Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

A return for WMOTW

Apr 29

Posted by James in Holyrood | Comments off

It’s been ages since anyone here cast an eye over the motions lodged at Holyrood, looking for saints and sinners, but the list remains a rich trove of absurdity and partisanship, alongside thoughtfulness and principle. Starting with the virtuous, Alison McInnes bravely flies the flag for the kind of equality that makes much of the media froth at the mouth, and Jim Eadie, in the runner-up slot, gets into the nitty-gritty with the notorious Edinburgh Royal Infirmary PFI project:

SpidermanMotion of the week – Alison McInnes: Let Toys Be Toys, for Girls and Boys
That the Parliament notes the current change.org petition, led by Let Toys Be Toys, which calls on retailers to stop promoting toys as only for girls or only for boys; supports Let Toys Be Toys’ mission statement that toys are designed for fun, learning, stoking imagination and encouraging creativity and that children should feel free to play with whatever toys most interest them; believes that the traditional marketing of toys specifically for girls or boys serves only to reinforce unwelcome gender stereotypes that have no place in a modern society, and calls on retailers to stop sorting toys by gender and instead just let toys be toys, for girls and boys.

At the other end, although this may seem churlish to Constable Callison, if Holyrood were to mark the retirement of every public sector stalwart with a motion MSPs would have time for nothing else. Graeme Dey therefore holds off both Mike MacKenzie, for patting his bosses on the back, and himself, for a spurious survey about how happy folk in Angus are. No really.

Worst motion of the week – Graeme Dey: 30 Years of Police Service 
That the Parliament congratulates the Angus police officer, Constable Mark Callison, on his retirement following 30 years of service to local communities; acknowledges the varied nature of his career with Tayside Police, most recently serving as community liaison officer in Carnoustie where it understands that he delivered a variety of education programmes in local primary and secondary schools and previously serving as an air observer during Tayside Police’s air support unit helicopter trial in 1999 and working alongside police air crews to provide aerial support during the G8 conference at Gleneagles in 2005; understands that Carnoustie Community Council will be holding a special reception to recognise what it sees as his great contribution to the town ahead of his official last day on 12 June 2013, and wishes Constable Callison every success in his future endeavours.

Better Nation wishes Constable Callison well, and wishes MSPs would take the motions process just a touch more seriously.

With helpful advice like this…

Apr 28

Posted by James in Constitution, Media | 30 Comments

Paper tigerToday’s Scotland on Sunday leads with “splits” in the Yes camp, revealing (shock!) that the SNP have different positions on the monarchy, the currency, NATO and so on to those held by Green and independent MSPs. Their editorial urges the SNP to ignore these fringe radicals, and what’s more, warns the radicals directly that they should shut up to avoid undermining the independence cause amongst “average” voters. Imagine making that kind argument about any other part of the political spectrum, that they should stop representing the agenda they got elected on because someone else decides it’s against their interests.

They start with a misunderstanding, perhaps genuine, perhaps deliberate. Patrick Harvie, Jean Urquhart and Margo Macdonald aren’t trying to change SNP policy: it’s been decades since a drop of non-constitutional radicalism flowed in Salmond’s veins. They’re trying to emphasise that independence would put the power in the hands of Scots, not the SNP.

The same edition of SoS features some deft polling carried out for the No camp. Punters were asked what will most influence their vote: the economy, tax & spend, pensions & welfare, health, currency, oil revenues, EU membership, defence, or education. It’s basically a few unavoidable “core” issues larded with areas where the No campaign feel they’ve hit Salmond hardest of late, but with the crucial issue not offered: whether Westminster or Holyrood makes the decisions that matter to Scots. That’s what independence means, it’s the most attractive aspect of what a yes vote would deliver, so perhaps no wonder the No campaign didn’t offer it as an option.

Next, people were asked how convincing they find Salmond’s case for independence, and only 30% say “very” or “fairly”. It’s clever, because it sets two hurdles – not “do you back Salmond?” nor “are you convinced by the case for independence?”, but both. If I’d been asked that, I’d say “not very”, but I’m also definitely voting yes. Cunningly misleading polling, in short.

