Wings Over Scotland

Scottish Viceroy Michael Moore is banging away on the same old drum in the Herald today, demanding that the SNP detail every last conceivable detail of policy in an independent Scotland before the referendum, continuing to rather clumsily miss the entire point of what referenda are for. But as we wearily ploughed through the rhetoric one more time, a thought dawned on us.

The only way Moore's complaints would make any kind of sense would be if a vote for independence was also a vote for an SNP government in perpetuity. Only if the SNP are going to rule an independent Scotland forever would it be incumbent on them to lay out every last line of what they stood for before the referendum, because then (and only then) the electorate would have no opportunity to reject at the ballot box a government implementing policies that voters objected to.

Could it be that Moore believes no other party could ever rise to power in an independent Scotland, and that the nation would in effect become a one-party dictatorship, lost to democracy forever under the iron thistle of the First McReich? (He's at least two-thirds right, after all – the Tories and Lib Dems aren't going to be providing a First Minister any time soon.) If so, we think he should come out and say so instead of beating around the bush. The people deserve to be warned. 

The growing rift between Labour and the trade union movement in Scotland was highlighted yesterday by a statement from the STUC flatly contradicting the narrative spun by all three opposition parties this week, namely that that uncertainty over the date of the independence referendum was damaging the prospects of business investment in Scotland.

In a statement striking for its lack of ambiguity, an unnamed spokesman for the congress was reported by the Scotsman as saying that the unions "had come across no evidence that the forthcoming poll was deterring investment in the country", and that as a result it "did not believe it was necessary to hold a referendum as soon as possible, as is being urged by both the UK government and opposition parties", adding that "There are far more immediate problems that need to be looked at."

Oddly, this fairly dramatic divergence of opinion was afforded just 126 words by the paper, compared to the 2,348 devoted to Douglas Alexander's rather less newsworthy speech to a Labour youth conference.

Not for the first time, the Scotsman is today apparently guest-edited by Douglas Alexander. The paper offers blanket coverage – including a secondary article, analysis, leader column and a personal profile, as well as the front-page lead story itself – to the shadow foreign secretary's latest speech to a Labour audience, in which he urges the Scottish party to back greater devolution rather than campaign alongside the Tories and Lib Dems for the status quo. (The Herald doesn't mention the speech at all.)

The story barely justifies such excitable trumpeting. Alexander has already made public his concerns about how Labour should approach its policy on the constitution, in a speech which was heavily-featured across the Scottish media just a month ago. The latest one puts no meat on the bones of his earlier effort – Alexander makes no specific proposals as to what further devolution the party should support, and maintains Labour's position of opposing a devo-max question on the referendum paper.

Alexander is not an MSP, and therefore has no control over the Scottish party's decisions. (If, that is, Scottish Labour is an entity as autonomous as its supporters frequently insist.) So basically what we have is an outsider with no official influence suggesting that Scottish Labour should slightly change its pronouncements about devolution, but not its actual policies or actions. In other words there is, in essence, no actual news to report here at all.

The Scottish electorate still overwhelmingly supports greatly-extended powers for the Scottish Parliament, albeit with roughly half of the backers of devo-max also supporting independence. Scottish Labour is desperate to tap into this support and create clear Saltire-blue water between itself and the UK coalition, but has painted itself into a difficult corner by  opposing a devo-max option in the referendum.

It's a circle that the party is going to find very difficult (perhaps impossible) to square – it would, in effect, be campaigning on a position of "Vote No to independence and we might give Scotland some (unspecified) extra powers, at some unspecified point in the future, probably after yet another Calman Commission, if we win a Westminster majority under Ed Miliband, and if we keep our promises (unlike with electoral reform and tuition fees), and if we haven't changed our minds again by then".

At present, all Alexander is really achieving is drawing attention to that fact.

Labour's former Lord Provost of Glasgow and celebrity Celtic fan Michael Kelly would have an entry in the "Zany Comedy Relief" section of our blogroll if there was a central link hub for his outpourings. His latest rant in the Scotsman, though, is demented even by his standards. Under the bizarre title "Alex Salmond’s anti-sectarian purge has gone too far" (is it possible to go too far against sectarianism? Are we saying there's an acceptable level above zero?), he attempts to make an extraordinary case which twists and turns on itself with every line.

