Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Constitution

Where next after the triumph of elected police commissioners?

Nov 16

Posted by James in Constitution, Elections | 5 Comments

Some people are mumping and moaning about the low turnout for these new roles down south. But think how much each vote will have counted for – a much higher proportion of the overall turnout than any vote in recent memory.

Quality votes, if you like, rather than mere quantity votes.

Anyway, what’s next up in the Coalition’s rolling feast of democracy? The people, a select few of them at least, are hungry to vote for roles previously regarded by stick-in-the-muds as “non-partisan”, i.e. to be stultifyingly occupied by boring civil servants.

Where’s the progress in that? Where’s the democratic oversight? Is this what our ancestors died for? Here are some suggestions for the next posts which could use a little “people power” to bring them into the 21st century:

  1. Chief Scientific Officer
  2. Doctor
  3. The Director General of the BBC
  4. The Queen
  5. Traffic warden
  6. Returning officer
  7. First Sea Lord
  8. Head of planning
  9. President of the Supreme Court
  10. Head of HMRC

Think about the quality of candidates we’d get, too. Mr Delingpole might fancy the first on the list, for example, but I would press David Attenborough to run against him. First Sea Lord would attract some excellent candidates, keen to muck about in boats and with a thing for leadership – also look at the excellent hat you get (see above), and what an epic job title. I’d probably make a much better doctor than my doctor too – he never takes my requests for high-end recreational pharmaceuticals seriously.

And head of HMRC! What fun! Which companies should pay their full tax? You decide. Same thing with planning – the back-scratching opportunities would be immense. Traffic warden might sound like less fun, but a committed environmentalist could just do all the 4x4s and leave all the Priuses (Priii?) alone. And it’s working in the outdoors, keeping fit. Probably less competitive than the election we’d see for Queen, as well: there’d also be quite a lot of traffic wardens to elect. Thank goodness they wouldn’t all get a Freepost leaflet or we’d need to elect more posties too. Returning officer may also sound quite dull, but you get to pick who’s elected next time, so that’d actually be quite powerful.

Anyway, the logic is impeccable, and today the Coalition has made a great start. Three cheers for democracy!

Lessons from America

Nov 9

Posted by Jeff in Constitution, Elections | 23 Comments

The US election passed with a narrow majority thanks to cries of Yes we Can and Forward from a leader who likes the sound of his own voice. Parallels with Scotland? They don’t stop there…

Ground game
It’s often mentioned how awesome the SNP’s ground game is thanks to their voter ID technology and army of volunteers willing to knock doors and fill in forms to feed the input data. I personally have never fully appreciated how valuable this is until watching wall to wall coverage of the US election in Washington DC this past week which remarked upon the Democrat party’s similar jewel in the crown and explained in vivid detail how this made the difference on Tuesday.

The US electoral map is a sea of red and, at a glance, would suggest a strong Republican nation. The results from the House of Representatives suggest this also with the Republicans taking 242 seats to the Democrats 193. However, in the head to head Presidential race, the Democrats won where it mattered and won big. Huge majorities in concentrated areas were racked up and the thinly spread Republican support wasn’t enough to make up the difference. In DC itself the Democrats won a mind-boggling 91% of the vote. Team Obama knew where their vote was and how to get it out to reach 50%. The SNP and Team Salmond are well placed to do the same on behalf of Yes Scotland, and the US election shows that that can make the difference, irrespective of money spent and unhappy economic fortunes for the incumbent Government. 

Christians
À terrific Democrat commentator on CNN, Van Jones, made the fascinating point that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to be openly Christian and a member of his party. The increased secularisation of the US, and the Democratic party, in stark contrast to the bellicose God-loving of the Republicans, makes Christianity rather uncool these days. Van spoke of feeling like he had to come out of the closet in admitting who he is to party colleagues. 

The SNP and Greens are  not in a dissimilar situation. The parties’ collective view on gay marriage and abortion should not alter for many Christians’ historic and I would say long outdated views on society, but the parties do have a problem if Christians with no quarrel with these policies nonetheless feel uncomfortable being a part of the party. 

Scotland has never struck me as being as Christian as America is. There were 26% born again Christians taking part in the US election (76% of whom voted for Romney incidentally). The 2001 census showed that Scotland was 65% Christian at that time. I may not be comparing apples with apples there, but the Scottish Christian bloc is a significant one and there will not be a Yes result in 2014 if they are made to feel excluded from the main parties of the Yes Scotland coalition. 

The SNP and the Greens may have a point in feeling (ironically) holier-than-thou on gay rights and abortion, but as a means to an end in terms of winning independence, they may need to think of a new strategy.