The paper also notes that a quarter of SNP voters aren’t convinced by “Salmond’s case for independence”, and implies this is evidence against the radicals. But the dogs in the street know the SNP picked up support from committed No voters in 2011. These folk are primarily anti-Labour voters, they like the SNP’s top team as Ministers, they appreciate the party’s centre-right approach to tax and spend, and they’d undoubtedly support the Tories down south. Even if SNP invited every last one of them for a one-to-one with the First Minister between now and the referendum date, the benefit for the Yes campaign would be negligible.

The SNP’s 2011 triumph was based on 44-45% of the vote, and that quarter Unionist/SNP estimate is consistent with the current polling on the referendum itself, as well as with that 30% figure above. The SNP’s specific case persuades about a third of the public, which is a great start. Specifically, it’s two thirds of what’s required for a majority, and these are not swing voters. They’re core SNP supporters – actual nationalists, unlike me – and they’re in the bag. Just a further sixth of the Scottish people will need to be persuaded if the referendum is to pass, or (to risk mathematical confusion) just one in four current No voters need to be won over.

Whichever way you slice it, that feels like an entirely deliverable aim. But those extra voters needed for victory are definitely not amongst the group which voted SNP in 2011. There’s probably 6-7% or so amongst Green voters, the SSP’s remaining voters, and the disappointed ex-SSP voters who’ve not voted at all since 2003. There’s perhaps 1-2% to be found amongst the remaining Lib Dem voters. The occasional pro-indy Tory types are vocal but can probably be counted in the low hundreds at best. The rest, the bulk of the 17% or so required, will have to come either from Labour supporters or from those who don’t tend to vote at all. And it’ll be the Labour voters most disillusioned with Westminster, too, not the Blairites and the soft centre. The traditional working-class Labour voters for whom New Labour achieved nothing much after the minimum wage.

Broadly, therefore, the winning coalition for the Yes campaign can only be the third of Scots who are committed nationalists plus the left-most sixth of the Scots public. I see no other way to win this. And that means letting a thousand flowers bloom about the post-independence possibilities. It means letting Scots hear that Patrick Harvie has an ambitious and radical plan for what an independent Scotland looks like, just as Alex Salmond has a far more cautious plan. It absolutely means making the most of Dennis Canavan and Mary Lockhart. Above all it means explaining that all these decisions – currency, NATO, the monarchy, tax rates, nuclear weapons etc – will be decided by Scots at the first election after a yes vote, and everything will be democratically on the table. Every time the SNP try to promote their own party policy as Yes Scotland policy, or more generally as a fait accompli if we win independence, they turn off that sixth of Scots who are essential to victory.

This is directly counter to the SoS’s unhelpful advice. This, it should be borne in mind, comes from the paper which egged the SNP on to change its policy on NATO, something which won the party nothing but led to the departure from the SNP of two of those independent MSPs. And the same paper, in the same editorial today, explains that it’s formally against independence, preferring some unspecified version of devo-whatever.

So they’re explicitly trying to achieve a different objective, they’ve misunderstood the current situation, and their solution would be both undemocratic and counterproductive. The SNP would be ill-advised to take any more advice on referendum tactics from the paper tigers of Holyrood Road.

The Kind of Country I Want To Live In

Apr 22

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution | 29 Comments

A longer guest post today, from Martin Burns, who blogs here. We don’t normally publish old stuff from elsewhere, but this deserves a bigger audience. 

The Pragmatic Argument for Independence

Let me describe to you the kind of country I’d like to live in.

One that can happily announce that legislation coming in at the New Year will introduce free vaccines, higher parental leave benefits (already 16 months split between both parents at 80% of salary), tax exemption for private tutors, and more job security for temporary workers.

While maintaining a national AAA credit rating.

