we support a further extension of devolution over X, Y and Z then that option is not on the table. We are talking about what is going to be on the table when people come to vote – not all the pots of jam you promise we can tuck into later on if we just vote to stay where we are and keep quiet for now.
#108 by R.G. Bargie on November 11, 2011 - 12:42 pm
“But nobody in your party is in favour of that Aidan – at least, nobody who has the slightest chance of being elected to a position of power.”
What I love about Aidan – who is clearly a smart chap – is that everyone except him realises he belongs in the SNP. He wants what the SNP want, but he’s been fed “stronger together, weaker apart” for so long that he can’t yet accept the fact that independence is the only way to achieve it. It’s why he can never actually say what “the positive case for the Union” is, and why he always avoids answering the question of why Labour are so determined to subject Scotland to regular Tory governments needlessly.
Everything I see Aidan post points to the fact that he KNOWS Labour can never deliver the policies he believes in. He just won’t put on the glasses and take the logical last step. What we need is Roddy Piper 😀
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqKFadyJxwg
(NB I am in absolutely no way suggesting or endorsing the idea of anyone beating Aidan up. It’s just an analogy.)
#109 by Aidan on November 11, 2011 - 4:45 pm
@Indy so on the one hand I’m condemned to supporting the Tories, and on the other I must agree with your view of what it is my party leadership thinks? Do I have /any/ say in what I believe?
@RGBargie thanks for the compliment, but I’ll stick with the party that has delivered significant powers for Scotland and worked to further those powers in opposition rather than the party which reduced Holyroods ability to act when it achieved government.
#110 by Doug Daniel on November 10, 2011 - 12:31 pm
“I’m all in favour of devolving welfare and vastly greater tax powers to Holyrood.”
Yes, at a snail’s pace.
At the rate you want powers to be devolved to Scotland, the damage will already have been done. This is what wrankles about your softly-softly approach to devolution – time matters. The more of it we waste, the harder it will be to recover from the position we’re in when we EVENTUALLY get the powers to look after ourselves.
#111 by Aidan on November 11, 2011 - 4:50 pm
Well, actually, thanks for telling me what I believe but I don’t think that.
From where I sit the fastest, cleanest way to get significant powers for Holyrood is through devolution. The Scotland Bill has a few fundamental flaws which it’s rightly criticised for but which could be easily remedied – foremost of which is the locking of the various income tax rates together.
That’s a relatively minor change in terms of legislation, but a big change in terms of the effectiveness of the powers. It’s /almost/ there under the existing structures, able to become actual fact in a short time frame and requiring only modest amendment to the legislation.
Further, if it turns out not to be a good idea for some reason, it can be repealed. That’s the key advantage of devolution as a mechanism as we move into a post-nation state world.
#112 by Secunder on November 9, 2011 - 2:08 pm
Like the Scandinavian countries, an independent Scotland can decide if it wants to spend taxpayers money on Nuclear Weapons or illegal, immoral and futile conflicts.
#113 by ratzo on November 9, 2011 - 2:24 pm
39 posts in and only Dougthedug has point out that Aidan’s argument rests on a simple mistake about Unionism.
Unionism is UK state nationalism.
Here’s a helpful definition from Strathclyde University’s James Mitchell:
“…a British or UK nationalism exists which, in its most extreme form, denies the legitimacy of loyalty to any authority or entity other than itself. British nationalist fundamentalism is rarely referred to as such, but it exists and has proved a most intractable and powerful force.
A common element in the ideology of each of the main British political parties is this rarely admitted and even more rarely defined nationalism. It is difficult even to put a label on it given the curious nature of the state it embraces. Richard Rose pointed to this when he asked what name could be given to the nation associated with the government of the United Kingdom: ‘One thing is certain: No one speaks of the “Ukes” as a nation.’
Identifying some of the elements and symbols of this ideology help explain it. The British/ UK conundrum should be side-stepped. It is not the geographic boundaries of the state that arc of most importance but the essence of the nationalism involved. For that reason, a more appropriate term is Unionism….”
#114 by Aidan on November 9, 2011 - 4:06 pm
Ah, here’s the crux: “Unionism is UK state nationalism”. That’s one definition, and I think the one that many independence minded folk think. It’s a coherent, complete political philosophy.
