Archive for category Holyrood

Why the left outside Scotland should start cheering the independence campaign

Sep 4

Posted by James in Holyrood | 17 Comments

I originally did this as a guest post for Steve Hynd, so apologies if you saw it there already. I just like having all my ramblings in one place, as far as possible.

Some on the English left, including Owen Jones, think a yes vote in the independence referendum would be bad news for the rest of the UK. The typical reasons include the fear of a perpetual Tory-led administration at Westminster, and a general view that nationalism is a distasteful ideology with which the left should have no truck, working class solidarity (“a working class resident of Dundee has more in common with a working class resident of Doncaster than with his middle class neighbours”).

Not only are they wrong, but Scottish independence could actually be a radical blow to the forces of conservatism across the UK.

But first, the fears, starting with the presumption of perpetual Tory rule in Westminster. Since 1945 the Scottish delegation have only changed the outcome of a general election three times out of eighteen. The numbers are here.

In two instances, Harold Wilson would twice have had a hung parliament rather than a weak Labour majority of three or four – both in 1964 and October 1974. I like hung Parliaments and minority administrations, personally, because they require cooperation and give rare moments of power to neglected minorities.

And in 2010, the Tories would have got an absolute majority of 19 without the Lib Dems to do exactly what they like, rather than a majority with the Lib Dems to do almost exactly what they like. And the rest of the UK wouldn’t have learnt what Scots learnt when the Lib Dems were in government here from 1999-2007: that they can’t be trusted. So that’s unfortunate. But rare.

And it’s fair to say that the MPs we’ve sent to London haven’t always been first-class – and the standard continues to fall as ambitious politically-minded Scots increasingly prefer to contest Holyrood seats. Of those that remain, to quote myself, “You won’t miss them. We won’t miss them either.”

As for the distaste for nationalism, the thing people like Owen either forget or ignore is that many Scots supporters of independence aren’t nationalists. They’re Greens, Socialists, radicals, localists, and anyone else who either feels Westminster can’t or won’t be reformed any time soon. Even many in the SNP fall into this category, even if some of the “non-nationalists for independence” in their ranks gloss that as “civic nationalism”. Plus, there are nationalists on the other side as well as pragmatists – anyone who argues for a continued Union based on myths and history of Britishness falls into the former category.

What’s more, although the SNP combine a centre-right economic position with a soft liberal social policy, they’re really nothing like the kind of right-wing nationalists you see elsewhere in Europe, even if some of their fringe supporters are rather grim. Sure, the SNP are as weak on climate change as Labour or the Lib Dems, but that is hardly enough to justify attempts to demonise them by people who know little about them.

From the left arguments against independence, that leaves working class solidarity. I’ve personally never understood why that same argument doesn’t apply to the working class in Ireland, France, or Peru, but let’s leave the idea of creating a Union with them all. Also, let’s forget that plenty of solidarity and cooperation already involves working across national borders – especially between neighbouring EU members.

Instead, turn it on its head. What could independence deliver for the left, for the working class, for environmentalists, feminists, socialists, peace activists and the rest?

For one thing, Scotland could be a good example of practical alternatives to the immigrant-stigmatising, poor-hating, soggy Westminster consensus. We already are on many issues. We got control over the health service well before the worst of the moves towards privatisation in England in particular. If the English left want to point to a successful model to adopt for their health service, we’ll almost certainly be keeping the flame of the NHS’s founding principles alight. While England and Wales saw tuition fees trebled, Scotland saw them abolished (edit: apparently I’m wrong about Wales). We’ve shown how PR can work both for a national parliament and at a local council level. Across all the issues I care about, independence would let us go much further. Attitudes here are, across the parties, are much more positive about immigration and asylum, and any divergence there would be a pretty good test case for what it would be like if England rejected the “immigration is a problem” myth.

A particularly clear example is Trident. If Scotland achieves independence, it seems likely that the clock will start ticking for the closure of Faslane. That will force the rest of the UK either to spend vast and unpopular sums rehoming this Cold War technology, or to consider how to accept a scaling-back of its nuclear ambitions. At worst, that looks like a massive campaign opportunity for the anti-war left outside Scotland.

And finally, the real purpose of independence for me: a vote against Westminster governance. It’s not just the Scottish left that regards Westminster as using a barely democratic electoral system, hobbled by inherited office-holders, in hock to corporate vested interests, opaque, and alienating. Ask yourself: if you had a vote next September to get Westminster out of your life forever and to replace it with a more open and fairly elected parliament, wouldn’t you take it? And wouldn’t you be just a little bit narked when people who don’t have a vote urge you to vote for Westminster?

