Wings Over Scotland

Professor John Curtice, a psephologist at Strathclyde University and the Scottish media's go-to guy for all political analysis, is often attacked by "cybernats" for alleged partiality in favour of Labour. This blog sighs in despair whenever online nationalists automatically scream "Biased!" at anyone who doesn't come onscreen in a kilt and Jimmy hat singing "Flower Of Scotland", but it has to be said that Prof. Curtice has done himself no favours at all this week.

As co-author of a report published yesterday by the Electoral Reform Society Scotland, the good professor has launched what the Scotsman today calls a "strongly worded attack" on Holyrood's proportional electoral system, under which the SNP won a majority of seats (53%) on 45% of the vote. As we noted yesterday, it's odd that the ERSS has chosen now to demand changes to the system, given that when Labour/Lib Dem coalitions had Holyrood majorities in 1999 and 2003, they also commanded less than 50% of the vote (45.5% between them in 2003, 49.5% in 1999), and nobody seemed to have a problem with that.

Now, to be fair to Prof. Curtice, the Scotsman does put words in his mouth, in their characteristic manner. The headline of the piece claims that the report brands the Holyrood system "a failure" (a description which we can't find anywhere in it) and also asserts that the report demands the system "should be changed to prevent one party winning an overall majority", which is something of an exaggeration – Curtice only actually says that the objective of the proposed changes is to make a majority "more difficult", not impossible.

But by fronting such a suspiciously-timed report, the Professor and the ERSS have allowed their credibility to be undermined by exactly the sort of distortion the Unionist media specialises in, and in doing so have left themselves dreadfully open to allegations of political colour. The society claims their motivation is honourable, and aimed only at promoting a fuller range of political views:

"We are convinced our democracy would work better with more parties in the system, so that more voices are represented and heard and that power is shared, checked and balanced."

…but the current method of electing the Scottish Parliament is perfectly capable of delivering that – in 2003, for example, the Greens got 7 seats, the Scottish Socialists won 6 seats and two independents also secured seats, those three groups between them providing almost 12% of the Parliament's MSPs. (For comparison, imagine the UK Parliament having 78 MPs from outwith the three main parties – the actual number is 28, with only one of those representing an English constituency.)

The simple fact is, the electorate could have elected a wider range of MSPs if they'd wanted to, as they have done in the past. Instead, they overwhelmingly chose the SNP. That's democracy, because in practice almost no democracy on Earth is perfectly proportional. This blog has no objections to bringing the Scottish Parliament closer to that ideal, but it's decidedly odd that supposedly neutral organisations like the ERSS didn't feel the need to suddenly press for it until the SNP won a majority.

We're absolutely confident, however, that the author of the above quote – the society's director Willie Sullivan – also being a Labour councillor in his day job (a fact the Scotsman inexplicably neglects to mention) is entirely coincidental.

PS The replacement PR method proposed by the ERSS report is one devised by the French mathematician André Sainte-Laguë. His most famous work is the calculation that it was scientifically impossible for bumblebees to be able to fly.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats (remember them?) are rather excited today. With their finger on the pulse of the nation as usual, they invite citizens of Scotland and the UK to rejoice in our low, low petrol prices. No, that's not a typo – they mean low compared to Norway, Scotland's oil-rich neighbour whose people apparently pay up to 20p a litre more than us at the pumps. This concerns all five of Scotland's remaining Lib Dems greatly, as they fret that "hard-pressed families" in an independent Scotland might be forced to pay similar sums for their fuel.

Of course, those same families might be prepared to bear that burden if in return they were to enjoy Norwegian levels of salary. The average Norwegian worker takes home an impressive £46,700 or so a year, in one of the most economically equal countries on the planet, compared to the UK average of £25,500. As a driver, I'd personally like to take this opportunity to announce that I will happily pay a 20p-a-litre premium in exchange for an extra £21,000 a year, should any party wish to propose such a policy. How about you, readers?

