Historic? Technically, yes. Shivers down the spine? Well, let’s not get carried away.
SNP members are making as much hay from today’s proceedings as they possibly can, while I’m sure David Cameron just wanted to sign the blinking thing and get away from the pomp and hyperbole as quickly as possible. Indeed, I’m sure the Prime Minister carefully considered whether he could send Michael Moore or Nick Clegg in his place and get away with it, but that would leave him open to charges of disrespect. So in he shall fly to Bute House, ballpoint at the ready, in a helicopter no less. More evidence against his supposed greenest Government ever…
So what does today mean? Well, Tom Devine is calling it the most historic day for Scotland’s constitution since 1707. One could argue that there isn’t much in the way of fierce competition for that accolade. Lofty words shall be spoken and neat soundbites delivered, but the bottom line is not what has been scrawled beneath these referendum rules but rather the absence of a decent debate for Scots to sink their teeth and minds into. Hopefully that will change in time but there is little of significance today, other than dotting the i’s and crossing the t on the inevitable.
I guess my sanguinity around today’s events stem from the impression that the only people truly enjoying them is the SNP and the party’s new found friends in the Yes Scotland alliance. Look to Catalonia and the one million people taking to the streets to demand their independence and compare it with today’s historic events that are passing by with merely a polite cough, shrugged shoulders and maybe, at best, a collective raised eyebrow from the public. The Nationalist call to arms is being met with a populace who just want to crawl back under the duvet.
It is important to remember that the SNP didn’t win this referendum through a groundswell of public desire for it, they won it by accident because Labour were a shambles and the SNP is competent at running devolved Scotland. There were more minds turned to the Council Tax freeze than independence at the ballot box last year, no matter how cutely those in the SNP may wish to argue the other way. The attempts to ‘big up’ this referendum process at each of the numerous checkpoints has always felt forced and at odds with a nation ready and willing to step up to being a fully fledged country. It is not difficult to imagine the quiet panicked voice at the back of Salmond’s mind – ‘this is too early, you never pictured it this way’, but on the dotted line he must sign and onwards he must march, like the charge of the light brigade, into seemingly inevitable defeat.
There’s no backup option now, the First Minister is as good as hurtling towards the earth with an obscured visor, hoping everything falls into place rather than making sure that it will.
There is, of course, 100 weeks to go. Arguments require to be made, doors require to be knocked and minds certainly require to be changed, but for Yes Scotland, today will only truly be historic when the people decide that they want it to be. We’re a long way from being at that moment so one can only hope that the Nationalist fireworks are kept in their boxes and the champagne on ice, particularly given that Salmond’s premature pride could, sooner or later, result in a very painful fall.
Amidst the slaps on the backs and the droves of column inches, all that has really been achieved today is a welcome closure over a process that pleasingly never descended into partisan trench warfare or childish name-calling.
All of that said, in a world where little girls can be shot because they talk of the importance of education and where bloodshed was the precursor to the Good Friday Agreement, let us at least be thankful that today’s Edinburgh Agreement has been delivered peacefully and skilfully from both sides of the debate.
#1 by Alex Buchan on October 15, 2012 - 12:57 pm
I think you are right that Cameron would rather the international news desks weren’t covering this and it was more low key, especially as this follows directly on from the biggest breakthrough in Flemish national aspirations, ever. Cameron would not, however, have wanted someone else representing the UK government because his magnanimity is all part of the UK Government’s game plan. The UK’s strategy is pretty clear. They have been sure that they will win this referendum from the start. That’s why they were adamant that there could be no second question, instead they saw Salmond’s suggestion of a second question as confirmation that a direct question on independence couldn’t be won. So with no pressure on them it was obvious that being magnanimous would play well to the image of Britain as a generous open minded country and would make the post referendum constitutional clamp-down seem like the act of a benevolent parent whose patience has been pushed too far.
I think you’re wrong in scoffing at the SNP’s references to Catalonia. There is no doubt in my mind that Alex Salmond has had a direct impact on developments in Catalonia. Scotland was mentioned by many on that Barcelona rally and they contrast the London’s granting of a referendum with Madrid’s intransigence. Now that the Flemish Nationalists have made the biggest breakthrough in their history, in yesterday’s vote, the reshaping of Europe is going to dominate the headlines in ways we’ve never seen before. Developments in Catalonia have already elicited an unattributed source inside the European Commission saying that there is no legal mechanism for making part of an existing member state re-apply for membership.
