Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Constitution

The North is rising

May 6

Posted by Dom in Constitution, Culture, Democracy, Economy, Environment, Europe | Comments off

I’ve been somewhat sceptical as to some of the overtures being made toward the Nordic countries by the SNP, though their engaging with the prospect of a Nordic Scotland keeps them a step ahead of the Labour party who ideologically might be the expected natural proponents of such a project. The leadership of the SNP itself remains coy about the big scary tax word which overshadows  the Nordic debate – a colleague of mine remarked that every single debate and panel discussion they have been involved in on Nordic economy has inevitably ended with the depressing assertion that you’d never get people to agree to even minor tax increases.

It is then particularly welcome that a group of academics, not Holyrood researchers, have come up with a blueprint for taking Scotland to a new developmental level which it could never possibly achieve under existing Labour, Conservative or SNP policy. The basics are reported here in the Herald, and some of the central pillars of Nordic economy and welfarism have been covered here on Better Nation.

It presents a rather interesting challenge to the constitutional referendum, in that it is a vision for Scotland which has not been directly produced by the Scottish National Party. The usual tendency is for any government or party-produced document to be dismissed as selective propaganda, and often with good reason. You’ll struggle to find a government policy primer in either Westminster or Edinburgh that would hold up to some critical peer review.

What the SNP need to get used to is the idea that Yes Scotland is not a vehicle for SNP policy but for the harnessing of a national appetite for change and innovation. It has improved considerably from when it was first conceived and is starting to find its own voice, which can only be a good thing and which will help to dismantle the myth that an autonomous parliament in Edinburgh is the sole intellectual property of the skirts and suits in the Holyrood tower. The job of the SNP is, after all, to govern the country well with the powers they have. It is up to people to decide what the country could and should look like in the future. A non-governmental vision for an independent state is exactly the kind of thing needed to articulate the opportunity afforded by a small state with a robust and transparent democratic process.

Diverse In Action

Apr 30

Posted by Natalie in Constitution, Governance, Ideology, Parties | 15 Comments

1

The independence movement is just that; a movement. It is not a retailer of one narrative, or one coalescent ideology. It is a broad church peopled by persons of many political creeds, and none.

Disagreements about post-independence policy are inevitable, and welcome. This is one of the Yes campaign’s strengths. Any attempt to convince the public that we all agree wholesale on every aspect of post-independence direction would be completely disingenuous, and the public wouldn’t buy it.

The SNP have been very successful in recent years because they appeal to the centrists in the voting population. The electorate from large swathes of the centre centre left and centre right can all look to the SNP and identify policies which appeal. The SNP have been able to bridge ideological positions because the SNP itself is fairly reflective of public voting demography; made up as it is of people who can compromise on policy in pursuit of independence. That the SNP have cross-section appeal is no coincidence, but neither is it simply a construct to garner public support. It simply is because the SNP has to reflect the views of its membership, and we are a fairly diverse bunch.

It is no secret that I disagree with the SNP on NATO membership. The majority of Scots in any competent polling have expressed anti-Trident, and anti-Trident replacement preference, and I obviously welcome the SNPs commitment to the removal of nuclear weapons post-independence if it is in the SNPs gift to do so, but I will be campaigning for removal from NATO after that yes vote.

Similarly, I am a republican and I disagree with the current SNP narrative on a continuing monarchy. I say narrative because I am not aware of a vote in which the party have had an opportunity to express any preference for this new position.

I also have a preference for an independent Scottish currency, and agree with Professor John Kay that this is the best possible position for a post-independence Scottish Government to consider. However, I also agree that continued use of Sterling in the interim, as a short to mid-term stability measure is a rational and sound proposal. We will be using sterling on the day we become independent and any transition to a new currency would inevitably take time, but I also agree with The Sun’s Andrew Nicholl that locking a post-independence Scotland in to perpetuity of economic reliance on rates set by rUK isn’t much like my idea of independence either. That said, Sterling is ours too, and any attempt by Osborne to try persuading Scots that we will be excluded from using it is as ridiculous as it is offensive.