Ever since the SNP achieved what was thought by most people to be impossible – winning an absolute majority in the Scottish Parliament under its proportional representation system – the Unionist camp has discovered a sudden pressing concern about the perils of majority government (regardless of the fact that almost every UK Parliament in history has operated with an absolute majority on a minority of the vote, and that Labour and the Tories regularly proclaim this as a great benefit of the wildly undemocratic First Past The Post method thanks to its delivery of "strong" governments, and oppose any form of PR for Westminster).

This concern was given voice today in a report by the Electoral Reform Society, proposing a change in the rules governing Holyrood's system of proportional representation, to a format which – quite coincidentally – would have resulted in the SNP narrowly missing out on a majority in May. The society's justification for the change was that "democracy works better with more parties represented", which seems a hard argument to find fault with.

The odd thing about the report, though, is that the Sainte-Laguë system which it put forward as the solution would have done precisely nothing to increase the number of parties represented at Holyrood, as this analysis of the results by Better Nation shows. The existing parties/groups would have had their representations fiddled around with slightly, but the same six (SNP, Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, Green and independents) would have won seats as actually did. The only difference would have been that the pro-independence Greens would have held the balance of power, wielding a disproportionate influence with their 7 seats over the 64-seat SNP, as they could have held them to ransom over any policy they chose as a price for supporting an independence referendum.

This blog is a supporter of PR, so that's all fair enough. But it's curious that this report has suddenly raised issues with Holyrood now, after 12 years, just at the point where the SNP has taken control over it. It'll be interesting to hear the Unionist parties' take on it, and how they'll square it with the FPTP system at Westminster. Is "strong government" good or bad? As with many things, we suspect the answer depends which side of the border you're on.

Scottish Left Review's "independence issue", in keeping with the publication's core philosophy, gives equal opportunity to both sides of the debate this month. Both a nationalist and a Unionist were asked to provide a "positive case" for their respective positions, from a left-wing perspective, and two substantial figures took up the challenge. For independence we heard from Stephen Maxwell (the Treasurer of the Scottish Independence Convention and the director of the SNP’s campaign for a yes vote in the 1979 referendum), whereas the Union's champion was current Lothians MSP Neil Findlay. The contrast is interesting.

Maxwell's piece, it must be said, is in fact largely negative. It focuses on the damage done to Scotland by various Tory governments, and that yet to come from the current one, while also making the legitimate but far-from-positive point that UK Labour now offers little more than a diluted version of Tory policies (for example on welfare reform). It does, however, also make a decent case for an independent Scotland being better able to afford social-democratic policies (thanks in part to increased oil income and significantly reduced defence expenditure), as well as having the demonstrated political will to carry them out. Maxwell reaches a cautious but optimistic conclusion about a greater sense of national self-confidence and the ability to challenge the prevailing neo-conservative view of UK politics.

Findlay's "positive case for the Union", however, (also run on LabourHame) presents only a dismaying blend of scaremongering, negativity and hopeless defeatism – indeed, it explicitly asserts that the SNP's optimism is a "mistaken analysis". It warns of the dangers of nationalism (spectacularly missing the point of civic as opposed to ethnic nationalism), then accuses the SNP of being pro-business and complains about the SNP's intention to remain in the EU, as if either of these were policies on which the Unionist parties offered an alternative standpoint.

Findlay then looks wistfully back at the working-class (small-L) labour movements of the 50s, 60s and 70s, characterising them as something that could somehow only have happened within the context of the UK without offering any explanation as to why. This is a viewpoint that neglects, for example, to consider the way even partial independence has enabled the Scottish NHS to resist many of the worst market-based "reforms" in the sector that have befallen England and Wales, or the education sector to retain free tuition while English and Welsh students are cast into debt.

He then ponders whether devo-max within the UK could offer social-democratic solutions for Scotland, before being forced to admit that there is no party in Scotland offering it, rendering the question something of a moot point. He concludes that "the role of the Labour and Trade Union movement has to be in evaluating and recommending just what arrangement is most appropriate for ordinary people", which ranks high on the scale of "the bleeding obvious" but perhaps more importantly has nothing whatsoever to do with the question he was asked, namely to provide a positive case for achieving such things under the Union as opposed to independence. "We need to think about it" isn't much of an answer.