I’m not saying this means Scotland will vote yes, what I’m saying is that Scotland suddenly seems to be at the head of a wider development across Europe and that that makes the no campaigns job more tricky because they want to say Scotland is being stupid wanting to break away, that’s more difficult when the most prosperous parts of other EU states are doing just that. It will also complicate things for the UK state post referendum because they will want to close down the issue, but if the same issue is ragging across the EU that won’t be totally possible and will likely cause them to grant more extra powers down the line than they would have otherwise. In short, Europe now complicates everything in unforeseen ways.
#2 by Commenter on October 15, 2012 - 1:14 pm
Alex can retire, happy that he helped achieve independence… for Catalonia. 🙂
I’m hoping that Catalonia will get independence, be ‘allowed‘ ‘back‘ into the EU, and that as a result Scots will grow a pair and emulate them. Of course it could all go pear shaped and become an example of the awfulness of the whole idea of independence.
#3 by Jeff on October 15, 2012 - 1:16 pm
To be fair, it wasn’t the SNP’s specific references to Catalonia I was scoffing (if I was scoffing at all), I haven’t read such references.
Scotland may well have had an impact on Catalonia as a way to enable independence from Spain, but that does not mean, as I was arguing, that levels of support for Scottish independence are anywhere close to Catalan levels. We do not feel like a people waiting to form their own country, Catalans do. I am sure that Salmond is mindful of this.
Indeed, there is a weakness in your argument Alex (if I may say so) whereby you seem to be saying ‘look, the Flemish are doing it, the Catalans too’ as if that means, de facto, that Scotland should do likewise. Scotland being independent should make good sense without needing to leverage off whatever is going on in other countries.
This is all within the prism of a Yes/No independence referendum, I agree more powers would be more likely if there was to be a wider ‘breaking-up’ of countries across Europe. I still think the underlying problem for Salmond (and yourself) is that there just doesn’t seem to be any appetite for significant change in Scotland.
#4 by Alex Buchan on October 15, 2012 - 2:04 pm
I have never said that Salmond will win this referendum so I can’t see how you came to that conclusion. I have in fact been quite anxious about the potential for this referendum to set Scotland back. I was a lone voice in May of 2012 when I pointed out that a no vote is not a “not yet” vote it is a yes to continued union. As such it would end the argument of using the opportunity of still existing oil reserves to do something constructive in Scotland because such votes don’t come around again like busses. So it would mean the independence argument would need to be completely rethought. The UK state will also put in place new hurdles after a no vote, and getting an overall SNP majority anyway was mainly because of the once in a life-time collapse in the liberal vote.
But over the months I’ve come to realise the Salmond had little choice and that in being bold he has at least unleashed forces that the UK Government would have preferred were left alone. It seems pretty likely because of the referendum that there will have to be something now done about England. Both EV for EL or a grand committee will see the role of Scottish MPs diminished further and will mean it will be unthinkable to have a PM who wasn’t able to take his place at the head of the largest party in England so it will no longer be possible for a Welsh or Scottish MP to be PM. All of these things add to the very slow change in the nature of the UK.
But in the last few weeks I’ve also realised that what I might call the chaos theory of politics also has other advantages, the bold moves in Scotland, Catalonia and Flanders change the context of debate. You assume the public aren’t interested, but there is a powerful message out there to be made that Britain is backward and that the New Labour and Cameroon moves to the right show that Scotland can’t stay in the UK and retain its present political identity. What the Yes campaign need more than anything is to demonstrate the extent to which Scotland is a net contributor to the UK. The economic argument will be the most crucial, but as I say; even if the referendum is lost we are in a different ball game in the years ahead if either Catalonia or Flanders successfully gains independence inside the EU.
#5 by Jeff on October 15, 2012 - 2:08 pm
I never said that you said Salmond would win the referendum, but I did make an assumption that you want him to.