This is a fictitious utopia right? The economic orthodoxy is that you just can’t do these things together. You have to face stark choices in the current global economic climate. (Gently leaving to one side that nuclear weapons never seem to be part of that choice).

OK, let’s make it even more Utopian. Imagine a constitution that opens like this:

Chapter 1 Basic Principles

Article 1

  1. All public power in proceeds from the people.
  2. Our national democracy is founded on freedom of opinion and on universal and equal suffrage. It shall be realized through a representative and parliamentary polity and through local self-government.

Article 2

  1. Public power shall be exercised with respect for the equal worth of all and for the freedom and dignity of the individual.
  2. The personal, economic and cultural welfare of the individual shall be fundamental aims of public activity. In particular, it shall be incumbent upon the public administration to secure the right to work, housing and education, and to promote social care and social security and a good living environment.
  3. The public administration shall promote the ideals of democracy as guidelines in all sectors of society. The public administration shall guarantee equal rights to men and women and protect the private and family lives of the individual.
  4. Opportunities should be promoted for ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities to preserve and develop a cultural and social life of their own.

Chapter 2 Fundamental Rights and Freedoms

Article 1

  1. All citizens shall be guaranteed the following in their relations with the public administration:
    1. freedom of expression: the freedom to communicate information and to express ideas, opinions and emotions, whether orally, in writing, in pictorial representations, or in any other way;
    2. freedom of information: the freedom to obtain and receive information and otherwise acquaint oneself with the utterances of others;
    3. freedom of assembly: the freedom to organize or attend any meeting for information purposes or for the expression of opinions or for any other similar purpose or for the purpose of presenting artistic work;
    4. freedom to demonstrate: the freedom to organize or take part in any demonstration in a public place;
    5. freedom of association: the freedom to unite with others for public or private purposes; and
    6. freedom of worship: the freedom to practice one’s own religion either alone or in company with others.
  2. In the case of the freedom of the press the provisions of the Freedom of the Press Act shall apply. That act also contains provisions concerning the right of access to public documents.

Article 2

All citizens shall be protected in their relations with the public administration against all coercion to divulge an opinion in any political, religious, cultural or other similar connection. They shall furthermore be protected in their relations with the public administration against all coercion to participate in any meeting for the formation of opinion or in any demonstration or other expression of opinion or to belong to any political association, religious congregation or other association for opinions of the nature referred to in the first sentence.

Article 3

  1. No record about a citizen in a public register may be based without his consent solely on his political opinions.
  2. Citizens shall be protected to the extent determined in detail by law against any infringement of their personal integrity resulting from the registration of information about them by means of electronic data processing.

Article 4

There shall be no capital punishment.

Article 5

All citizens shall be protected against corporal punishment. All citizens shall likewise be protected against torture or any medical influence or intervention for the purpose of extorting or suppressing statements.

Article 6

All citizens shall be protected in their relations with the public administration against any physical violation also in cases other than those referred to in Articles 4 and 5. Citizens shall likewise be protected against physical search, house searches or other similar encroachments and against examination of mail or other confidential correspondence and against eavesdropping, telephone-tapping or recording of other confidential communications.

Article 7

  1. No citizen may be deported or refused entry to the country
  2. No citizen who is resident or who has been resident may be deprived of his citizenship unless he becomes at the same time a national of another state, at his express consent or because he has taken employment in the public service.

Article 8

All citizens shall be protected against deprivation of liberty in their relations with the public administration. They shall also in other respects be guaranteed freedom of movement within the Realm and freedom to depart the country.

So yes, absolute Utopia, right? Couldn’t possibly exist. A pipe dream.

Except that all the above is currently true of Sweden. That’s the actual opening of the Swedish constitution (with ‘the nation’ substituting for when Sweden is mentioned by name). And a news write up of actual upcoming Swedish legislation. And the actual Swedish credit rating.

A small, northern European nation, not particularly blessed with natural resources (compared to Scotland’s abundance of mineral wealth and 25% of Europe’s renewable energy potential).