Voter alliances
Speaking of coalitions, another point that Van Jones made was that the 2008 Obama coalition of blacks, Hispanics, the young and females stuck together and delivered a 50% return that provided victory against whites, males and the elderly who largely voted Republican.

I’m not aware of any specific studies that have analysed the demographics of those who intend to vote Yes but I would personally suggest that broadly speaking it is white, male and young. The recent independence march in Edinburgh certainly suggested this, though I’m happy to be proved or argued otherwise. 

Should Yes Scotland aggressively target this narrow group of Scots, similar to how Obama won 2008 and 2012? Should it try to be all things to all people as Romney tried (and failed) to be? There’s a big strategic call to be made there.

Substance free election.
The most striking aspect of the past week for me was the absence of any discussion of specific policies held by Obama or Romney. This, presumably, was largely because neither had any. The Republicans spoke of taking America back and the Democrats wanted to go forwards but it’s telling that it is only now, post-election, that politicians and pundits are talking about what to do about the fiscal cliff and how the future budget will look. 

The lesson for Scotland here is that opposition for opposition’s sake is insufficient to win elections, you have to be for something to beat an incumbent. Obama was fragile on the economy, on jobs and on not delivering the change that he had promised. Romney failed to outline what he was for and consequently, and deservedly, came up short of votes.

Labour is the main opponent to Yes Scotland and need to learn lessons from their own past and this US election. They objected to free tuition and council tax freezes, were then for them at election time and are now against them again. That’s not going to be good enough for a Scottish electorate that needs to have a strong vision of what devolved Scotland will look like post-2014 before they’ll put a cross beside No at the referendum. 

Not that it’s just the unionist side that has lessons to learn. The SNP has so far failed to paint a clear enough picture of independence, specifically Scotland’s relations with the EU. Both sides of the debate are falling short and Yes Scotland cannot expect to win this referendum by default. Both Obama and Romney failed to project a vision of the future and the electorate went with the status quo. Yes Scotland should be mindful of this risk as much as anyone given it is they who want a change to be made. 

Symbolism
Abraham Lincoln (bear with me) may even have a lesson for the unionists and probably specifically for David Cameron. While Civil War raged through the United States in Ye 1860s, President Lincoln made the decision to continue with the building of the dome to the US Capitol. His logic was that if the nation could see the seat of power being completed, then the union would endure. 

Now, Scotland is not in the midst or on the brink of Civil War, and the UK Government isn’t going to rebuild Westminster, but perhaps using Lincoln’s strategy of building a visible and symbolic British artefact in Scotland over the next couple of years could help win a few votes. It’s too late for High Speed rail, the Green Investment Bank was too small and Salmond already has his grubby workmen gloves on the Forth Crossing but maybe there’s something else that Cameron can build and have filled with pro-British sentiment. 

So, plenty of food for thought from the other side of the Atlantic to carry into the next couple of years. The only other thought to add is that a black President still carries appealing power as symbolism. Perhaps the notion of the first Prime Minister of Scotland being female might add the same momentum to Yes Scotland. If only Salmond was to provide a clue that he might be retiring soon….

Uncomfortable allies all round on the #indyref

Oct 21

Posted by James in Constitution, Parties | 1 Comment

The SNP make great play of Labour’s cooperation with the Tories and the Lib Dems as part of Better Together. I see why they do it: the Tories are less popular than Labour in Scotland, so tying them together has some strategic logic. And yes, those parties have all formed UK governments I broadly disapprove of, in addition to their support for Westminster.

However, treating the No campaign as a unified block implies that the Yes campaign should be treated the same way. And because the SNP are the largest organisation supporting a yes vote, that blurs the boundaries between the party and Yes Scotland even further.

For better or worse, that kind of thinking now means the whole of the Yes campaign will be seen as pro-NATO rather than pro the people deciding on NATO membership after independence has been achieved. This is bad news.

But it also allows the No campaign to lump all us independence supporters in together as well, to treat us as a homogenous group. That can’t help: for one thing, it’d mean we’re all on side with perjurers. You don’t have to be Alastair Campbell to see the downside there. This would also make me indistinguishable from the independent (ex-Tory but pro-indy) Midlothian councillor Peter de Vink, who’s rabidly anti-renewables, or from the grasping and anti-women Alex Neil. I don’t want to be associated with the SNP’s policies on the economy, social justice, or the environment. Yes Scotland isn’t associated with them – it doesn’t have a policy agenda beyond independence – but this kind of rhetoric undermines that argument.

