Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Constitution

SNP on holiday; independence leads polls

Sep 5

Posted by Malc in Constitution | 52 Comments

Tartan deckchairOkay, my title is crude – but I’m genuinely surprised that some of the tabloids haven’t made that connection!

Anyway, surely today’s biggest story (well, the story that will interest Better Nation readers the most!) is the news that independence has overtaken continued membership of the UK in an opinion poll for the Herald for the first time in three years.

Pollster TNS-BMRB has asked the Scottish Government’s preferred question in each of its 10 polls over the last four years, asking voters whether they agree or disagree “that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state”.

In this poll, those selecting “I agree” totalled 39% to 38% for those who disagreed.

Support for independence trailed support for the Union by 8 points when the SNP won May’s Holyrood election, and in a little over 100 days of majority SNP Government (albeit with the majority of that time spent on recess!) that has changed into a one point lead.

I guess the question is: why?

As I said in the previous paragraph, the Scottish Parliament has been in recess for most of that period.  So while the SNP’s performance in government might have been a factor in some people’s responses, it can’t be the whole story – since they haven’t really done anything.

But then, that might be part of the explanation.  With Holyrood in recess, political attention has been focused on Westminster.  And that means focusing on the actions of what is – in Scotland at least – a generally unpopular Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government.  Plus, we’ve seen riots in English cities, apparently based upon reaction to coalition policies, with spending cuts being cited in many cases as one of the reasons for spreading of the riots.

Yes, this is a simplistic explanation – based on little evidence and lots of conjecture – but it does beg another question:

If support for independence has increased because the SNP has not been in the news, what will happen when the Holyrood recess is over and the party are subject to the usual media critiques?

I guess time will tell.  But in the meantime, presumably, SNP strategists will be digesting these latest polls and working out what the party need to do to keep the numbers for independence moving in an upward trajectory.  And if that means the party stay out of the news, then that might be what happens…

No half measures apparently allowed

Jul 27

Posted by James in Constitution, Culture | 9 Comments

To continue the metaphor.A classic July debate over identity has flourished on the blogs – starting with Kenny Farquharson‘s pop-based analysis of the emotional arguments for Britain, then continuing here with Pete Wishart‘s “British-identifying Scottish Nationalist” post which attracted a bit of MSM attention, including Newsnicht last night. Responses included David Torrance‘s rebuttal that Scottishness and Britishness are the same sort of thing, also here, then Lallands Peat Worrier thoughtfully identified the parallels between the positions Kenny and Pete set out. Stuart Winton also piled in with his analysis this morning of the debate’s implications for the actual constitutional question.

These are a very diverse set of views, if uniformly pretty blokey – and apologies for extending that last aspect. In order, they are: a look at an emotional fondness for Britain as one basis for remaining within it, a reclamation of British as a term to retain for the post-independence social union, a separation of burgeoning Scottish identity from a desire for independence, a consideration of problems with the general argument that national identity should drive state boundaries, and an effort to bring the debate back to the question of how it will affect a independence referendum. Any authors above who think I’ve misrepresented them, please let me know.

They all have one thing in common, though, a key assumption which is both mistaken and which suits the SNP. Consider (h/t Malc) the Moreno Scale used to assess attitudes (pdf, see p5-6), which in the Scottish instance, asks people which best describes them, without even, oddly, an “Other” option:

Which, if any, of the following best describes how you see yourself?
a) Scottish not British
b) More Scottish than British
c) Equally Scottish and British
d) More British than Scottish
e) British not Scottish

The journalists and bloggers above – again, apologies if I’m misrepresenting anyone – assume, like Moreno, that everyone has an equally strong sense of national identity. Imagine it like a cocktail glass which is equally full for everyone, just composed of a different mixture of elements or, in some cases, a straight draught of a single drink.

You can have a glass full of Scottishness, or one full of Britishness, or perhaps an equal mix of the two. You might make space for a dash of Europeanism (although none of the posts above consider that element), or perhaps for a regional identity – try telling a Shetlander that there’s no local identity there. Would Margo perhaps go for a mix of Scottishness and Edinburghness? You might even have a splash or more of actual Englishness, or a shot of Welsh in there. You might also, to mix the metaphors thoroughly, like some bhangra with your bagpipes. But the glass is the same size for everyone, the underlying argument goes, and everyone’s glass must as a matter of fact be equally full of something.

Mine isn’t.

A massive chunk of the issues I think are most important are either global (loss of biodiversity, climate change, resource depletion, peace and war, trade injustice and exploitative economics) or certainly partly international (poverty, threats to civil liberties etc).

I do feel more Scottish than European, and more European than British, but more global than all of those, pompous as that may sound. But largely I don’t think about it, and largely I don’t care about it. I’m sure I’m not alone.

National identity really doesn’t drive me at all, except for the odd 90 minutes. There’s very little of any sort in my glass. Identity questions are certainly entirely unrelated to my reasons for getting involved in politics. The fact that I feel more Scottish than British doesn’t even seem related to my support for independence – that’s about wanting decisions to be taken closer to the people, and about a rejection of the corrupt and intensely conservative Westminster system.