They did this simply because the people of Sweden insisted; through political will. Their values – like Scotland’s – tend towards valuing society over money. It’s the kind of country where (as one of my UK-expats-in-Sweden friends expressed) you may never be stinking rich, but you’ll never be allowed to entirely drop through the net.

The Better Together people (at least, the better sort) are concerned with achieving these kinds of benefits for all of the UK. Which is a wonderful objective that I entirely support.

I believe a Bartlet quote is in order here:

That’s the ten-word answer my staff’s been looking for for two weeks. There it is. Ten-word answers can kill you in political campaigns. They’re the tip of the sword.

Here’s my question: What are the next ten words of your answer? Your taxes are too high? So are mine. Give me the next ten words. How are we going to do it? Give me ten after that, I’ll drop out of the race right now.

(source, the ever wonderful West Wing Transcripts)

So, Better Together types: tell me what the realistic path is to achieving this kind of society, with these priorities, and I’ll commit to voting ‘No’ right now. Hell, make it convincing and I’ll join your campaign.

But I doubt very much whether you can, because the UK’s political momentum is entirely in the opposite direction; to deprioritise equality. The political weight of the UK is behind moving away from what I want. Under any population-based system, Scotland will never be able to act as a counterbalance to UK-wide movement.

However, as a small independent nation that can set and follow through on priorities and policies that match our own needs and wishes, we can achieve this in one part of the UK at least.

What, you’d rather achieve it nowhere?

Scotland should now get a grip and get over Thatcher

Apr 20

Posted by Guest Blog in Holyrood, Parties | 3 Comments

A guest-style crosspost today from Douglas McLellan, who has a new blog here and who describes himself, amongst other things, as the most right-wing member of the Scottish Greens (as discussed on LPW’s excellent For A’ That podcast). 

ThatcherThe passing of Margaret Thatcher has brought to the surface an issue that I think has been holding back Scottish politics for some time. All of our politicians define themselves, to a greater or lesser extent, on the period of 1979 – 1990 when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. On one hand this is understandable given the relative ages of our politicians and the fact that she was in power when many either became politically active or became the focus of their existing political activities. On the other hand I struggle to understand why she is the millstone that every Scottish politician seems to carry around their neck even now.

The debate in the Scottish Parliament on Thursday, opened by SGP MSP Patrick Harvie, exemplified this. He, the independents and the SNP all took out their current well used scripts and voiced their disaffection about Thatcher, Westminster and UK economic models. All the points they made were the old, told many times, stories of how Thatcher wronged the very nation of Scotland and all who reside here (despite 25% of Scots voting for her). The Minister for Local Government and Planning, Derek Mackay, basically read out an SNP Party Political Broadcast. Thatcher it seems, is the very reason for independence. Labour MSPs in their speeches seemed to utterly forget that Labour was in power for 13 years and could have made more significant changes to the country if they wanted. Predictably the Conservatives defended everything that Thatcher did as Prime Minister without reference to the damage done to communities and without irony. After all, it was the Conservatives that ended her Prime Ministership, not the electorate. If she did nothing wrong why did they get rid of her? So far, so predictable.

We are now living 23 years after Thatcher left office. It is time to move on.

Much was made in the debate of how we still live in a country dominated by Thatcherism. If we do, it is a much diluted version. Thatcherism is not just a view on economics but also social policy and conviction politics. Nigel Lawson described Thatcherism as “Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, …. privatisation and a dash of populism”.

The markets we have now are indeed far more free that when before Thatcher came to power. Having a vast array of inefficient industries relying on the public purse is not a suitable way to run an economy. Neither is letting the workers in some of those industries have enough power to bring the country to a standstill on little more than a whim. It is true that the way some industries were changed had unintended consequences such as eventually allowing overseas entities controlling the supply of much of our domestic energy supply. However, what business does a government have building cars or airplanes? Or taking months or years to supply a simple telephone line? Or running a computer company (ICL). In 1972 the state was running Thomas Cook and we cannot truthfully say the Tories were wrong to sell it (a Heath, not Thatcher, privatisation). Yet now, we have two nationalised banks and, with a focus on renewable energy we find that important locations for tide based energy are part of the Crown Estate. If we were beholden to a Thatcherite view of things that this would not be the case.