There’s also the wider, broader definition of “Unionism” as “people opposed to independence”, which isn’t a coherent, complete political philosophy but is a result of that.
Conflating the two is what I’m arguing against in this post.
#115 by R.G. Bargie on November 9, 2011 - 4:12 pm
“Conflating the two is what I’m arguing against in this post.”
Then you’re wasting your time, because it doesn’t matter. The referendum will not offer the choices “Yes”, “No because I believe in the Union as a single policy” and “No because I believe in a broader philosophy called ‘Unionism’ but which encompasses other issues rather than just the constitution”.
You’ll just get the standard Yes or No like the rest of us. And if you vote to retain the Union, by definition you’re a Unionist. If other people choose to erroneously believe that means something else, that’s their problem, but it won’t make any difference to anything, because all that counts is whether you vote Yes or No.
#116 by GMcM on November 9, 2011 - 4:16 pm
Point well made.
#117 by Manny on November 9, 2011 - 4:33 pm
What your saying seems to me a bit like tossing a coin and saying “Not heads, that doesn’t mean I call tails, it just means I don’t call heads”.
If you’re not a unionist but you’re against independence, what exactly is it you’re for? Is there a third side to the coin that you’ve not mentioned?
#118 by Indy on November 9, 2011 - 4:34 pm
OK let’s play a game here to test if you are any kind of a nationalist. This is only a game so don’t make any practical objections such as the fact that the imaginary Nordic Union I refere to doesn’t (and couldn’t) exist – it is based on the article that Jeff posted and the supposition is that the Nordic states join together to form one super-state which shares a common head of state, a common foreign policy and a common judicial policy. In other respects they are independent. So vote in order of preference:
Proposition A. Scotland should become an independent country as the SNP proposes.
Proposition B. Scotland should remain as part of the UK.
Proposition C. Scotland should leave the UK and join the Nordic Union.
My first preference is A. My second preference is C. My third preference is B.
So what’s yours?
#119 by Doug Daniel on November 10, 2011 - 12:08 am
My first preference is A, the second is C. I have no third preference.
#120 by Aidan on November 11, 2011 - 4:51 pm
B, C, A
#121 by Rev. S. Campbell on November 12, 2011 - 9:06 am
Why?
#122 by R.G. Bargie on November 12, 2011 - 1:31 pm
So you’d vote to have Scotland in a Union – ANY Union – rather than independent, but you’re not a Unionist?
😀
#123 by A Cairns on November 9, 2011 - 2:54 pm
I suppose Scottish nationalists see things primarily as rooted in national identity and the idea of the nation state whereas that’s unimportant/less important for others perhaps.
Is anyone who supports devolution and is a Scottish patriot but doesn’t see things like that classified as a ‘unionist’ and is everyone who supports independence a ‘nationalist’?
I’ve always thought of national identity as a bit of a red herring really in the independence debate.
Indeed I have criticisms of English and British Nationalism as well and perhaps try and see things in a more internationalist way.
#124 by R.G. Bargie on November 9, 2011 - 3:43 pm
“Is anyone who supports devolution classified as a ‘unionist’”
Yes. Because to have devolution, by definition you have to remain in the Union. And if you want to remain in the Union you’re a Unionist. It’s pretty simple.
(As for whether you can be a Unionist and a “Scottish patriot” at the same time, that’s an altogether thornier question and I’m not going there.)
#125 by DougtheDug on November 9, 2011 - 3:45 pm
I suppose Scottish nationalists see things primarily as rooted in national identity and the idea of the nation state whereas that’s unimportant/less important for others perhaps.
If the others in Scotland don’t see things primarily as rooted in national identity and the idea of the nation state why are they so desperate to retain the British national identity and the British nation state?
Is anyone who supports devolution and is a Scottish patriot but doesn’t see things like that classified as a ‘unionist’ and is everyone who supports independence a ‘nationalist’?
Yes and yes. Supporters of devolution want to carry a British passport so they are unionists. Supporters of independence want to carry a Scottish Passport so they are nationalists.