I am comfortable that I can be in the SNP and not agree with all of its policies. It isn’t a shock, horror moment that I don’t, instead it is a valuable lesson about the art of compromise because for every policy I disagree with, there are ten that I do agree with, and I can live with that. Post independence it is up to me, and people like me and the public to make our case to the Scottish people about what shape our independence takes.

Independence does not belong to the SNP, nor does it belong to Alex Salmond. Independence is about opportunity and democracy. It isn’t about policy. The SNP are quite right to set out their position on post-independence policy, and as the leading party in the independence movement, it is inevitable that the public expect them to. However, it is important that the public know that independence and the SNP are not interchangeable and the press are partly responsible for this. It suits their narrow reporting of the independence movement to conflate SNP policy with post-independence reality.

That said, the SNP are also not responsible to the independence movement. If Patrick Harvie wants to present an argument for a Scottish currency, then his vehicle to do that is his political party. If those on the radical left want bolder vision for post-independence policy, let them sell it to the public. If they call on the SNP to do these things, they are just as guilty as the media of conflating independence with the SNP. Diversity is strength, if those on the Yes side are bold enough to sell it.

The risk for those on the Yes side is that, while welcome, all the groups which have been set up to campaign for independence risk being consumed by navel gazing and endless posturing on post-independence policy. All the policy in the world doesn’t matter a damn if there is no yes vote.

The SNP are a campaigning party. James Mitchell’s study in to levels of activism in political parties evidences that the SNP has the most motivated membership and the membership of the SNP are used to campaigning, and campaigning hard. The SNP membership knows that to win elections it is all very well to have a national strategy, but when it comes right down to it, it is the areas where the highest levels of activism take place that garner the best results.

This campaign will be won on the doorsteps. It won’t be won on social media – or even in the national media. It won’t be won spending innumerable hours creating socialist utopian ideas in rooms with like-minded people. It won’t be won at rallies preaching to the converted. We don’t have to preach to the converted, we have to convince other voters that independence offers opportunity.

It is a frustration that people in political parties have known since the dawn of time: those that talk the loudest, or tweet the loudest, or speechify the loudest don’t necessarily work the hardest. It is all very well to talk about what you want from independence, and that is a valuable enterprise, but it must be accompanied by action, not just narrative.

A few weeks ago when David Cameron came to Scotland, around 50 people gathered to protest against him, the Conservatives and Trident in Govan. How many of these people then translated that protest in to proper affirmative action by actively campaigning for independence in Govan that week? Almost none, I can confirm. Protesting has its own value, but it certainly isn’t productive in convincing the public of the benefits of independence.

So, “splits in the Yes campaign” isn’t something to be feared. It is a necessary part of democracy that different views are represented. However, what we need to fear is inaction.

Those campaigners in the SNP will be campaigning on the doorsteps and in the streets for independence. If other groups and organisations in the Yes campaign don’t want the SNP to set the agenda, they have to ensure that they are out there campaigning right alongside them. The parties and bodies which make up Yes Scotland may have different opinions, priorities and opinions, but are united in seeking a yes vote.  The yes campaign’s breadth is its strength, but the public will only believe that if they see it.

We can live without the “keyboard warriors”, but we can’t carry the campaign without the support of active campaigners.

We have just over 500 days until the referndum, it is time to step away from the computers, end the obsession with minutiae and get our bahookies in gear. This referendum ain’t going to win itself.

With helpful advice like this…

Apr 28

Posted by James in Constitution, Media | 30 Comments

Paper tigerToday’s Scotland on Sunday leads with “splits” in the Yes camp, revealing (shock!) that the SNP have different positions on the monarchy, the currency, NATO and so on to those held by Green and independent MSPs. Their editorial urges the SNP to ignore these fringe radicals, and what’s more, warns the radicals directly that they should shut up to avoid undermining the independence cause amongst “average” voters. Imagine making that kind argument about any other part of the political spectrum, that they should stop representing the agenda they got elected on because someone else decides it’s against their interests.