It is strikingly and empirically self-evident that in the world as it currently exists, Scotland is better placed to pursue social-democratic policies on its own than within the UK. This is not a supposition or an opinion but a bare black-and-white fact: the UK, after all, just elected a neo-conservative government, while Scotland overwhelmingly returned a social-democratic one, and those respective governments will rule for the best part of the next half-decade (and probably longer). Findlay's piece contains not a single sentence of practical positivity, just vague socialist nostalgia combined with a fantasy about a UK political environment that doesn't currently exist and shows no signs of doing so. Is it really so hard to think of a single positive advantage of the Union? For now, the wait goes on.

As the debate continues to rage about the legality or otherwise of a Holyrood-run independence referendum, the SNP's Stephen Noon provides a handy reference list of both professional constitutional expert opinion and some pretty unequivocal quotes from non-SNP politicians. While many fight over the technicalities, the argument that in practice Westminster would do nothing to obstruct the referendum, for fear of a counter-productive outcome, remains the most plausible.

We’re going to come right out and say it. Tom Harris MP will not be the next leader of Scottish Labour. This is because while Scottish Labour might be collectively a bit dim, it’s not THAT dim. Despite having by far the highest media profile of the three leadership candidates (which, in fairness, is clearing a not-very-high bar), Harris failed to secure the support of a single Holyrood MSP for his nomination, a situation that would hopelessly undermine whichever unfortunate lackey was chosen to deliver his attacks on Alex Salmond at First Minister’s Questions.

Opponents of blood sports would shy away from the screen in horror as Labour challenged the FM every week with – at best – a deputy leader acting as a mouthpiece for a Westminster MP. The lack of credibility of an MSP group unable to put forward a single member of sufficient talent to lead would make the party in Scotland a laughing stock, particularly if – as might well happen – the new deputy was a Westminster politician too, such as Ian Davidson or Anas Sarwar.

The SNP, though, will doubtless be hoping against hope that Harris manages to win anyway, because the MP for Glasgow South would represent a massive liability to Labour in many other ways too.

Read the rest of this entry →

The current narrative of the opposition parties and media is focusing heavily on an independent Scotland's status in the European Union, and whether it would have to adopt the Euro or not. The Unionist camp is getting extremely agitated about the issue, which is slightly mystifying as it's not one which has ever featured highly on lists of Scottish voters' priorities whenever anyone's asked them.

There's probably a very simple reason for that: nobody really cares. UKIP gets next to no votes in Scotland, and the average Scot in the street, we suspect, doesn't actually give a monkey's about Scotland's Euro-status. That's not because they're insular or stupid, but because they realise it doesn't make a great deal of difference to anything.

Why? To see the answer to that, the most obvious thing to do is to look at some of the nations most easily comparable to Scotland, and that means a glance over the North Sea to our Scandinavian neighbours. Conveniently, between them the Scandinavians encompass all possible permutations of EU and Euro membership, and three of them are almost identical in size to Scotland (pop 5.2m), meaning we should be able to draw a few broad but useful parallels. So let's take a wee peek.

Read the rest of this entry →

In the spirit of Iain Macwhirter's old-skool journalistic spadework, we've been doing a little of our own. There's been a lot of talk recently about a "rigged" referendum, with the Unionist parties demanding that the SNP pose only a single question on independence in the poll – insisting that that's all they have a mandate for, rather than also including a question on Full Fiscal Autonomy. But a quick look at the 2011 SNP manifesto suggests otherwise. As early as page 3, the manifesto says the following:

"We will bring forward our proposals to give Scots a vote on full economic powers through an independence referendum." (our emphasis)

That seems to us to fairly clearly allow for an interpretation that would include a devo max question. After all, with full independence the qualifying word "economic" is redundant – an independent nation has ALL powers, not just economic ones – so what else could those three words mean other than also offering the Scottish electorate the choice of full economic powers (aka Full Fiscal Autonomy) within the UK, as well as that of complete independence? It looks very much like the SNP worded their manifesto commitment very carefully to keep their options open, and the protestations of the Unionist parties that they only have the mandate for a single question on full independence would appear to be without any basis in fact.