#6 by Ben Achie on October 15, 2012 - 1:34 pm
Not so much Caledonia as Catatonia then Jeff……., i.e. stupor? You are remarkably downbeat, whereas I’m repeatedly hearing mention of Scottish independence on Radio 4 in passing, which is reminding me and I am sure, many others, that something quite exceptional is beginning to happen. Fair enough, you can call it waking up!
#7 by Jeff on October 15, 2012 - 1:37 pm
Downbeat perhaps, but I don’t think people are suddenly going to realise today that there’s a referendum in 2014.
If a groundswell of support emanates from somewhere then I’ll let myself get excited then, but for now it all seems a bit Emperor’s New Clothes.
#8 by Jeremy on October 15, 2012 - 1:50 pm
OK, I’ll confess it: I’m a unionist (and I bet I’ll get some stick for that). But this is very well said, Jeff, for reminding us of what really matters: “All of that said, in a world where little girls can be shot because they talk of the importance of education and where bloodshed was the precursor to the Good Friday Agreement, let us at least be thankful that today’s Edinburgh Agreement has been delivered peacefully and skilfully from both sides of the debate.”
#9 by Jeff on October 15, 2012 - 2:00 pm
Thanks Jeremy. Nothing wrong with being a Nat and nothing wrong with being a unionist. Also, this isn’t (or isn’t supposed to be, as far as I’m aware) a pro-Indy blog so all views very welcome. The best line I’ve ever heard though that might contain something wrong is this: “I don’t think we should be independent, but I’m voting Yes”. Bizarrely, he had a point. I’ll try to blog about it one day!
#10 by Richard on October 15, 2012 - 2:07 pm
Type your comment here
How about actually helping to create that groundswell? “Be the change you wish to see” as Gandhi is alleged to have said
#11 by Jeff on October 15, 2012 - 2:22 pm
I may or may not be doing that already, but what I do in my own time is not up for discussion here.
#12 by Alex Buchan on October 15, 2012 - 2:26 pm
Indeed, there is a weakness in your argument Alex (if I may say so) whereby you seem to be saying ‘look, the Flemish are doing it, the Catalans too’ as if that means, de facto, that Scotland should do likewise. Scotland being independent should make good sense without needing to leverage off whatever is going on in other countries.
I said it changes the context of the debate. The no campaign has shown so far that it will be a predominantly negative campaign. Their main attack will be to portray independence as extreme and backwards looking and to isolate the SNP, which in my opinion was why it was so important that the Greens joined the campaign. Developments elsewhere will not only boost the morale of those campaigning for independence it complicates the no case. The no campaign will want to keep these developments out of the debate but they can’t completely as these developments will force the EU to develop a more nuanced position on new states already inside the EU.
Pingback: Scottish Referendum Deal Reached « Pileus
#13 by David Smillie on October 15, 2012 - 3:15 pm
I keep hearing that ‘there is no appetite for significant change’. I beg to differ. This debate has been raging throughout my lifetime and that of my father who was born well before the First World War. There have been umpteen Scottish Home Rule bills voted down or talked out in Westminster since the 19th century. One third of our population is pretty consistently behind independence – that is a pretty impressive appetite for very major change!
There is very little open conversation about this in the streets, pubs, restaurants etc, a fact that unionists interpret to mean that nobody is really interested in the issue. I think that many people are aware of the deep disapproval of the British establishment for Scottish indy and are playing their cards close to their chests to protect personal interests. They believe that England controls the UK and Scotland economically, militarily and politically. It has been noted, I think, that Scotland’s Labour establishment will most likely exact revenge on vulnerable individuals if the independence vote fails -ergo, better to hide one’s personal views. All this makes the forthcoming referendum even more fascinating and perhaps just a little unpredictable!
#14 by Braco on October 15, 2012 - 4:17 pm
I think your downbeat reaction to what is in any objective sense a ‘historic signing’, no matter the outcome of the referendum, comes from a very common misreading of the Scots public (when it comes to constitutional politics). I felt exactly as you did about a lack of groundswell opinion prior to and even during the devolution referendum vote. On the day I visited a couple of polling stations in dismay at the seeming lack of interest to ask about their feel for turn out. But, but slowly and quietly and without fanfare the voting public did return an ‘historic’ yes yes vote in turnout and % that if repeated in 2012 will be definitive. Just one other positive note to add for anyone feeling as low today as Jeff, never in our history have the Scots electorate voted against more powers for Scotland given the chance in a referendum.