They start with a misunderstanding, perhaps genuine, perhaps deliberate. Patrick Harvie, Jean Urquhart and Margo Macdonald aren’t trying to change SNP policy: it’s been decades since a drop of non-constitutional radicalism flowed in Salmond’s veins. They’re trying to emphasise that independence would put the power in the hands of Scots, not the SNP.

The same edition of SoS features some deft polling carried out for the No camp. Punters were asked what will most influence their vote: the economy, tax & spend, pensions & welfare, health, currency, oil revenues, EU membership, defence, or education. It’s basically a few unavoidable “core” issues larded with areas where the No campaign feel they’ve hit Salmond hardest of late, but with the crucial issue not offered: whether Westminster or Holyrood makes the decisions that matter to Scots. That’s what independence means, it’s the most attractive aspect of what a yes vote would deliver, so perhaps no wonder the No campaign didn’t offer it as an option.

Next, people were asked how convincing they find Salmond’s case for independence, and only 30% say “very” or “fairly”. It’s clever, because it sets two hurdles – not “do you back Salmond?” nor “are you convinced by the case for independence?”, but both. If I’d been asked that, I’d say “not very”, but I’m also definitely voting yes. Cunningly misleading polling, in short.

The paper also notes that a quarter of SNP voters aren’t convinced by “Salmond’s case for independence”, and implies this is evidence against the radicals. But the dogs in the street know the SNP picked up support from committed No voters in 2011. These folk are primarily anti-Labour voters, they like the SNP’s top team as Ministers, they appreciate the party’s centre-right approach to tax and spend, and they’d undoubtedly support the Tories down south. Even if SNP invited every last one of them for a one-to-one with the First Minister between now and the referendum date, the benefit for the Yes campaign would be negligible.

The SNP’s 2011 triumph was based on 44-45% of the vote, and that quarter Unionist/SNP estimate is consistent with the current polling on the referendum itself, as well as with that 30% figure above. The SNP’s specific case persuades about a third of the public, which is a great start. Specifically, it’s two thirds of what’s required for a majority, and these are not swing voters. They’re core SNP supporters – actual nationalists, unlike me – and they’re in the bag. Just a further sixth of the Scottish people will need to be persuaded if the referendum is to pass, or (to risk mathematical confusion) just one in four current No voters need to be won over.

Whichever way you slice it, that feels like an entirely deliverable aim. But those extra voters needed for victory are definitely not amongst the group which voted SNP in 2011. There’s probably 6-7% or so amongst Green voters, the SSP’s remaining voters, and the disappointed ex-SSP voters who’ve not voted at all since 2003. There’s perhaps 1-2% to be found amongst the remaining Lib Dem voters. The occasional pro-indy Tory types are vocal but can probably be counted in the low hundreds at best. The rest, the bulk of the 17% or so required, will have to come either from Labour supporters or from those who don’t tend to vote at all. And it’ll be the Labour voters most disillusioned with Westminster, too, not the Blairites and the soft centre. The traditional working-class Labour voters for whom New Labour achieved nothing much after the minimum wage.

Broadly, therefore, the winning coalition for the Yes campaign can only be the third of Scots who are committed nationalists plus the left-most sixth of the Scots public. I see no other way to win this. And that means letting a thousand flowers bloom about the post-independence possibilities. It means letting Scots hear that Patrick Harvie has an ambitious and radical plan for what an independent Scotland looks like, just as Alex Salmond has a far more cautious plan. It absolutely means making the most of Dennis Canavan and Mary Lockhart. Above all it means explaining that all these decisions – currency, NATO, the monarchy, tax rates, nuclear weapons etc – will be decided by Scots at the first election after a yes vote, and everything will be democratically on the table. Every time the SNP try to promote their own party policy as Yes Scotland policy, or more generally as a fait accompli if we win independence, they turn off that sixth of Scots who are essential to victory.