Debates about what our collective identity should be seem as absurd to me as a debate about what our collective sexuality should be. Both are personal, and both of varying levels of interest to different people. People mean different and personal things by these words – as Pete Wishart has demonstrated, which means debate about them is thick with misunderstanding and pointlessness.

As long as the contest is held on the woolly ground of identity rather than practicalities, and as long as the assumption keeps being made that identity of one sort or another is the dominant driver for the public and the parties alike, the SNP will be able to focus on their bogus claim to be speaking for the whole of Scotland and avoid all the tricky questions. And the Moreno Scale needs another option: “Frankly I don’t much care one way or the other – why don’t you ask me about something more important?”

David Torrance: The politics of national identity

Jul 23

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Ideology | 8 Comments

Better Nation is delighted to welcome David Torrance in a guest post, in part responding to Pete Wishart’s from yesterday, but also positing ideas and opinions of his own. David is an accomplished author, journalist and broadcaster, and will be known to many BN readers. He tweets @davidtorrance and  blogs at Mugwump.

David TorranceOn one level, Pete Wishart’s recent blog (“Proud to be British in an Independent Scotland”) was a fascinating restatement of what “independence” means in the early 21st century. He would “be happy to see any number of shared institutions being called British” after independence (my italics), while speculating that it could even “give Britishness a new lease of life”.

Yet on another, the politics of national identity, Wishart appears almost as confused as he claims Britishness is. Surprisingly, he concedes the geographical dimension almost straight away (why? It’s integral to so much of the argument, not least in terms of oil), while focusing his attention on Britishness “as a cultural idea”. “No one has ever come up with a convincing definition of Britishness”, concludes Wishart, “because there probably isn’t one.”

Now I wouldn’t quibble with this assertion, far from it, but Wishart singularly fails to – although it is implied – articulate a definition of “Scottishness”, which presumably he believes exists. “Cultural Britishness is then a rather curious construct that can be almost anything, and usually is,” he writes, “hence the mom and apple pie attributes usually associated with Britishness when people are asked to define it.”

I would apply the same critique to Scottishness, for dwelling on national identity for any length of time inevitably steers political debate into a cul-de-sac. Once you move beyond constitutional definitions, it’s all – frankly – a bit meaningless. Yet the SNP retains a peculiar fascination with trying to pigeonhole people as “Scottish” or “British”, the recent census (which classified Scottishness as an “ethnicity”) being a case in point.

Wishart then offers a generous – and actually quite convincing – definition of Britishness (“great historic cultural achievements…pride in our victories in the wars we fought together”), but then spoils it by labelling this “the social union” which, of course, is a relatively recent Nationalist construct. “Our gripe”, explains Wishart, is with the “current political arrangements within the United Kingdom”. Doesn’t it occur to him that those “political arrangements” were central to the cultural achievements and wars he rightly lauds?

In my mind, John P. Mackintosh hit the nail on the head when he spoke of many Scots seeing themselves as Scottish and British, also arguing that with this “dual nationality, there is a simple alternative if the pride in being British wanes; just be Scottish. It is an ‘opt out’ solution which allows each person to imagine the kind of alternative to the disappointment of being British which he or she wants.”

As polls demonstrate, more and more Scots are opting out, although that doesn’t necessarily mean they want independence. Which brings me back to my opening point: Wishart says independence will facilitate “the opportunity to define a new Britishness, one based on equality and mutual respect”. Elsewhere in his blog he refers to “moving towards independence”. In doing so, he’s simply echoing a recent speech by Alex Salmond, but why, I wonder, don’t they just say “independence”?

Pete Wishart MP: Proud to be British in an Independent Scotland

Jul 22

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Ideology, Society | 47 Comments

Being technologically challenged, I don’t know how to post this as being from a “guest”.  Hopefully one of the boys will appear at some point and sort it…. meantime, not from the Burd but from someone much more eminent and sensible, Pete Wishart.  Pete is the SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire and is also the SNP Westminster spokesperson on all things constitutional, cultural and related to media, international development, home affairs and sport.  You can follow him on Twitter @PeteWishart.

Probably one of the most passionate debates we’re going to have in the run up to the referendum will be around the whole idea of identity and Britishness. Like many proud nationalists I have struggled with the idea of being British and have never described myself as such. But what will happen to the whole concept as Scotland moves towards independence and can the idea make a comeback and even become respectable in nationalist circles?

Firstly, I suppose Britishness is as much about geography as it is about identity and history. Coming from Perth in the northern part of the island of Greater Britain I am as much British as someone from Stockholm is Scandinavian.

It’s when we try and add the other bits that we start to get into the difficulties. If Britishness is to work as a cultural idea a shared story as well as a shared geography has to be constructed. And that’s the hard part. No one has ever come up with a convincing definition of Britishness because there probably isn’t one. And the concept has to be almost constantly rewritten – remember Gordon Brown’s clumsy and excruciating attempt and Michael Portillo’s recent nonsense about “anti-fanaticism”? Cultural Britishness is then a rather curious construct that can be almost anything, and usually is, hence the mom and apple pie attributes usually associated with Britishness when people are asked to define it.