Bill Walker: A modest proposal

Sep 3

Posted by Aidan in Holyrood | 4 Comments

Convicted abuser Bill Walker seems unlikely to step down as an MSP and while there are some avenues for removing his salary, at least while he’s actually serving his sentence, there doesn’t seem to be much Holyrood can do about it. Retrospective rule changes are incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights (incidentally celebrating its 60th anniversary today). To be perfectly honest I’m tempted to think that the problem here is not with the arrangements for removing a sitting MSP against their will but with the way that the case was handled by the prosecution, particularly the choice of summary trial.

Bringing in overarching systematic changes to one system (Holyrood) to deal with a failure in another (how the prosecution handled the specific case and, perhaps, its attitude towards domestic violence in general) seems to ignore the actual problem. That said it’s really not OK for Bill Walker to remain in office, so in the spirit of getting the violent sod to stand down I propose that when he is referred to it is done so as “convicted violent abuser Bill Walker MSP” in much the same was as Brendan O’Neill was given a prefix by Stavvers.

Hopefully he’ll step down soon: I don’t think I could take regular protests against me at my place of work, but then he doesn’t seem a very self-reflective person and maybe in the mean time his continued presence will prompt Holyrood to have a look at problems with the way the Scottish justice system treats cases of domestic violence.

Lodge petition lodged

Aug 29

Posted by Guest Blog in Holyrood, Justice | 3 Comments

A guest post today from Tom Minogue, who’s lodged a petition at Holyrood to ensure judges, sheriffs and jury members must declare masonic membership, or similar. Here’s his thinking. Thanks for the post, Tom!

As a schoolboy I was taught we were a better nation. Scotland had the best inventors, shipbuilders, currency and legal system and we were the hardest workers. It was that simple.

Driven by this Presbyterian work ethic myth I left school at 15 (no qualifications) and went on to form my own engineering business, which I ran successfully for 25 years before retiring. At its peak my company employed over 200.

My time in business was challenging and rewarding but also frustrating in that on many occasions opportunities were denied me because I was not “one of boys”.

In some works almost every gaffer’s hand I shook had the probing thumb of the freemason. This was not confined to engineering – also bank managers, tax inspectors and others – and left me to wonder how I might have fared were I one of the handshakers?

My firm conviction, based on a lifetime’s experience is that membership of freemasonry in Scotland – which has four times as many per head than England (the only world record we still hold?) – goes some way to explain why we have lost our worldwide reputation for excelling in areas we once led in: industry, banking and law.

I don’t like this state of affairs, but that is the way it is in Scotland and I will just have to lump it I suppose.

However in public life, where according to one ex-Grand Master Mason, freemasonry is the “very warp and weft”, I should not have to put up with Masonic shenanigans, especially not in the justice system.

And it was this prospect I faced when I was involved in a commercial dispute which was corrupted by freemasonry and led to a court case. Faced with the prospect of me, a non-Mason, having my evidence evaluated against that of a Masons in front of a Masonic Sheriff, I challenged the Sheriff hearing the case to declare his Masonic status. Because in such circumstances Masons are sworn to favour their brethren.

On hearing my challenge, the male sheriff promptly transferred my case to a lady sheriff, which satisfied my immediate concerns at the time, but after the hearing I petitioned the Scottish Parliament to have the law changed to require our judges and sheriffs to register secret society membership.

After toying with my petition for over three years, Parliament dismissed it without reason. This is not good enough and I am trying again under a new government with expanded terms to included jurors and other tribunals.

At the time of my previous petition I researched the interests of the current Scottish Law Lords and found that over two-thirds of this group were undeclared members of the Speculative Society of Edinburgh. Now either you believe that the meeting rooms of the Spec imbue the undergraduates who attend with great powers of jurisprudence, or you see the old boy’s network in action, an affront to meritocracy.

Some decisions by Scottish judges and juries have been held up to ridicule and scorn and to me it is not surprising when they are drawn from a pool which simply cannot be seen to be the best, or without prejudice.

In the trial of General Pinochet, the Chilean dictator, it was found that a presiding judge, Lord Hoffman, had corrupted the proceedings because he failed to declare an interest, namely that his wife worked as a secretary for Amnesty International who campaigned against the dictator. There was no bias on the part of Hoffman, but there may have been an appearance of such.