It also means that my previous mix of feelings when I see cybernat bullying on Twitter has changed. Before, I felt sad to see the tone lowered, but during an election Greens were competing for votes with the SNP a little cynical part of me hoped there might be political advantage in it for us. Now we’re all trying to to get a Yes vote (I include only those Greens who support independence here – perhaps about two thirds of the party, roughly) I feel much more aggrieved. I worry that the “ure no true scotsman if you dont vote yes” approach could drag the whole campaign down.

Now, there are plenty of people outside the Greens who I’m proud to work with to secure independence. I have a lot of respect for many in the SSP, and also for plenty of SNP members, activists, MSPs and Ministers. The very impressive NATO debate made me feel quite strong political kinship with the likes of Jamie Hepburn and Natalie McGarry. I like the prospect of some non-partisan co-operation with them, and with people of no party who support the objective.

Because co-operation on an issue doesn’t entail unity on all the others. Caroline Lucas worked with Douglas Carswell on STV, despite being at the left and right ends of the Westminster spectrum respectively. And don’t forget the devolution referendum. Were the three party leaders above really indistinguishable because they wanted a Scottish Parliament in 1997?

It does no-one on either side any favours to lump all their opponents in together, and it cuts both ways. I doubt it helps the cause to tell a Labour-voting waverer that her party is indistinguishable from the Tories.

It’s a pompous hope, perhaps, but it’d be great to see all those campaigning on the referendum working under these two broad umbrellas while recognising the diversity of of our own views and the other side’s views too. The referendum is a simple question: should Westminster have a continued role in making decisions about Scotland’s political future? Whatever the result, those other diverse views will be put to the test at the next election, not during the referendum.

Indyref Tactical Voting

Oct 19

Posted by Jeff in Constitution | 19 Comments

In my former blogging life under the SNP Tactical Voting banner, I thoroughly enjoyed considering counter-intuitive votes that would ultimately lead to a preferred result for the voter. For example, voting Lib Dem in a constituency to try getting an extra SNP MSP in on the regional vote, all to Labour’s detriment. Real high brow stuff.

Looking down the psephological line we have European elections (straight PR, boringly worthy) and an independence referendum (simple Yes/No), so there’s no scope for any tactical voting.

Or is there?

My thoughts on this were pricked into life when a friend stated quite decidedly that independence would be a bad thing for Scotland, but he was going to vote Yes anyway. I know, my gast was at a flabber too. What is he thinking? Well, hear him out.

His view is that, because Yes Scotland are going to lose so convincingly (his words, not mine), he thought that a narrow win for the No camp was in Scotland’s best interests rather than a good old fashioned humping. So, he will do his best to get it as close to 45%/55% as he can, with his one vote. Scots, and the SNP, can still hold their heads up high and not be the laughing stock of the country.

It’s an interesting theory and it makes one realise that there are really five distinct results from this coming referendum, with five distinct outcomes:

A clear No win (say, 57%+):
Forget the hanging chads and missing ballot boxes in Glenrothes, this is a referendum result that isn’t too close to call. The SNP would have to conclude that it has made its best independence arguments and failed, pushing back any subsequent referendum for a generation.

The constitutional debate in the run up to the Holyrood election would turn to Devo Max vs the Status Quo and the various permutations in between and outwith. There would also be a decade where devolved issues can be focussed on and flexed within the current powers of the Scottish Parliament. There is no way of knowing whether the SNP or Labour would be the dominant party over this decade with Scots already confirming that they are impressed with how the SNP manages devolved Scotland, so the referendum could be quickly forgotten to Nationalist benefit.

A narrow No win (say 51%-57%):
The No’s have it by a nose. Despite the agreement reached between Cameron and Salmond, the scope for objection, obfuscation and obstinacy would be considerable with turnout, polling station issues and minor legal transgressions all coming under the spotlight and being challenged either directly or indirectly by the SNP. Stormy calls for a rerun would be made but would largely hinge on the result of the 2016 election. There would be a high risk of a crushing Holyrood defeat for the SNP if they were seen to be sore losers by a public who wanted to move on.

An effective draw (say 49%-51%):
In many ways the nightmare scenario. Significant pressure would be on Salmond or Cameron to publicly and clearly concede defeat if they had just missed out. However, realistically neither side would truly accept the result if they lost by such an excruciatingly narrow margin.

If 49% of Scots want to be part of the UK or independent, then that is too sizeable a bloc to ignore going into either new future. The risk would be an unsettled period for Scotland stretching into the decades and a further referendum, be it to rejoin the UK or on independence, would be inevitable.

