Herewith a guest post from SNP activist Richard Thomson. Richard is a former SNP researcher and Westminster candidate who used to blog at scotsandindependent.blogspot.com. He is now a full-time journalist based in Aberdeenshire.
Since the SNP’s victory in May, Scottish politics had been very quiet. Attribute that to what you will, although the leadership vacuum in the three main opposition parties certainly played a role. However, with this week’s referendum stushie, the brutal truth for Johann Lamont, Ruth Davidson and Willie Rennie is that it’s taken an intervention from the Prime Minister, however ill advised and counterproductive it may have been, to come anywhere close to seizing the political agenda from the SNP.
The PM marched his troops up to the top of the hill last Sunday over setting an 18 month window for holding a referendum. Now, he faces the prospect of having to march them back down again after Alex Salmond revealed what was probably one of the worst kept secrets in Scottish Politics – that there would be a 2014 referendum.
To call for an 18 month timescale on Sunday before running away from that on Monday only to launch a ‘consultation’ on Tuesday is frankly incredible. There’s a book, or at least a series of FOI requests to be written about the twisting and turning going on behind the scenes in Whitehall. There’s nothing like a well-worked strategy and even the most loyal supporter of the Lib/Con coalition would have to concede that this was nothing like a well-worked strategy.
To my mind, Labour, the Conservatives and their Lib Dem partners in government lost the moral authority to set the terms of an independence referendum with the SNP landslide in May. To go from a position of saying ‘no referendum, ever’ to bleating about having one and having it yesterday holds no credibility whatsoever. If a referendum was what was required, then there was ample leverage during the last Scottish Parliament to extract just about any concession on franchise, supervision and timing that could possibly have been desired.
But that chance was spurned and now the SNP is firmly in the driving seat. Forget the misguided talk from Michael Moore about a ‘legally binding’ referendum – there’s can be no such thing in the UK. If the Westminster Government genuinely wants to remove any possibility of grounds for challenge as to the legislative competence of Holyrood to hold a referendum, then it should get on with it, stop trying to attach strings to the vote and accept with as much grace as can be mustered that it has been overtaken by events on this one.
Much of the last week of coalition politicking has left an unpleasant taste in the mouth. Arguments about process, hiding behind the narrowest possible interpretation of the Scotland Act to imply that your opponents have no respect for the rule of law, trying to exert muscle over the what, when and how of people’s ability to voice an opinion on their future governance; none of it is very impressive, far less the sign of a coalition confident in its arguments.
All this rolling around in the mud also highlights, albeit inadvertently, what many in nationalist ranks suspect is the absence of a positive case for the union. This much-vaunted positive case, which must exist somewhere because lots of important people assure us that it does, is always spoken about as if it is a given, yet its elements are never unpacked for examination.
In more wicked moments, I have a vision of there being a strongbox down in the vaults of the Bank of England, embossed with a plate saying ‘Positive Case for Union – open only in Emergency’. Eventually, someone, possibly even Douglas Alexander, decides to blow the dust off and take it upstairs, the better to unleash its power to vanquish ‘narrow nationalism’ once and for all.
“Get out the way! Positive case for Union coming through!â€, its bearer will shout. A crowd, hushed with expectation, will gather round, desperate to see for themselves what they have long been told will clinch the debate over their future governance.
After a battle with the lock, the lid creaks open. Then, in the unforgiving light of day, the awful truth emerges – whatever was in there before has turned into little more than a pile of dust. Closer inspection shows a fragment of a picture of what could be a Spitfire, but no-one’s really sure. There’s a bit of what looks like a fragment of a plate from what might be a Royal Wedding, or perhaps even a Coronation. But apart from that and the spiders, there’s nothing – whatever once was there having been eaten away by the ravages of time.
Everyone agrees about the need for a debate on Scotland’s future. Right now, nationalists must feel like Billy Dodds in Tallinn, kicking off while the other team argue about timing and procedural squabbles instead of making sure they are ready to pull on their jerseys and get on with it.
FIFA doesn’t supervise referendum campaigns. If it did, there’d be a strong case for awarding the independence campaign the 3 points now on the grounds of the opposition failing to turn up.
#1 by forfar-loon on January 15, 2012 - 9:16 pm
Most amusing Richard, love the image of that dusty old box containing the positive case for the Union! Mind you if memory serves FIFA would probably award the independence campaign the 3 points, then take them away and make us fight the campaign on top of a car park in Monaco, resulting in a scrappy and ultimately indecisive outcome for all concerned.
