2012: Jumping the gun
We had a brief and dispiriting Twitter exchange back in May with a prominent Scottish Green activist (if there can strictly be said to be such a thing), in the shape of the party’s former head of media James Mackenzie. The discussion was sparked by a piece in the Guardian reporting the Green quasi-leader Patrick Harvie’s dire warning to Alex Salmond against a “bland, middle-of-the-road” prospectus for independence, which he suggested would risk “alienating” the left-leaning section of the Scottish public (ie most of it) and thereby losing the referendum.
Wading in with all our trademark gentle, reasoned tact, we recited our well-worn observation that referenda are for deciding single precisely-defined issues – in this case, who gets to elect the future governments of Scotland – rather than the fine details of multiple policies, and that starting the Yes campaign off by emphasising our differences perhaps wasn’t the smartest move.
To this Mr Mackenzie accused us of having “confused policy with constitution”, and while we won’t bore you with the full he-said-we-said (you can go and track it for yourself if you really want to), the conversation culminated in this rather huffy tweet:
Now, independence and the SNP are of course not interchangeable terms. Something like a third of SNP voters don’t back the policy, and the Greens and SSP are also in favour, as are various percentages of those who vote for the three London parties. And one of the loudest calls from the non-SNP sections of the independence movement has been that those in favour should formulate a constitution for the prospective nation in advance of the referendum, which could then form the basis of what people voted on, avoiding the danger of the referendum being seen as a party-political issue.
(Which is what the Unionist side desperately wants to make it, hence their strategy of trying to personally discredit the SNP leadership in recent months.)
The whole point of independence is indeed to give us the chance to debate every aspect of Scotland’s future. But demanding to have all these fights now is wrong in principle as well as pragmatically. We’ll come to the pragmatic part in a moment, but let’s take the moral high ground and examine the principle first.
It’s a pretty straightforward one. Having the proposed constitution for an independent Scotland in place in advance of the referendum obviously requires it to be discussed, debated and agreed beforehand. But how can you write a constitution and ask people to vote for it when around half the population will refuse point-blank to participate in the process at that point, because they don’t want independence at all?
Excluding a vast swathe of voters (even if technically they’ve excluded themselves) makes a mockery of Green claims of “democracy” guiding the process, and will turn that group of people off even further – because they’ll have had no part in shaping the constitution the referendum will ask them to bring into effect. But if instead you wait until after any Yes vote, independence will be a fait accompli and those who voted No will no longer have anything to gain from remaining aloof. They’ll have a meaningful stake in the debate over how the newly-independent nation should be constructed, and therefore every reason to join in positively.
We need, in other words, to ask ourselves what’s more likely to produce a healthy and constructive consensus to take the new Scotland forward with the minimum of bitterness and recrimination, after what’s likely to have been a viciously-fought campaign: a constitution built by everyone, or one created solely by the victors and imposed by them on the defeated?
What the Greens call “open, democratic and ambitious” will likely be viewed by anti-independence Labour, Lib Dem and Tory voters (independence isn’t, of course, as simple as a straight division down party-political lines, and not all SNP and Green voters are in favour of it either, but we’ll come to that in a moment) as something more akin to the Treaty Of Versailles, and resented for generations.
The pragmatism aspect is perhaps even more obvious. Firstly, everything the Yes camp can be seen to disagree on will be eagerly seized and enthusiastically used as ammunition by the No camp – “Look, they can’t even agree amongst themselves on what independence is! How can they possibly expect you to vote for it?”
Even the mild preliminary jousting of the Guardian piece was gleefully and wildly exaggerated (“Salmond and SNP looking increasingly isolated ahead of launch – massive splits within pro-separation camp”) by members of the “Better Together” spin team – it can barely be imagined what hay they’d make from a real gloves-off fight between the leaders of the Yes campaign.
And there’s a second factor too. The SNP and Green voters who don’t support independence are logically less likely to object, in the event of a Yes vote, to a constitution that was drawn up by their own parties. With less to fear, they may at least be less likely to go out and actively cast a No vote.
Conversely, the significant minorities of those in the three London-based parties who ARE open to independence will be much less inclined to vote for it if a “Yes” will explicitly mean subjecting themselves to a constitution already dictated by the SNP and Greens. Elections are temporary things. Constitutions are much more permanent, especially if they’re created by a once-in-a-lifetime referendum.
(Not to mention that producing a constitution before the vote will come across as incredibly arrogant and presumptuous. Voters don’t like being taken for granted.)
There is only one premise on which you can legitimately seek independence, and certainly only one way in which there’s a chance of winning it – get people to agree the fundamental principle that Scotland should govern itself, and subsequently determine by democratic means what exact form that self-government should take. Any other policy is a surefire recipe for that most Scottish of traits – the “moral victory”, disguised all too convincingly as a crushing defeat.
.
This is a version of a piece previously published in May 2012.
My only hope in all this is that when the end of 2013 comes, the SNP will have published their white paper. Which must contain irrefutable facts on the benefits that Independence will bring to the Scottish people.
