Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Constitution

Why are Scots leaning towards independence?

Oct 16

Posted by The Burd in Constitution, Parties | 31 Comments

As my esteemed blogging colleague, Jeff highlighted, today’s Com Res poll for the Independent on Sunday produces the astonishing finding that a majority of folk south of the border support independence.

The whole poll sampled over 2000 voters across the UK, but only 176 were in Scotland, so caveats apply about the representativeness of the sample size.  But the really interesting findings are on voting intentions and opinions about the performance of various leaders and parties.

First, the headline indie finding in Scotland – support is up to 49%, an increase of 11% since the last Com Res poll, and firmly within the direction of travel reported by other polls over the summer.

Apparently, at the last General Election, 28% of Scots voted “other”, one presumes mainly for the SNP.  If there was a UK election tomorrow, 33% would vote SNP, 30% would vote Labour, 11% would vote Conservative and 6% vote Liberal Democrat.  Again, in tune with other polls, the SNP is increasingly becoming the party of choice for voters at all elections.  Would a 33% result be enough to see constituencies topple like dominoes, as happened in May?  Doubtful.  They need more swing towards them and away from Labour, particularly in the central belt.

The poll suggests the Lib Dems are finished in Scotland, at least for the foreseeable future.  On a series of attitudinal statements, the Scots are much more down on the Liberal Democrats than other parts of the UK or indeed the UK as a whole.

*Nick Clegg is turning out to be a good leader for the Liberal Democrats* – 83% of Scots disagreed compared to 53% at UK level

*The Liberal Democrats have done a good job of moderating Conservative policies in the Coalition* – an oft repeated assertion by Scottish Lib Dems in particular – 61% of Scots disagree compared to 47% for the UK

*Being in coalition with the Conservatives has shown the Liberal Democrats to be a credible party of government* – 17% of Scots agree compared to 24% of total participants across the UK.  Only Wales has a lower percentage agreeing (15%).

There is divergence in opinion amongst Scots voters compared to the UK as a whole and whatever the Scottish Liberal Democrats do, they are facing an uphill battle the whole time their party is in coalition with the Conservatives at UK level, because Scots do not believe it is making any difference to UK government policies or behaviour.  That belief is no doubt affirmed every time a Scottish Liberal Democrat MP pops up in the news bearing bad news – as the water carriers for the government in Scotland they are intrinsically linked to it all and it is doing nothing for their reputation with Scottish voters.

The poll also suggests a link between the Conservatives being in power, the austerity of the times we live in and growing support for independence.

*The Coalition Government’s policies share the burden of hard times fairly so that we are “all in it together”* – over one in four UK participants agree with this statement (27%) but in Scotland it’s less than one in five (18%).

And while one third of respondents think David Cameron is turning out to be a good Prime Minister across the UK, in Scotland only 18% think so.  If the Liberal Democrats have a hill to climb to turn around their electoral fortunes in Scotland, then the Conservatives clearly have a mountain to scale.

It is supposition – and it would be great if someone, other than the parties themselves, was prepared to engage in qualitative research that explores why Scottish voters are headed towards independence – but with a UK Government not to their liking, and not behaving in a way which finds favour with Scottish voters, you can see why people might be turning towards independence as a credible alternative.

And there are other polls indicating the key role that the economic situation might just be playing in that shift.  To be blogged on later….

 

 

Union on Saturday, Independent on Sunday

Oct 16

Posted by Jeff in Constitution | 12 Comments

A quick post this morning from the mists of the Yorkshire Dales to note the poll on Scottish independence in the IoS that shows slender support in favour across the UK at 39% (up 6% from the equivalent poll in May) against a preference for the union at 38% (down 4%). The Scottish subsample, a positively brittle 176 respondents, has a more pronounced gap – 49% in favour of independence and 37% against.

Now, it’s only Scotland that will get to vote in any referendum and it’d be silly to give much (if any) credence to a poll with such a high margin of error but it is interesting that in a UK context the result goes in the Nats’ favour. I’m not aware of any poll having achieved that before.

That said, stripping out the Scotland subsample must actually result in rUK being AGAINST independence but I do wonder if an unbreakable spiral is beginning to take hold on this issue across Britain.