#15 by Jeff on October 15, 2012 - 4:34 pm
I’d say there’s a big difference between devolution (supported by Lab&LD&SNP/a constitutional no-brainer) and independence (‘no going back’/two bust banks/why risk it?). Furthermore, the polls almost always suggested a Yes vote for devolution, or a close contest at least. The polls suggest a very different story for independence. I’m not saying the SNP can’t pull it off, I’m just saying that there isn’t that sense that we’re on the cusp of significant constitutional change.
#16 by Braco on October 15, 2012 - 4:57 pm
Forgive me my experience but the devolution debate was certainly not considered or advertised as a ‘no-brainer’ at the time. And I did not consider myself a faint heart back then, just as I don’t now, but those were my feelings and those were my actions. You seem more interested in reflecting your perceptions of how the country feels rather than forwarding your views on how the country should act. If you are good enough to respond again to me, could you somewhere within it, in brackets, include three soundbites of what you would consider great reasons to vote yes, (for reasons of balance but mainly because I think it may cheer you up. winkysmilyface.)
#17 by Jeff on October 16, 2012 - 10:33 am
Well, there’s nothing wrong with being reflective rather than ardently anything when it comes to blogging, makes for a better blog in my view. Or maybe I just don’t like too much of a din. Maybe devolution working so well has obscured my view of the 1997 referendum and to what extent it was a no-brainer. I was too young to vote in it back then after all.
Three soundbites of great reasons to vote yes? I’m up for a challenge. Let’s see:
It’s time Scotland had an injection of pride in its country’s badge
A new nation built on ambition, equality and fairness
Independent Scotland – A Choose Your Own Adventure Story
You’re right, that did cheer me up! Maybe this can be a fun Friday post. ‘Soundbite for Scotland’.
#18 by Braco on October 16, 2012 - 1:38 pm
Thanks Jeff. I think you are right that it’s mainly the way history has unfolded that implies the seemingly no-brainerness of the decision back then. Even I have to keep reminding myself of my anxiousness during that vote as memory is a very funny thing. I hope and believe the young of today will look back on this referendum and consider it a no-brainer after their 17 years of experiencing independence and wonder what all the fuss you oldies made about it. Thanks for the three, I also feel better now but I am guessing there will be no shortage of soundbites from either side in the next two years so maybe yous should just keep ploughing the reasonable, detailed, analytical and intelligent debate furrow as per normal.
#19 by Jeff on October 16, 2012 - 1:40 pm
“I also feel better now but I am guessing there will be no shortage of soundbites from either side in the next two years so maybe yous should just keep ploughing the reasonable, detailed, analytical and intelligent debate furrow as per normal.”
Uh oh, too late, see today’s post 😉
#20 by Braco on October 16, 2012 - 2:09 pm
Youuuu! (smilyfacetoo)
#21 by Tearlach on October 15, 2012 - 4:34 pm
Jeff – where your arguement falls down is that Scotland just does not do big public demonstrations for change, we just quietly go out their and vote for it in the ballot booth, with the possible exception of the Scottish Covenant in the late 40’s. The 70’s was a time when the Scottish people voted for the SNP in major numbers, there was a clear majority for an Assembly in 1979 (53%), a very clear majority for the parliament in 1997 (73%) and an overwhelming landslide for the SNP last year. All done without much public fuss. Why would there be, as the whole process has been done through the democratic process, without the need for the Catalonian style of public protest.
So lets not pretend that a lack of public excitement about the process means a lack of interest. Quite the opposite. Folk voted last year for the SNP because they were the best government for Scotland, and yes for a referendum. Of course Labour were/are crap, but the SNP vote says a lot more about the Scottish electorates realisation that they were simply being taken as granted as mugs in a Westminster game. We do not like being taken for granted, and tend to remember that in the quiet and privacy of the voting booth, not on the streets.
