Archive for category Constitution

The anatomy of a referendum, and the messy consequences of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Jan 4

Posted by Dom in Constitution, Elections, Environment, Europe, Governance, Ideology, Parties | 7 Comments

3788082483

I am currently writing a doctoral thesis on the dyanamics and strategies of environmental debate in Sweden, a land popularly assumed to be a paragon of environmental virtue. This is a belief apparently held by the Swedes themselves, as illustrated by their somewhat smug showing in Doha where they failed to mention the motorway the size of the Channel Tunnel they are about to build in Stockholm.

A particular area of interest is the referendum on nuclear energy which took place in Sweden in 1980, following the narrow election of a Centre-led government on a wave of anti-nuclear sentiment. As I sit here in the archives of the national library of Sweden shifting through media footage the narrative presented is all too familiar – institutionalised parties unable to accept that the will of the people may be different to their own agenda, dubious claims and character assassinations and an ultimately unsatisfactory outcome. It could quite easily be Scotland in 2013.

The Swedish referendum offered three choices, each embodying a respective ethos of social utopianism (No to nuclear power), realism (Nuclear power isn’t great, but let’s keep the power stations we have so we can carry on as now), and economic necessity (If we get rid of nuclear power the economy will collapse and your children will all live in third-world poverty).

If the third one sounds particularly familiar it is because that is more or less the same ethos adopted by the BetterTogether campaign. Things might not be optimal at the moment, but imagine all the potential bad things which could happen if you chose to change the situation.

The campaign itself was not that surprising, and it was eventually won narrowly by the middle line, in part because of the phenomenal weight of the Social Democratic Party who decided that it was the desired outcome. They successfully combined their campaigning power and a successful synthesis of the Yes and No arguments to win a substantial share of the vote. A similar tactic is being taken by BetterTogether, telling people that they understand the desire for more self-governance in Scotland but that such an outcome is achievable via a No vote without the risks and uncertainty’s of independence. In both cases the campaigners possessed the luxury of not having to specify a post-referendum course of action beforehand.

And therein lies the really interesting thing. The outcome of the Swedish referendum led to the birth and subsequent growth of the Swedish Green Party, now the third biggest party in parliament, and exposed a falacy in politics – namely the idea that there is a straight ideological dichotomy between left and right. It illustrated that the interests of large social-democratic parties which aim to reflect the experiences of normal people do not always do so, and the Swedish Green Party pioneered a kind of leftist liberalism which capitalised on a lack of faith in the institutions of state, red or blue, which had passed down judgement from on high. What was disquieting for the Social Democrats was that a large number of people abandoned the party after feeling short-changed by a lack of internal debate. It illustrated a cynical failure of leadership structures and showed that the kind of campaign tactics traditionally used by the behemoths of left and right are not suitable when the topic of discussion is anything other than their bread and butter.

The SNP, whilst obviously being a political party, is a broad church which encompasses many different types of people from centre-right Celtic-tiger growthers to leftist social democrats, nominal greens and a smattering of cultural nationalists. The party exists, to all intents and purposes, to fight for a yes vote in the referendum. The big problem with the BetterTogether campaign is that none of the parties participating were set up to fight such a referendum. By aligning their political identities completely with a fairly inflexible unionism they are putting square pegs in round holes and are unable to coherently argue for unionism, in part because discussions of Scotland’s constitutional future are taboo-laden. Rather than developing arguments for a union the No campaign relies on attacking the unknowns of the Yes campaign. This is perhaps a surefire way of winning the referendum if people can be made to err on the side of mediocre caution, but in the long term it may well be to the detriment of current political allegiances.

What people conceive of as Scotland is changing rapidly, and this is something which the SNP have capitalised on. Young and fragile it may be, but there is now a distinctly Scottish political discourse which the Labour party and the Conservatives have ignored entirely. Since Scotland ceased to be a collection of local councils with a unique legal system and became a concrete polity, both civic and political life have undergone a process of conceptual transformation. The SNP are by no means the instigators, nor are they the sole beneficiaries of this change, but they have been able to much better understand how people think, rather than telling them how they think. The cleverest move pulled by the SNP has been the name change from Scottish Executive to Scottish Government. This has permeated every aspect of public life and consciousness. In a state where government is customarily used to refer to national parliaments, it was a masterstroke. There are no longer meetings between the British Government and Scottish Executive, but between the Scottish Government and the British Government. Anyone looking to be in charge must govern Scotland rather than just administrate.

