Apologies for the question-to-which-the-answer-is-no title.
It’s been a tumultuous week in Scottish politics, just for a change. Starting with the NATO debate at the SNP conference, via a couple of resignations, we got to a fairly badly handled climb down on the ugly and futile secrecy which exacerbated a bad problem largely of the SNPs own making but which is likely to be problematic for Yes as a whole.
Those issues have been covered in depth elsewhere, what I want to look at is what it tells us about how things are working just now.
The NATO decision at SNP conference was interesting for a few reasons. As Jonathan Mackie pointed out internally this marked the SNP becoming a party where the leadership and the professional part of the party asserted it’s ability to carry motions over rank & file membership. Listening to the debate, the main thrust of the argument in favour of the policy change was one of political expediency regarding the referendum, with the fabled 75% Sandra White railed against featuring quite heavily. Given that, it seems unlikely that that was proposed without at least considering the likelihood of some MSPs deeming it a bridge too far and resigning the party whip as Jean Urquhart and John Finnie did.
The calculation, presumably, was that the inevitable narrowing of the SNP broad independence-above-all-else church in the lead up to the referendum was going to come at a price but that could be mitigated by doing it early and, in any case, MSPs would continue to vote with the party on key issues. If talk of a technical group comprising them, the Greens and Margo McDonald comes to pass then it may change FMQs but it seems unlikely there’d be an extra question, just a re-allocation of the current number away from the Yoonyonisht Conspiracy parties to committed Yes supporters.
Some people might even call that a win.
The legal advice regarding a newly independent Scotland’s status and obligations within the European Union , however, seems like an increasingly ill judged catastrophe.
We’ve discussed this a few times on BetterNation, possibly most pertinantly here with a countervailing view here but perhaps worth checking out the whole tag here. However, given the revelations in the independent today, it seems the view expressed by Neil Walker here and discussed by Lalland’s here is the correct one. Nobody knows.
That’s not surprising. The European Union is a highly political beast with little case law to set precedent. In what would essentially be a novel situation to deal with it’s not surprising the legal position is unclear. As Ian Smart argues Scotland’s status post-independence would need to be negotiated. The Scottish Government will now seek legal advice on this issue but will never reveal does not, surprisingly, fill one with confidence that we will have a clear basis on which to make a decision come 2014. of what
What is surprising is that was ever allowed to get this far. Catherine Stihler’s FoI was fought tooth and nail, impressions were created regarding the supposed certainty of Scotland’s status within the EU regardless of independence and the appearances of Nicola Sturgeon and Jamie Hepburn (who was presumably being punished for his No to NATO stance) in TV studios midweek to argue semantic differences in written transcripts versus the widely available video was not entirely sure footed.
Nobody would call that a win.
Oddly the defence of the Yes campaign, and not just the SNP here, has been to attack the other parties as having been insufficiently combative or competent enough in holding what has been suddenly redefined as the executive of the Scottish Government to account on the issue. We were treated, apparently more in sadness than anger (a form of argument which should be banned with immediate effect from Scottish politics on account of overuse) to criticisms of Johann Lamont for being insufficiently forensic, Ruth Davidson for out of date comedy references and Willie Rennie for being a Tory collaborator. All or none of which may be true but which deliberately and blatantly ignores the point in hand.
Some people might call that a tactical victory. The electorate, one might argue, will become bored of the argument over uncertainty about the terms of EU membership (nobody is suggesting Scotland will be summarily expelled and refused entry), the terms of the proposed currency union with the Bank of England or the terms of our proposed continued membership of NATO.
In short, we haven’t learned a lot but the shape of the next few years has clearly outlined. The major Yes parties – the SNP and the Greens – will contrast an independent Scotland with a Tory government and present contradictory views of what the Scotland would look like. The major No parties – Labour, the Tories, the Lib Dems – will contrast and independent Scotland with the status quo, emphasising our loss of positive freedom over our gain of negative freedom
It will be very, very boring and apparently nobody will talk about either the pragmatic or theoretical distribution of power until the posturing is done.