#2 by Craig Gallagher on January 15, 2012 - 9:56 pm
Is there a parallel to be drawn between the SNP relying heavily on Alex Salmond and the current Scotland manager’s preference (read: fervour) for always playing a lone striker?
A very amusing post. I think the image of Douglas Alexander with a mouldy old chest is absolutely perfect. You can just see the lack of any meaningful contents crushing the spirit out of the little weasel.
#3 by Doug Daniel on January 16, 2012 - 12:33 am
No parallel, because Kenny Misser would need the entire pitch to be a goal in order to match Alex Salmond’s strike rate. Although both are in front of possibly the most talented bunch (midfield/cabinet) the country has seen in years.
#4 by Craig Gallagher on January 16, 2012 - 12:55 am
Perhaps we ought to compare Wee Eck to Jordan Rhodes then?
Or like independence, is that hyping things up way way too early? There’s a blog post in here somewhere.
#5 by Doug Daniel on January 16, 2012 - 12:55 am
A nice bit of light relief to end the week on, although the metaphor is incredibly accurate. I dare say there was a positive case to be made for the union at some point, maybe even as recently as WWII when we were still in the age of empires, but it’s just not there any more, which is why all we’re offered is empty platitudes like “stronger together, weaker apart” which have absolutely no substance and are as empty as the box in Richard’s metaphor. Either that or employing emotional blackmail by harking back to the world wars, using the deaths of millions as a justification for carrying on with this ancient union which is so out of date that it is beyond repair, and failing spectacularly to acknowledge that not only are those type of wars over, but that the idea that Scotland and England have only fought together because of a political union makes a complete mockery of the military partnerships we’ve forged in the past and will do in the future. If anything, it’s actually quite insulting to countries that have helped the UK in conflicts.
Richard, have you ever gone as far as to consider what it might have been that was in the box before it turned to dust?
#6 by Richard Thomson on January 16, 2012 - 10:17 am
That’s a tough one, Doug, and probably an essay in itself. You could argue that every ‘home nation’ would have its own unique box. You could even argue that we would each need our own individual one. However, there’d probably be a fair amount of things in common to each.
Not all of them need be unique to the union – they could be common to any country – but they’d still feed in to your sense of place, understanding and perhaps even pride in who you were. There’d be a mixture of the past and optimism, however misplaced in retrospect, for the future – the key element I think which is missing right now from the unionist case.
For Scotland, there’d probably be something to symbolise how traditions, invented or otherwise, had adapted to fit with a common modern identity. Regiments in tartan, for instance. For Scotland, there’d be a glossy version of how the union came about – no ‘parcel of rogues’ stuff, but perhaps something which boasted of never being conquered by the Romans or the English and thanks to Bruce and Wallace, securing a union on better terms.
There’d be some teatowel bragging about inventing everything, which we’d then managed to take with us all over the world. There’d be pride in English children reading Walter Scott and Scottish children reading Shakespeare, even though they’d already instinctively know that Burns was better.
The Empire would be successful and mostly benign. There’d be big engineering achievements and a pride in ingenuity in adversity. Labour solidarity with coal miners in the Welsh valleys, dockers in Liverpool and shipbuilders in Belfast – solidarity through your job and through your trade union. There’d also be solidarity in adversity between Clydebank, Coventry and the East End of London.
There’d likely be a big shared helping of deference, to the Royals and the aristocracy as well as to your many elders and betters. However, to be British would be to have a unique place in the world – avoiding tyranny past and present would be your reward for being an island nation prone to moderate governance. There’d be a mixture of pity and contempt in there for the Irish as well as a resentful yet needy relationship with the USA (plus ca change, you might say).
WWII would be just one of a number of shared experiences. There’d be pride in the NHS, the BBC, ITV regions, the Post Office, British Rail, the car industry, National Service, the boom in university education post-Robbins. A nuclear bomb with a ‘Bloody great union Jack on top’, as Bevin said, guaranteeing your place at the top table. Your sense of not being too far from the life of someone in Liverpool or London would mean you might be quite proud of bands breaking through in America, especially if they’d played in your local dance hall before they were famous. Speaking English would also help reinforce a sense of importance, even if it was with an increasingly Americanised accent.
Britain has always been an uneasy balance, but it has always adapted. It may do so again. Deference to old elites has dwindled, and no bad thing either. However, without external threat, with marketisation of the public realm and with free trade in Europe, much of its reason for being has disappeared.
