Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Constitution

Towards a Scottish Constitution

Aug 7

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution | 70 Comments

We’re very pleased to have a guest post today from Jane Carnall, who describes herself thus – Edinburgh blogger, politics nerd, indecisive about independence, would like to believe these are the early days of a better nation –  and you should follow her on Twitter @EyeEdinburgh if you don’t already.

“Whereas it is the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to our needs…”

Alastair Darling’s best argument against “Yes Scotland” was that voting for an independent Scotland is an irreversible leap into the unknown.

The best argument (in my view) for an independent Scotland is that we could stand as an example to the rest of the UK: rid ourselves of nuclear weapons (and quite possibly, just by logistics, require the rest of the UK to go nukes-free too), maintain the universal welfare state, defend the NHS, uphold the principle of free education for all: and end entirely the right-wing English argument that Scots have nicer things than them because of the Barnett formula, rather than because we keep electing left-wing governments.

But without a Scottish Constitution written and agreed-to before the referendum, this may never happen. I spent most of July’s blogging time thinking about a Scottish Constitution: and more and more I wanted this to begin now, not after the referendum.

If the Constitution is drafted in a hurry between referendum and independence day, there may be too little time for a broad spectrum of Scots to provide our views, too little time for proper oversight – and a host of wealthy power-brokers who do not want a Scottish Constitution to take any radical directions, such as nationalising the oil, abolishing the monarchy, land reform:  who would, perhaps, even prefer an independent Scotland without the valuable institutions of the NHS and licence-funded national broadcaster.

The Constitution must be drafted now, when there are over two years to work on it, before we know what the result of the 2014 referendum will be. With as much input at possible from a whole range of ordinary Scots, all over the country, Highlands and Lowlands, middle-class and working-class, all faiths and none, any and all political parties and other organisations willing to come to the table with respect for the sovereignity of the Scottish people.

But how?

Supposing that the money were available (lottery win, successful grant application, wishful thinking) we could begin with a constitutional roadshow including an open space event – and a website.

The roadshow would go wherever there was a suitable venue and volunteers to answer questions: an exhibition explaining why a Scottish constitution matters, a speaker or two on the importance of the Constitution, and with at least one Open Space event at which people could answer the question “What’s important to have in the Constitution?”

The responses from each Open Space event, and the feedback for the exhibition from each venue, would be posted on the website.

Individuals and groups – trade unions, churches, third sector organisations, companies, even local political parties and MPs, MSPs, and councillors – would be invited to sign a pledge to work together towards writing a Constitution for Scotland. Their names would be published on the website.

Let’s say at a certain point, nominations for the Scottish Constitutional Commission would open. Anyone could be nominated. When nominations closed, everyone who had been nominated (or everyone with enough multiple nominations) would be contacted to ask if they were willing to take part in the SCC.

All those willing would be listed for selection. The SCC would need to be a cross-section of ordinary Scots, but also include people who had a background in Scots law, UK law, and Constitutional law: people who know politics and Parliament.  How the SCC is  selected isn’t as important as the process being transparent and fair.  I don’t know how many would be needed, or how long the process of drafting a Constitution would take: that’s something else that would need to be decided nearer the time.

The Constitution should be drafted in time for the final stage: acceptance by the Scottish people and by the Scottish Parliament, before the 2014 referendum.

But how?

There is neither funding nor party political support for this kind of process.

For the “Better Together” parties, anything that would make undecided Scots more likely to vote “Yes” to independence would be unacceptable. And there is no ducking that point: a Scottish Constitution, giving a framework for a new nation, would certainly make some waverers feel differently about voting for independence.

For the “Yes Scotland” campaign, at present it appears the SNP at least are depending on a vision of an independent Scotland which is not too specific in details, since too detailed a vision might put people off.  Further, it appears to me that many of the strongest campaigners for “Yes Scotland” are not very effective at engaging with people who don’t already agree with them.

But in any case, a campaign for a Scottish Constitution ought to be independent of either campaign, welcoming involvement whichever way you intend to vote in 2014, with input either from  all the main political parties or none: either both “Yes Scotland”  and “Better Together” involved in the Constitution, or neither of them.