I’m going for a Twix.
(I’m not really, Twixes are a product of the capitalist hegemony I’m trying to opt out of while maintaining a middle class standard of living)
#1 by Indy on October 28, 2012 - 10:48 am
The thing you have failed to really look at is the BetterTogether side. The SNP has undoubtably left it a bit late to deal with some of these issues – NATO, EU etc – but they are dealing with them at a fair pace now in order to have a complete case to put in 2013. It will of course only be the SNP case – other Yes parties will put their own case. And the Yes campaign has a clear focus on getting to grips with being a non-party campaign with a non-party spokesperson thereby allowing room for all voices, not just the SNP. I have no doubt there will be further hiccups on the way but the basic structure is in place.
From the BetterTogether side – you have not even started that work. Your spokesperson is a Labour MP! There doesn’t appear to be anybody non-aligned in your campaign. You will find it increasingly difficult to hold together the closer you get to the next Westminster election. You are all announcing your own commissions into devolution. Labour’s got one, the Lib Dems appear to have two, only the Tories have drawn a line in the sand though who would bet on that, like Ruth Davidson’s leadership, lasting? But you are clearly not talking to each other.
And your attacks on Alex Salmond and the SNP have already reached crescendo point. Where can you go from here? Are you going to go on for two years in this way? Personal abuse and all? People will be sick of hearing it long before then.
#2 by Aidan on October 28, 2012 - 11:23 am
How will other parties put alternative cases regarding the EU or other constitutional aspects within the Yes campaign?
#3 by Indy on October 28, 2012 - 4:47 pm
What do you mean? Party political activity will not cease. Whole point of Yes campaign is that it isn’t party political. BetterTogether still need to work on that – i.e. get people in place who aren’t current elected members.
#4 by Indy on October 28, 2012 - 5:58 pm
For example – if you are in Edinburgh the SSP are holding a public meeting this Wednesday The Calton Centre, Montgomery St, Leith – at 8pm.
#5 by Aidan on October 29, 2012 - 5:59 pm
If the Yes argument is “there are these varied, conflicting consitutional options available and if you vote Yes you’ll get the one you want” e.g. a written constitution, the monarchy.. that’s obviously not going to happen.
#6 by James on October 28, 2012 - 10:57 am
Actually, Greens will contrast Westminster with Holyrood, not Tories with the SNP.
#7 by Aidan on October 28, 2012 - 11:24 am
noted
#8 by Indy on October 28, 2012 - 11:29 am
The advantage the Yes side has in this – from a political party point of view – is that none of us actually wants to be in Westminster. Whereas for all the unionist parties that is the top priority and it is bound to eat away at their ability to campaign on a joint basis.
Another thing that has struck me even at this early stage is how many genuinely non-aligned groups are coming into existence. People like National Collective, Radical Independence etc. There is a lot of energy out there coming from people who aren’t part of the existing political landscape and aren’t restrained by party tramlines. There doesn’t seem to be anything like that on the unionist side. It may emerge I guess but no signs so far.
#9 by Freoboy on October 28, 2012 - 12:04 pm
We are all going to have to get used to the fact that the ‘legal’ EU issue isn’t going to be ‘resolved’ this side of the referendum.
The EU may well be a legal and constitutional construction but it functions on a political basis and that means it won’t deal with the issue until such time as it has to ie after the referendum, at which point matters may turn out to be a lot simpler than many thought. Every nation state has a different constitution, written or unwritten and the EU, in the face of a Yes vote, will quickly come up with a rationale that addresses Scotland’s situation as the unique one that it is. After all, the EU managed to absorb an entire country, the old GDR, in the blink of an eye because it suited it and because it was able to argue that this reflected the unique constitutional position of Germany.
