Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Constitution

Nationalist journey to independence may be disrupted by Asch cloud

Feb 7

Posted by Jeff in Constitution, Society | 13 Comments

The Asch conformity experiments of the 1950s were a series of studies that demonstrated the power of conformity in groups.

The fascinating details can be read here but the summary is that, in group situations and despite a contrary clear correct answer, individuals are disposed to providing an incorrect answer against their better judgement if they are conforming with a clear majority view.

From Wikipedia:
Solomon Asch hypothesized that the majority of people would not conform to something obviously wrong; however, when surrounded by individuals all voicing an incorrect answer, participants provided incorrect responses on a high proportion of the questions (32%). Seventy-five percent of the participants gave an incorrect answer to at least one question.

The famous experiment proved that people are more likely to opt for something that they don’t necessarily believe in if a number of people before them, even if they are strangers, opt for that same choice.

This may well be a hint at the battle ahead right up to Autumn 2014.

For Nationalists, the challenge is to persuade Scots to conform to the notion that Scotland as an independent country is merely conforming with a world view of where our constitutional borders should be drawn. It is tantamount to asking the following: ‘Complete the sequence: Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Denmark, Finland,… That’s right. Sc-… Scot-… You can say it to us, everyone else has.’

On the unionist side, the rat-a-tat-tat of conformity is just as unrelenting: ‘Stronger together, weaker apart. Too small, too stupid. Stronger together, weaker apart. To small, too stupid. Stronger together, weaker apart… Say it back to us, come on…’

The above is precisely why I hope that every Scot who is eligible to vote in this referendum takes a quiet moment to themselves, away from the bluster, the blogs and the b*llocks, has a conversation with themselves deciding what it is that they want from their country going forwards and, crucially, that they stick to that decision come what may right up to voting day.

As far as I am aware, every meaningful poll on Scottish independence has shown lower than 50% support in favour of a Yes vote. However, mindful of the Asch experiments, there is a strong argument that these polls unfairly increase the likelihood of the next poll delivering the same result, irrespective of what people may really think on the inside.

There was a time, not so long ago, that to admit that one voted for the SNP was akin to having a stain on your character. You were a narrow-minded, caber-tossing, bagpipe-playing isolationist if you voted SNP and you weren’t allowed to forget it. The SNP has of course largely managed to cast off that reputation when it comes to elections to Holyrood but to what extent does it still exist within Scotland when it comes to the independence question?

When Lord Ashcroft is concerned that there is bias in the referendum process then he uses his money and privilege to publicly highlight this with a useful poll. However, a not dissimilar bias, and a potentially more significant one, exists the other way but there is no poll that will quantify, let alone qualify, the impact of the press, the main political parties and the business leaders with vested interests lining up to instruct the public to conform to their particular view.

Asch has proved that meek conformity will be a factor in this referendum, at least to some degree. We should ignore this at our peril.

The SNP shouldn’t have a monopoly on visions of independence

Feb 6

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution | 42 Comments

A most welcome guest today from Calum Wright, who very occasionally blogs at North By Left. Calum is a graduate of the University of St Andrews and is currently studying towards a Masters at Uppsala Universitet in Sweden. He specialises in early modern northern European history with specific interests in seventeenth century Britain, the history of ideas and political thought.

Monday saw the launch of a broad coalition of those with an interest in the future of Scotland, a coalition which presumably includes everyone in this country and a few more beside. The endeavour is as noble as it is unfocused, attempting to tackle the complex issue of ‘devolution max’, a constitutional conundrum more profound than independence. It is, of course, important that civic Scotland is engaged in the debate at all levels, but I am concerned that on the side of independence the SNP dominates, threatening to stifle all debate.

It is right that the SNP, which has campaigned ceaselessly and imaginatively for independence, should voice their well considered views. But they should not be the only voice, not even, dare I suggest it, the main voice. The mainstream media has so far ignored the Scottish Greens, but beyond the political parties represented at Holyrood there needs to be a pro-independence coalition which encompasses civic Scotland in all its variety.

Of course it can be argued that the SNP is itself a coalition of disparate interests, gathered together under Salmond’s big top with independence as the pole supporting the structure. Under that canvas huddle tartan tories and socialists, traditionalists and radicals, liberals and conservatives, republicans and monarchists. So the SNP is fundamentally unable to articulate a vision of post-independence Scotland partly because it can’t agree on what it should look like.

The SNP have therefore adopted a fairly conservative position, undoubtedly out of a desire not to frighten the horses as it were. However, this cautious approach risks hampering the swell of self-confidence which is growing in Scotland. The likelihood of independence is becoming real, and once this realisation has dawned the lid is lifted on the possibilities it offers. The unionists want to frighten Scots by trying to overwhelm them with this very fact: think of all the new institutions, civil servants, government departments, embassies, laws, legislation etcetera that will be required, they say.

