Apologies for the question-to-which-the-answer-is-no title.

It’s been a tumultuous week in Scottish politics, just for a change. Starting with the NATO debate at the SNP conference, via a couple of resignations, we got to a fairly badly handled climb down on the ugly and futile secrecy which exacerbated a bad problem largely of the SNPs own making but which is likely to be problematic for Yes as a whole.

Those issues have been covered in depth elsewhere, what I want to look at is what it tells us about how things are working just now.

The NATO decision at SNP conference was interesting for a few reasons. As Jonathan Mackie pointed out internally this marked the SNP becoming a party where the leadership and the professional part of the party asserted it’s ability to carry motions over rank & file membership. Listening to the debate, the main thrust of the argument in favour of the policy change was one of political expediency regarding the referendum, with the fabled 75% Sandra White railed against featuring quite heavily. Given that, it seems unlikely that that was proposed without at least considering the likelihood of some MSPs deeming it a bridge too far and resigning the party whip as Jean Urquhart and John Finnie did.

The calculation, presumably, was that the inevitable narrowing of the SNP broad independence-above-all-else church in the lead up to the referendum was going to come at a price but that could be mitigated by doing it early and, in any case, MSPs would continue to vote with the party on key issues. If talk of a technical group comprising them, the Greens and Margo McDonald comes to pass then it may change FMQs but it seems unlikely there’d be an extra question, just a re-allocation of the current number away from the Yoonyonisht Conspiracy parties to committed Yes supporters.

Some people might even call that a win.

The legal advice regarding a newly independent Scotland’s status and obligations within the European Union , however, seems like an increasingly ill judged catastrophe.

We’ve discussed this a few times on BetterNation, possibly most pertinantly here with a countervailing view here but perhaps worth checking out the whole tag here. However, given the revelations in the independent today, it seems the view expressed by Neil Walker here and discussed by Lalland’s here is the correct one. Nobody knows.

That’s not surprising. The European Union is a highly political beast with little case law to set precedent. In what would essentially be a novel situation to deal with it’s not surprising the legal position is unclear. As Ian Smart argues Scotland’s status post-independence would need to be negotiated. The Scottish Government will now seek legal advice on this issue but will never reveal does not, surprisingly, fill one with confidence that we will have a clear basis on which to make a decision come 2014. of what

What is surprising is that was ever allowed to get this far. Catherine Stihler’s FoI was fought tooth and nail, impressions were created regarding the supposed certainty of Scotland’s status within the EU regardless of independence and the appearances of Nicola Sturgeon and Jamie Hepburn (who was presumably being punished for his No to NATO stance) in TV studios midweek to argue semantic differences in written transcripts versus the widely available video was not entirely sure footed.

Nobody would call that a win.

Oddly the defence of the Yes campaign, and not just the SNP here, has been to attack the other parties as having been insufficiently combative or competent enough in holding what has been suddenly redefined as the executive of the Scottish Government to account on the issue. We were treated, apparently more in sadness than anger (a form of argument which should be banned with immediate effect from Scottish politics on account of overuse) to criticisms of Johann Lamont for being insufficiently forensic, Ruth Davidson for out of date comedy references and Willie Rennie for being a Tory collaborator. All or none of which may be true but which deliberately and blatantly ignores the point in hand.

Some people might call that a tactical victory. The electorate, one might argue, will become bored of the argument over uncertainty about the terms of EU membership (nobody is suggesting Scotland will be summarily expelled and refused entry), the terms of the proposed currency union with the Bank of England or the terms of our proposed continued membership of NATO.

In short, we haven’t learned a lot but the shape of the next few years has clearly outlined. The major Yes parties – the SNP and the Greens – will contrast an independent Scotland with a Tory government and present contradictory views of what the Scotland would look like. The major No parties – Labour, the Tories, the Lib Dems – will contrast and independent Scotland with the status quo, emphasising our loss of positive freedom over our gain of negative freedom

It will be very, very boring and apparently nobody will talk about either the pragmatic or theoretical distribution of power until the posturing is done.

I’m going for a Twix.