#22 by Jeff on October 15, 2012 - 4:50 pm
Well, firstly, it’s not really an “argument” as such, I’m not trying to convince people to also believe that there isn’t about to be an avalanche of support for independence, but I do take your point that we’re a bit more stoic and cool about these things than those crazy Catalans with all that din and racquet they make.
I do think the minority pro-Indy group are at risk of believing what they want to believe to make things easier rather than staying tuned to reality. No offence, but I don’t know what “we do not like being taken for granted” means. Who is doing this and in what way? And Scots did not vote for the SNP because they wanted a referendum, polls upon polls of what was important to the electorate at the time consistently put the constitution near the bottom.
And to be fair, it’s more the lack of support in the polls that suggests to me there is a general lack of interest in what is going on today. I do happen to think a lot of the No vote in those polls are actually Don’t Knows but, well, I don’t know, I would expect Scotland to ‘feel’ different if it was two years short of being a new country. Maybe you’re right, and I hope that you are, that Scots will without fuss step silently towards voting Yes. I just don’t buy it I’m afraid.
#23 by Alex Buchan on October 15, 2012 - 8:32 pm
Jeff I totally agree. You might be surprised to know that your intuition or hunch has famously been worked up into a theory by Antonio Gramsci while imprisoned by the Italian Fascists. Essentially. In relation to communism in Italy, he believed that any revolutionary change (of which Irish Independence, for example, would have been included) has to be proceeded by a gradual absorption of the philosophy of those who want change by society at large.
Not just by people as individuals, but by whole sections of society like local communities, churches, trade unions, cultural groups etc. Sufficient sections of society must reach a tipping point where the new philosophy (in this case Scottish Independence) becomes the accepted norm before there would be any chance of change at the level of politics. A situation say where you could walk into a local shop, gym or bar and expect someone to say “ask anyone here they’ll all say the same thing, they all think it’s high time Scotland ran its own affairs”. Gramsci has gone out of favour but his ideas are still relevant.
Now there are various reasons why Scotland, unlike Ireland, proved such a hard case for a Gramscian conversion, I’ll just list a few: Scotland doesn’t have a unified culture/language that has had to struggle to survive, Scotland has never been oppressed in the same way as Ireland was, the Scottish cultural elites have been readily assimilated into Britishness and the working classes have identified historically with others in England and Wales though the Labour Party and the trade unions, and possibly most important of all, a combination of Presbyterian individualism and lack of a distinctive single culture, has meant Scots have more than any national minority have been subject to the cultural/national gringe.
Alex Salmond, because his time at uni coincided with the high point of Gramsci’s fame, may well know of Gramsci’s writings and he could be seen to be acting in a way that is influenced by Gramsci. Everything he has done including the referendum has been focussed on countering the Scottish Gringe, he does this very consciously and I think it has an effect which is probably more powerful politically than we tend to admit, but a lot more would be needed to win the referendum.
From this perspective then it’s not so much the arguments that count as using arguments to build consensus and a sense of collective/national determinhation. There is a difference, the first is amenable to normal top down politics where arguments count most, while the second is more affected by having lots of committed individuals in every section of the community openly proud of being in favour of independence and actively engaged with their friends and family in convincing others. This is why I’ve always thought that what is needed is lots of small scale campaigns such as trade unionists for independence, taxi drivers for independence, gays for independence, Hearts Supporters for independence, etc. These could be based around facebook style networking, but, however organised, it is this level of penetration that is needed before something as revolutionary as independence is ever going to happen.
#24 by An Duine Gruamach on October 17, 2012 - 5:18 pm
That’s exactly what’s so interesting about Yes Scotland – it has exactly that structure, as well as the local groups.
#25 by Allan on October 16, 2012 - 7:10 pm
“Jeff – where your arguement falls down is that Scotland just does not do big public demonstrations for change, we just quietly go out their and vote for it in the ballot booth”
Might be wrong here, but wasn’t there a big demonstration in George Square in the aftermath of the 1992 Westminster Election and the election of yet another right wing English Nationalist government…
#26 by Alasdair Frew-Bell on October 15, 2012 - 6:23 pm
The bogeyman is Britishness. Could the Scots be more Brit, i.e politically insular, than some Nationalists are prepared to admit. The Brit pomp flummery of the “celebration” of WW1 plus that Commonwealth sport thingy and all that kith and kin guff reinforcing the native caution and lack of adventure that our citizens irritatingly too often manifest, could be the nightmare scenario for 2014. The extrovert, hot politics of Catalunya is more to my taste. Its in your face, young and feisty….the Catalans have an enviable radical, edgy culture. We might learn a lot. Calvinist, conformist respectability truly sucks!