So far the SNP response has been to offer some rough suggestions, which is appropriate given that future policies are the prerogative of future governments, not current ones. But a better response, and one which should involve all pro-independence parties, organisations and individuals in debate, is to say, “Yes, think of all the new things that will be required.” This is a huge change, and one that requires the people of Scotland not to sit in the audience but to take to the stage and participate in. Independence is too important to be left to the politicians.

The monumental implications and attendant possibilities of independence have been grasped by a only few and articulated by even less. Just yesterday a junior defence minister, in response to MPs’ questions about the future of Trident, stated that ‘The government are [sic] not making plans for independence as we are confident that people in Scotland will continue to support the Union in any referendum.’ Many people continue to act as if nothing will happen and many Scots remain pessimistic, burying their hopes of profound change under a traditional façade of cynicism and self-deprecation.

The problem is that the unionists warble on about technicalities and policies which are the right of post-independence parliaments alone, whilst the SNP offers, at least publicly, a timid imagining of Scotland’s future, rhetorically inspiring but ultimately nebulous. Dr Peter Lynch has written on Better Nation that ‘Independence is not a year zero for government or government institutions. Rather it is a case of bolting on new policy responsibilities… onto existing government institutions and organisations’.

This is a rather unexciting prospect. Surely the sine qua non of self-rule is the right to make decisions independently, irrespective of whether they are right or wrong. This includes the right to imagine a new Scotland, not necessarily mimicking the constitutional structures of England nor kowtowing to a fictitious constitutional past. I do not have a bold plan for a utopian Scotland at hand, but I do believe that the debate about Scotland’s future should not stop at the answer to Salmond’s proposed question. Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? Yes. No.

There is more to be discussed, and if the SNP are left as the safe, curiously reassuring arbiters of the meaning of independence we may wake up in an independent Scotland where so much has changed, yet nothing at all. Specific policies are of course the responsibility of future Scottish governments, but I want to see the Scottish imagination awoken as part of a process of shaking off an ingrained inferiority complex and shedding the dependency psyche which the union has burdened Scots with. We should think more in terms of what independence could mean rather than what it would mean.

True independence means having our own currency

Feb 2

Posted by James in Constitution, Economy | 108 Comments

The SNP appear finally to have woken up to the threat posed to the referendum by their support for Scottish membership of the Eurozone – given the incessant diet of Eurocrisis stories – and John Swinney has this week made a brave effort to kick it into the longest grass he could find. Leaving aside the debate about whether an independent Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU, or conversely would be compelled to join the Euro, what would be the best approach to the currency question for Scotland?

There are four basic options. Let’s call them Ireland, Montenegro, Norway and Sweden.

Ireland joined the Euro at the start, back in 1999, and it’s fair to say it seemed like a good idea at the time. Initially the Irish enjoyed an economic boom, built on low interest rates and low corporation tax, but as we know, it proved unstable to say the least. If the good times had kept rolling, it would have been hard to argue with, but more than a decade in the single currency has demonstrated the serious downsides to Euro membership. They surrendered control of monetary policy first, and now, with the new treaty, are about to surrender some control over fiscal policy too. Austerity is biting hard, the bond markets may again try to pick them off the back of the herd, and only the most diehard Euro-enthusiasts see joining their Euro woes as the way forward at this point. To get to this point we would in any case need to operate for a period with our own currency.

Montenegro uses the Euro, having previously used the Deutsche Mark (in the same way much of the former Yugoslavia did, de facto) but is not a member of the Eurozone. They have no true central bank of the form familiar from other independent nation states, and no say over monetary policy, and their fiscal policy is only limited by their desire to join the EU and become a full member of the Eurozone. A country in this position retains the option to start their own currency up (and, as the Velvet Divorce shows, this is easier than might be assumed), but their economic independence is limited to say the least.

Norway remains fully independent, having rejected EEC (as was) membership in a 1972 referendum. They run their own currency, and retain complete fiscal and monetary freedom (aside from any bowing and scraping to the markets they feel obliged to engage in). Through membership of the European Economic Area they gain access to EU markets as if they were members, and must comply with almost all single market requirements. The downside here, clearly, is the Norwegians have no formal input into those rules, and, oddly, they are required to contribute more than a billion Euros towards social and economic cohesion funds despite being ineligible for any funding in return.

Sweden is a full EU member, but has retained the krona despite being notionally committed to Euro membership, and despite not having an optout. As yet, though, they haven’t even gone into the ERM2 convergence zone, the essential next step if they were to join the Euro: and in 2003 moves towards the Euro were rejected in a referendum. The country’s economic policy is largely in domestic hands, both monetary and to a lesser extent fiscal (hence the decision to stay out of the latest treaty, or at least not to be governed by it while outside the Eurozone), but either way they retain all the advantages of EU membership.