This does not mean that the SNP are in any way right in all their policy, but on the issue of the referendum they have a coherent ethos, one which says that they are governing and that increased power is in the country’s best interest. The No campaign’s parties are unable to align their political program with their referendum stance. Between Yes and No is a realm of possibility, asking for somebody to fill it with a genuine vision for the way forward which reflects the needs and desires of Scotland’s citizens. The bottom line is that Scotland will never be the same again, and even if Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom, there must be room for a less dogmatic unionism which is grounded not in the belief of what is but in a desire for what can be.

Porridge to Catalonia

Nov 28

Posted by James in Constitution, Elections, Europe, International, Parties | 9 Comments

The Catalan election at the weekend has attracted a lot of interest here, and comparisons are being drawn left, right and centre. Peter Jones in the Scotsman finds it rather baffling that the centre-right independence party of Artur Mas lost vote share while independence-supporting parties overall boosted their position.

Jones suggests two main reasons for this apparently odd result, the first being the austerity imposed by Mas’s administration before the election, and the second being some kind of cultural argument that he either didn’t flesh out or I simply don’t understand. The idea that one of the reactions to austerity is a shift left makes sense, though.

And it’s true, the three other parties in the Catalan Parliament who now support some form of independence are all more radical than Mas: the Republican Left, narrowly now the largest opposition party with 21 seats; the ICV (the Greens’ sister party there, with a strong ecosocialist side) who went up to 13 seats, plus the Popular Unity Candidates, who won 3 seats.

By coincidence, the Radical Independence Convention met in Glasgow as Catalans voted. I couldn’t make it, unfortunately, but if you read the press, it sounded rather depressing. If you followed it on Twitter, however, it was buzzing with ideas and collaborations and points of contact, all united by two common themes. First, support for independence. Second, a desire for that independent Scotland not be a kind of timid low-tax tartan-austerity Westminster-remade-in-Edinburgh.

Instead, delegates wanted various more radical versions of independence, typically ones where control over the details of the constitution is vested in the people, where there’s room to build support for a Scottish republic with its own currency, a Scotland outside NATO, not beholden to the banks and the speculators, more equal, so on and so forth. It’s a desire which extends into the SNP too, despite the cautious approach the leadership seems determined to take, as illustrated not least by the close vote on NATO.

Again, by coincidence, the Scottish Greens picked their top candidate for the 2014 Euro election this weekend, choosing Edinburgh councillor Maggie Chapman from the party’s left. First elected in 2007, Maggie will be the Greens’ most experienced top candidate ever.

These three events look intertwined to me. The June 2014 Euro-election will come just four months before the independence referendum itself, and it would be a serious mistake to think the media won’t regard the it almost exclusively as a prelim for the October vote. Given that likely media narrative, let’s accept it, and confidently treat that vote as a test of views on the constitution.

If you want a more radical version of independence in October and after, voting Green will be the only plausible way to indicate that (apologies to friends in the SSP). If you want an independence referendum that isn’t just tied to the SNP’s agenda, either because you think that can’t win or because you’d prefer an open constitutional process, electing a Green MEP will be the only credible way to try and achieve it.

What’s more, to get a third SNP MEP elected in place of the Lib Dems takes three times as many votes on average, given the specific electoral system. In real life that varies quite widely. To take 2009 specifically, it would have taken 47,000 more Green votes nationwide to take that final place, but more than 60,000 extra SNP votes would have been needed to see the Nats get a third.

The risk of failure is substantial, too. Two pro-independence MEPs out of six, as now, and both from the same party: it’s quite a plausible outcome, and it would be seen as a massive dent in the Yes Scotland campaign. Electing Scotland’s first Green MEP, especially in a climate where this vote is seen as Scots giving their view on the constitution: that’d be a major prize for Yes.