If there was actually financial discipline and firm control over public expenditure in the Thatcher years (debateable) then we certainly didn’t have it under Labour and we don’t have it now.

Tax under Labour was very high. When she came to power the basic rate of income tax was 33% and could rise to as much as 98% on those who earned and invested higher amounts. Tax cuts have given earners at every level more choice on how to spend the money that they earn. This cannot be a bad consequence of Thatcherism. Even those who complain that higher earners should be taxed more cannot seriously argue that the state should take 1/3 of a low earners income? Who is complaining about this benefit to low earners? But even with tax we have moved on from Thatcherism to at least Brownism. Tax credits clutter the income tax landscape, even for those earning above the 40% tax rate. We have a tax system that is so byzantine in nature, well qualified advisers can find loop-holes and develop legal tax management schemes. Furthermore, with the introduction and then removal of the 10p rate as well as the narrowing of the monetary value between the basic and higher rates of tax it is clear that Brownism, not Thatcherism sets the scene for today’s Chancellor and economic approach.

Populism is certainly an issue in politics today as it was then. In fact, it may be that the populist approach of universally attacking or universally defending Thatcher at every opportunity which is stopping Scotland move forward rather than constantly looking back.

Instead of looking back to the failures or successes of Thatcher, why can’t Scottish politicians move forward, looking to provide solutions to current problems regardless of their supposed origin? It seems no policy now can be brought forward without genuflecting to the memory of Thatcher. The peculiarly Scottish approach of developing public policy by first referencing bad things in Scottish history means that often the proposed solutions are not as helpful as they could be. For example, Scotland has a health problem. I am part of that problem as I am very overweight. If I still lived in Fife my weight problem would no doubt be attributed to living in a former mining village suffering from unemployment caused by Labour in the 1970s and the Tories in the 1980s (remember Labour never did anything bad to mining communities….). However my weight problem is actually to do with a disposable income large enough to fund far too many takeaways, full fat soft cheeses and high sugar/caffeine drinks. Another example is that a high number of older people presenting liver problems are not former mine workers resorting to alcohol to drown their sorrows but instead those who have enough money to drink a bottle of nice wine each night with their evening meal.

Social housing is a problem due to a lack of stock but we have had almost a decade and a half of devolution. If we have a failure to house people it is not Thatcherism to blame but a failure of our devolved parliament. In the heady, well financed days of early devolution we did not build enough social housing so why do we not blame that period of time? Scottish politicians had the chance to make changes. Blame for Scottish housing as it is no must be held by Scottish politicians in Holyrood. It is probably because that is an unpalatable truth that Labour and the Lib Dems (eight years in power) and the SNP (six years and counting) cannot face. All of Scotland’s problems can, in large part, be addressed by a forward looking parliament. They may not be solved, they may not be completely addressed but Scotland can lead the way. Instead it is clear many want so sit in the corner and chew over the stale vomit of history.

On the other side, the Tories want to reclaim the Thatcher glory days of strong election victories yet fail to understand what was wrong with some of their policies then and also ignore their role in her downfall. Whilst Murdo Fraser clearly admires her, he stood for leadership of the Scottish Conservatives on a platform of more powers for Scotland (which Thatcher never wanted) and rebranding/launching the Tories as a Scottish centre-right party. The problem for him is that his party did not agree with him and still clings to its Thatcherite electoral successes south of the border as a hopeful springboard for the future. Their own genuflection to Thatcher will keep them out of power for a long while yet and stop them developing genuine Scottish centre-right policies.