Could non-partisan organisations and charities work on this? The Electoral Reform Society Scotland held a People’s Gathering in Edinburgh in July: Engender, the gender equality charity, has been holding semi-regular Inspiring Women meetings: on either side of the fence, the Equality Network and the Catholic Church raised awareness of the equal marriage consultation to what became almost a record-breaking level of response; at a local level, I can think of extensive examples in Edinburgh alone of people mobilising: against privatisation, to save Leith Waterworld, to discuss our vision for Leith Walk.

But everyone’s busy and nobody’s got funds to spare. Nor is this kind of open non-partisan process at all easy.

I like the idea of a Constitution for Scotland. It goes beyond any partisan feelings, any realistic political appraisal of independence and balloting. I’d like us as a nation to consider who and what we are and write our constitution.

Can we get started?

Index of posts at EdinburghEye on the Scottish Constitution

Faster, higher, stronger, Britisher

Jul 29

Posted by Jeff in Constitution, Sport | 45 Comments

You can’t win these days if you’re a Scottish Nationalist trying to get through these British Olympics unscathed. On the one hand, you have the Telegraph arguably overreaching in its criticism of Salmond’s support for ‘Scolympians’ and then on the other you have the Scotland on Sunday claiming that Danny Boyle’s Opening Ceremony “will drive support away from Scottish independence”.

The attempts to politicise sport in Scotland have grown increasingly weary since the SNP, albeit tongue in cheek, laid claim to McFadden’s wonder goal against France and the Scottish press, like a pack of wolves, tore into Sir Chris Hoy and Andy Murray at press conferences just to generate a puff piece for their papers.

Let’s be clear, the Opening Ceremony was wonderful and Danny Boyle is clearly blessed with some sort of genius to achieve what he did, but the overblown rhetoric regarding its impact on independence doesn’t really match reality.

First of all, a cosy celebration of a very public 60s-esque NHS did not encapsulate the sneaking privatisation and broken promises of the past few years. The public health services is already cracking at the borders. Dancing nurses and a giant baby won’t change that reality over the next few years. An argument that a Scottish NHS is the only way to ensure a public NHS will be more persuasive than Friday night’s TV.

My favourite bit of the ceremony was probably the Industrial Revolution segment, with the sublime Kennth Brannagh as Isambard Kingdom Brunel leading the celebration of that part of Britain’s history. It didn’t have any impact on my intention to vote Yes in 2014 though as the Industrial Revolution will still be part of Scotland’s history come what may. We’re changing the future with this referendum, not the past.

The Scotland on Sunday also talks of “the love of a shared culture” as a reason why people will flock towards voting No after the opening ceremony. Perhaps, but people wildly texting and dancing to 70s, 80s and 90s music doesn’t seem very central to the independence debate from where I’m sitting, and I’m sure that happens all across Europe anyway, even if that particular segment of Friday smacked of a lamentable The Only Way is Essex generation rather than some sort of glorious British culture that we all share.

The strongest argument that Better Together have with regard to the Opening Ceremony is Sir Chris Hoy holding the flag aloft with Team GB parading in behind him. Big, powerful, successful but nice as pie, Sir Chris is that rare A-list personality that comes with a unmistakable Scottish stamp and an unmistakable British stamp on him. Alan Cumming and Alex Ferguson making their feelings about independence known doesn’t really add up to much, Sir Chris Hoy would be a different kettle of fish altogether, and the visuals from Friday won’t have gladdened many Nationalist hearts, from a strictly political perspective at least.

But overall, I’m not really buying the significance. I mean, Murdo Fraser is welcome to place his confidence that a 5 second snippet of Gregory’s Girl on prime time TV will keep Scots in line with the unionists, but I reckon he’ll end up having to work a bit harder than that as 2014 approaches and the debate reaches crunch point.

Of course, even if these Olympics give the No vote a boost, this is to ignore one equally crucial but more timely factor: Scotland will host the Commonweatlh Games in 2014, with a Scottish opening ceremony and Scottish athletes. Who would dare bet that they won’t have a distinctly political edge to them?

As for the next few weeks, there is nothing wrong with supporting British athletes, there is nothing wrong with supporting only Scottish athletes and there is nothing wrong with supporting everyone and just enjoying the show. Maybe politics should take a backseat during the greatest show on earth.