On top of that, we are in a genuinely complex situation. We in Scotland are all EU citizens and unless the EU says that will cease if we vote Yes, equally no chance as above, we will still be EU citizens after the referendum. Scotland’s territorial waters will still be EU waters, the CFP will still be in place – unless the No campaign is telling us otherwise, in which case they should think very carefully about what they wish for!
Which doesn’t mean that its all done and dusted in my opinion, merely that the legal position is complex and we are wrong to look for certainty in what is fundamentally a political issue.
The Scottish Government may well now want to move to a slightly more nuanced position, and in my opinion they should do so, but equally the No campaign risk voter ‘fatigue’ if they go on saying the sky is going to fall in on everything if we vote Yes.
#10 by Andrew on October 28, 2012 - 1:39 pm
The reason that the last week has been so imporant is because what was once treated as certainty (Scotland not even having to re-apply for the EU and being able to continue as if nothing changed) is now a possibility.
Of course I have no idea what will happen, but then I’m not a constitutional lawyer, and nor are 99.9999% of the population, which means that 99.9999% will now see it as a big question mark.
Did the First Minister lie? I don’t beleive he did, but he did allow (on purpose or not) for people to beleive that the EU was a non-issue, but now it has become one. The issue is that assertions and certainties are not the same thing, but acting as if they are has given Better Together their best ammunition to date.
Better Together already have a majority, in order to maintain it a large part of their job will be to undermine the credability of the Scottish Government’s case, and this last week has given them an obvious line of attack. The EU is always going to be politically controversial, but the unionist parties can kick it into the long grass if they need to as they will argue that as they arent proposing a change then it’s an issue to be debated after the referendum.
#11 by Braco on October 28, 2012 - 3:04 pm
The status of the UK after the next election is now in question after both Cameron and Milliband seem to be leaning in the direction of possibly promising an in out vote in their next manifestos. Cameron being pressured into this by his back benchers and UKIP. Millliband for both internal political reasons and to outflank Cameron and try and add to his discomfort (all Westminster electoral reasons). So, Better Together are going to be seriously undermined if they claim Scotland’s place in Europe is somehow ‘settled’ with the status quo when we could find ourselves removed from the EU by the next Westminster parliament via a UK referendum who’s votes outnumber us by over 10-1. Like most of the Better Together vision of the status quo It seems to involve roughly outlined, but not fully explained, near future radical change (EU, Barnet formula, NHS ‘reform’, Welfare ‘reform’ etc. etc.). Your long grass just seems to be a year or so after the proposed referendum. Can the three unionist parties hold off reasonable questions surrounding these issues during the ref campaign, bearing in mind they will also be in the early skirmishes of the Westminster campaign themselves? I have my doubts.
#12 by Andrew on October 28, 2012 - 4:32 pm
I can see where you’re coming from but the situations are different. No party is likely to call for a referendum on the EU during this parliament (they’ll probably include it in manifestos).
There’s a big difference between a country voting to withdraw and starting from an unsure position. Within a UK context 100% of people can be sure that we will be members until we vote otherwise, wheras the BT argument is that if Scots vote for indi then Scotland may not have any choice over negotation terms.
Better Together dont need a shared line on the EU, not unless one of the mainstream parties supports withdrawl, which at the moment would see inconceivable.
#13 by Braco on October 28, 2012 - 6:04 pm
You see the situation differently but I see it as incredibly relevant to any narrative of certainty vs uncertainty being spun by Better Together and the media against the Indy campaign, especially in the latter stages of the ref campaign. As time passes do you really think that the UK political parties which make up the No campaign will be able to paint an Indy vote, to a questioning electorate, as a leap in the dark when they themselves will be unable to answer similar questions with regard to their own Westminster positions re. EU membership (and all those other UK unknowns I mentioned before which will profoundly affect Scots and their futures). The Indy ref and Westminster elections are only one yearish apart and too close, I think, for the UK ‘No’ parties to decouple these issues from the wider referendum debates and conclusions. I feel sure that by the end of the campaign these debates will, by then, be truly focused on our choice of future, either as Indy or Westminster led. We know as mature adults that the future is by its nature uncertain and unknown but we use our skills and gathered information to rally our thoughts to navigate as best a course to the future that we desire. This is how the electorate will choose in 2014 and not from the childlike notion that one future is inherently ‘certain’ and another inherently ‘uncertain’.