This is directly counter to the SoS’s unhelpful advice. This, it should be borne in mind, comes from the paper which egged the SNP on to change its policy on NATO, something which won the party nothing but led to the departure from the SNP of two of those independent MSPs. And the same paper, in the same editorial today, explains that it’s formally against independence, preferring some unspecified version of devo-whatever.

So they’re explicitly trying to achieve a different objective, they’ve misunderstood the current situation, and their solution would be both undemocratic and counterproductive. The SNP would be ill-advised to take any more advice on referendum tactics from the paper tigers of Holyrood Road.

The Kind of Country I Want To Live In

Apr 22

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution | 29 Comments

A longer guest post today, from Martin Burns, who blogs here. We don’t normally publish old stuff from elsewhere, but this deserves a bigger audience. 

The Pragmatic Argument for Independence

Let me describe to you the kind of country I’d like to live in.

One that can happily announce that legislation coming in at the New Year will introduce free vaccines, higher parental leave benefits (already 16 months split between both parents at 80% of salary), tax exemption for private tutors, and more job security for temporary workers.

While maintaining a national AAA credit rating.

This is a fictitious utopia right? The economic orthodoxy is that you just can’t do these things together. You have to face stark choices in the current global economic climate. (Gently leaving to one side that nuclear weapons never seem to be part of that choice).

OK, let’s make it even more Utopian. Imagine a constitution that opens like this:

Chapter 1 Basic Principles

Article 1

  1. All public power in proceeds from the people.
  2. Our national democracy is founded on freedom of opinion and on universal and equal suffrage. It shall be realized through a representative and parliamentary polity and through local self-government.

Article 2

  1. Public power shall be exercised with respect for the equal worth of all and for the freedom and dignity of the individual.
  2. The personal, economic and cultural welfare of the individual shall be fundamental aims of public activity. In particular, it shall be incumbent upon the public administration to secure the right to work, housing and education, and to promote social care and social security and a good living environment.
  3. The public administration shall promote the ideals of democracy as guidelines in all sectors of society. The public administration shall guarantee equal rights to men and women and protect the private and family lives of the individual.
  4. Opportunities should be promoted for ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities to preserve and develop a cultural and social life of their own.

Chapter 2 Fundamental Rights and Freedoms

Article 1

  1. All citizens shall be guaranteed the following in their relations with the public administration:
    1. freedom of expression: the freedom to communicate information and to express ideas, opinions and emotions, whether orally, in writing, in pictorial representations, or in any other way;
    2. freedom of information: the freedom to obtain and receive information and otherwise acquaint oneself with the utterances of others;
    3. freedom of assembly: the freedom to organize or attend any meeting for information purposes or for the expression of opinions or for any other similar purpose or for the purpose of presenting artistic work;
    4. freedom to demonstrate: the freedom to organize or take part in any demonstration in a public place;
    5. freedom of association: the freedom to unite with others for public or private purposes; and
    6. freedom of worship: the freedom to practice one’s own religion either alone or in company with others.
  2. In the case of the freedom of the press the provisions of the Freedom of the Press Act shall apply. That act also contains provisions concerning the right of access to public documents.

Article 2

All citizens shall be protected in their relations with the public administration against all coercion to divulge an opinion in any political, religious, cultural or other similar connection. They shall furthermore be protected in their relations with the public administration against all coercion to participate in any meeting for the formation of opinion or in any demonstration or other expression of opinion or to belong to any political association, religious congregation or other association for opinions of the nature referred to in the first sentence.

Article 3

  1. No record about a citizen in a public register may be based without his consent solely on his political opinions.
  2. Citizens shall be protected to the extent determined in detail by law against any infringement of their personal integrity resulting from the registration of information about them by means of electronic data processing.