If people south of the border don’t know much of the detail of Scottish Politics but see the SNP winning a majority here and Alex Salmond arguing for Scottish independence there, it is little wonder that more and more non-Scots start to think ‘well blinkin’ well be independent then if you want it that way’. And if that notion is messaged up to Scotland in some way, through a poll in a national newspaper say, then it can only serve to harden the growing sense that a majority may well be voting Yes in a few years time, even if ordinarily they’d be loathe to breakaway. It’s easier to leave the party when you feel unwanted after all.

Whether this battle of sentiments based on misunderstandings proves to be a war of attrition or a blessing in disguise, we can only wait and see but perhaps polls with dodgy subsamples have a bigger part to play in all of this than some people give them credit for.

Pete Wishart: The Labour leadership speech you won’t hear

Oct 13

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution | 140 Comments

Don’t panic CyberNats!  Pete Wishart MP has not defected – this is his imagining of the kind of speech he’d like to hear the Scottish Labour leadership contenders make:

“Ladies and gentlemen, comrades, members of the press. Today I announce my candidacy for the leadership of the Labour Party of Scotland. These are exciting and challenging times. After that crushing defeat in May, it is time to rebuild and renew, to slay sacred cows and chart a new way ahead.

Yes, we were beaten in May because of poor leadership and badly thought-out policies. But the real reason we were beaten so comprehensively is because of a more fundamental problem, and that is for the past ten years the Labour Party has been at least ten steps behind the ambitions of the Scottish people. We have tried to disparage that ambition, neuter it and hold it back. With me as your leader, we will never be put in that position again.

Instead I want to lead that ambition, to work with its flow, to realise its potential. I want to lead a new Scotland, secure in its own skin and dependent on no-one but ourselves.

This is why comrades, that one of the first things I will do, as your leader, will be to commission a new internal body to look at our historic opposition to Scottish independence. As your leader, I will ask that body to look at how we could become a new voice for independence in Scotland, and how we could have a new 21st century relationship throughout these isles based on equality and mutual respect.

It is time comrades, to put our opposition to independence aside, to look at the national interest, and to work for a new and better future for all the people of Scotland.

It was the Labour Party that delivered the Scottish Parliament. It is the Labour Party that has throughout the decades championed the values of social justice and equality. Comrades, are we seriously saying that we cannot build on these fine founding principles in an independent Scotland? An independent Scotland that could be moulded in the Labour tradition?

The alternative is to have a Tory Government in Westminster continue to govern in Scotland, unwanted by the Scottish people and alien to our values. Are we really saying that it is preferable to have a Tory Government running all these reserved responsibilities rather than have them returned to Scotland and put under the democratic control of the Scottish people in ours, in Scotland’s, Parliament?

The alternative is unthinkable. To be lumped in with the Tories, once again, saying no to Scotland. To invent reasons why the Scots aren’t creative enough to make a success of their independence. We’ve done that before and it does not work. I will not talk down my fellow Scots any longer.

Comrades, our illogical and pathological hatred of the SNP has blinded us to what is right for the people of Scotland. It is now time for that to come to an end, to be on the right side of history and to do the right thing.”

(,,,,and a pig was seen flying past the window…….)

Tags: , , ,

Why the UK Government should call an early referendum

Oct 5

Posted by Jeff in Constitution | 140 Comments

The key to winning any battle is often in the timing.

William Wallace won the battle of Stirling Bridge by moving early on the English forces and making sure his army held the advantageous North Bank of the River Forth. Then they waited.

Knowing that the number of front line Scottish forces equalled the number of front line English forces across the fixed width of a bridge, Wallace waited for as many of the English forces to cross the bridge as he knew his smaller forces could overwhelm and then pounced with devastating effect.

That was then and this is now but let’s not pretend that the two sides of the independence debate are not similarly preparing for battle. Salmond’s forces are to the North and Cameron’s considerably larger forces are to the South, albeit with less deadly consequences than 1297 about to ensue.

With timing being such a key question in any such contest, it is not clear to me why the Prime Minister, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband are not collectively taking advantage of the SNP’s apparent indecision over detailed questions of its independence proposals and trampling through their opponents upon the steed of a 2012 referendum, long before we reach the SNP’s preferred timing and terrain of 2015.

We only need to look to May 2011 for an example of why moving early may well be to the unionist camp’s benefit.