(For the details of individual entries, see here.)

As alert followers of Scottish politics will know, the Unionist parties (Scottish Labour in particular) are deeply convinced of the need to put to the people of Scotland the “positive case for the Union”, in order to secure victory for the No campaign in the forthcoming independence referendum. Oddly, while the parties and their friendly pundits are apparently unanimous on the need for this case to be put urgently following the SNP’s majority victory in the 2011 Scottish Parliament election, it’s remained stubbornly conspicuous by its absence, even if you search back for over 30 years.

Wings Over Scotland is keeping its eyes peeled, though, and you can be sure that if and when this mythical beast ever does rise from the murky waters of the political Loch Ness it must be lurking in, we’ll be there to capture it for posterity. From today we’ll be logging possible sightings, and recording them below, like this:

“It’s our job to drown out [Alex Salmond’s] separatist rhetoric with a positive case for keeping the Union intact.”
(Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, Conservative Party chairman, March 2012)

“There is a desperate need to say why Scotland is better, stronger and more united as part of the UK. Make the case. Get the pro-Scotland in the UK side on the pitch and let battle commence.”
(Tavish Scott, former leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, February 2012)

“We have to make a positive case for the union.”
(Unnamed “Scottish Tory spokesman” in the Telegraph, February 2012)

“We need to hear detailed reasons and hard facts about why Scotland is better off as part of the UK — not slogans and scaremongering.”
(The Sun editorial, January 2012)

“In a speech in Glasgow later today, Ed Miliband will seek to go beyond the process-driven debate over independence for Scotland, seeking to make a positive case for Scotland to remain within the Union.”
(Left Foot Forward, January 2012)

“Darling – whose reputation was enhanced after he warned of the looming global economic meltdown in defiance of then PM Gordon Brown – said he was determined to make a positive case for Scotland remaining in the UK.”
(Sunday Mail interview with former Chancellor of the Exchequer, January 2012)

“Questions abound. How will the campaign be structured? Who will lead it? And can it develop a positive case for the United Kingdom?”
(David Torrance, commentator and author, January 2012)

“I have a positive vision for Scotland.”
(Johann Lamont, Scottish Labour leader, January 2012)

“Everyone wants to see positive arguments for the Union, and we will have these in spades.”
(Murdo Fraser, Conservative MSP, January 2012)

“I am not going to run a campaign that says Scotland cannot survive on its own. I am going to run a campaign — and others will run a campaign — about the advantages of being together. Let’s have a positive conversation, because I think the Union is a very positive thing.”
(David Cameron, UK Prime Minister, January 2012)

“There is a positive case for the Union.”
(Gerry Hassan, Scottish political commentator, January 2012)

“We are likely to see the likes of Labour’s Alistair Darling, the Liberal Democrats’ Charles Kennedy and the Tories’ Annabel Goldie playing leading roles in putting a positive case for the Union.”
(Leader in The Scotsman, January 2012)

“My ten tartan rules for success: 1. Make the positive case for the Union.”
Peter Duncan, former Conservative MP for Galloway, January 2012

“The Unionist case needs a Scottish and non-party political voice that will sell a positive narrative.”
(Lee Reynolds, Director of Strategy, Democratic Unionist Party, January 2012)

“It is absolutely essential that the pro-Union forces articulate a convincing and positive case for the continuation of the Union in the 21st Century. Those of us who wish to see Scotland and its people remain as fellow citizens in a United Kingdom must both articulate the benefits which the Union has brought to Scotland and provide a positive vision for the future continuation of the Union.”
(Tom Elliott, leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, January 2012)