Just as in Catalonia, that way the main party of independence might make no progress, but the cause of independence itself can be advanced and diversified at the same time. It’ll mean the Greens making an explicit pitch for the Radical Independence Convention vote in the runup to that June, and I hope that’s how the party chooses to take it. Cllr Chapman’s well placed to lead that argument.

What type of Nationalist are you?

Nov 27

Posted by Jeff in Constitution | 58 Comments

“I’m not a Nationalist” announced Denis Canavan at the Radical Independence Conference event in Glasgow over the weekend. The emerging Father of the Nation figure was no doubt speaking from the heart but this line is nonetheless a clever way to soften the pro-Yes cause that can at times be too hardline, too patriotic and too, well, radical for the floating voters to get onboard with.

It’s a shame then that Denis was wrong in his assertion.

We’re all nationalists, every one of us. National boundaries must be drawn somewhere and we are unable to avoid taking a view on where this somewhere should be. How we arrive at that view can take many different forms but they are all a form of nationalism.

So what type are you? How do you decide in your mind’s mind which country you wish to live in? Here’s how I see the main options:

An economic nationalist

‘I’d be financially richer if we drew our border closer/further to home’ is the mindset of the typical economic nationalist. It’s not particularly worthy but it’s perfectly understandable.

The logical extension of economic nationalism is a small island, chock full of extremely rich people, driven largely by a motivation that no undeserving poor scoundrel will get their hands on his/her money.

This type of nationalism in milder forms is much more palatable. Most people work most days and questioning who it is you are working for, what it is you are helping drive towards, is not an unreasonable question. Picking a smaller or larger economy because it better suits your outlook is valid, and, despite what I wrote above, may not even necessarily involve being richer as a result of your choice. Ireland is scraping the economic barrel at the moment but you’d do well to suggest that they’d vote to join the United Kingdom.

That said, there is clear evidence that there is a significant tranche of economic nationalists in Scotland right now given a fairly recent poll that showed that about 60-odd% of us would vote Yes if we would be £500/year richer under independence.

The flip side of this little factoid is that many economic nationalists, and probably most, do not currently believe that they will be richer under independence and their inner economic nationalist is driving them to vote No in 2014.

A cultural Nationalist

A person who wishes to draw their country’s borders based on which people he/she feels an affinity with. It would primarily be political outlook, language, religion or race that would make the crucial difference. It could also be music or Wars gone by, as recent unionist arguments have hoped.

For me, and particularly with the relative success of the EU, I can’t say that I have more of a bond with someone from Dover as I do with someone from Dusseldorf. I do however sense I’m a part of something other, and greater, when I consider life through a Scottish prism. That’s neither wrong nor right, just the way it is.

One would expect that cultural nationalists have already made up their minds as to whether they are voting Yes/No, although in a political sense there may yet be some flexibility. Scotland and the rest of the UK may use the same words, but do we really speak the same language?

I suspect both sides will try to answer that question with different answers over the next two years but you either feel more British or Scottish, and noone can tell you any different if you believe that should dictate which country you wish to live in.

A Tartan Army Nationalist

I was tempted to mix what I consider Tartan Army nationalism in with cultural nationalism above, but I suspect those that go doe-eyed at the thought of St Kilda expressive dance at the Festival Theatre are not in the same bucket as those hardy souls who troop out to the Faroe Islands to watch the Scottish football team get their backsides handed to them by a bunch of fishermen.

And yet, I wouldn’t bet the mortgage that the Saltire-heavy, face-painted mob are squarely in the Yes camp.

There’s only so many times you can suffer footballing heartache before having any Nationalistic confidence crushed forever.

If we can’t beat Macedonia at home, can we really run the country ourselves? It’s not altogether a daft question.

A British/Scottish Nationalist

For me, no such thing really exists. You’re cultural nationalism may result in you wishing to live in a separate Scotland or stay in the UK but ‘British nationalism’ is not a philosophy in its own right. Something deeper must underpin it.