John Swinney’s preferred short- and medium-term option, retention of the pound, has no direct current parallels in Europe, but the closest comparison is with Montenegro, with the Bank of England playing the part of the European Central Bank. We’d have no control at all over monetary policy, without even MPs at Westminster to lobby the Chancellor or any reason why Scottish interests should be considered by the Monetary Policy Committee. We’d have no true central bank, no ability to consider policies like quantitative easing.

it’s all the currency downsides of the Union with none of the input. It sounds reassuring, though: “we’ll retain the pound”. Not scary. No change. Like “we’ll retain the Saxe-Coburg Gothas“. But no amount of flannel from Mr Swinney about hopes for “lengthy and solid agreement with the Bank of England” alters the fact that any such agreement would have to be entirely on the Bank’s terms. It’s not even clear why that’d be better than adopting the strict Montenegin approach and just circulating the Euro.

The Irish example is perhaps even more unappealing, for reasons that have become obvious to to the SNP as well. For me, this leaves only our two Scandinavian neighbours as possible role models. Personally I’m still on balance in favour of EU membership, although the way the Eurozone crisis has exacerbated the Union’s centralising tendencies is gradually putting me off. For now, it looks like those in the EU but not in the Eurozone have the best of both worlds, but there may come a time when true independence outside the EU was clearly in Scotland’s best interests. Sweden for now, in other words, but with an eye on Norway.

Don’t make the discussion about Scotland, and leave aside the economics for now. Just ask Family Fortunes contestants what the characteristics of an independent country are. It seems likely that having your own currency and your own head of state would be pretty high up their list, whatever the experience of living next to the Eurozone and in the Commonwealth may tell us. It’s not a bizarre and outlandish thought.

And that’s the kind of independence I want. One where Scotland genuinely runs her own affairs. Plenty of other small countries have their own currencies – in fact, apart from Montenegro and Eurozone members, that’s the norm. Let’s do the same (and let’s have no Queen on it either: the idea that a new and notionally progressive state should choose the hereditary principle is surely absurd).

The Nats have a decent starting point. Yes: London’s control over our economy doesn’t benefit us. Yes: it’s remote and undemocratic. Yet Swinney’s plan would leave future Chancellors at Westminster and the Bank of England in charge of Scotland’s economy, while actually reducing the influence we have over them. And he’s still retaining the option of handing those policy levers over to the even more remote and undemocratic European Central Bank.

This economically incompetent position feels like it’s driven by focus group, like so much of the SNP’s trimming and tacking, motivated by a desire not to alarm the public who the SNP presumably believe care more about what the money in their pocket looks like than they do about the actual economic merits of a particular position. It’s a soft spot for the Unionist campaign to attack, though, and surely won’t hold up to intense scrutiny during a referendum campaign. Time to reconsider.

Note: this is my position, not Scottish Green Party policy, which remains to oppose membership of the single currency and to support independence. Technically that could mean support for either an independent Scottish currency or, ironically, John Swinney’s approach. I have no doubt that this will be discussed at Conference prior to any referendum.

UK = Titanic, sez Tory MP

Jan 26

Posted by Kirsty in Constitution, Westminster | 4 Comments

Speaking after the meeting of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday, David Davies MP (no, not that one) likened the future of the UK to the ill-fated Titanic, saying “It’s just a question of how long it takes to sink.”

I don’t tend nor like to give credence to the statements of politicians who claim £2,000 from taxpayers for a family business, or who thinks the torture of suspected Al Qaeda or Taliban terrorists is “a bonus”. It’s not even a very tasteful metaphor, when the news is still peppered with the ongoing search for missing souls in a maritime accident.

But on the day nominations close for the Plaid Cymru leadership, after Wyn Jones indicated he would stand down after disappointing 2011 election results, it’s pleasant to turn from Scotland to Wales, to see how devolution discussions are panning out there.

Davies’ comments are an interesting insight into the sheer irritation some Tories must have with a nation’s quest for devolution.

The Silk Commission was established in October 2011, to review both the fiscal and general powers of the Welsh Assembly. It will report on fiscal powers this autumn, looking mainly at whether the Senedd should take more responsibility for raising finance rather than from the block grant. It will then make recommendations on the Assembly’s other powers the year after.

In a similar sort of way to the commission on the West Lothian Question, it is the coalition’s preferred way to try to answer the issues developing around devolution, deriving from the original deal between Clegg and Cameron. Three members of the committee – chairman Paul Silk, Noel Lloyd and Dyfrig Jones – appeared before the Select Committee chaired by Davies this week.