Alex won’t make it to Wonderland unless he finds his porpoise

Jul 11

Posted by Jeff in Constitution | 35 Comments

“No good fish goes anywhere without a porpoise”.

So said Lewis Carroll in the marvellous Alice in Wonderland and it’s a lesson, fishy puns to one side, that Salmond and Sturgeon should take on board.

I would wager that the Scottish public are open to being convinced by the merits of independence and its superiority as a constitutional option over Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom but convinced they need to be, and with a burden of proof that requires to be overwhelming. The current apparent purposelessness of the SNP is particularly unappealing and is at best preventing support for independence to increase, at worst it is leaking it. Whether full independence in a matter of years is even where the First Minister is looking to lead us has been questioned. I suppose there is comfort to be found that if you don’t know where you’re going, then any road will get you there.

This inert waywardness is the SNP’s primary problem right now. The party’s reason to be has been hamstrung by Alex Salmond’s smart, quite possibly too smart, push for a Devo Max fallback option behind full independence. The big-tent politics of old is riddling with cracks from republicans vs royalists, fundamentalists vs gradualists and Europhiles vs Sterlingistas vs Scottish poundheads. If the SNP isn’t careful, it’s going to have to resort to Lib Demmy, wishy-washy statements like ‘we’re for fairness for everyone’ in order to sound like it has a single objective. Of course, if you’re for everything and everyone, then you’re really for nothing and no one.

Margo MacDonald wasn’t shy this week to call the SNP out on these very weaknesses, citing “a lack of preparedness and a lack of planning” as part of the reason for her own frustration at the lack of progress Yes Scotland has made. The unnecessary muddying of the independence waters with Devo Max was another bugbear, as too was the “noise” that exists rather than a proper debate. Her advice to the pro-independence campaign was to “stop talking about winning or losing and start talking about what they would like to do” (with independence).

Indeed, the SNP frantically going nowhere reminds me of the Caucus Race, again from Lewis Carroll. Everyone starts from different positions, everyone starts and stops the race whenever they like, the race ends at an arbitrary time, everyone thinks they’ve won and everyone gets a prize.

The ongoing, circular dialogue between unionist and nationalist has grown tiring for those that can still bear to listen in, but still they run and still they tell themselves they’re winning. I would have hoped by now that the SNP would have struck out in a different direction and taken the initiative with a clear, stripped down (and preferably bullet-pointed) x-point, bite-sized plan for why and how Scotland would be independent. They’ve had 75 years to come up with one, it shouldn’t be too difficult. However, with polls last night showing in inglorious regional detail the extent to which support for independence is falling way back, the SNP can’t stay in the starting blocks of a race that’s going nowhere for too much longer. They won’t even win a prize at that rate.

The bottom line of the recent past is this, Alex won’t make it to Wonderland unless he finds his porpoise.

Salmond’s win-win-win Devo Max legacy hunting strategy

Jul 3

Posted by Jeff in Constitution | 51 Comments

“Always try your best and what everyone else thinks of you is not your problem”.

It’s an old proverb but a useful one, particularly so for those with an occasional or general sense of inadequacy.

I suspect Alex Salmond is not one to generally suffer from low self esteem but he is approaching the stage of his career where it is difficult to avoid wondering how you will be thought of.

Quite possibly not unrelated to that, the papers and Twitter streams are full of coverage of Salmond finding Devo Max “very attractive” and his insistence that Scots “have a right” to a second question. I find it intriguing, and not a little amusing, that it is the Telegraph of all papers that are warning Salmond that SNP supporters may be infuriated at this news. If wishing made it so.

As someone who intends to vote Yes in a one question referendum, I certainly have no qualms with voting Yes-Yes in a two question referendum.

Indeed, in my view, Salmond’s intention to have Devo Max on the ballot slip is simple game theory and quite contrary to ‘abandoning’ independence as his detractors would have it.

Let’s look at two mutually exclusive scenarios:
Scenario 1
There is a 35% chance of winning a Yes/No ‘one-question’ referendum.
Scenario 2
There is a 20% chance of winning the independence element of a Yes/No ‘two-question’ referendum and a 60% chance of winning the Devo Max element.