My personal belief is that many Scots see themselves as British nationalists but don’t know why and if they dared to scratch deeper might find they’d take a different view. I’m referring to the disappointingly many Scots who happily claim ‘I’d leave Scotland if we ever got independence’.

If there’s an economic or cultural reason for such statements then that’s fine. I just don’t believe there is.

A Nihilist Nationalist

There are sadly too many nihilist nationalists at the moment, those who would go out of their way to take no part in the brewing debate and who claim to have no interest in whether they live in the UK or Scotland. People too tired to think perhaps, or, for whatever reason, afraid of forming their own view.

And that’s a shame, because all views are valid and the referendum process will be richer the more people put into it.

My cultural nationalism has always leant me towards independence. I believe I’d be more motivated at work, I’d be even more engaged with our country’s politics and I’d generally be more optimistic for the future if Scotland was independent. That has recently been topped up with an economic nationalism directing me the same way what with defence savings and concentrated oil revenues likely to allow Scotland to balance its books quicker than the current UK is on course to.

All in all, I just hope the wider debate can at least discuss the correct forms of Nationalism – cultural and economic rather than bluntly Scottish and British.

Terms of Engagement

Nov 26

Posted by Malc in Constitution | 1 Comment

A wee guest post today from former Better Nation editor Malc Harvey on the various ways the public might be engaged with the you-know-what in October 2014. Thanks Malc!

In a little under 24 months’ time, the Scottish population will make the biggest political decision it has faced, probably for 300-odd years. The question, as framed by the Scottish Government (and formalised by the Edinburgh Agreement between it and the UK Government) will be a solitary one – currently to be put to voters as “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?”.

A clear choice then, between a future as an independent state or a continuing as a component nation of a 300 year old union. The Scottish public have two years to make their decision. Plenty time for debate, for consideration of the numerous issues contained within this single question.

Whatever your perspective on the constitutional question – to stay or go, to embrace independence or defend the Union – you cannot deny that the decision itself presents us with an opportunity. An opportunity to engage the public – the disengaged, disinclined, cynical and potentially apathetic public – in conversations about where we are going as a nation, a country, a state, a society.

This opportunity has already been grasped. We’ve had the Scottish Government’s National Conversation and, concurrently, their opposition’s Calman Commission– public consultations which, for the most part, failed to capture the public’s imagination (or, indeed, engage with one another). Limited public consultation yes, but progress too, for A National Conversation laid the groundwork in the last parliamentary session for the referendum process in this one, and the Calman Commission progressed the powers of the Scottish Parliament (albeit in a limited manner) while at the same time engaging Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicians and activists on the issue of Scotland’s constitutional future.

Internal party positions have shifted; policy commissions have come and gone as, too, have party leaders. These are expected actions, consequences of the changing scope of the political scenery. That parties have been engaged in the constitutional debate is not in any way surprising.

They have not, however, been the sole actors in this process.

The Electoral Reform Society (for whom I’ve been interning) have an exciting programme of events comprising an inquiry into the future of Scottish Democracy. The Constitutional Commission is holding public meetings, engaging the public on the idea of how a new – written – constitution for Scotland might be developed. The Devo Plus group – with supporters from each of Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats – have published a second report, outlining a third constitutional option for Scotland, enhancing the powers of the Scottish Parliament but retaining membership within the United Kingdom (an option which will not be on the ballot paper in 2014, but appears to be the favoured option of the Scottish population). And the University of Dundee recently launched a new programme called Five Million Questions which seeks to link academic research with public concerns about the constitutional debate, providing clarity to an oftentimes complex and partisan discussion.

These are but four organisations engaged in public discussions on the constitutional debate. There are countless more voluntary sector organisations, private enterprises, churches, university societies and many more who are taking the time to think about these issues. Sure, in some cases, this isn’t formalised, there’s no roundtable discussion or deep consultation process – often it might just be a chat over a pint or a passing conversation at a coffee morning. But – slowly – the Scottish public is engaging itself in this discussion, involving itself in the process, considering the impact each of their options might have on their lives.