I’ve always thought of national identity as a bit of a red herring really in the independence debate.
I propose this as non-sequitur of the year.
#126 by Nick Jardine on November 9, 2011 - 4:11 pm
Here’s my reason for supporting an independent Scotland.
Power for the people. At present we are governed by Westminster and to an extent Europe. Our current government will more readily turn and follow the advice/policy or support of the USA rather than look to a voice from Scotland. London becomes more divided, not just from Scotland, but from the rest of the UK. It’s becoming an island. The divide between the wealth and business of this one geographic area is well known, but what about the wider cultural and social divides.
For instance, the BBC makes over 60% of it’s output in London. And with the majority of London voices being in control, that voice becomes very insular. Thats reflected in the more and more outrageous comments we here from the likes of Paxman and Dimbleby and a host of politicians and commentators.
The printed media, arts institutions, publishers and so on are all based in London. Everything they require for business and cultural nourishment is there on their doorstep – the rest of the country has very little to offer in comparison and so it’s not considered. Geographic areas have there few years in the spotlight before it shifts on somewhere else – the Bristol/Glasgow music scene, the arts scene in the North East and in Liverpool, but it’s not sustained in the way of the permanent growth as in London.
The new HS2 network is supposed to open up the country. Really ? For me it’s just a way of widening the ‘commuter’ belt. Spending billions on a train network that will cut 15 minutes or so off a (@)1 hour train time from Birmingham is negligible at best – except of course at rush hour when that could mean the difference in being late for work or not. House prices are too expensive in the south east and young couples can’t afford to live there, so widening the commuter belt is one solution. It all helps to keep the business in the south east.
So the further away from London you are, the less recognition you get and the more expensive things can become. London and the south is the centre. Is this why Scotland is charged for getting her electricity onto the grid and that money pays for subsidising electricity connections from the south ? Of course, the centre of the country has nothing to do with actual geography, it’s the south east everything dictates that is the way it is. So we accept it, the young talent from the regions are inevitably pulled by London and they up sticks and move.
All these little nuances accumulate over time, each in their own little way and it becomes accepted, this is the way it is. Thats when the government can start getting away with things. For instance, the vast majority of infrastructure costs are on London projects, they receive much more money per head of population than any other region. The BBC I’ve mentioned already. And it becomes worse year on year, it’s getting to the point that Scotland can’t afford to stick with the union, for it’s own prosperity and cultural good health it has to break away if it wants to flourish. Scotland has £41bn of national debt. The UK national debt split by per head of population means that Scotland is lumbered with an extra £19bn, bringing the total up to £60bn. And on the subject of the HS2 railway, Scotland is told yesterday that it should start making plans for building the link between Glasgow and Carlisle, which we are told we can pay for it. What ? So Scotland pays for it’s own rail link whilst also contributing through our taxes to the proposed link between London/Birmingham/Manchester.
Who in their right mind (of any political persuasion) can possibly think thats fair ? But thats the hand that Scotland is dealt and it happens time and time again. Those are facts.
Our own country offers us so much opportunity to get things right and to change what is currently wrong. An illegal war in Iraq, lobbying and funding from extreme pro-Israeli groups amongst many others, lack of regulation in the finance sector, toothless regulatory bodies (FSA, Ofcom,Ofgem etc) , political party funding – the list is endless. An independent Scotland would have the opportunity to tackle these issues, and let’s be honest, none of these perversions will ever change in Westminster. We have the opportunity to define a new nation, to set new standards, to choose how we present ourselves globally, these are huge plus points often neglected and overlooked – or just not considered in any debate. Thats what i want, the opportunity to clear out the old ways, and we have that chance – in an independent Scotland.
Issues like the DVLA or whatever is mentioned in this article can be resolved, the issue of fair recognition and governance from Westminster will never be resolved. This is our chance and as far as I’m concerned, we should grab it with both hands.
#127 by Scotsfox on November 9, 2011 - 6:19 pm
This has to be post of the day. I agree 100% with every last word. Independence is not just about economics.