And the Titanic jibe was not Davies’ only outburst. While chairing the Committee, Davies basically told Commission Chairman Paul Silk to get on with it:

“Could I suggest we could save £1m by you issuing a report now calling for lots of extra powers for the Welsh Assembly,” he said, because it “Is inevitably going to happen anyway.”

I doubt Davies’ ‘sod it’ attitude will sit well with the supposed unionist mantra of ‘stronger together’. It would be interesting to know how many of his fellow party members share the same view. At least it’s good to know the idea of more powers for Wales is an irritant to some on the government benches. After all, two stinging gadflies of nations pestering and positioning and petitioning for more powers are harder to ignore than one.

 

 

Donations to the referendum campaigns

Jan 23

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution | 8 Comments

A gratefully-received guest from Thomas Widmann, who blogs here. 

The SNP didn’t react kindly to the restrictions imposed on the independence referendum by the Unionist parties. Most of the differences between the two sides  are easily explainable in terms of expected votes. For instance, the SNP are clearly expecting voters under 18 to be more favourable towards independence than other voters, especially after being enfranchised by the SNP government. In the same way, Westminster’s suggestion that EU nationals living in Scotland should be allowed to take part is probably (but wrongly, in my view) due to an expectation that they’ll support the union more strongly than UK nationals.

However, it’s not immediately obvious why the SNP find the Electoral Commission unacceptable. After all, they seem perfectly happy to let the EC’s Scottish office be in charge of elections to the Scottish Parliament. Most observers have just hand-waved this issue away by saying that the SNP dislike anything made in the UK (and the EC is a body created by the UK government), or assumed that it’s just an unimportant demand so that they have something to trade in during
negotiations with Westminster.

I don’t think it’s as simple as that, though. The SNP have been planning for this for a very long time, and they normally have very good long-term reasons for what they do, just like their attack on the Supreme Court, which could be seen as a precaution in case the independence referendum ends up there.

So what are the issues with the Electoral Commission? There are at several areas that could be important.

First of all, there are very few Scots in the Electoral Commission. Currently there are two Scottish commissioners (John McCormick and George Reid), but the latter will be replaced in October, and probably not by an SNP member (the small parties at Westminster take turns). This makes it more likely that they’ll rule in favour of the Unionist side if there is a dispute, especially given that the commissioners are accountable directly to the UK Parliament.

Secondly, as pointed out in a recent comment on this blog by Alwyn ap Huw, if we look at their role in the recent referendum on increased powers for the Welsh Assembly, they might restrict the allowed spending to figures that would favour the Unionist parties. In Wales, the spending limits were £600k for a vote share of more than 30%; £480k for a vote share between 20% and 30%, £360k for a share between 10% and 20%, and £100 for smaller parties. If we use the list votes from the election to the Scottish Parliament in 2011 as a guide, and double the spending limits given Scotland’s size, such a rule could produce the following figures: Yes £1,400 (SNP £1,200k, Green £200k), No £1,880k (Labour £960k, Tories £720k, LibDems £200k). However, it appears that although the Electoral Commission would make a recommendation on the limits, they would be defined by the Scottish Parliament when calling the referendum, and they would apply only for a specific period of time before the referendum anyway, so this is unlikely to be the main reason.

Thirdly, the Electoral Commission seems to be following the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (PPERA) to the letter, and it contains very specific rules on many aspects of holding a referendum, some of which could be favourable to the Unionists. It could be easier to escape the limitations of PPERA if the Electoral Commission were not involved, especially if the referendum had been called by the Scottish Parliament without Westminster’s blessing, simply because the referendum wouldn’t necessarily have a legal basis anyway.

One aspect that is of particular interest here is that “overseas donations are prohibited by PPERA, since only those individuals who are on a UK electoral register, and only organisations that are registered and carry on business in the UK, can make donations to politicals organisations in the UK“, according to the EC. In other words, PPERA doesn’t seem to prevent the No side from getting funding from England, while blocking funding from expat Scots around the world.  I presume the Yes side would want to treat English and overseas donations the same way.

This could be quite a big deal. 2014 is the second Year of Homecoming, and together with the Commonwealth Games and the Ryder Cup it is likely to bring significant numbers of expat Scots to Scotland, many of whom are likely to have a romantic view of Scottish independence. If this source of income is denied to the Yes side, while the No side can get plenty of funding from English businesses with a logistic interest in keeping the Union together, it could be problematic.

On the other hand, many people are extremely enthusiastic about the prospect of an independent Scotland, while very few Unionists have equally strong feelings, so my guess is the Yes side should by default get the most donations, if allowed by the Electoral Commission.