This is a sign of a healthy democracy. I almost wrote “healthy society” there, but that’s a step too far, even for this almost entirely optimistic piece. We have two years to figure out what we want from our political classes, in constitutional terms at least. For two years, our political classes – and our civic society – might well have a willing audience. They might be interested in finding out why you think running Scotland from Edinburgh is better than from London, or why a Union of 63 million is better than one of 5 million. They might be interested in other ideas about democracy – the need for a written constitution perhaps, or whether 32 local authorities is too many or too few. Ask them. Find out. Engage with them. Take the opportunity.

The referendum “campaign” hasn’t officially begun yet, and won’t until mid-2014. But the signs from the main political protagonists thus far are not good. Petty partisan politicking has been the order of the day. Discrediting politicians through personal attacks, making hay out of blunders, a lack of clarity in strategy – or, indeed, a lack of strategy entirely – has quickly overtaken any positive case either side has attempted to make. This needs to change – and soon.

The public ARE interested in this discussion. We need our political classes to treat them with a bit more respect, to avoid the partisan nonsense, and to provide information for what will be a momentous decision for our nation.

For while that decision is still 24 months away, the clock is ticking…

The economics of debate – oh, the tedium

Nov 21

Posted by Natalie in Constitution, Economy | 15 Comments

Aidan, James, Jeff & Kirsty are super-delighted to welcome a new member to the team this morning – Natalie McGarry. Natalie’s an SNP activist, having recently graced our tellies with her first class speech at conference against NATO membership, and she’s been blogging here since September last year. Oh, and if you’d got £10 on her being our new member with Twitter pseudo-bookie Ross McCafferty last night you’d be holding £50 now. Over to Natalie..

I am a centrist. Centre left, but certainly not as left as some of the people I meet with everyday, or come across in politics or in the wonderful and diverse fabric of Yes Scotland. Sure, I am anti-nuclear, anti-NATO, anti-war (is that left?), pro-free health and education and a realistic living wage and many other ideological points of principle of those on the left, but… And there is a but: I do believe in some degree of entrepreneurism which I suppose is a bit capitalist. I’d like to see renationalisation of many public services but not sure how that is either entirely possible or practicable, or even the most responsible use of taxpayers’ money in the short term. I also want to see a huge review of the benefits system too. Before you gasp in horror, I don’t want a Toryesque victimisation of the most vulnerable in society, or changes made too quickly, but I think we have to be realistic about the size of our welfare bill and the number of persons who are reliant on benefit.

I spent a couple of years working with unemployed parents, mainly single parents; young women left, literally, holding the baby. Some of these were very young, had left school with no qualifications, no confidence, no means to support themselves, and without a tradition of working in their families; sometimes for two previous generations. It isn’t my intention to provoke a furious discourse on worklessness, and second/third generation unemployment, beyond saying that there needs to be a completely different approach, early on, to providing children from this background with opportunity and aspiration and support.

There requires a complete change in the collective mindset in order to increase work rates in the most vulnerable in society and others with a history of long-term worklessness. This won’t happen through victimisation like current Tory cuts, and it won’t happen overnight. However, it does need to happen. Benefit levels are only just sustainable, but it shouldn’t just be about sustainability, but about what is best for our society and for the people in it, and that is giving people the tools, aspiration, confidence and support to succeed. If that has a knock on effect on work rates, then that can only be welcomed; and provides an opportunity to look at how we apply benefits.

A number of things have happened recently to concentrate the mind: Johann Lamont’s much despaired of but somewhat misunderstood speech on universalism; Ruth Davidson’s ill-considered claim that only 12% of the population in Scotland are net contributors; the IFS report and Patrick Harvie’s contribution to the debate in the Daily Record earlier this week. Inherent in what both Ruth and Johann had to say is a glimmer of a point, and I acknowledge that a sharp dose of realism is required.