#27 by Iain Menzies on October 16, 2012 - 12:08 am
Yeah cos us scots never did anything while being calvinist and respectable….
#28 by An Duine Gruamach on October 17, 2012 - 5:37 pm
Calvinism in this country is a non-conformist tradition, no?
#29 by Alasdair Stirling on October 16, 2012 - 3:29 am
Jeff,
Whilst I share your views on the poverty of the debate so far, I am all too well aware that Scottish history is replete with passionate voices, bold spirits and committed causes. However, our history is equally replete with examples where English/British pragmatism have won the day.
Salmond has negotiated a level playing for a game that Independence has a fair chance of winning. Moreover, given the nature of the terms of the agreement, there will be no backtracking or crying foul.
Remember, Robert Bruce won at Bannockburn because he had trained his troops, chose his ground and perfected his tactics – not because he made the better or more convincing argument. It’s realpolitik, and low stuff even at that, but this time it’s the Scots that are being pragmatic and without that pragmatism there will be no winning.
#30 by Jeff on October 16, 2012 - 9:46 am
Well put Alasdair. I could challenge the “fair chance of winning” but I also wish to hope this is true so I shan’t.
That said, I’m not naturally pessimistic but I can’t help but suspect independence will be more like Robert the Bruce and the spider. Try, fail; try, fail; try, fail; until one day there is a breakthrough. I’m not sensing the stars aligning for that to be happening in 2014, though I did like Salmond’s statement on Scotland Tonight last night that winning the argument will result in Yes Scotland winning the referendum. If we’ve not scratched the surface of the debate yet, and making the big assumption that we will one day, I can see that polls right now are essentially meaningless.
#31 by Alasdair Frew-Bell on October 16, 2012 - 10:28 am
There is a poll of some kind that shows 70% of the electorate are not engaged. If that is the case ample occasions for opening out the independentist case. Style could matter just as much as substance. Endless argument over detail is an attention killer. Is an independent Scotland/Alba perceived as sexy, cool, positive, assertive, modern, dynamic…or just the same boring old stuff with a UN seat? The unionists and their suffocatingly unimaginative, establishment “nothing broke no need to fix” message do not offer anything like. We have just two years to recast the message. A sharp redesign is called for.
#32 by Jeff on October 16, 2012 - 10:45 am
Spot on. I personally have no earthly idea what will win this referendum. It could be anything from X-factor politics to persuasive academic arguments.
I do believe it shouldn’t be too hard to brand an independent Scotland/Alba as “sexy, cool, positive, assertive, modern, dynamic”.
‘Scotland – putting the ‘Sc’ in Scandinavia’. Or, you know, something a bit catchier than that!
#33 by Chris on October 16, 2012 - 12:57 pm
I don’t understand the assumption that more debate will increase support for independence. Generally what does happen, as can be seen by polling evidence before and after Scottish and UK elections, is that support for independence falls when the issue is debated more.
#34 by Braco on October 16, 2012 - 1:57 pm
If true, and I am not sure I believe it, I think this is as a result of the debate/discussions during those election campaigns, such as they are, never coming to a decision moment. Who in the general public wants to endlessly talk about the theory when everyone knows fine well independence is never going to be delivered through either of those elections. Hence the referendum mechanism. The minds will be well and truly focused on a decision and therefore theory transforms into practical analytical thought. This is why the unionists have unanimously wanted the vote never or now. If what you say is true they would be desperate to delay the vote in order to extend the debate and so watch support for independence inevitably fall away to nothing.