The AV referendum was held within a year of the General Election result, a surprise result that created a Tory-Lib Dem coalition and a previously undiscussed policy of a referendum on the Alternative Vote. The lack of understanding around what this voting system involved led to all manner of misinformation being peddled by the No camp.

So why would this tactic be any different in an independence referendum? What would independence mean for Scotland’s currency? For Scotland’s Defence? For our welfare state? For our banks? Insert your own answers here, and that’s exactly what may happen. It would be the No camp and a sympathetic media, just as it was for AV, that would make the running on those unanswered questions if the pro-independence parties are not allowed time to get their act together and prepare a better narrative.

It’s sneaky, it’s tawdry, it’s downright duplicitous. But, it’s politics and a win is a win. You bank it and move on. Just look at the sobbing mess that is was the Liberal Democrat policy of voting reform. That could be the independence movement this time next year.

There are more worthy arguments in favour of holding a referendum early over and above pressing home the weight of numbers, resources and column inches:

– Constitutional matters are deferred. The SNP won an election with a manifesto that promised a referendum. Consequently, it’s reasonable to argue that it is now incumbent on the Westminster Government to deliver that referendum, in consultation with the Scottish Government. There is no question that anyone other than the Scottish public should have a vote in this election and Michael Moore’s ill-advised earlier intervention has also ended the speculation that two referendums may be required. The path is clear – all that is left is for Westminster to roll out the carpet and let Scotland walk down it in the manner that she chooses. What are we waiting for?

– If you’re not playing offence then you are playing defence and doing nothing for four years while the SNP makes all the running on wording, timing and softening up the electorate barely even counts as defence. A Government that is doing nothing on any specific issue quickly falls into the trap of inertia and, as much as the Conservatives only returned one MP north of the border, it is still the leading partner in the UK Government and is duty bound to act in what it considers to be the entirety of the UK’s best interests. That extends to holding a referendum when the alternative is putting Scotland on ice for a whole parliamentary term.

– The SNP has had enough time to explain what their version of independence means and, if a snap date was called even today, it (and the Greens and the Socialists) would still have time to explain their respective visions between then and voting day. It would be a hollow objection if anyone in the SNP claimed they were being bounced into having to campaign for an aspiration that they as a party have striven for for 77 long, largely fruitless years.

– There is little doubt that the delay in holding a referendum is damaging Scotland and a responsible UK Government should see this and act accordingly, irrespective of their view that the devolved Government is truculent and troublesome. One example is as follows – there is a strong argument for having the UK’s Green Investment Bank in Edinburgh. It would be close to much of the renewable projects and expertise that exists in the country and the Finance Sector in Scotland’s Capital has suffered disproportionate loss of jobs and prestige through the economic crisis so suitably qualified, motivated staff are in place to hit the ground running. However, why would the UK Government risk starting the bank in Scotland when there is a risk that in several years’ time Scotland will be leaving the UK? This issue of Scotland being short-changed of investment up to the referendum date can be grossed out across all market areas to a greater or lesser extent.

– Independence is dominating and, as a result, dogging Scottish politics. Just think of all the parliamentary time, the media space and the resources that would be freed up if the decision was taken once and for all? Similar sized nations have a significant advantage over us when they can discuss actual policies surrounding real governmental areas like education, health and justice while the same hollow independence arguments get hurled between Nats and Unionists over freedom/separation in the debating chamber, and in the media. Look up Scottish Politics news from ten years ago and it will look depressingly similar to the debate that is going on today. Political progress is being trammelled for no good reason other than partisan positioning. Let’s finally get past it and crack on with what matters.

– The timing is ideal. The Scotland Bill is making its way through Westminster and in order to ensure that this package of proposed solutions is lasting, an amendment should be tacked on to pave the way for a referendum that, from a Tory/Lib Dem perspective, strips away the option of independence once and for all and ensures appropriate focus is given to the UK Government’s Bill.

The main reason, of course, for the coalition agreement agreeing to a referendum sooner rather than later is a political one. They have a better chance of winning it if it is held sooner, not to mention a better chance of winning more MEPs and MPs at the expense of a neutered SNP in elections in 2014 and 2015 respectively.