The Scottish economy would suffer from the political instability and even a descent towards, if not fully into, Irish style factionalism could be possible. The public may decide to vote a strong majority into Holyrood to manage these downside risks, be it SNP/Green or Labour/Lib Dem, with stability emanating from that mandate. There would, of course, be further complications if Lab/Lib were the first Government of an independent Scotland after such a wafer thin margin or SNP/Green the next Government of devolved Scotland.

A narrow Yes win (say 51%-57%):
This would probably cause more consternation than a narrow No win by simple dint of the establishment being more UK-focussed. The negotiations for an independent Scotland would go ahead but would be a difficult, truculent affair, with impasses likely and legal challenges as to the settlement of assets/liabilities unavoidable. It would be a trying time for public and politicians alike and gaining outside assistance from friendly allies – the European Union or the United Nations – couldn’t be ruled out.

A clear Yes win (say, 57%+):
Negotiations would still be testy but the margin of victory would hasten Cameron and Salmond’s desire to get to a position where rUK has moved on and Scotland is getting on with creating its new future. A compromise settlement would be reached eventually and even former staunch unionist parties would adapt to the new landscape and amend their policies and vision accordingly. Scotland would have more politicians, domestically and, soon enough, at the European Parliament. The standard would take time to improve and plateau with the more established and experienced SNP personalities likely to have a clear run at laying the foundations of the new country.

So they are the possible outcomes, where does the tactical voting come into it? Well, probably only if the polling doesn’t change dramatically between now and 2014.

If the polls in the lead up to the referendum suggest a close run thing then all Scots, my friend included, will simply vote the way they truly believe, be it Yes or No. It’d be the same, one would think, for narrow victories either way.

Similarly, if the Yes vote is considerably outnumbering the No vote, it is difficult to imagine the Yes camp wishing to ensure that the victory is only a narrow one.

However, as outlined at the start of this post, the converse could be true. Some latent national pride within would-be No voters might rise up to give a sizeable consolation Yes tranche that makes the final scoreline look more generous for Yes Scotland, if ultimately still a losing one.

Despite there just being one question, not only is there more than two potential outcomes at this referendum, there are also more than two ways to use your vote.

Who cares what the SNP thinks about NATO?

Oct 18

Posted by James in Constitution, Parties | 9 Comments

Okay, I do. But not because it’ll directly determine whether an independent Scotland would be in NATO. Changing policy would be a bad sign on that front, admittedly, but then so too is existing Tory, Labour and Lib Dem support for Nato.

In the event of a Yes vote, the Yoonyonisht Consphirashy will presumably not pack up their bags for Westminster and leave Scotland in the SNP’s hands. They’d stay to fight the elections to an independent Holyrood, and they may well win, just as Churchill won the war but Attlee won the peace.

The problem, as SNP MSP Marco Biagi rightly points out today, is that there’s a “false narrative that voting Yes means endorsing only the SNP vision of an independent Scotland.” Of course it doesn’t: if it did, I’d run a mile. I have a decent amount of common ground with them on health, justice, and even equalities, but I don’t want to live in a tartan tax haven built on burning all our oil and emptying the North Sea of fish as quickly as possible.

Marco’s fighting for an SNP that sticks to its guns (sorry) because they’re his party and that’s the policy he still believes in, not because he believes that decision can possibly be set for an independent Scotland by Alex Salmond before the Scottish people elect MSPs the next time.

It’s part of a wider problem, one that Jeff addressed here last month. Winning a referendum on the principle that those living in Scotland should make all the key political decisions is one thing: I think a cross-party and non-party campaign can do that. Winning a post-independence election on what to do with the full powers of a normal independent state: the SNP machine has form at general elections.

However, wherever a non-SNP voter who’s open to independence (remember: it can’t be won without them) accepts Marco’s “false narrative”, they are more likely to vote No depending on their attitudes to the SNP leadership and SNP policies. The referendum cannot be won without at least a clear division between the two things: assuming the party don’t accept Jeff’s logic above.

The First Minister should stand up and state clearly during the debate that the SNP won’t determine whether an independent Scotland stays in NATO: the Scottish people would do in the first post-referendum election. It’d be a brave move, and it’d reduce the importance of a debate is being billed as, to quote Marco again, “a leadership defeat or a U-turn“.  More broadly, every time an SNP politician is asked a question that presumes they’ll win that post-indy election they have an opportunity to explain that the Scottish people will be sovereign, not the SNP.

Putting the distance between the wider Yes campaign and the party which delivered the referendum can reduce the risk to the Yes campaign of losing the support of some of those people who’ve long wanted to leave this nuclear alliance. The same goes for the monarchy, the currency, the BBC, and tax rates: those are arguments I hope the SNP lose in an independent Scotland, or positions they change their mind on, but we need to get there first, and that means narrative clarity about what’s being offered.