“Add these deeply serious warnings [about debt, banks, subsidy etc] to the positive case for maintaining a union which has served the English and Scottish people well for 300 years and Mr Cameron has an irresistible argument.”
(Daily Mail editorial leader, January 2012)

“Does the Prime Minister agree with me that we must make the case for the Union – not simply against separatism, but the positive case about the shared benefits to us all of Scotland’s part in the United Kingdom?”
(Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour Party, January 2012)

“Politicians are much given to talking – as Mr Cameron did yesterday – about ‘a positive case for the Union’ and commentators (I’m one of them) have been asking for the same thing for some time.”
(Andrew McKie, conservative commentator, January 2012) [paywall link]

“Politics is about emotion as well as simple accountancy. So as well as making the economic case for staying in the United Kingdom, we also need to tell a better, more positive story for Scotland’s future to compete with the SNP’s narrative of nationalism.”
(Douglas Alexander, Labour Shadow Foreign Secretary, January 2012)

“As we get closer to the referendum, people will realise that staying within the Union has substantial benefits for Scotland.” (benefits not specified)
(James Kelly, Labour MSP, December 2011) (at 4m 20s)

“We’ve got a distinctive argument to make on the power of Scotland inside the United Kingdom.”
(Johann Lamont, Labour leadership contender, December 2011) (at 23m 08s)

“The starting point is that we are equal nations choosing to come together and that equality means we in Scotland can make demands in a claim of right for the powers and responsibilities that we want. Beyond that however we need to describe the positive advantages of being part of a new United Kingdom.”
(Malcolm Chisholm, Labour MSP, November 2011)

“[the proponent for independence] deserved to win, because he did the thing which usually wins a debate: he asked the question which mattered, and didn’t get a satisfactory response. And the question was this: what is the positive case for the Union?”
(Andrew McKie, conservative political commentator, November 2011)

“The bigger challenge with Alex Salmond, in my view, is […] about addressing the political strategy he has been successful around. It is about making a positive case of Scotland in the UK and I can make that case.”
(Johann Lamont, then-prospective Scottish Labour leader, November 2011)

“Scottish Labour needs to develop its vision of a devolved, confident Scotland and make its case for a vote against independence with a positive alternative.”
(Mike Robb, Labour Hame, November 2011)

“We really need someone who can articulate a positive vision for Scotland, and sell it to the people of Scotland.”
(John Ruddy, Labour Hame, November 2011)

“The Scottish Conservatives have a huge responsibility, to Scotland and the United Kingdom, to make the positive case for the Union”
(Ruth Davidson, Scottish Conservative leader, October 2011)

“We will need to make that very positive argument in the next few years; the very human, very individual benefit of the United Kingdom.”
(Willie Rennie, Scottish Liberal Democrats leader, October 2011)

“I am determined, along with a new Scottish Labour leader when that person is chosen, to make that positive case for the union”
(Ed Miliband, Labour Party leader, September 2011)

“A clear vision of and a positive case for the Union needs to be developed”
(John Curtice, Professor of Politics, University of Strathclyde, May 2011)

“Voters should be inspired by being offered a positive case for the Union”
(David Cameron, Conservative Party leader, now UK Prime Minister, April 2007)

“We have got to show the positive case for the Union”
(Gordon Brown, former Chancellor and Prime Minister, January 2007)

“We have left unargued the essential case for the Union, because we do not believe that most British people need to be persuaded of it.”
(Editorial in The Spectator, February 1979)

———————————————————————————————-
TIME ELAPSED: 32 years, 3 months
ACTUAL SIGHTINGS OF POSITIVE CASE FOR UNION TO DATE: 0
———————————————————————————————-

“I’m beginning to wonder if there is a positive case for the Union at all.”
(Iain Macwhirter, Sunday Herald)

The theoretical possibility that the UK Government could usurp the Scottish Government and hold its own referendum on Scottish independence is one that's been kicking around ever since the SNP won its historic majority at Holyrood back in May. But one question that nobody seems to have asked is "So what?"