Under Scenario 1, there is a 65% chance of being stuck with the status quo for a generation but under scenario 2, there is only a 32% chance (80% * 40%) of being stuck with the status quo for a generation.

Sure, Devo Max isn’t going to help the SNP realise its ambitions for getting rid of Trident, rebalancing inequality through the welfare system and having a strong Scottish voice at international tables, but including Devo Max on a ballot slip does not remove the SNP’s ability to take those arguments to the Scottish people and push for a Yes vote to the primary independence question. After all, if those arguments fall short, there is surely merit in having a satisfactory, if not spectacular, fall-back result.

The SNP may have many members that want independence and nothing less but more still recognise pragmatic progress towards their desired goal and will no doubt see Salmond’s cute push for a Devo Max option as a Win-Win-Win situation.

Win 1 – It pushes the Better Together triumvarate of Labour, Tories and Lib Dems into a space where they not only oppose independence, but are seen to oppose any proactive further devolution of powers in the near future. An unenviable place to be, one would have thought, particularly for the Lib Dems and Labour if they come over as indistinguishable on this issue from the Tories.

Win 2 – Scotland under Devo Max increases the probability of progress further down the line towards independence. It may not be the ‘big bang’ result of a Yes vote to full and near-immediate separation, but it’s progress and better than nothing.

Win 3 – It helps enable Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP for closing in on 18 years, to step down as First Minister and away from the SNP leadership with his head held high.

‘Shouldn’t Scotland’s interests be placed higher than Salmond’s desire for a legacy?’ put one political journalist on Twitter earlier today, but if the two objectives are wrapped up with each other in the First Minister’s mind, who would blame him for trying his best to achieve both before he ends his career.

A liberal case for independence

Jul 2

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Holyrood, Parties | 18 Comments

A history graduate, advocate for LGBT equality, Albion Rovers supporter and Liberal Democrat, Andrew Page is accustomed to being identified with minority causes. He contested Renfrewshire North and West for the his party in 2011 and blogs at A Scottish Liberal.

I’m a rather late convert to the cause of Scottish independence – a conversion that owes more to pragmatism than it does to political ideology.

I’ve never been the kind of Liberal Democrat vociferously opposed to the notion of independence. In 2007 I believed that, while a prospective coalition was a non-starter due to simple arithmetic, the party was misguided to rule out co-operation with the SNP on the basis that a referendum represented a “fundamental barrier”. Neither have I ever accepted the flawed logic of previous Scottish Lib Dem leaders in consistently denying Scottish voters the referendum – an ultimately futile tactic that has made it easy for political opponents to portray us as small-minded arch-unionists and contributed in no small way to our alienating of many traditional supporters.

The leadership line for the previous few years has been more pro-unionist than the view of the party membership, and has been influenced more by antipathy towards the SNP than by either a coherent political strategy or a commitment to democratic principles. The referendum represents the fairest and most liberal option and is certainly preferable to elected politicians and Westminster policy makers deciding Scotland’s future on our behalf. I have struggled to reconcile our party’s democratic credentials with what I perceive as a poorly conceived and fundamentally illiberal approach in recent years and have become increasingly convinced that, far from being anathema to convinced liberals, independence offers significant opportunities.

Not being a nationalist, the question of Scotland’s constitutional future has always been of secondary interest to the creation of a liberal society and a fairer political system. Features of the liberal Scottish society Liberal Democrats aspire to achieve include tolerance, an embracing of pluralism, the guarantee of free expression, the fostering of autonomous choices and greater democratic freedoms. A liberal society is one in which its citizens are empowered to take greater control of their own destinies. Liberals in the UK have a history of campaigning for a fairer and more democratic voting system, a green economy, decentralisation and localism, an end to the privileges afforded to the unelected House of Lords, reducing the voting age to 16 and the fairness agenda (so beloved of Nick Clegg). For those of us living in Scotland, liberals are far more likely to achieve such objectives in an independent Scotland than within a dysfunctional Union. A British system of PR is unlikely to be achieved in my lifetime, but may well be a feature of an independent Scottish democratic system
in which concerns about the House of Lords would be both academic and redundant. Similarly, our objectives on fairness, the economy, green energy, lowering the voting age and empowering communities would have a greater chance of fulfilment after independence than they would have under the status quo, which has a proven track record of non-delivery.