What then of the undeclared interests of freemason judges and sheriffs who swear Masonic oaths to help and keep the secrets of their brother Masons “as secure and inviolable as if they were in their own breast, murder and treason accepted”?

Apologists for freemasonry tell us that Masons are also advised to abide by the law, and judges and sheriffs are sworn to judge “without fear or favour”.

But which oath has precedence with the Masonic magistrate? The judicial one, without a mention of sanction for non-compliance? Or the Masonic one that promises, in lurid detail, blood-curdling penalties, including disembowelment and murder for non compliance?

I share the firm conviction of the 6^th President of the USA, John Quincey Adams that such violence in Masonic oaths undermine the impartiality of the judicial process and at the very least we are entitled to know if those deciding our innocence or guilt or human right has taken such an oath.

That is the aim of my petition, to have those who have taken such promises of fraternal support declare this fact. Then if I, or any litigant, decide to object to this apparent bar to justice we can do so.

During discussion of my previous (similar) petition the Justice Minister, Jim Wallace, said my petition was unique and I was the only person he knew of with concerns in this regard. He obviously didn’t know Dr Samuel Johnson said this on the subject: “Where secrecy or mystery begins, vice or roguery is not far off.”

The Festival: Classic or Classism?

Aug 14

Posted by Natalie in Holyrood | 1 Comment

The 1990’s was the era when popular culture was co-opted by the establishment. The resurrected brand ‘Cool Britannia’ existed to provide advocacy and endorsement to political figures. Bands and arts figures became vessels of the Labour Party; staring vacuously and wide-eyed from TVs, magazines and papers and all carried along on a wave of vapid Blairite sound bite.

Damon Albarn of Blur later opined that, “It was totally cynical. They were trying to use our energy to the greater glory of New Labour.” It wasn’t quite the day that music died, but it was a clear indication that the arts could be bought, either by funding or by promise.

The independence referendum, casting long shadows as it does over every aspect of Scottish discourse, democracy and culture cannot escape the attentions of a media which is eager to pin labels on figures of popular culture and the arts. For some unfathomable reason it deems it important what “celebrity” thinks, but this is a real opportunity for creatives to seize back control of their image, find their teeth, their voices and make them count.

Joyce McMillan, writing in The Scotsman, was roundly criticised by advocates of a No vote for mooting the idea that artists were more progressive and therefore more amenable to at least a creative exploration of the possibilities and the opportunities a yes vote could create and that the yes movement had captured the attention of more creatives than that of the no campaign. She evidenced this with grassroots organisations like the National Collective. That there are creatives on the no side who are happy to accept the Westminster pathway, there is no doubt, but they currently have no voice or little input to the debate.

Culturally, at least, the Yes campaign seems like a movement, where discordant voices are happy to set difference aside to harmoniously explore the alternative options a yes vote can bring; in effect, lending their creative talent to the campaign. Conversely, the No campaign boasts no similar movement. Even an appearance by the flautist Eddie McGuire on Newsnight Scotland couldn’t convince that the creatives’ No campaign was as organic or advanced as that of the pro-independence movement and seems to rely rather more on celebrity lending their credentials or their name than their creative skill sets.

Last week a Huffington Post blog by Sarah McCorquodale caused great consternation – especially on the pro-independence side – with a piece which displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the cultural scene in Scotland and stated unequivocally that Scottish Culture must be kept separate from the independence push.

The suggestion that Scottish cultural life is overshadowed by the independence referendum to its detriment and that culture is undergoing a hiatus or regression finds little resonance in the burgeoning music, spoken and written word and theatrical scenes in Scotland. Nor does her article take cognisance of the opinions of those artists themselves.

Sarah McCorquodale has not been resident in Scotland for a number of years and seems to display a disturbing slant toward that at-a-distance and establishment ignorance of Scottish culture displayed occasionally by ex-pats, whether they live in Corby or Perth, Australia, which fails to identify progress and has Scottish culture frozen at the point in history when they moved away.

A Guardian article last year attempted to chart the journey of progressive culture and arts resulting from devolution to now. BBC Radio Scotland’s Vic Galloway confirmed the real existence of a cultural journey, “Many musicians are embracing their Scottishness. It’s not about tartan, bagpipes and shortbread, but a contemporary forward-thinking Scotland that isn’t afraid to sing its own accent and embrace its own culture”.