The independence debate, like the debate held last week, is focussed not on the future but a series of “What if” scenarios. What if she hadn’t been elected, what if Scotland had a greater say in oil revenues, what if she didn’t close fewer mines that Labour, what if she didn’t stop the state making cars etc. etc. This even extends into thinking about trying to do what others did in the past yet still blame Thatcher. What if we got independence and create an oil sovereign fund instead of using the money to pay unemployment benefits?

Nice idea but that money is earmarked to go elsewhere. And it shows a lack of ambition. How about this for a different what if – we get independence and use oil money to develop the renewables sector strongly, from which future profits can be invested in a Scottish Sovereign Fund? See what I did there? No mention of the past.

No party is ever going to make a difference to Scotland if it cannot look forward. The independence debate cannot be fought, never mind won, on the battles of the 1980s. It should be fought on the battles of the 2020s and the 2030s as we make Scotland a better nation.

On Thursday, one MSP did make an interesting intervention. Margo McDonald said this

[the Scottish Parliament] is the opportunity to make us bigger and better and to think more adventurously and more creatively. That is what we have a Parliament for.

I hope Scottish politicians think about that and offer adventurous and creative policies for Scotland that are based on current and future Scottish needs, not on what has gone on before.

Over your cities Green grass will grow

Apr 19

Posted by Dom in Activism, Democracy, Environment, Governance, Holyrood, Ideology, Parties, Society, Westminster | 1 Comment

The Labour party have looked about them, taken stock of the post-Blair wasteland and identified the enemy. which apparently is those well-known destroyers of democracy and oppressors of the common people in the Scottish Green Party.

At Scottish Labour Conference in Inverness this weekend there will be a fringe event entitled ‘Green Splinters’, staged with the express aim of finding out why some people have realised that they would rather vote Green instead of Labour.

Labour peer Lord Bassam, who I am told by Sooth Folk has a flatteringly obsessive distaste for the Greens, tweeted: ‘In Inverness to discuss countering the Green threat to progressive politics.’. It is hard to think of a more obtuse statement given the situation that many people in England find themselves in. I have no idea how much Lord Bassam knows about Scottish politics or the Scottish Green Party, but I would wager that it is significantly less than he thinks.

The Green vote is not a strictly socialist vote, and it is not an anti-Labour vote. The Green vote is a vote for people actually doing their jobs with competence and enthusiasm, and for an ability to bring new ideas into an intellectually moribund arena. Green politics is socialist in certain aspects, normatively seen it embodies the values and aims of social democracy, but it is marked above all by its ability and tendency to challenge institutions from a citizen-based democratic perspective.

Green politics in Germany is a case in point. The German Green Party as it now exists was born from a coalition of environmental and democratic organisations instrumental in the downfall of the German Democratic Republic, combined with the West German Green Party. After first breaking into German regional parliaments, in the late 1990s it provided crucial support to an SDP government looking to form a parliamentary majority.

In Sweden too the Greens have been able to pick up votes from the intellectual middle class and disillusioned former supporters of agrarian and socially liberal parties where those parties have drifted to the right. They often get a hard time from the officially socialist and social-democratic parties respectively, but for the maths to work it is actually in the interests of the red left to work with the Green left in order to form workable governments, rather than expend resources trying to exterminate them and claim 45 per cent of the vote and a lifetime in opposition.

Now the fact that this event is even taking place caused a squeal of delight amongst many in the SGP because it means that the Greens have gone from being a party nobody in politics cared about to one which is obviously threatening the hegemonies enjoyed by institutionalised Labour and unimaginative nationalism.

It would, however, be sad if the Labour party were to decide that keeping the Greens at bay were more important than trying to build workable alternative governments at Westminster and Holyrood.

There is also the crucial matter of Labour failing to embrace either electoral reform or the environment to any significant degree. And devolution, childcare reform, progressive taxation and urban planning. We need a future democracy which looks quite different from today, and all tomorrow’s parties should try to work together to make it happen. The Greens have the ideas and they need viable partners to make it happen.

We’d rather be friends than enemies, but if Labour want to be enemies they should consider the fact that it is a civil war they might well lose.