Wings Over Scotland

In these brutal economic times, you could be forgiven for easing the pain with the occasional drift into fantasy. Britain is broke, and even after five years of the most savage austerity cuts since World War 2 the Chancellor of the Exchequer admits the books still won't be balanced.

But imagine, just for a moment, that we inhabited some sort of magical fairytale universe. Instead of a bankrupt neo-liberal service economy run for the benefit of obscenely overpaid bankers and hedge fund managers, imagine if Scots could live in a country of five million people with a social-democratic outlook and vast oil wealth which was used for the benefit of the entire population rather than just a tiny elite.

It's a ridiculous, impossible idea, of course. This is the real world, and reality isn't like that. But once in a while, just to cheer yourself up enough to keep grimly soldiering on through the hideous years to come, it's nice to dream.

Our dear chum “Comical Tom” Harris is at it again, this time crying to Holyrood magazine about the evil SNP and their cyberbullying, as well as continuing to punt the hopelessly-discredited lie that online unpleasantness is the sole preserve of SNP supporters (particularly ironic given Tom’s status as the Unionist camp’s troll-in-chief). Given that Harris is fond of proudly announcing that he’s blocked readers from his Twitter feed if they post messages he disagrees with, it’s hard to see who’s managing to upset the poor lamb so much. (Particularly as he notes that these awful bullies “tend to cover up” the vitriol he alleges they bear.)

More serious is Harris’ ludicrous allegation that there will be “nothing remotely democratic” about the conduct of the independence referendum – a shameful, borderline-libellous attack echoing Labour’s previous slurs which compared the First Minister to Mussolini and Hitler – something Harris apparently manages to say with a straight face in the same interview where he asserts that:

“People say there’s just as much antagonism on the Labour side and Labour people are just as nasty – that’s a lie, that’s wrong, and it’s demonstrably wrong.”

(We await keenly Tom’s attempt to defy all known laws of reality and prove a negative. In the meantime, we’ve politely asked him via Twitter to provide some specific examples of this “bullying” so that the vicious perpetrators can be shamed.)

Of course, we’re falling into Harris’ trap by even reporting this garbage. Currently trailing in fifth place in the Labour leadership race despite there being only three candidates, Tom is lashing out bitterly at all and sundry – including Scottish Labour’s own MSPs for their understandable decision not to subject themselves to any of his demented haverings in person – in a desperate attempt to turn his indisputable car-crash appeal into some sort of political power. Readers can decide for themselves, however, if this is the sort of behaviour that characterises a prospective future First Minister of Scotland.

Speaking as a heterosexual atheist who thinks marriage for anyone is a stupid idea, I like to think I’ve got a pretty neutral view of the gay-weddings debate. So a blog post by devoutly religious SNP MSP John Mason last week addressing the issue wouldn’t on the face of it seem the sort of thing likely to bring a glow to my cold misanthropic heart. But it has, because it’s a refreshingly open and honest statement of his heartfelt position, coming from a member of a group of people – politicians – much better known for vague platitudes and cowardly evasion.

I disagree completely with Mason’s view that homosexuality is a sin, and I absolutely believe that gay people should be allowed to get married if they want to, and to specifically call the resulting union a marriage rather than a “civil partnership”. But it also seems to me to be plainly ridiculous that churches which espouse the same views as Mason does could be forced by the law to conduct such ceremonies against their beliefs. Churches are not state-funded organisations, and church weddings confer no legal status upon anyone that isn’t conveyed equally and fully by registry offices, so there is no “human right” or need to be married specifically in a church, any more than I have the right to walk into a vegan cafe and demand a pork chop. And if there’s no right, then there are no grounds for anyone demanding such a service should the church in question decline to provide it, for any reason it feels like.

Mason puts forward his view in a calm and dignified manner, while explicitly stating that he does not oppose gay marriage or any other form of discrimination against homosexuals. He supports the right to fully pursue a lifestyle that is at odds with his personal beliefs, and is entitled to expect the same courtesy in return without being called a homophobe, as has already happened with disappointing predictability.

As a politician the easy course of action would have been for Mason to keep his head down, avoid frightening any horses and let events take their course. But he has spoken up for his beliefs, and those of the many people who hold them, while unequivocally upholding the freedoms of others, risking opprobrium and vilification in the process. I wish we had more politicians with the courage of their convictions and the guts to express them freely and truthfully, even when those convictions are ones we might personally find distasteful. It is the very essence of freedom.

A wise old German proverb was quoted in the Guardian recently. It runs like this:

"What do two monsters do when they meet each other in the forest?"

"They smile."

It's hard not to think of it as you watch the progress of the Scottish Government's anti-sectarianism bill through Parliament. The media has devoted a lot of column inches to the bill in recent days, with a variety of viewpoints. SNP MSP Joan McAlpine wrote an impassioned opinion piece for the Scotsman in support of the bill yesterday, while legal blogger Lallands Peat Worrier took the opposite approach, forensically examining the finer details and concluding that in extreme circumstances it could conceivably be used to criminalise behaviour that might seem trivial at worst.

The Scotsman's main editorial coverage today takes an uncharacteristically neutral stance, reporting the fact that the opposition parties, particularly Labour, are refusing to back the bill despite having put forward no amendments to it. They also provide two further short opinion comments, one from each side of the debate.

Against the bill, a sociology lecturer from Abertay University (no, us either) offers a rather unfocused ramble that sounds uncomfortably like some bloke in the pub sounding off after a couple of pints and concludes dramatically that the bill is "the most authoritarian piece of legislation in recent history", while the President of the Association Of Scottish Police Superintendents contends that in fact it's a welcome clarification and simplification of the law with regard to sectarian offences.

The vast majority of the Scottish people, meanwhile, heartily sick of the poison that spreads outward from Ibrox and Celtic Park and infects the rest of Scottish society, wait to see if something is finally going to be done.

Read the rest of this entry →

Scottish Labour embarrassed themselves horribly today when they jumped on comments from SNP MSP Stewart Maxwell in which he noted that the Scottish Government was only legally empowered to hold an advisory referendum on independence rather than a binding one. Not withstanding the fact that ALL referenda in the UK are only advisory, whether conducted by Holyrood or Westminster or anyone else, Labour’s humiliating blunder was in triumphantly asserting there was something new about this position, when in fact the very first sentence of the SNP’s National Conversation website – dating back over two years – says the exact same thing:

“The First Minister has outlined plans for a public consultation on a draft Referendum Bill which sets out proposals for an advisory referendum on extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament.”

But there’s another aspect to the nature of referenda that everyone seems to be inexplicably overlooking of late. The Unionist parties have recently ramped up a campaign in which they demand the SNP “clarify” every last item of policy in an independent Scotland, from currency and EU membership to renewable energy transmission costs, pension provision, and all the way down to what colour the First Minister’s going to paint Bute House’s front door. What nobody seems to have grasped is the fairly crucial point that that’s not what a referendum is for.

Read the rest of this entry →

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 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.