#35 by Alex Buchan on October 16, 2012 - 2:53 pm
One thing that’s been overlooked in this piece by Jeff is the significance of the UK Government going along with Salmond’s demand that the Scottish First Minister be treated as an equal to the Prime Minister. This has been commented on by Peat Warrior. This omission generally is partly because of the hostile press and the general cynicism they engender in seeing it as Salmond’s vanity. But, in this, Salmond is deadly serious, and not only in staying true to his principles in securing Scotland’s position as a nation like any other, but also in wishing to highlight an Achilles’ heal of the no camp.
The three main unionist parties have all cause to hate the SNP and Salmond in particular. The SNP not only wants to tear up the rule book and destroy these parties as UK entities it has also managed now, after the 2011election, to act as a deadly predator to each of them electorally. Their Achilles’ heal is that they misread opinion polls to suit their own prejudice. They take the low support for independence as evidence that the electorate share their view of the SNP as an illegitimate player in the field.
This attitude comes out every time they engage with the SNP, which is why First Minister’s Questions often feels so bitter; a quality of bitterness lacking even in PMQ’s. David Cameron’s conduct yesterday was a foil to his true feelings. He is equally vehement in his dislike of the SNP, but he knows that as an Englishman with only one MP in Scotland he can’t allow the SNP to be seen as the victim of his disdain.
If Alex Salmond can keep his sure footedness on this point he will make an impact on the campaign, because the unionist politicians are misguided if they think they represent Scottish opinion in seeing the SNP as illegitimate. There is a constituency out there who agree with them but the most noticeable trend in recent Scottish electoral behaviour is the extent to which this rabidly anti-SNP constituency has shrunk. In other words they will be appealing to an increasingly small base if they do this.
There are signs that they are aware of this. Thus we now get people saying Scotland could perfectly easily stand on its own two feet, but why would it want to. This represents a kind of split inside wider unionist political circles with some, especially in Labour wanting to paint the SNP as evil and illegitimate, while others take a different tack. But this is something the SNP can exploit by going on the attack against those elements who still want to cast them as illegitimate and forcing such people to explain themselves. In conducting the signing ceremony in the way he did Salmond is showing the he is alive to the issue, which as Peat Warrior points out is very close to the issue of cringe. If you have the cringe you would see the SNP and Scottish Nationhood as faintly embarrassing. It is this the Salmond needs to keep confronting head on.
#36 by Chris on October 16, 2012 - 3:01 pm
Well the evidence is there. There is of course no evidence for your wish that even more debate would turn things around again. Look at how support for independence has fallen since January as embarrassingly basic questions like what currency we could use or the status of EU membership remain unanswered.
Well the Unionists have no say over the timing of the referendum, yes delaying could involve something turning up so most unionists want it over and done with. The SNP have been putting it back as far as possible in the hope that this something will turn up. In the last parliament they only gave up after the Tories failed to win a majority at Westminster – which would have been their best hope of something turning up. In this parliament they are putting it off as far as possible – possible in the hope of the coalition crumbling before then?
Compare with Labour’s record – the devolution referendum within 6 months of being elected and the Scottish Parliament established in less time than the SNP require even to hold a referendum. Alex Salmond’s crass jibe that Labour couldn’t be trusted to deliver a pizza, never mind a Scottish Parliament, looks laughable as he dithers on for three and a half years.
#37 by Braco on October 16, 2012 - 6:05 pm
Well as per my last post, ‘irrelevant theory’ on the constitution among the politicos will not turn into a practical and useful analytical thought among the general non politically obsessed electorate until general acceptance that a decision is imminent. This is what the nationalists are waiting ‘to turn up’ (a well considered and informed debate with a fixed decision date). It will be at this point that I believe the opinion polls may become relevant. On your other points. Westminster and it’s political makeup had no impact on the SNPs lack of holding a referendum. Holyrood mathematics, as I am sure you are aware, made the passing of a referendum bill impossible. As soon as a majority had been gained, hey presto, the SNP have produced a referendum.
On Labour’s record of producing the Scots parliament after referendum. Where are you counting from, because I seem to remember them reneging on its formation back in 1978, so that would add another 19 years to your ‘under 6 months of being elected’ figure. Don’t take my opinion on this but rather John Smith’s when he called the formation of a Scots parliament ‘unfinished business’. I am surprised that you as a Labour supporter, who I assume agrees that the independence referendum will be the most important decision facing Scotland in living memory, begrudges the electorate two years to mull over the various implications before coming to a decision. After all your own party has set up a far simpler committee to look into the much more limited proposal of modifying the existing devolution settlement and it isn’t due to report it’s findings until after 2014. That is longer than 2 years. But Chris, something tells me that we are just not going to see eye to eye on this one so luckily it will be out of both our hands after the Scots electorate have spoken. I hope that makes you feel as confident as it makes me. The bets are on the table. (smilywinkyface).