#14 by Andrew Smith on October 29, 2012 - 9:46 am
The reason this has become an issue is because of the communications strategy on the part of the SG. Agreed that in two years it may be harder for BT to go into the referendum making capital out of it, but what this does is take up time on the news agenda (which will probably roll on for another couple of weeks yet) and ultimately undermine the public’s trust in Salmond.
Of course it could be argued that no-one trusts Westminster, but no-one has ever really trusted Westminster (only 18% according to one poll) yet they still appear to be 20 points ahead in the polls. Oddly enough I think trust is more important to the YES side, for the reason that independence represents change and requires a greater ‘leap in the dark’.
It’s a good point on the closeness of the general election date. What will be a big boost for the yes vote is if the Tories look in a position to get a majority. If it looks like Labour will then I would expect that to dampen the yes campaign.
#15 by Iain Menzies on October 29, 2012 - 8:27 pm
There is another problem with the EU issue.
The way Salmond/the SNP/Yes Scotland have been playing this is that of course scotland will be in, and thats a good thing, indeed its a very important thing that scotland is in, its our biggest market dont you know!
Which is fine….but the mood music in teh UK is changing.I dont buy for a second that the UK will be a member, at least not a full member of the EU by 2020. So if you have scotland going indy, at a point where rUK is moving ot of Europe…well what does that do to the relationship between scotland and the rUK and scotland and the EU. If ruk is not fully in, say is out of, for example, the CFP, but scotland has to stay in….well how are people going to feel if the english get to keep their fish but the spaniards get to keep ours? And what if by 2014 it looks like that will be the case. whats that gonna do to the result in, for example the north east.
Or what if scotland gets to drop out of the CFP, but has to sign up to schengen to do so. That means only one thing. Border controls.
#16 by Braco on October 30, 2012 - 12:45 am
Och that’s all easy Iain, lets have another electorate decide.
#17 by Iain Menzies on October 30, 2012 - 1:45 am
i have no idea how that is in anyway a response to the points i made.
#18 by Indy on October 28, 2012 - 4:50 pm
It’s really not going to happen because the EU is actually a lot closer than we think probably to going down the plughole. If Scotland went others would follow. Indeed, a lot can happen in 2 years. But assuming that things stabilise the EU will not have changed its basic character which is not only expansionist but integrationist. Not only a wider Union but a deeper one.
#19 by FormerChampagneSocialist on October 28, 2012 - 10:32 pm
There is no chance of getting definitive legal advice on this question, because it is entirely unprecedented. That’s the bottom line.
FCS
#20 by Alasdair Frew-Bell on October 29, 2012 - 9:33 am
Aidan
Got a Lidl near by? They do a v good ersatz twix. Much better than Twix original and cheaper. SNP however no decent substitute available. EU fiasco, Nato cave-in, losing deputies, losing members, losing support the price of becoming just another chip off the UK political model? Really quite boring. An independent Scotland as boring as the dependent one? No thanks. Independence is about radical cultural and systemic change. Or am I barking up the wrong tree? Do hope the Nats get back on track. PDQ.
#21 by Braco on October 29, 2012 - 5:41 pm
Alasdair F-B, Nice! In modern politics the SNP were only ever destined to be UK history’s door openers and the unionist’s message seems to be fixated solely on the stable door.
#22 by Braco on October 29, 2012 - 2:30 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
It’s really nice to actually talk to someone about the issues who has a diametrically opposed view to the referendum and the countries ultimate direction. I think this is what most of Scotland is waiting to happen in the media (but I fear in vain). You give me faith that in the end the parties and the media will become just so much froth over the deeper considerations being made by the electorate. ( I sound like such an idealist, I am glad that I have a pseudonym. redsmileyface).