(I’m not really, Twixes are a product of the capitalist hegemony I’m trying to opt out of while maintaining a middle class standard of living)

You’ve got until Monday night to watch Anthony Baxter’s epic film You’ve Been Trumped on iPlayer, but last Sunday night, when it aired, it seemed as if everyone was watching it.

Although the film does not actually cover the Scottish Government’s shenanigans over the project in that much detail, Twitter was full of supporters of all parties aggrieved that SNP Ministers had put Mr Trump’s profit ahead of this community and their irreplaceable environment.

True, they did, but so too did their Labour predecessors, who investigated themselves and let themselves off – which appears to be the only function of the Ministerial code. I’d like to know what this letter says, for instance. The SNP knew all about this in 2007 (the recipient there is now the First Minister’s chief of staff). And it’s not just Scottish Ministers and their predecessors who’ve got questions to answer. So too do Grampian Police and Aberdeenshire Council.

Which is why David Milne is in the process of filing a petition to Holyrood’s Public Petitions Committee calling for a full public inquiry going back to day one, to find out exactly who made what commitments to Mr Trump and when, whether any laws or planning rules were broken, and how, above all, we can ensure no community has to go through what the Menie residents have had to put up with.

I warned years ago that politicians and officials should watch themselves when dealing with him, and that Scottish Ministers, who called the plan in after it had been rejected, rather than waiting for a Trump appeal, should worry about what happens when it all starts to unravel. Let’s find out. When the petition has been finalised with the Clerks it’ll go round for signature. Please support it. Heaven help any politicians who think this process isn’t worthy of proper investigation after all this.

Declaration: I’ve been working with David on this petition in a voluntary capacity.

This morning brings news that John Finnie MSP and Jean Urquhart MSP have left the SNP following the nail-biting and passionately-argued debate at their party conference over NATO. A decision probably thought to be without cost by the party’s Westminster group is proving extremely expensive indeed, and this is a major blow both for the party and, sadly, for the prospects for a Yes vote in the referendum.

First – it takes the SNP group down from 67 to 65 at Holyrood. Will the SNP regret pushing Tricia Marwick as Presiding Officer? A majority of nine became a majority of eight without her, then six when Bill Walker was expelled: now their majority is just two – 63 on the opposition side to 65 SNP, plus the PO’s casting vote. It won’t undermine the referendum bill itself, of course: both Finnie and Urquhart will still vote for it, as will Margo MacDonald, Patrick Harvie and Alison Johnstone.

Second – the pressure will now be on the other MSPs who supported the party’s previous anti-NATO policy. Some of the names are here on the defeated amendment: Sandra White, Marco Biagi, Jamie Hepburn, Bob Doris, Dave Thompson, and Gordon MacDonald. Remember other MSPs backed other options that would have blocked the change or at least postponed it: Christina McKelvie, John Wilson, John Mason and Rob Gibson, notably. I’ll add other names here if people have them. Goodness only knows what calls are being made right now to this list by the leadership. Two lost is a disaster – two more would be much worse, particularly for Angus Robertson, who should have known better than to try and divide his party on the strength of media pressure. The party backed him, narrowly, and he can’t be sacked: but this is his misjudgement, and he probably knows it. But the other pressures are enormous too. John and Jean have set a marker – that’s what a principle looks like, these resignations say: colleagues, do you believe in the principle too? Do you want to be remembered as the MSPs who argued for that principle but buckled when the leadership told you to? Reputations will be made and lost today.

Third – an informal grouping of five anti-NATO MSPs is already possible, including Margo and the Greens. Five seats gets you on the bureau. That challenges the the SNP’s one-party stranglehold on the business of Holyrood – one more departure would confirm that.

Fourth – it’s not coincidence that both John and Jean represent the Highlands and Islands. The strength of feeling in the Highlands and Islands branch has always been substantial: I’ve listened to Rob Gibson play anti-nuclear protest songs on his guitar, and if I were guessing who on that list will be feeling the heat, Rob and Dave Thompson are prominently placed.

EDIT Fifth – I was challenged on why this is bad news for the referendum, and realised I hadn’t explained that. The reason is, sadly, that as far as much of the media see it the SNP is Yes and Yes is the SNP: and the SNP themselves go out of the way to blur that boundary. Listen to the Who Dares Wins crowd telling everyone Scotland will now stay in NATO, rather than saying this is now the SNP’s new policy but that the decision will be taken the people after independence. The public don’t vote for divided parties, which the SNP now clearly are. I want a Yes vote, but hopefully it’s now utterly obvious to the SNP that they need to stop blurring the boundaries between themselves and the broader movement for independence: that movement remains united around the principle that Scots should make all the key decisions that affect them.