#128 by Dubbieside on November 9, 2011 - 6:47 pm
Maybe its just me, but if I have to pay an inordinate load of money to lurch from pot hole to pot hole on our roads I would rather have the jobs that are created by the administration costs of that providing jobs in Scotland not Swansea. I would also rather have the revenue raised in Scotland spent on the roads in Scotland, not disappearing into Westminster coffers.
Does anyone really think that we are incapable of running our own department of transport?
If we do struggle we can always ask our friends in the South of Ireland for advice as they appear to have been able to set this up themselves even without Westminsters guiding hand.
No motor taxation without representation.
#129 by JR Tomlin on November 9, 2011 - 4:32 pm
“Indeed I have criticisms of English and British Nationalism as well and perhaps try and see things in a more internationalist way.”
Now answer me this. How is one an internationalist without nations? One isn’t. Inter-nationalism is between nations for which one needs (ahem) nations.
And if one has to have nations for there to be INTER-nationalism, I believe you have to explain why the British nation state is good but a Scottish nation state would be bad. I am truly weary of the utter hypocrisy of decrying nationalism of the Scottish sort by NATIONALISTS of the British sort.
It is almost amusing that they really don’t recognise their own hypocrisy.
That is rather different Aiden’s rather peculiar argument in his post that the mumble-mumble will fight for the Union because they are not Unionists. I think I’ll have to take his word for that one. It must be an uncomfortable position indeed, fighting for something one does not in fact believe in. Sorry about that for you, old man.
#130 by itsyourself on November 9, 2011 - 7:00 pm
There are historic parallels here with Finland. The Declaration of 15th November states
“The people of Finland have by this step taken their fate in their own hands; a step both justified and demanded by present conditions. The people of Finland feel deeply that they cannot fulfil their national and international duty without complete sovereignty.”
This led to a short but bitter civil war with 37,000 casualties in a population of 3 million.
We have the opportunity to make the change with nothing more than words. The legacy of that civil war still lingers in Finland and it seems to have found an echo in the vitriol poured on the Nationalist cause by some Scottish Labour politicians. Ultimately they will need to make some form of accommodation with Nationalism. Labour has an alternative home south of the border in a social democratic future. In Scotland if it continues its present course it faces extinction. This need not be so but their present situation is incoherence well disguised by incompetence. That cannot endure but perhaps a positive future is not yet beyond Labours grasp.
The idea that Scotland needs to cling to the old power certainties to ensure its safety is flawed. If Finland can survive two world wars and a rather hot cold war with KGB and CIA agents aplenty Scotland will not need to cling to the MODs skirts.
We have a skilled and competent police force, an outstanding military tradition and weapons can be bought easily should we need too. We will be just fine.
#131 by Don McC on November 9, 2011 - 7:39 pm
This independence thing, it’s pretty scary isn’t it?
I know you weren’t making an argument one way or t’other, Aidan, but I couldn’t help noticing that your opposition to independence does seem to boil down to being a wee bit scared of the consequences. Which is fair enough.
However, the main thrust of your argument is that Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories aren’t Unionist, per se, and shouldn’t be labelled as such just because they don’t support independence. Again, fair enough. However, if we define a Unionist as someone who actually actively opposes independence, they stand guilty as charged. You only need to watch Reporting Scotland tonight where all three of the parties have latched onto the opinion given in the document produced by the House of Commons library to see this. All three parties used the exact same arguments (almost with the same wording) . This is despite the document, itself, not containing any definitive conclusions re Scotland’s status in the EU post Independence.
Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Iain Gray, Jack McConnell, the list goes on. Each of them has spoken of their determination and efforts to retain the Union. That isn’t just a political philosophy that happens to oppose Scottish independence, they are actively fighting to retain the Union, they believe in the Union, they are Unionists, convicted by their own words and actions.
Arguing against that doesn’t appear to be a winning position to take.
#132 by Barbarian on November 9, 2011 - 7:47 pm
Type your comment here
I’m sorry, but this is a typical “Nationalist” response – ie everything will be ok come independence, we just haven’t figured out the details yet.
It is precisely the same sort of generalist response we get from people trying to say independence won’t work.
A halfway house is needed to debate these matter, not general statements that lack substance.