On your general thrust, I think I agree but feel that it is all just party manouvering. Not unimportant but as you, rightly i think, say about the public’s view of the unionist side vis a vis trust, I feel it is equally mirrored in their view of the ‘nationalists’. After all the cry of black affrontary and lies against Salmond were already 5 ministerial code inquieries down before the last ‘landslide’ election leading as it has to this debate we are now having. In short I feel that before we get anywhere we will need to burn off all this petty (by it’s very nature) political headline froth and finally get down to the everyday non political persons view of the future they want to pursue. I think that we will probably both be confident that our hopes and passions will prevail (probably why we can at the moment talk together so amicably) but I think such a circumstance will only arise at the very end of the campaign as decision time looms….. As a result, I am doing my best to tune out of the debate at the moment. That is, totally unsuccessfully!
#23 by Braco on October 29, 2012 - 3:48 pm
Sorry, the above was meant as a response to Andrew.
#24 by Andrew Smith on October 29, 2012 - 5:38 pm
Thanks, but I should say that I do actually support independence, but take a reasonably pessimistic view of the campaigns thus far. Articles that I’ve written about the progress of the campaigns can be found on Betternation and Huff Post.
One thing we definitely agree on is that the questions wont really be discussed as long as the debate is dominated by party politics and time wasting stuff. The media need narratives though, and will latch onto issues and inflate their significance – there are never inconveniences, only massive events.
Some people, quite rightfully, say that the media is the media and that is what they do, but it is the mainstream media where the majority of people get their news from. I think most people who you get on blogs (and I love blogs) tend to be people who have already made their minds up in advance or at least already take a close interested in the issues being discussed. Both campaigns need to be reaching out to the wider electorate who care about services and their incomes and even social justice, but don’t use websites like Betternation or commit to any one political party.
I think the campaigns are yet to come alive, but the yes campaign in particular needs to escape from the politicians. The key point that characterises the campaigns is that Better Together can win without winning over a single new voter (they just have to keep the ones they already have) whereas Yes Scotland can’t possibly win without converting more people in the next two years than nationalist campaigns/ SNP have in the last 30.
Agreed on amicability, it’s always nice to be able to talk about important matters with a level of civility that is all too often absent. I think BN do a very good job at moderating this blog, it’s a total breath of fresh air compared to the Wild West that is Twitter!!!!
#25 by James on October 29, 2012 - 5:55 pm
Aw, thanks Andrew. Twitter has indeed been a bit Wild West today. Finally blocked someone: first time ever. I thought I’d feel bad about it, but it’s a total relief.
#26 by Braco on October 29, 2012 - 6:31 pm
BN is very good as you say, but I have been moderated before for reasons I still do not understand.
#27 by James on October 29, 2012 - 6:46 pm
Bear in mind sometimes perfectly decent comments fall into the massive swirling hole of our spam filter.
#28 by Braco on October 29, 2012 - 7:08 pm
No, this was Jeff… smilyface
#29 by andrewgraemesmith on October 29, 2012 - 8:22 pm
I saw that this morning! You were right to do so, although it hopefully won’t need to become a regular occurance. I think this blog is the best on Scotland and tends to have the best discussions, also, all of you are happy to take strong stances and properly debate them. I take off my proverbial hat to you.
#30 by Braco on October 29, 2012 - 6:29 pm
I think your support of indy and my totally idiotic assumption to the contrary just underlies the febrile and heart felt nature of the debate we have (by necessity) embarked upon. I am much more optimistic about the conclusions the Scots will finally reach about the idea of our future society than many I know trapped in the day to day political battles with the opposition. BN is very good as you say, but I have been moderated before for reasons I still do not understand. P.S. Anyone else who really is a blackhearted unionist and would like a conversation/debate/marquis o queensbury spar I would love to hear from you.