Since the bloodbath over selection and Swinney’s leadership in 2003, the SNP have run an extraordinarily tight ship. Four years of minority from 2007 onwards saw no rebellion of any significance whatsoever. Salmond has, for good or ill, commanded his party like a well-drilled regiment. This looks like it could be his greatest test.

I’ve not had a chance to read or see the exact speech that Johann Lamont gave when she attacked the Scottish Government’s ‘something for nothing’ attitude, or Nicola Sturgeon’s widely agreed hammering of the Labour leader on the same. While I do believe that tying quickly exaggerated Scottish politics bunfights to reality is worthwhile, I believe I can understand the argument that was being made well enough to comment. A recent poll did after all show that a majority of Scots wanted students to pay directly for their tuition, contrary to current Scottish Governmental policy, and with the majority of the cuts not yet in Swinney’s budgets, there is fertile ground here for Labour to make hay, if they want to do so.

My main concern over this speech is that the Government providing for certain sections of society is seemingly seen as ‘something for nothing’, likening students, patients, welfare claimants to charity cases rather than taxpayers receiving a service. It would be an unfortunate linkage from any politician, but it’s particularly shocking from a Labour one.

Money can only go so far, and I must admit I treated the SNP manifesto with a heavy dose of suspicion when I read it, believing that it was only the Greens who were playing straight with the electorate when they proposed revenue raising in order to pay for similar commitments. It has been so far so good from the SNP of course, and John Swinney in particular, but to what extent councils can absorb the pain to get through this funding pinch over the next few years remains to be seen. It is difficult to criticise a political party for delivering a manifesto that it won a majority for though. Manifestoes should be written on stone, despite what Nick Clegg says.

Not that the above is necessarily the discussion that is being played out in the press at the moment, I’ve noticed that the debate has very quickly got personal.

There is something quite grubby about trying to link the Sturgeon household’s income to a substantial debate on Scotland’s spending policy, but it’s worth noting that a household earning £200k gross salary (as ‘The Sturgeons’ are reported to do) will be paying tax at a level not too far off £100k. Should we really begrudge such people the odd ‘free’ hayfever prescription? It all just seems a bit petty and parochial.

The real debate should be around how much money we need to pay for the things we want which, by definition, requires Scotland to agree on what it wants. Johann Lamont’s approach to that debate is to meekly accept the money that is heading north from UK coalition spending decisions and trying to make do on that. That is Johann’s decision but it doesn’t suggest much in the way of ambition or big picture politics. The choice will ultimately come down to either compromising on our principles due to the constraints of the money we receive from George Osborne or breaking that link through independence or fiscal autonomy and raising whatever we need. Put another way, does Scotland want the means to raise the revenue required in order to fund the public sector that we want? I would have hoped so.

I don’t really see how Scotland can harmoniously coexist with the rest of the UK when south of the border moves towards free schools, privatised NHS, £9k/year tuition fees and needlessly expensive non-devolved defence spending which prohibits, through the allocated spending block, Scotland taking too markedly a different path.

There are not many political decisions that I feel that passionately about. Higher education free at the point of use is one and universal healthy school meals for all school children up to a certain age is another. They are not giveaways, they are a value-for-money price of a healthy, educated populace that will power the economy and take the strain off the health service (which should also be free at the point of use, right up to getting your prescription). They operate in blessed ignorance of background and class, of whether your parents earn £20k, £200k or £2m. Universal provision is, surely, the bulwark of social mobility, with tax rates required to flex affordability, not means testing. I am concerned that Scottish Labour seemingly disagrees.

Johann Lamont bringing alternative suggestions to John Swinney’s budgets to the table would be welcome (not that she has as yet that I have seen) but my heels will be unapologetically dug in on the side of the direction that the SNP is trying to take us and the universal provision that will move all of Scotland, not just those who can afford it, forwards to a healthier, smarter and happier future.