If unionism is so difficult to defend, then why are the polls for full independence not over 60%? The SNP has to convince the voters to change, and that is harder than maintaining the status quo.
#133 by Erchie on November 10, 2011 - 12:51 am
No.
we have a police already
We will have an army and the logistics behind them
Intelligence services can develop at first via Police and later evolve
These are all there now
#134 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 10:11 am
But Barbarian we already have all of these things. What do you think is going to happen post-indepedence? Do you think the rest of the UK is going to somehow take our police forces etc away? How could they? The already exist. We already pay for them. They are already ours.
#135 by Colin Macleod on November 9, 2011 - 11:38 pm
It’s great to see the independance debate is alive and kicking on here. Obviously we know where all the editors stand here on independance. From jeffs days at snptacticalvoting he was very much on the fence, now I’m not so sure. Would it be possible to ask who “commissioned” this entry, and how would you dispell any theories of a better nation agenda?
#136 by Colin Macleod on November 9, 2011 - 11:48 pm
Oh my mistake, it’s not another guest post. It’s Aiden..
#137 by Doug Daniel on November 10, 2011 - 1:36 am
A couple of things I’ve noticed in your follow up comments, Aidan.
“Indy vs Devo Max is about process.
Independence is a one off, somewhat muscular event that says “away with you, UK! (but maybe can we keep the pound? and the DVLA. And..)†where as devolution is a gentler, kinder process.”
It’s not about process. Independence and Devo Max are the same process, but they reach different destinations. Devo Max is the maximum powers that can be devolved to Holyrood without crossing over into full-blown independence. If it makes it into the referendum, those voting for it are effectively saying “stop faffing about and just give us these powers NOW”. It’s every bit as “muscular” an event as independence. It’s about identifying the limits of devolution, and going straight there – do not pass go, do not collect £200. Devo Max is no gentler or kinder a process than independence – it’s just a different endpoint. You’re conflating the current process of devolution – a sloooooooooooow transference of powers – with the event of devolution max.
Incidentally, Devo Max would actually be far more brutal than independence, as it would then lead to years of Westminster bitterly fighting against Holyrood’s attempts to reclaim powers for Scotland, because Westminster controls it – whereas independence puts Scotland in control.
“It’s a shared outcome of differing viewpoints, rather than the nationalist shared viewpoint (independence) with differing outcomes (low tax vs Scandinavia)”
This is just wrong, pure and simple. Have you never watched Scottish Questions in Westminster, Aidan? I was watching it today, and it’s nothing but a half-hour hate-fest against independence and the SNP. Labour, Lib Dems and Tories joining forces to try and outdo each other with the superlatives about independence, calling it “dangerous” and “damaging”, and always referring to it as “separation”. Then Stewart Hosie will try to ask a sensible question, and just have it shoved back in his face with some stupid, stumbling rant about “the damaging uncertainty of the referendum” from Michael Moore. If the MPs of the three unionist parties all have such differing viewpoints, then how come they sound exactly the same?
Unionism is not an outcome of some deep political thought. Labour politicians have not sat down and said “these are the things I think could improve Scotland, and the only conclusion I can reach from this is that Scotland should remain in the union”. It’s a baseline, a starting point. There are things that Scotland could do more effectively under independence, things that people in Labour and the Lib Dems claim to want. If what you were saying was right, then these people would at least entertain the idea that independence could be a mechanism for achieving these goals. But they don’t. To say they rule it out straight away would imply they even give it a thought, which would be wrong. They don’t even think about it, because it is so deeply ingrained into their ideologies, an assumption that they don’t even realise they are making.
This is why faith in the union is falling, because gradually people are starting to ask whether independence could be the mechanism by which to deliver the things they want, and seeing that it could. As people move away from the default, implied position of Scotland being in the union, they open their mind up to the idea that independence can be the route to their chosen destination.
Your whole argument here is based on a flawed premise, because you just don’t understand what independence is about. This very blog has three very different examples of people who are pro-independence amongst the editing team alone, never mind amongst the commenters. They share different viewpoints, but they all point towards the same outcome, which is independence. You’ve got Kate, who has been fighting for independence for many years for similar reaosns to most of us in the SNP; James, who is in favour of independence, but seemingly only if it comes with certain guarantees (I’m sure many of us still remember the epic monarchy thread in April, where James seemed to suggest he didn’t see the point of independence if the Queen was still our head of state); and Jeff, who started off his blogging career being pro-SNP but not pro-independence, and has gradually come to the point where (I think I can say this) he would vote “Yes” in the referendum.