#31 by Braco on October 29, 2012 - 6:33 pm
For Andrew again, sorry. I really am rubbish at this!
#32 by Andrew on October 29, 2012 - 8:18 pm
Not at all mate, nothing I said was meant to be partisan and if anything I tend to be more critical of the YES side on the grounds that we’re the underdogs and have a harder task on our hands. BN is a good website to get the flavour of debate from both sides though. There are not that many out and out unionists who post on here, but the ones who do aren’t daft and the standard of debate is usually pretty high.
#33 by Cath on October 29, 2012 - 4:45 pm
I disagree that this week has been bad for the Yes campaign. For the SNP, perhaps. But then post indy there would need to be a political re-alignment, in which the SNP would likely disappear or certainly lose their purpose. So it may well suit the pro-independence campaign if this starts well before 2014, to take the current poisonous politics out of the debate. Discussing issues like NATO and the EU may not be popular with the public, especially debated in this horrible, party political, procedural way. But both are post-independence issues, so we’ve had the media talking for months now about a post independence Scotland.
The unionists have been extremely poor on this as well, in that they’ve thrown accusations of lying at the FM and Scottish government, but have not themselves provided any back up or legal advice to support their own position which, despite what you say in the article, does look very much to the public like “Scotland will be summarily expelled and refused entry.” Or at least, we’ll be forced to join a queue, take the Euro and potentially be vetoed by Spain and a jilted rUK. I suspect planting this impression in the public’s mind will come back to haunt them at some point next year, when they will be the ones outed as liars, scaremongers and all the rest.
Of course there is uncertainty over the EU, but there is within the UK too. And I really don’t think Better Together’s stance on either this, or NATO and Trident are nearly as strong as they appear to think they are. People are always worried by change, and getting this big change – the things we will have to be making decisions on post independence – out in the open now is good. It gives people time to get used to the idea of being independent, and being able to take these decisions for ourselves.
#34 by Braco on October 29, 2012 - 9:35 pm
Hi Cath, that’s how I see it too. This could really come back as the perfect nationalist ‘told you so’. But, just to add to the rest of course. Oil gone by 86, vote ‘No’ for something better, MccronereportScottishOffice.pdf, devolution will kill nationalism stone dead, or even ‘no we can’t think what to spend this one and a half billion on so you better take it back…thank you’ etc etc etc….
I don’t seem so reasonable now eh Andrew? verysmilyface
#35 by ScorpioFax on October 30, 2012 - 4:36 pm
I’m hoping I can get some clarity here. The way I see this is that Salmond got legal advice from Scottish law officers. He confirmed this fact to Andrew Neil, which was later backed up by offical confirmation according to this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20098498
When Nicola Sturgeon confirmed the Scottish Gov didn’t have legal advice, she was meaning legal advice from the EU itself, which led to the opposition believing AS had lied, when, in actual fact he hasn’t.
Is this an accurate summation? Am I missing something?
#36 by Iain Menzies on October 30, 2012 - 6:48 pm
As i understand it….its not about getting legal advice from the EU (is that even possible) its about getting legal advice from the law officers as to wheter Scotland would automatically be a member state upon indy or not.
The documents that have been released dont, i believe, state catergorically that scotland will be a member post indy.
Rather there is a bunch of legal lingo along the lines of expect to be, and certain issues require negotiation.
The documents that have been released were fact checked if you like by the legal guys and found to be kosher.
however the implication has been allowed to develope that specific legal advice existed that said that scotland is, and will continue to be a member state of the european union on indy+1. That question has not been asked of the law officers according to sturgeon. It now will be.
It is difficult to prove that AS flat out lied. I wouldnt say he did. Rather the charge (in full nuance) is that he, his ministers and his government and party have acted (or not) and said things (or not) in such a way as to make it seem that something (EU membership) was a certainty but that it was just the details that were (ie CFP etc) in question, when infact that was not the case.