Article 4

There shall be no capital punishment.

Article 5

All citizens shall be protected against corporal punishment. All citizens shall likewise be protected against torture or any medical influence or intervention for the purpose of extorting or suppressing statements.

Article 6

All citizens shall be protected in their relations with the public administration against any physical violation also in cases other than those referred to in Articles 4 and 5. Citizens shall likewise be protected against physical search, house searches or other similar encroachments and against examination of mail or other confidential correspondence and against eavesdropping, telephone-tapping or recording of other confidential communications.

Article 7

  1. No citizen may be deported or refused entry to the country
  2. No citizen who is resident or who has been resident may be deprived of his citizenship unless he becomes at the same time a national of another state, at his express consent or because he has taken employment in the public service.

Article 8

All citizens shall be protected against deprivation of liberty in their relations with the public administration. They shall also in other respects be guaranteed freedom of movement within the Realm and freedom to depart the country.

So yes, absolute Utopia, right? Couldn’t possibly exist. A pipe dream.

Except that all the above is currently true of Sweden. That’s the actual opening of the Swedish constitution (with ‘the nation’ substituting for when Sweden is mentioned by name). And a news write up of actual upcoming Swedish legislation. And the actual Swedish credit rating.

A small, northern European nation, not particularly blessed with natural resources (compared to Scotland’s abundance of mineral wealth and 25% of Europe’s renewable energy potential).

They did this simply because the people of Sweden insisted; through political will. Their values – like Scotland’s – tend towards valuing society over money. It’s the kind of country where (as one of my UK-expats-in-Sweden friends expressed) you may never be stinking rich, but you’ll never be allowed to entirely drop through the net.

The Better Together people (at least, the better sort) are concerned with achieving these kinds of benefits for all of the UK. Which is a wonderful objective that I entirely support.

I believe a Bartlet quote is in order here:

That’s the ten-word answer my staff’s been looking for for two weeks. There it is. Ten-word answers can kill you in political campaigns. They’re the tip of the sword.

Here’s my question: What are the next ten words of your answer? Your taxes are too high? So are mine. Give me the next ten words. How are we going to do it? Give me ten after that, I’ll drop out of the race right now.

(source, the ever wonderful West Wing Transcripts)

So, Better Together types: tell me what the realistic path is to achieving this kind of society, with these priorities, and I’ll commit to voting ‘No’ right now. Hell, make it convincing and I’ll join your campaign.

But I doubt very much whether you can, because the UK’s political momentum is entirely in the opposite direction; to deprioritise equality. The political weight of the UK is behind moving away from what I want. Under any population-based system, Scotland will never be able to act as a counterbalance to UK-wide movement.

However, as a small independent nation that can set and follow through on priorities and policies that match our own needs and wishes, we can achieve this in one part of the UK at least.

What, you’d rather achieve it nowhere?

If you can’t take the heat don’t post defamatory articles

Apr 18

Posted by Aidan in Constitution, Holyrood | 57 Comments

NationalCollective is back online today, with an amended article repeating allegations about Ian Taylor which were already in the public domain.

While taking a highly principled position about their own right to free speech, they then simultaneously seek to restrict the political speech of others which is surely not right. There is a wider point about campaign finance, but since both Yes and Better Together are political campaigns operating under the current regulations and given nobody is alleging that either the donation was made illegally or the money came from illegal activity, that’s not really here nor there.

It’s also not the point National Collective are making. They’re claiming some sort of moral taint in the money due to some extremely shady dealings which are sadly common place in the oil industry. And oil industry which is the economic underpinning for the Yes camp’s economic vision for Scotland. So that is at least somewhat problematic.

Between posting defamatory articles and breaching copyright law National Collective seem to be developing a pattern of sailing close to the legal wind regarding Better Together and then crying foul when it occurs.

It’s all a bit childish.