Next year’s Edinburgh International Festival – that establishment doyenne – was an opportunity to challenge that; an opportunity for one of the world’s largest arts festivals to explore the dialogue, the creativity and the seismic shift this debate is having on the Scottish sense of self. As well as the more simple arguments about democracy, the independence referendum forces us Scots to investigate who we are and how important identity is to us.

In an article in the Scotland on Sunday last week, the Creative Director of the Edinburgh International Festival, Sir Jonathan Mills put paid to suggestions that next year’s festival would include any work investigating any of these themes. Instead the Festival is to be complicit in perpetuating the establishment myth that an unprecedented celebration of the start of World War 1 and celebrating the Commonwealth is of more cultural significance than our biggest political decision in 300 years – all whilst remaining apolitical.

If there is one thing that those of all sides of the referendum should agree on, it is that this decision is about looking forward to what we can be and whether that is best served within the confines of the status quo or not. Whilst not ignoring the lessons of past and the pointless waste of generations of men from around the world for the might of imperialism and folly, we certainly shouldn’t make them a central plank of how we move forward as a country together. I am sure the irony of celebrating the last remaining vestiges of imperialism concurrently with the war that set in motion the veritable dissolution of the British Empire will occur to many.

Had Sir Jonathan Mills wanted to combine both these themes with Scotland’s current place in a world of much smaller states as a result of both the first World War, the second, and how independence could or should change our relationship with the Commonwealth, the gap in relevancy would’ve been bridged. Instead his decision has reinforced the position that the Festival is the ultimate facade for establishmentarianism.
The decision not to include the independence debate has puzzled many in the arts, its fringes and on all sides of the debate. The opportunity for culture to provide a powerful way of exploring political genres and ideas has been lost. The EIF with a large percentage a of its budget derived from the public purse has the capital and surely the obligation to make thought provoking and discursive works which could push the boundaries in what by then may be a very fractious debate. Instead the Festival displays a heavy handed and restrictive top down approach in deciding what should be culture instead of a bottom up exploration of what is culture.

Therein lies the rub, who does the Edinburgh International Festival cater to? Sir Jonathan Mills’ suggestion that the Fringe may be the better place to cater for works aimed at engagement in the independence debate may provide the more enlightening explanation behind his decision than any suggestion that it would suit the establishment position to expound a sense of Britishness in the run up to the referendum. Is it preferable to believe that the Festival more guilty of classism than it is of politicising culture, with public money?

The Fringe with all its whizz bang and wonderful idiosyncrasies is not the establishment, but the brash sibling in the gaudy lip stick and fishnet tights. Undoubtedly there is crossover in audience, but the fringe is the more affordable and less self-satisfied of the two. That Sir Jonathan Mills thinks that is where the debate on independence solely belongs – unfunded by the state – suggests a classism and elitism at the heart of decision making. The Festival is part and parcel of the establishment, and it clearly finds the referendum somewhat wanting.

The Festival consistently appeals more – or is accessible to more – of those in the top % of society – the same, I’m alright types, who are aspirational for self and doing very nicely out of the union, thank you. Perhaps the independence debate simply isn’t as important to them because they cannot see an angle or relevancy for themselves. It is no coincidence that consistent polling trends identify that preserving the union is more important to those in the top earning brackets. Perhaps the International Festival is more interested in reflecting them, and not the interests and cultural aspects of wider Scottish society.

Or perhaps Joyce McMillan is right and cultural engagement favours a yes vote. Perhaps the establishment are concerned that communing with the independence debate will find that a yes vote resonates rather better than a no, and where would that leave the establishment?

Tags: class, culture, EIF, establishment, Festival, Fringe Jonathan Mills, Joyce McMillan, National Collective, Vic Galloways

This is what fear looks like

Aug 7

Posted by James in Constitution, Holyrood, Parties, Westminster | 30 Comments

There’s been a lot of Holyrood-bubble drama around LabourForIndy recently. Who’s that in their photos? When did you join Labour? Is it even real? It might seem like the phoniest of wars, but it’s happening for a reason.

Fear. Specifically Labour fear.

As I’ve said before, if the referendum is to be won, it’ll be won from the left and centre-left. By next September let’s assume 75% of 2011 SNP voters will probably back independence. Die-hard capital-N nationalists, some fairly left-wing, some to the right. They make up about 30-33% of the electorate, and therefore 60-66% of the Yes vote required.