They must show up what Westminster does in Scotland, why it does it, and the facts must be unable to be successfully challenged as they must be the truth.
It must be that the SNP/SG will make statements so profound that it will bring all the senses that will alert the Scottish people to the fact that were are badly used in the “Union” and how the total peoples of Scotland must have this opportunity to make Scottish lives better.
The other thing they must is to have established proof concerning the irrefutable lies, deceit, manipulation of facts that the “No Campaign” is employing across the board in an attempt to once more cheat the Scottish people.
How the MSM are in league with all this stuff. It MUST be got across with evidence that no one can wriggle out of.
Lastly, they need to fight fire with fire, they need to toughen up, and stir the nation into positive action.
Agreed, Rev. I have given up ‘debating’ with two or three posters over on NNS who keep insisting that the SNP should be doing this, that or the other, without seeing the irony in that AFTER an independence vote, no one can predict what the constitution of the 2016 Scottish government will be, and so the SNP can not propose things they can’t deliver on their own. Apparently the SNP/SG careful stance on the second (or is it third?) question passed them by.
The referendum is for one thing only; in future, Who governs Scotland. A YES vote will mean that for the first time in over 300 years, a Scottish vote will actually mean what it says on the tin! I fully expect (I try to remain optimistic) that after YES, there will be the formation of right of centre (a la “Heath” type Conservatives), centre (a la SNP) and left of centre (a la “old Labour”) parties. I actually hold the view that these right/left definitions are no longer valid, but for ease of reference there you are. Some may argue about putting the SNP in the centre, and not the ‘left’, and you may be right, but I think they are a Social democratic type party, rather than one from the socialist left, so that’s why.
I would also predict (dangerous in politics) that the first Scottish government in 2016 will be a coalition probably of SNP, Greens, and “independent” Labour. I also think that a genuinely Scottish Conservative party might surprise a few people in the number of seats it can win. To some extent that will depend on the manner of Labour’s disintegration post a YES vote.
Lot’s to discuss and debate AFTER we win.
A Constitution now is clearly inappropriate. Setting out the Process for drafting/ratifying a Constitution in the event of a Yes vote, is not.
Exactly!
Let’s knock this divisive demand on the head right now.
I suspect those who keep retrning to this subject an demanding a constitution before we are in a position to need one are plants among us.
The YES campaign is easy to destabilise or disrupt basically because it cannot have the discipline of a political party
Like Aplinal, I’ve also debated this issue a fair bit on NNS, probably with the same people. I agree with Rev. Stu and Aplinal that the constitution question is a complete red-herring; same goes for decisions on the monarchy, EU, Euro, NATO etc.
It does seem however that the constitution is the one issue that really sets the hares running. I’ve always maintained that those proposing the need (even necessity) for the adoption of a constitution by 2014 fail to answer basic questions:
1) which body prior to a Yes vote in 2014 has any mandate to debate, draft and put forward the constitution of an independent Scotland? and
2) what legitimacy would any such document have if it were not either the product of a specially convened constitutional convention, or perhaps a committee formed by the first parliament of an independent Scotland?
As rev. Stu notes above, unionists aren’t likely to engage in any discussions about the matter until it is obvious they have lost the vote in 2014. In addition, any effort expended by those in favour of independence on this matter prior to 2014 is nugatory; we need to keep our eyes on the prize, not get diverted into debating the byzantine minutiae of a constitutional settlement which while important, does not need to be resolved in the next 24 months.
Indeed, the YES vote has to be kept absolutely as open as possible, even dare I say including Conservative policies – whatever they might be in an Independent Scotland.
A lot is made of Trident – a core SNP and Green policy. Well, we have Labour for Independence, what is their view on Trident? And particularly nuclear power – that has a lot of support in Scotland, myself included. Though it’s not going to make me vote NO, I don’t want any emphasis that this goes along with YES, as it might well put people off. YES has to be all-encompassing, it’s not individual policies, it’s inclusive not exclusive.
In one respect Blair Jenkins isn’t doing the job he should do yet. He gets asked about purely SNP or SG policies and talks about them or defends them. His answer should be purely and simply that these policies are not the policy of the YES campaign, they are policies that YES make possible, depending on the composition of the Independent Scottish Gvernment in 2016 – and beyond.
I think he should also nake it clear that in theory at least, that 2016 SG could be Labour, and even be complimentary where possible about Labour policies (yes, I know that’s real hard – kind of looking for a needle in a haystack!). I think a lot of Labour vote is up for grabs for YES, and a trickle of support could become a landslide.
“His answer should be purely and simply that these policies are not the policy of the YES campaign, they are policies that YES make possible, depending on the composition of the Independent Scottish Gvernment in 2016 – and beyond.”
Spot on! Direct any and all questions on individual policy to the parties concerned.
@dads
I have some sympathy with Blair Jenkins in that he is asked thee questions, so has to answer. He always prefaces them with, “I am not speaking for the SNP”, but the interviewers persist. What else should he do?
I also agree that he needs to develop a diverting response which emphasises that the referendum is about changing the choice Scots have over ALL the issues that affect them; taking control of decisions that impact Scotland, and creating real/genuine alternatives to Westminster rule.