Much of conventional wisdom has it that only the UK Parliament has the ability to grant Scotland independence, and that the Scottish Parliament can't legally bring about the dissolution of the Union. This is essentially a fallacy, based on misunderstanding of the sovereign nature of the Scottish people, but is generally held to be an academic technicality anyway – should a referendum conducted by Holyrood indicate the desire of the Scottish electorate for independence, the idea of Westminster even attempting to refuse would in practice be unthinkable.

But were Westminster to conduct its own vote, would the situation be any different? It's hard to see how. It was recently claimed by the Tories' Lord Forsyth that Alex Salmond had told George Osborne the SNP would boycott any Westminter-led referendum. This would throw up a pretty interesting constitutional brouhaha by itself, but let's assume the referendum went ahead in 2012, the SNP did indeed refuse to collaborate in it, and let's say for the sake of argument that as a result it delivered a resounding "No" vote on a very low turnout. What then?

The UK would continue business as usual (assuming there hadn't been a civil war), and soon enough would arrive at 2015. At which point the SNP would table the referendum for which the Scottish electorate gave them an overwhelming mandate, and invite the UK Government to try to stop it.

It's difficult to identify any legal grounds on which Westminster would be able to block a referendum which the Prime Minister had repeatedly acknowledged was Holyrood's to hold. Short of Cameron sending in the tanks, the second referendum would go ahead regardless of the result of the first. The constitutional sovereignty of the Scottish people would remain unchanged, as would the unthinkability of any refusal by Westminster to accept the result. Once again, beyond military conflict there simply wouldn't be any way to keep the Union together.

(It's not even as if there isn't extremely recent precedent on these very islands for having two referenda on the same subject in the same country in close succession. Less than 16 months separated the people of the Republic Of Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty from a second vote in which it was accepted.)

So we're going to go ahead and say with some confidence that there will be no Westminster-conducted referendum on Scottish independence. That it would be democratically outrageous ought to be reason enough, let alone that it would likely be highly counter-productive, but more importantly it would be also completely pointless. Only Holyrood has a mandate for a referendum, and only Holyrood – on Holyrood's own terms – will conduct one.

A fairly in-depth lead piece on the "devo max" conundrum, including an interview with referendum expert Dr Matt Qvortrup who, under very determined and persistent questioning from an unhappy Glenn Campbell, offered the professional opinion that a notional two-question poll where Q1 was "Do you want more powers for the Scottish Parliament?" and Q2 was "Do you also want full independence?" would be both legitimate and fair, and also that in his view, a vote of 51% for independence in such a scenario would mean independence for Scotland, regardless of whether the "devo max" question received a higher vote.

The unambiguous clarification of Dr Qvortrup's position was welcome given the strenuous attempts by the Unionist parties to misrepresent it last week, after the First Minister gave what turned out to be an entirely accurate summary of Dr Qvortrup's views, but one based on an erroneous source. Dr Qvortrup confirmed that he'd spoken to the First Minister and accepted his "misquote" was an honest error rather than an attempt to portray his views inaccurately.

The episode also featured a piece on whether the Scottish Conservatives can recover from the divisions caused by their leadership contest, in which party donor John McGlynn called for a change in direction.

There’s been some truly horrible stuff passing for videogames journalism in recent times. Whether it’s reviewers telling people to hand over £25 for a shoddy, lazy cash-in because it comes in a cardboard box or writers arguing with each other over the precise manner in which gamers should be gouged for more money, it’s a depressing picture. (And having the president of IGN tell MCV last week that the recipe for the future was “getting celebrities involved“ didn’t paint it any prettier.)

I’ve always believed that writers are there to serve their readers, not their subjects. But as I was bemoaning the last case in a cloud of gloom and shame-by-proxy last month, I had a bit of an epiphany, and it wasn’t a particularly cheering one. Because the truth of the matter is that readers are getting the videogames journalism (indeed, the journalism generally) that they deserve.

Read the rest of this entry →