The preamble to the Liberal Democrats’ constitution states that “the Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community”. The key question for Liberal Democrats therefore must be “which constitutional arrangement best allows for the creation of such a society?”

The preamble also makes the claim that “we believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from the people. We therefore acknowledge their right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs and commit ourselves to the promotion of a democratic federal framework within which as much power as feasible is exercised by the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.” This is clearly inconsistent with the leadership’s stance in recent years but also, in theory at least, simultaneously commits liberals to the right of self-determination and “democratic federalism”.

If I genuinely felt that the Liberal Democrats were capable of achieving this “democratic federalism” I would be supporting all attempts to make it a reality, as my inclinations are liberal, not nationalist. What we have learned is that, in eight years of coalition in Holyrood and two years in Westminster very little progress has been made on the federalism front. To put it bluntly, if it was a crime to be a federalist there would be very little evidence with which to convict the Liberal Democrats. We are not the “guarantors of change” Willie Rennie disingenuously claims us to be. Even if the premise that the party is by nature a federalist one is accepted, it is naive to believe that the best channel by which to achieve the benefits of federalism is affiliation to the negative Better Together campaign, which lacks any kind of vision for a post-referendum Scotland.

We have a Deputy Prime Minister who asserts that “we are a devolutionist party”. That, of course, is not entirely true. Federalism is many things but it is not devolutionism. Jo Grimond recognised that a risk of devolution was “too much government” and that “it is no good transferring from Westminster to Edinburgh the diseases which…are bringing British democracy to its knees.” What is needed, insisted Grimond, was an arrangement that is open and accountable – “less government, better government and government nearer home”. He retained suspicions about romantic and inward-looking nationalism but also argued that, as far as Scotland’s future was concerned, “not to go far enough may be worse than going too far”. Devolution is not by nature a liberal arrangement and has a tendency to deliver over-government. Independence on the other hand, while clearly going further than federalism, does have the potential to provide both more effective local government and less government. From a liberal perspective, this has to be the best of both possible worlds.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats talk of federalism and Home Rule, which is welcome. Unfortunately, the actions of the leadership in identifying themselves with the Tories and Labour in a coalition of cynical negativity is likely to compromise both the party’s distinctive message and attempts to portray itself as anything other than committed to unionism. However, public perception is simply one challenge for the Liberal Democrats: another, more pertinent, difficulty being that the scope for achieving whatever the Home Rule Commission recommends is zero. Pragmatic liberals realise that without an additional option on the ballot form the choice is between the status quo, with no clear indication of what Scotland’s future will look like post-referendum, and an independence which offers opportunities for both Scottish liberalism and the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

There would be electoral opportunities for the Liberal Democrats in a post-independence Scotland of which the party should be mindful. It is unclear what would happen to the SNP but, even if it continued as a political force, having achieved its primary goal the Scottish Liberal Democrats could be well-positioned to benefit from uncertainty within the SNP’s ranks. Independence could prove to be an antecedent for a liberal revival, especially if the party is able to use the referendum campaign to its advantage. Admittedly, the second possibility is looking more remote by the day but it remains an inescapable fact that independence could serve the Liberal Democrats well, in a similar way to how devolution has benefitted the Scottish Conservatives.

Of course, embracing independence will require surrendering the commitment to a federal Britain in which Scotland is part. I have no difficulty with this, especially as inaction on the part of the leadership is largely responsible for undermining my faith in the achievement of federalism. While I would have preferred the party leadership to have done everything in its power to ensure an option more closely relating to our position would be presented to voters, what is precious about federalism isn’t a doctrinal commitment to it but the kind of society it can help create. Federalism, like all constitutional arrangements, is simply a tool; a means to a desired end. The focus must be on end goals, not the journey. We must be mindful that the final destination – a fairer, better Scotland in which liberal values can thrive – is so much more significant than the route by which we arrive there.

In 2014, like millions of other Scots, I will be voting on the future of our nation. I will do so from a commitment to liberal values and a determination to progress the cause of liberalism. That is why I will vote “yes”.