Add in a good slice of Greens and Socialists – not a huge number, although some SNP folk say Patrick Harvie’s messages are persuading voters who are neither nationalist nor Green – plus a fragment of Lib Dems frustrated by the absence of federalism from the ballot, and Yes is still short about a sixth of the vote. That sixth can only come from Labour voters plus increased turnout from the working class ex-Labour abstainers (or lifetime abstainers), the very people for whom Westminster has done next to nothing for generations.

Hence the fuss. LabourForIndy as an organisation may not (yet?) be that substantial, but Labour voters for independence are where the referendum can be won. And there are lots of them already. Take the May Panelbase poll for the Sunday Times, the most recent one up on UK Polling Report, which gives crossbreaks on voting intention and referendum intention.

The results for Q3 there (which should say “constituency”, not region) show that 41% of the undecided are Labour voters. Fewer than 50% of Labour’s supporters from 2011 backed Westminster rule, and 14% are voting Yes. If representative, that’s almost 90,000 people, perhaps seven or eight percent of the total Yes vote required (assuming a turnout of between 2.25m and 2.5m next year). And the Labour-backing referendum-undecideds are twice as many again.

If those undecided Labour voters break for Yes, they can ensure the referendum is won – probably no-one else can – and Labour is right to be afraid of this situation, because it threatens their position in three ways.

First, independence, and the Labour voters supporting it, jeopardises their chances of getting back into power at a UK level. Although Westminster elections aren’t commonly close enough for the Scottish block to make any difference (other than imposing Blairite reforms on the rest of the UK), it might well happen next time given the state of the polls. They want the buffer provided by right-wing MPs like Tom Harris. Pure self interest: they want him and his ilk to keep being sent to Westminster to help prop up future Labour administrations there.

Second, and this is where they should see opportunities rather than threats, it makes a return to office at Holyrood even less likely. Losing a referendum on which they have staked everything would be a massive blow to their institutional power and their credibility, especially when it’ll be clear so many of their own supporters have ignored their advice in favour of, ironically, the prospect of a Labour-led government for an independent Scotland. It’s not just their supporters and members, either. Why wouldn’t some potential Scottish Labour Ministers feel the same? One former senior Labour Minister told a friend he was privately in favour of independence so long as “the bloody Nats don’t get to run it” (no, it wasn’t Henry).

Finally, and perhaps most intriguingly, it’s an ideological threat. Labour have redefined their primary purpose as defence of the Union, in large part as self-interest. Like Scottish Lib Dem MPs, they’re amongst its main institutional beneficiaries. It’s also partly because they haven’t any other ideas. Ask yourself: what else do Labour at Holyrood want to achieve? Can you name a single radical thing? I can’t, and I follow politics pretty closely.

There’s no principled basis for boxing themselves in like this. Unless a party is established with a constitutional purpose at its heart, like the SNP, their supporters are likely to disagree on whether Holyrood or Westminster is best able to get them to their other political objectives. A third of Greens at conference regularly vote against independence, although none yet seem to want to work with the Tories as part of Better Together. It’s normal. I’m not scared by it, in the way Labour are terrified of Labour voters for independence. Rather than social justice or even Blairite aspiration, Labour have become obsessed with one arbitrary answer to this tactical question – will our objectives be better met at Westminster or at Holyrood? It’s a fragile new base to have chosen.

Their response to this trend not only threatens Labour’s future shots at governance, therefore, it also weakens their power over their voters too. That Labour Yes vote is likely to be centre-left types who find the SNP too economically right-wing, people who’ve stuck with Labour so far but who are increasingly desperate to be shot of a Tory-led Westminster. When they watch the Labour leadership line up with Tories and Lib Dems over the next year to ensure Scotland remains run by the bedroom taxing, fracking, poor-hating, immigrant-abusing Westminster they increasingly loathe, the risk has to be that that sight will put them off Labour too, and that those Labour voters for Yes will become SNP, Green or Socialist voters for Yes. I can’t be the only person who’s gone off Labour and off Westminster essentially in parallel.

It’s too late for them ever to win me back, but Labour didn’t need to be in this mess, especially if they’d put forward a credible “more powers” offer. Now, though, even as someone who still wants to see a better Labour Party, I now can’t see a way out of the uncomfortable corner they’ve painted themselves into. The harder they try to retain their grip, the weaker their position becomes. No wonder they’re afraid.

Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Holyrood