That’s just this blog. There are examples elsewhere of right-wingers who want independence, right through to the hardline socialists in the SSP. There are a wide variety of political philosophies there, because nationalism is no more or no less a philosophy than unionism is. It is a belief that these philosophies can be better implemented as an independent nation, just as unionism is simply the belief that they can only be carried out as part of the union.
#138 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 10:08 am
Agreed on every point.
It has sometimes occurred to me that the only reason unionists are unionists is because the SNP are nationalists.
But any political position which defines itself as what it is against rather than what it is for is on shaky ground.
#139 by Aidan on November 10, 2011 - 11:14 am
You’re almost there! A political philosophy which defines itself as it’s against is on shaky ground, but even traditional, big U Unionism is *for* the union rather than *against* independence.
The small “u” unionist parties *don’t* define themselves as “not the SNP”, they’re opposed to independence for a variety of reasons but not as defining purpose.
Honest.
#140 by Doug Daniel on November 10, 2011 - 12:25 pm
It may not be a defining purpose in the sense that people join Labour purely to keep the union in the same way people join the SNP purely to achieve independence, but it’s at the very heart of their ideology. Everything they stand for is based on the premise that Scotland is in the union. That’s why they’re so viscerally opposed to the SNP, because independence challenges that foundation. Why else would they constantly use such overblown, emotive terms like “dangerous”?
#141 by Aidan on November 10, 2011 - 6:06 pm
No, everything Labour stands for is based on the premise that we’re better off standing together than we are apart.
I’ve never understood the visceral hatred that the SNP and Labour have for each other (and it definitely goes both ways), it’s frankly a bit embarrassing.
#142 by Dubbieside on November 10, 2011 - 6:36 pm
Everything that Labour stands for is based on the premise that if Scotland knows its place and does not get ideas above its station Labour is happy. As long as Scotland is a minor player in this unequal union Labour are happy.
The Westminster government are at present weakening the NHS, education and welfare in England. At present the SNP can shield Scotland from some of that through the devolved departments, but as usual we get back to Westminster control of finance. Less government spending in these areas in England will mean that there are less Barnet consequential amounts available to Scotland.
Labour are happy for this to continue because they view Westminster as supreme, and apart from very minor tinkering round the edges with the discredited Calman are happy with, and see no reason to change, the financial arrangements in Scotland.
Torys at Westminster reduce Scotlands budget with complicit agreement from Labour.
#143 by R.G. Bargie on November 11, 2011 - 12:29 pm
“the premise that we’re better off standing together than we are apart.”
That’s not so much a premise as a slogan. We’re still waiting (almost five years and counting), for someone to explain WHY.
“(and it definitely goes both ways)”
It’s interesting watching the narrative on this slowly change. Iain Gray and many others would have you believe it all comes from the SNP. But it looks like his bitter farewell speech at the Labour conference has pushed the spin a step too far, and observers have finally started dissecting the claim:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/iain-macwhirter/the-demonisation-of-alex-salmond-1.1133343
Now we’ve moved on to “both sides are the same”. At least it’s progress.
#144 by R.G. Bargie on November 11, 2011 - 12:32 pm
“Everything they stand for is based on the premise that Scotland is in the union. That’s why they’re so viscerally opposed to the SNP, because independence challenges that foundation.”
I don’t think it’s even as principled as that (which itself isn’t very principled). The only thing that explains the depth of the palpable hatred is the simple fact that the SNP have taken power away from Labour that Labour regarded – and much of Labour still does regard – as its birthright.
Let’s face it, the policy differences aren’t anywhere near enough to justify the level of vitriol – both parties, at least in Scotland, are broadly left-of-centre social democrats. There is very little sign of hatred from the SNP – that’s *the SNP*, not a few anonymous online nutjobs – towards Labour, but plenty the other way. The only plausible reason is Labour’s sheer rage at having “their property” taken away.