To understand this fully requires a clear understanding of the SNP strategy which seems to be:
(1) run a competent, popular devolved Government that mitigates and insulates the worst of the Tory policies up to the General Election of 2015,
(2) hope, perversely, that the Tories win an outright majority in 2015 despite not returning a single MP north of the border and
(3) run a referendum campaign in late 2015 with the public’s two options being:

(a) suffering from a UK Conservative Government every other parliamentary term or
(b) enjoying a new Scotland under guaranteed left-leaning parties forming Governments

It is a smart, savvy, perfectly winnable strategy but it requires the door being held open to it for four long years and those who prefer the UK to remain in place are foolish to stand idly by.

I am excited for the independence campaign, agnostic about the result and impatient for it to begin.

Scotland has local elections on May 3rd 2012. That seems as good a date as any to nip this independence question in the bud once and for all.

And how ironic if, in winning the waiting game, it was David Cameron who sent the SNP homewards, to think again.

The use and abuse of history in the independence debate; calling all historians to the table

Oct 3

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Media | 29 Comments

A guest post from Craig Kelly today. Craig is a graduate of Dundee University and Masters student at Uppsala Universitet in Sweden. He specialises in early modern northern European history with specific interests in historical theory, environmental, parliamentary, and protestant history. Whilst in the cold hinterland of central Sweden he blogs on his experiences under the title of ‘ScotinSweden‘ and has become partial to fika.

I want to start with the words that I have always wanted either to say or hear someone else say – the Scottish Parliament, which adjourned on March 25th 1707, is hereby reconvened’

These were the words proclaimed by an elderly Winnie Ewing as she chaired the opening session of the re-established Scottish Parliament. Yet, no one would suggest splitting the parliament into an estate structure and recreating the Lords of the Articles, so how useful is this reminiscence?  

In her post last week, Ruth Davidson turned historian when she claimed that ‘despite being in this political and economic union, we have still been able to maintain our own sense of nationhood’. Ruth, are you sure that has always been the case throughout the union? Is it fair to say that at the end of the nineteenth century Scotland had a distinct notion of itself?

Not to be left out, Tom Harris got stuck into a bit of historical theory when he countered Pete Wishart’s teleological trap ‘Pete wants us all to close our eyes, click our heels together three times and imagine that he was right all along to talk about the inevitability of independence.’

These are some early examples of the use and abuse of history in the constitutional debate. They are not the first and nor will they be the last. One side will appeal to our independent identity defined by Wallace, the reformation, and the early modern parliament. Whilst the unionists will hark to our glorious shared past during empire. Neither are wholly helpful, and neither are wholly correct.

Where the politicians are right is that our history, whether we are aware of it or not, plays a substantial role in our understanding of the world. Many in the south west may instinctually be drawn to side with unionism. Is it not fair to suggest that this is a correlation with traditional Labour heartland, which in itself is covenanter territory? Hardened Presbyterianism turned Christian socialism, now strong unionism. Neither can the independence movement be separated from wider historical processes of change. As Tom Devine once argued, the growth of nationalism is in response to a union ‘not fit for purpose in the twenty-first century.’

This post is an open letter to Scottish historians. Will you stand idly by as the nation engages in the most important debate of our time? I will always remember the consensus that Dundee historians held in a panel debate, where they agreed that it was not the role of academics to get involved in the public sphere. I disagreed then and I disagree now. These people who have dedicated their lives to understanding our nation’s history are better placed than most to postulate on our future. This is not a demand for Plato’s philosopher kings, but it is a provocation to the academic community in Scotland. Jean Paul Sartre believed that philosophy was not only for the lecture hall when he accepted a role in the French government. So you, the historians of Scotland, have a meaningful contribution to make to our ongoing constitutional debate. Will you maintain your silence, discuss only in the corridors of humanities departments, and listen with aggravation as politicians butcher our history for their own ends?

As humanities departments are targeted for cuts by culturally ignorant Principles the length and breadth of Scotland, is this not the perfect opportunity to demonstrate what the study of the humanities can contribute to society?

To Julian Goodare, Tom Devine, Alan MacInnes, Fiona Watson, Christopher Whately, Alan MacDonald, Keith Brown, and the others to numerous to mention. Is it not time, to quote Charles Terry, ‘to play a fitting part in the nation’s history’?

Â