Given the MO of the MSM/BBS, this is an up hill struggle.
SNP members who don’t support independence? WTF
Alpinal
Yes, it’s difficult. But he could do it by diversion, and need not stick to SNP or other “pro-independence” policies. For instance he could pick on a Scottish Labour policy – carefully and even favourably.
“Scottish Labour for instance want to look at the issue of free prescriptions and tuition fees with a view to making them fairer. This may indeed be neccessary with a decreasing block grant, which we face year on year with the devolved setup within the Union, but in an Independent Scotland, with full control over all the financial levers, it may well not be neccessary at all”.
“And how is the SNP going to go about that then, eh?”.
“I don’t know, I’m not in the SNP. But it might well be Labour that will do this – and find they don’t need to look at this issue either”.
That sort of thing
“deflection” not “diversion” in the prvious posting.
Patrician
Exactly.
I’ve been in the SNP for 53 years and I’ve never met an SNP member who doesn’t support independence.
This may be a mix-up with some voters who sometimes support the SNP but it is a just another useful fallacy to promote if you are a unionist
@Dave
I think there is a distinction to be made between SNP members and voters. Some voters may simply have opted for the SNP as the best potential government on offer at the time.
@dads
You are right, it is just so frustrating, with the BBC especially! HoHum, let’s ,hope for a Damascene conversion in 2013!
Anent the constitution. The first question to ask is who or what would devise the constitution and who would agree it? This is important since the constitution should be party apolitical.
If we take Scottish society as a whole, there will be areas of disagreement on what is in and what is out. I suggest we highlight those possible areas and find words to allow all opinion in a democratic society to find expression. There would be strength in highlighting the work of Neil MacCormick in producing early drafts. I agree wholeheartedly that we shouldn’t confuse in the way the Greens are doing, but the Referendum should be seen as a new start and a new constitution should be part of that with immediate effect after a Yes vote.
Alpinal
You are spot on. I have always voted Labour up until the last SG elections. I bacame disillusioned with Labour’s gravitation to the right foisted upon Scottish Labour from London.
I voted SNP and will stick with them unless Labour sort themselves out. My political position at the moment is that I am 100% behind independence despite being a Labour voter until relevantly recently. But this wasn’t always the case. I would suspect that there will be some “SNP voters” that wouldn’t necessarily voted for them based on independence but for the more left leaning policies they put on the table at the time.
Aplinal
Exactly . That is the point I was making. SNP members support independence. Sometime SNP supporters perhaps not. More significant is the number of non SNP supporters who support independence. This is essential and is growing and will render the attacks on Alex Salmond irrelevant eventually
Strenuous demand for a pre-indy constitution is just the political bit part players trying to exert policy influence that they have neither political mandate nor political clout for.
They know it ought to be set out after Scotland has decided to be an entity which requires a constitution.
It’s entirely understandable, if disappointing simple professional politics from those on higher horses than the snp.
The Green Party in Scotland are beginning to annoy me more and more. They act in a superior way to the other parties, they go on about not being nationalists (which would be fine if they did not say it in such a smug, self-satisifed way). I used to think Patrick Harvie was a good politician and person. However, I am beginning to run out of patience with him (primarily because of his seemingly almost constant moaning) and his holier-than-thou party.
I had the misfortune to have a very quick look at Robin Harper’s autobiography in a bookshop a few weeks ago (I am very glad I did not waste any money on it…). What struck me as I skimmed over the 2007 election, and its aftermath, is Harper’s disdain for Salmond. It was bordering on the attitude that the Liberal Democrats showed during the same period to the SNP! He appeared to be close to despising Salmond and the SNP, despite the boost it would give to the Greens’ profile in Scotland!
I honestly believe that the Labour Voters for Independence group are showing a lot more enthuiasm, commitment, and effort than the Greens in Scotland for the Yes campaign. This is despite the hostility between the SNP and Scottish Labour.
With you a lot of the way there, Mutley, though we have some very decent Green members now taking part in our YES shop.
Patrician says:
SNP members who don’t support independence? WTF
Yes, Rev …this one got me too. I had to re-read it 3 times before I thought ‘Yep…that’s what he said’.
Got to admit, I’ve still to meet an SNP supporter who wants to remain part of the Union. Can you imagine the debate you could have with such a person !!!
“Yes, Rev …this one got me too. I had to re-read it 3 times before I thought ‘Yep…that’s what he said’.
Got to admit, I’ve still to meet an SNP supporter who wants to remain part of the Union. Can you imagine the debate you could have with such a person !!!”
There are plenty of people who votd for the SNP simply because they’re so clearly the only Scottish party that isn’t full of completely useless diddies. These are sane people who might not be natural nationalists but are intelligent enough to recoil in terror from the prospect of Richard Baker or Jackie Baillie or James Kelly being put in charge of anything that might affect them or their families. These people may even fear independence, but felt safe voting SNP in the belief that it could never happen. If we assume every SNP voter is also a Yes voter, we’ll lose.