#38 by Chris on October 16, 2012 - 5:26 pm
Type your comment here
I think these divisions in Unionism have always been there. In fact there is also a clear division between the few actual Unionists and the many who, like me, merely find the case for Independence unconvincing.
I almost switch off when people talk about the cringe. It is a simple get-out for nationalists who can’t understand why most people find their case unconvincing: “it must be low level self-hatred”, “it can’t possibly be that my argument is weak” If you find yourself resorting to that argument, I would suggest that you go back and think of the real reason rather than some self-justifying cliche.
If anyone in the Unionist camp thinks the SNP will be smashed by a referendum defeat they also need their head examined. There’s almost more point in voting SNP in a devolved administration than in an independent one! It’s like voting for the left-wing shop steward who you know will fight the hardest. It is like in Northern Ireland where the peace process gives both communities the incentive to vote for the most hard line representatives to argue without compromising.
I think that we will vote No in 2014 and pretty convincingly – unless the turnout tumbles as everyone realises it is a foregone conclusion. I also think that Labour will not be ready to win an election in 2016. I would hope that the SNP lose their overall majority as some of the seats Labour lost due to the Gray factor would come back having a competent leader. But it is a 10 year job for Labour if they take the rebuilding seriously and if they can put some real talent into the Scottish Parliament. So any Labour, Tory or Liberal activist expecting the SNP to disappear is deluding themselves.
So what happens to the SNP post-referendum? They accept that their view is in the minority, they will continue to run the country competently, they will have to face up to some real choices on expenditure and tax. Having got the referendum out of the way they can admit to that! And they can perform the role of separatists parties everywhere else in speaking up for the people who share their views and they can be a safe vote for anyone who wants to stand up to Westminster.
#39 by Alex Buchan on October 17, 2012 - 12:23 pm
An unexpected example of cringe was seen on TV screens a couple of weeks ago when Artur Mas the Catalan President faced the press after his decision to push for a referendum on independence and felt the need to say we haven’t lost our sanity we just want to be a state like any other. When Bart De Wever, the leader of the Flemish independence party, was interviewed two days ago about the similarities with his breakthrough and what is happening in Scotland and Catalonia he honed in on this exact point. There are no similarities, he said, because we’re not a minority, in other words we’ve nothing to prove.
To claim Scotland rationally decided these last 40 years to give up on the chance of using oil and gas reserves to fundamentally address Scotland’s many chronic issues is facile. Many issues come into play in voter behaviour; their self-identification and sense of what they can realistically achieve as a society is widely acknowledged as one, and not just in Scotland. It is often commented on that a win for the English Football Team will have knock on effects in elections. The Olympics are being touted as the thing that’s going to swing it for the no campaign. All of these are all to do with self-image and feelings of pride or otherwise in one’s country. Regaining self-belief is one of the most enduring features in national histories, from the example of Joan of Arc onwards.
#40 by Juteman on October 16, 2012 - 7:09 pm
I don’t know why folk are worrying.
We’re not a demonstrative people.
At that moment in time when faced by Yes or No in the ballot box, the Scottish spirit will always say Yes!
#41 by Braco on October 16, 2012 - 8:16 pm
Sorry to accuse you of being a Labour supporter there Chris, my apologies.
#42 by Jeff on October 17, 2012 - 8:29 am
Surely ‘mistake you for’ is preferable to ‘accuse you of’?
#43 by First Scottish on October 17, 2012 - 10:08 am
Do I throw away this ‘British bugle’ or keep as a future antique?
Saw this photo by someone at Flickr and says a lot –
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyberparas/7757705704/in/photostream/
#44 by Chris on October 17, 2012 - 3:07 pm
Type your comment here
I am a Labour supporter, a party member too, but not an uncritical one.