Reading back, my account probably cuts out somewhere in the 1960’s. As a child of the 70’s and 80’s, apart from the Falklands, a couple of Royal Weddings, and a couple of very fondly remembered family trips to London where I eventually went to live, I’m struggling to think of anything in my lifetime which might have set my own patriotic British juices flowing.
As Gerry Hassan has said a few times in various pieces, the problem for Britain is that no-one’s writing its story any more. Invariably, that means clinging to things which dwindle in significance over time while having little that’s new to take their place, those that do seeming transient or perhaps even faintly embarrassing, a bit like your Dad dancing at a wedding, perhaps.
What does everyone else think?
#7 by Doug Daniel on January 17, 2012 - 12:35 am
I think that’s pretty much what I would have expected to be in the box, and what I would expect to hear when the unionists finally unveil the much vaunted “positive case for the union” at the grand launch event for the No campaign.
If we’re right, then I suspect this is why we never actually hear any detail behind the “stronger together, weaker apart” bluster, because it would mean actually vocalising it, putting it out there, and finally having to admit to yourself that the thing you’ve argued for so vehemently for years or even decades is actually just blind nostalgia, refusing to let go of something that worked in a world where there were a few big empires, but that no longer has any meaning or belonging in a world of interconnected individual countries. It’s quite sad in a way, and I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense. I think as the campaign rolls on, unionists are going to have to ask questions not just of the union, but also of themselves, and they’re going to be a bit disheartened by the answers.
Independence will win, because it’s the only way that makes sense in the 21st century, as will become increasingly apparent over the coming months and years. Staying in the union would be like refusing to get a mobile phone, just for the sake of proving some spurious point about how we managed to survive perfectly well without mobile phones.
#8 by Indy on January 16, 2012 - 7:07 am
There is also the extraordinary behaviour of the L.abour Party to be considered. Not only in terms of backing the Tories over this but their whole approach. Johann Lamont made it clear in the Scottish Parliament this week what she thinks:
“Surely the First Minister agrees that we can resolve this without rancour. We should recognise the consensus that has been built and reinforced by his Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, who said:
“The SNP, as it happens, has always said that our preferred option is a straight question, yes or no to independence.â€
We seem to have agreement on that. We do not need to muddy the waters—all four parties agree that it should be a yes or no question. The First Minister has said that he will consult, but will he listen to and act on what he hears?”
That is quite an extraordinary thing to say when you analyse it – implying that the only consensus that matters is that which can be achieved by political parties (and only 4 of them apparently – the rest don’t count) and considering any other opinions would be muddying the waters.
So much for all the grand talk about the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to determine the form of government best suited to their needs!
#9 by James on January 16, 2012 - 10:11 am
Saying “all four parties” is a sure-fire way to get my back up.
#10 by Jeff on January 16, 2012 - 10:19 am
Well, given Indy was only quoting Johann Lamont with that one, I would be careful where you’re pointing that back…
#11 by James on January 16, 2012 - 10:23 am
I was pointing it at her, fret not. I did see the brackets near the end too!
#12 by Dr William Reynolds on January 16, 2012 - 11:11 am
I know what you mean James.I have been there as well when they used to talk about the main political parties.
#13 by Doug Daniel on January 16, 2012 - 11:54 pm
Maybe she was leaving out the Lib Dems…?
#14 by Jeff on January 16, 2012 - 10:31 am
I think it’s a reasonable position for Cameron et al to say ‘no referendum, ever’ and then, post May 2011, to argue that if Scotland is going to have a referendum then it should be as soon as possible, if the PM truly believes that the Scottish economy, and by extension the UK economy, is suffering as a result.
For example, the SNP is calling for the new UK Green Investment bank to be in Edinburgh. Surely this can only be accepted if the referendum returns a No vote? And if the Westminster Government has to wait until 2014 to make this decision then there is a knock-on delay for much-needed investment in the renewables revolution.
So I don’t think Cameron’s position is as illogical or as invalid as you make out.
But, that said, it has been a one-sided match up so far with Salmond running the field.
#15 by Indy on January 16, 2012 - 11:38 am
That isn’t really the point Jeff. David Cameron is of course perfectly free to call for an early referendum – just as the Scottish Government is free to call for the UK Green Investment Bank to be located in Edinburgh. But supposing the Scottish Government launched its own consultation on the UK Green Investment Bank which went into all kinds of details aside from its location? Don’t you think the UK Government might say eh, hallo? What do you think you are playing at?