But there is absolutely no doubt that people indeed do feel and identify themselves as British, even in Scotland. For me Britishness is so much more than the usual confused descriptions. For me cultural Britishness isn’t one thing but is the sum of the 300 years journey that we have enjoyed and endured on this island. It is what we have achieved and secured together in this partnership. It is about the great historic cultural achievements from the industrial revolution to our great rock and pop bands. It is about pride in our victories in the wars we fought together and the collective sense of shame in our historic crimes of colonialism and slavery. Britishness is in fact the social union, and being British belongs as much to me as a proud Scottish nationalist and Scottish patriot as it does to anyone from England.

Our gripe then isn’t with cultural Britishness, the social union, but with the current political arrangements within the United Kingdom. As civic nationalists we want the powers to grow our economy and make our own specific international contribution. We want to complete the powers of our Parliament and take responsibility for our own affairs. We have no issues with the past and our British inheritance is a crucial part of our own Scottish story.

Britishness will exist in Scotland long after we become independent. In fact I think that it could well be enhanced with independence. With independence we will get the opportunity to define a new Britishness, one based on equality and mutual respect. Britishness will still be all about our shared history and culture but it can also be about the new positive relationship we will seek to build.

I would also be happy to see any number of shared institutions being called British and it could and should be the brand name of our new enhanced and equal 21st century partnership. Who knows maybe independence can give Britishness a new lease of life.

So there you go, that’s me, British and proud of it in an independent Scotland.

Tags: , , ,

Sir John Major’s Ditchley Foundation speech – the full transcript on devolution

Jul 13

Posted by Jeff in Constitution | 11 Comments

Sir John Major gave a speech on Saturday at the Ditchley Foundation Annual Dinner. The section on devolution and Scotland created a few headlines (and I blogged about it on Sunday, albeit in a ‘churnalism’ sort of way) but the full text of Sir John’s speech was not available online.

Until now that is…

The full transcript of the ‘Devolution of Power’ section of Sir John Major’s speech is shown below (and note the calling for two referendums near the end):

DEVOLUTION OF POWER

There are options (to making Westminster less over-burdened):

Pass fewer laws – which is attractive, and to be hoped for: though I’m not holding my breath.
But we could contract more to local government and devolve more to the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies. In a cautious and incremental way, the Coalition is taking action to do this. I welcome that and encourage them to go further.

Some years ago, I opposed the creation of local Mayors. I was wrong. Mayors do put in place a dynamic and – as successive Mayors of London have shown – they can be effective megaphones for our big cities. But under present plans, Mayors will only inherit the existing powers of Council leaders: in future, I hope their remit can be widened.

There is one caveat: their power of decision should be real, not illusory, and this implies a funding responsibility to pay for – at least the majority of – their policies. When next we look at local authority finance that should be the objective.

Devolution can also reduce the Westminster workload. But there is some groundwork to be cleared first. The present quasi-federalist settlement with Scotland is unsustainable. Each year of devolution has moved Scotland further from England. Scottish ambition is fraying English tolerance. This is a tie that will snap – unless the issue is resolved.

The Union between England and Scotland cannot be maintained by constant aggravation in Scotland and appeasement in London. I believe it is time to confront the argument head on.

I opposed Devolution because I am a Unionist. I believed it would be a stepping stone to Separation.
That danger still exists. Separatists are proud Scots who believe Scotland can govern itself: in this, they are surely right. So they point up grievances because their case thrives on discontent with the status quo. But even master magicians need props for their illusions: remove the props, and the illusion vanishes.

The props are grievances about power retained at Westminster. The present Scotland Bill does offer more power to the Scottish Parliament. But why not go further? Why not devolve all responsibilities except foreign policy, defence and management of the economy?

Why not let Scotland have wider tax-raising powers to pay for their policies and, in return, abolish the present block grant settlement, reduce Scottish representation in the Commons, and cut the legislative burden at Westminster?

My own view on Scottish independence is very straightforward: it would be folly – bad for Scotland and bad for England – but, if Scots insist on it, England cannot – and should not – deny them.
England is their partner in the Union, not their overlord. But Unionists have a responsibility to tell Scotland what independence entails.

A referendum in favour of separation is only the beginning. The terms must then be negotiated and a further referendum held.

These terms might deter many Scots. No Barnett Formula. No Block Grant. No more representation at Westminster. No automatic help with crises such as Royal Bank of Scotland. I daresay free prescriptions would end and tuition fees begin.

And there is no certainty of membership of the EU. Scotland would have to apply, meet tough criteria, await lengthy negotiations and would find countries like Spain – concerned at losing Catalonia – might not hold out a welcome for Separatists. And, even if Scotland were admitted, they would find their voice of 5 million is lost and powerless in a Union of 500 million.

But it must, ultimately, be their choice.

(attribution – The Ditchley Foundation)