Wings Over Scotland

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.