Neither the methodology nor the catalyst of the referendum to contextualise this were either welcome or particularly subtle, though. Whilst it is irrefutable that the referendum brings with it a sharper examination of the realities of Scottish funding we should welcome only the honest discussion of where we are now, and if we want to contrast that, we should contrast it only with our relative position to the rest of the UK. Anything else is just speculation, backed up with little fact and is dishonest – on both sides. If, like Ruth Davidson, you give figures only in isolation, it is exceptionally misleading; the size of the public sector in Scotland and rUK is relatively comparable. The value of any point is undermined by the use of figures in isolation to suppress aspiration because of a perception of relative underperformance, or by the other side to suggest an unsupportable case for optimism. What was important in what Johann and Ruth tried to raise was the need to prioritise our spending; how best to do that, and where our revenue stems from.

The IFS report produced on Monday was seized upon by those in both the pro and anti-independence camps. I choose to specifically not mention Yes Scotland or ‘Better Together’ as I have not yet read their response. My frame of reference to the response is therefore that of the SNP and the Labour Party in the form of the rhetoric of Stewart Hosie MP and Ken McIntosh MSP on Scotland Tonight and Newsnight Scotland. Both performances were fairly predictable the first time, but by the second time, with the same sound bites, they had lost my attention. Clearly the onus is on Newsnight Scotland to provoke a different discussion from the one that Scotland Tonight had not 20 minutes before and they consistently fail to do this. After all, with a limited audience, interest capture is key. That said, perhaps that is the fault of political parties for not putting forward different voices for these two programmes. I am sure you could find other politicians to talk just as competently, but maybe with a different point, or a different slant. The narrowness of the political commentariat in Scottish politics is a particular irk of mine, BBC in particular, but I have managed to get ridiculously off topic…

I clearly cannot do justice with a full synopsis here. Instead I will pull some of the salient facts which will be seized upon by both sides. This section on fiscal balance is particularly apposite:

Without oil and gas revenues or, equivalently, assigning them on a population basis, there has been a bigger gap between spending and tax receipts in Scotland in recent years than in the UK as a whole;
With a geographic assignment of oil and gas revenues, on the other hand, the gap between revenues and spending in Scotland and in the UK has been similar, indeed somewhat smaller in Scotland;
Over recent years, tax revenues from the North Sea, if allocated on a geographic basis, would have slightly more than paid for the additional public spending per head that currently occurs in Scotland relative to the UK as a whole.

Thus far, I see nothing that generates much to be surprised or excited about. This is hardly new information. Indeed it is already available in the public spectrum through GERS reports. Clearly the higher levels of public spending in Scotland are offset by oil revenues. This shouldn’t be a difficulty, right? It is “our oil”, right? The benefit of Scottish oil should be that we can afford higher levels of public spending, right? Well, yes, I do agree that the oil is in Scottish territorial waters and that this is governed by international law, but I have only the most tenuous experience of international public and private law from a number of Honours modules at university. I certainly wouldn’t assert my opinion has any authority, even if that seems like the correct position.

Nonetheless, we proceed, as did the IFS report, on the basis that the above position is correct despite some unsubstantiated havering on the issue by Ken McIntosh. Perhaps the biggest area of contention was the “volatility” of oil prices, with associated statistics to support this assertion. Beyond the volatility was this, which seemed, to me, to found the main crux of Ken McIntosh’s argument,

“Like the UK as a whole, and most other developed nations, an independent Scotland would face some tough long term choices in the face of spending pressures created by demographic change. If, as is likely, oil and gas revenues fall over the long run then the fiscal challenge facing Scotland will be greater than that facing the UK.”

It is easy to simply skim over the references to the UK as a whole or those of other developed nations to leave Scotland isolated and struggling with long term fiscal challenges without oil. Ignoring even the predictions that a fall in oil revenues and reference to finite resource is framed in the context of the mid to long-term (i.e. 20 years and beyond), it seems that this has been seized upon to by the No campaign. From what I can ascertain their argument is predicated on the basis that the gap between revenues raised and public spending, without oil to offset it, demonstrates the lack of certainty which independence will give us, and that without the UK to bail us out, and without our oil revenue, we would be in penury.