#16 by Richard Thomson on January 16, 2012 - 10:45 am
Hi Jeff,
“I think it’s a reasonable position for Cameron et al to say ‘no referendum, ever’ and then, post May 2011, to argue that if Scotland is going to have a referendum then it should be as soon as possible”
I think that would be reasonable as well. What I think isn’t reasonable is trying to set conditions. Even if you have the power to do something, it doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily wise to do it.
Your point about the location of the Green bank is well made, though it shouldn’t be used as an excuse for holding up investment.
#17 by Jeff on January 16, 2012 - 11:04 am
Thanks for the reply Richard,
I fully agree that ‘the other parties’ (is that ok James?) don’t get to set the final terms of the referendum but they are still fully entitled to a voice, to an opinion with which to represent and win public support.
If the SNP does indeed have the right and the power to hold whatever referendum it pleases (and I believe they do), and has the people on its side, then whatever Cameron tries to do is neither here nor there, surely?
There’s no rules for this kind of thing and the more the SNP bleats on about its mandate, the greater the risk it’ll look less like a party of Government and more like a bunch of cry babies just because someone has had the temerity to take them on.
#18 by Richard Thomson on January 16, 2012 - 11:15 am
I think we might be in danger of agreeing with eachother here Jeff!
Yes, other parties are perfectly entitled to a voice and to stake out any position on this they like. However, it’s one thing arguing for a referendum ‘sooner rather than later’, and another thing entirely to say that you might step in to do exactly that, as I think David Cameron found out last week.
If you can persuade enough people that an early vote is a good idea, then it might even pressure the Scottish Government to move, though I’d have thought that was unlikely. What puzzles me about all this is ‘why quibble about the process, and why now?’ No hearts and minds are going to be won by either side if it just becomes an argument about process.
#19 by Indy on January 16, 2012 - 11:50 am
Well I dunno. we got upwards of 800 new SNP members last week. Support for independence is up in the polls. Maybe we need more Cameron interventions lol.
But seriously once the SG consultation is launched then we move into a different phase.
#20 by Doug Daniel on January 16, 2012 - 11:57 pm
1,102 members, Indy – let’s not undersell ourselves here 😛
#21 by Commenter on January 18, 2012 - 10:11 am
New member reporting – I was so disgusted at the crap spouted by various Unionist pols of diverse parties (and the ignorance of some journalists) that I finally did it.
Still have not received decoder ring or Salmond poster…
#22 by Doug Daniel on January 17, 2012 - 12:05 am
I’m going to disagree with the two of you here – I don’t think it is reasonable for Cameron to argue that the referendum should be sooner rather than later.
Having spent X number of years telling all and sundry that a referendum was a needless distraction, dangerous for the economy or whatever other scare stories they could think up, the electorate voted a party that offered a referendum in their manifesto into government. Argument lost. Cameron and his ilk should have stood back and said “fair enough, I know when I’ve been beaten.” If asked, he should just say “I don’t think they should have one, but the Scottish voters have given the SNP the right to hold one, so I can’t do much about it.” If specifically asked if it should be sooner or later, he should say “that’s a question for the Scottish parliament, not me. I’m not going to interfere in a devolved parliament’s business.” That would have been reasonable.
But of course, we all know that politicians are not reasonable people on the whole…
#23 by Indy on January 17, 2012 - 9:03 am
Yes he should have but we all know that is not the way politics works!
My point is that in trying to usurp control of the referendum Cameron et al were actually crossing a real line. One which, irrespective of your politcal opinion, should not have been crossed.
Trying to pre-empt a government consultation is just bad practice, it’s bad form, it’s undemocratic, it’s attempted bullying and it’s an abuse of power.
#24 by Jeff on January 17, 2012 - 10:25 am
We’ll have to agree to disagree then, as I am of the firm belief that having an opinion that a referendum should not be held does not invalidate an opinion on when any referendum should be held, particularly if one happens to be the Prime Minister.
#25 by Doug Daniel on January 17, 2012 - 12:38 pm
I just think that, if he was being genuine, his answer to the question “when do you think the referendum should be held?” would be “never.”
Although I suppose people like me would then complain that he’s trying to deny that the referendum is going ahead whether he likes it or not 😛
#26 by cynicalHighlander on January 16, 2012 - 7:49 pm
Seen elsewhere. If you check out the UK’s treaties with the UN and various other UN backed organisations [which super-cedes UK law] it explicitly states that a country that wishes to cede from a Union should have the right to do so without there being interference from the country that it wants to cede from.