#145 by R.G. Bargie on November 11, 2011 - 12:52 pm
“but even traditional, big U Unionism is *for* the union rather than *against* independence. ”
Then why have we had to wait five years – and still waiting – for the “positive case for the Union”, during which time we’ve been subjected to negative assaults against independence pretty much daily?
#146 by Michael on November 10, 2011 - 2:48 am
“If…Unionism looks incoherent, disorganised or lacking leadership that’s because it isn’t really a thing.”
Scotland is about to embark on a significant debate on its future. If there is no united idea to oppose that of Scottish Independence then several questions must be raised.
If ‘unionism’ isn’t an important political philosophy, is that not because the Union no longer has a purpose?
Is this because the Union no longer resonates with the people of Scotland like it did in the days of empire and WWII?
Is this because new political dynamics of anti-thatcher/austerity sentiment, disillusionment with the political centre as a whole (MPs expenses, Iraq and the financial crash) and the relative resurgence in Scottish self-governance, have all combined to trump ideas of ‘Britishness’?
I’d say yes to all three. Unless there are clear and coherent arguments to answer these questions, the ‘No campaign’ will be leaderless, meaningless and worthless.
#147 by Don McC on November 10, 2011 - 7:02 am
For years, Scots have been told we are too poor, too wee, too stupid. It’s STILL going on, week in, week out. The effects of that kind of psychological bashing can’t be reversed overnight. Luckily, the younger generation don’t appear to have been affected to the same extent (which is why the unionists are so against them getting a say in the upcoming referendum)
#148 by Manny on November 10, 2011 - 12:07 pm
Type your comment here
#149 by Liam Hewat on November 10, 2011 - 5:45 pm
This might be the biggest load of rubbish I have read….ever. And I read the Labour manifesto. Well bits of it anyway.
#150 by Aidan on November 10, 2011 - 6:03 pm
Stay classy!
#151 by Erchie on November 11, 2011 - 12:36 am
Aidan
The problem is the “devasting cases for the Union” we are seeing here are nothing of the sort and have been answered before, in this place.
You state that we can only be allowed to step fearfully, cautiously towards Independence through benevolent Devolution from Westminster
Take that attitude and you’ll NEVER achieve anything
Moreover, you’ll prolong the painful process that England has to come through
It pains me to see the warping of the situation and debate we see from people
Without us they can get a chance to come to terms with themselves, and we’d be doing them a favour
#152 by Aidan on November 11, 2011 - 4:54 pm
You read the bit I added 3 days ago where I said I’m not attempting to present a comprehensive defence of the union, rather I was trying to illuminate why there wasn’t a pre-agreed one that could be unanimously rolled out right?
#153 by R.G. Bargie on November 11, 2011 - 5:06 pm
“I was trying to illuminate why there wasn’t a pre-agreed one that could be unanimously rolled out right”
If you want people to vote for the Union, shouldn’t you be getting on with making one instead of nitpicking over semantics?
The opposition have been promising “the positive case for the Union” for almost five years. At least we know it won’t be rushed.
#154 by Aidan on November 11, 2011 - 5:09 pm
I’ll start working on the campaign to save the union just as soon as there’s a bill laid before parliament seeking to dismantle it, competent or otherwise. 😉
#155 by R.G. Bargie on November 11, 2011 - 5:37 pm
Fine by me, comrade. I’ll happily take another three years of Labour and the Tories loading up both barrels and aiming at their shoes in the meantime 😀
#156 by Erchie on November 11, 2011 - 8:28 pm
You notice I don’t say that YOU are making a devasting case for the Union, just noting that there is a problem with it
I then looked at you “ooooh, we’re not ready” and answered that.
If you can’t defend the Union fine, just man up and admit it.
Don’t think less of yourself
The Nationalists have been asking Unionists to present a compelling set of logical benefits for years, and it’s been a bit of a drought
Having the power to nuke someone, or flying bombing missions, or pretending to be a Great power isn’t enough
having the power to negotiate Fishing rights, but not doing it, not enough
Having life expectancy fall below the national average, not so much a winner