There are a number of problems with this position, although I mention only two which I thought were poorly tackled during these debates:

Without the oil revenues to offset the gap in maintaining the Scottish block grant, or any similar funding initiative, the same onus would fall to the UK as would fall to an independent Scotland. Either Scotland becomes dependent for handouts from the rUK as part of the union in the long term, or the UK has to focus on the economy and public sector, and work rates and tax revenue raised in Scotland to offset this. Or Scotland becomes independent, whilst oil revenues continue, and like the rUK would be obliged to, it would have to do same; provide innovation and focus to grow economy and contributions. It seems a stark choice, dependence on the UK – which is not a position any country would enjoy – and rely on the UK to grow the Scottish GDP as part of the UK, or put trust that an independent Scotland would focus more effort to develop new, green, and innovative industry to do so.
It is easy to predict that oil revenue will run out. It is not possible to say when, but it is not an infinite resource, so it will run out. It is reasonably foreseeable for the IFS to predict UK borrowing to be £75bn at the point of the referendum in autumn 2014. This is all based on fact; however it is ridiculous to try to apply narrow parameters to revenue streams when looking at the mid to long term. It is not accurate or responsible to do so and to make any predictions either way. If anything should prove a cautionary tale about the inevitability of boom and bust and the inability to correctly interpret the future, it is the worldwide economic crash of 2008.

It is quite depressing that the focus of any discussion on the merits and demerits of independence falls to fist-fighting on the economy in the first place. The economy is as volatile as the oil price. And equally depressing is the focus on oil price as a crutch for sustainability. The only plus is that discussion on a future without oil is that it provokes welcome discussion about our reliance on it and opportunity to promote and research greener methods of transport in the very short term.

Scotland currently pays its way in the UK. I see no reason it couldn’t continue to do so as an independent country like many other comparable countries in the world. I make no predictions of a financial windfall or of penury. That is irresponsible. I agree with Patrick Harvie that there are simply too many uncertainties to make gleeful or dire predictions either way.

Patrick Harvie made an excellent interjection earlier this week in the Daily Record. He said,

“Whether Scotland votes Yes or No, we will face uncertainties. Both sides should be honest about that.

The SNP plan to join Europe but keep using the pound as our currency might work. In the short term, it might even be the best option available. The SNP are wrong to offer it as a guarantee and the Labour party are wrong to dismiss it out of hand.

But the wider truth is nobody really knows what state Europe itself will be in by 2014, or whether the UK Government will even be holding a referendum about pulling out.

Instead of bland assertions, we need to focus on the kind of society we want and how government need to work to achieve it.

I want a more equal society, a greener environment, a fairer economy and politics that let people in to participate instead of holding power within the political “club”.

That’s why I find the opportunities of independence so attractive and that’s why I want to be honest about the risks, too, and find ways to overcome them, instead of hiding them.”

I might not agree with everything Patrick says and his uncompromising positions on certain issues, but I agree wholeheartedly with everything he says above.

We do not have current access to any assertion which is of much legitimacy either way on Scotland’s standing in Europe after independence, despite the best efforts on both sides to cite opinions from notable European scholars etc. We all know where the only factual opinion can be sought, and yet no one seems to want to pre-empt independence to find out.

The position of the Tory right and the pressure of UKIP could seal the deal on a UK referendum, who knows. After all, UKIP secured 14.3% of the vote in the recent Corby by-election. Jonathan Mackie eloquently wrote on his blog “Jie not Jay” about the effect of the rise of the Tory right. It is well worth a read. It is reasonable to expect that the pressure from the right could induce a referendum: what is not as easily divined is how the UK would vote. Uncertainty in the UK.

There is inevitability that people will want some degree of security; a few facts in which they can put their faith in on independence, but we must be careful not to bog down discussion of the kind of country we want to be in facts and counter-facts, opinions and counter-opinions.

Independence is an opportunity, an opportunity to review every decision we have made and those which were made on our behalf; to shape a country reflective of the ideals we share as a society; a veritable blank slate to write a constitution with the input of our country’s citizens. We might start with the hangover of our share of national debt, but with a desire to build a better, more prosperous society, that isn’t a millstone, it is a cautionary tale. I think it is a pretty unique and exciting opportunity.

Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Constitution