Firstly, he expresses his outrage that the police reported Celtic to UEFA for alleged sectarian singing during their Europa League match against Rennes, rather than arresting the perpetrators. Yet in the very next paragraph he relates a tale of them doing just that to a fan accused of singing a pro-IRA ditty during a Celtic-Hibs game, and claims that the arrest "seems excessive".

Kelly then launches into a more general diatribe against the anti-sectarianism legislation currently making its way through the Scottish Parliament, culminating in the astonishing claim that the IRA "was not a sectarian organisation". Because we all remember all its many prominent Protestant members, of course. But Kelly isn't quite done yet. His penultimate paragraph contains the following mind-boggling passage:

"But further, both Celtic and Rangers fans argue there is a significant difference between celebrating the actions of current terrorist groups and remembering with nostalgia the exploits of the freedom fighters of a century ago. Thus the Boys of the Old Brigade and Here Lies a Soldier should be classified as folk songs like the Massacre of Glencoe and the grossly offensive but condoned Flower of Scotland."

This blog doesn't know about you, readers, but we've never heard "The Massacre Of Glencoe" being lustily bellowed from the Fir Park stands when Motherwell take on Kilmarnock – indeed, we've never heard it spontaneously sung anywhere ever, let alone at a football match. Perhaps for the strikingly obvious reason that, just like Michael Kelly's beloved ballads of a century-old war in a foreign country, it's got absolutely sod-all to do with Scottish football. But the notion that "Flower Of Scotland" – Scotland's national anthem – is "grossly offensive" leads us to wonder why in the world Michael Kelly still lives in such a hateful nation.

"Flower Of Scotland" could at a stretch be deemed to contain some anti-English lyrics, but the song is a tale told from a purely defensive perspective. It's about repelling a foreign invader ("and sent him homeward to think again"), not invading others (compare and contrast with the infamous verse in "God Save The Queen" about crushing the Scots in Scotland), and in that deeply moral theme it stands with some of the world's finest anthems, such as "La Marseillaise". Even then "Flower Of Scotland" sounds a pacifistic note, pointing out that:

"Those days are past now, and in the past they must remain."

To call it "grossly offensive", then, is fairly unarguably deranged. (Not to mention irrelevant, since this blog is unaware of any group of supporters having ever sung FoS at league games, which are what the sectarianism bill is designed to tackle.) The Scotsman no longer allows comments on Michael Kelly's posts. Perhaps it should take the logical next step and no longer employ him to write them at all.

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.

We've just caught up with an interesting piece over at Bella Caledonia from a few days ago, in which Robin McAlpine, editor of the non-aligned Scottish Left Review, heralds that publication's "independence issue" with an overview of the Scottish political left wing's position on the subject. We'll let you read it for yourself, but the takeaway soundbite is this one:

"roughly no-one seems to have been persuaded out of a pre-existing pro-independence position but more and more people are moving in the other direction"

The true nature of the modern Labour Party seems to have taken a while to fully dawn on the left, in the UK but particularly in Scotland, and it's intriguing to see a slow but perceptible shift begin to take place, especially with regard to trade unions. The fight between Unionists and the independence movement for the heart and soul of socialism seems to be very much on.

The source is Lord Foulkes so it's probably best not to have it tattooed onto your forehead or anything, but the Express reports today a possible twist in the referendum saga that, if it turns out to be true, would be a genuinely surprising and interesting development. The thirsty peer notes that the Scotland Bill in its current form is a "dead parrot" – given that it's likely to be rejected by Holyrood if not significantly enhanced, something for which the coalition has no apparent appetite – and that as such it's likely to be abandoned altogether, with pressure of time in the House Of Lords cited as the face-saving reason.

It's extremely hard to imagine the Unionist parties rallying around a flag of "no change at all" in the referendum, so it may yet be that the devo-max option isn't as dead as it currently seems. Keep watching this space.

"Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon said minimum pricing was not a magic bullet, but a part of the solution."
(BBC, 1 Nov 2011)

"Sturgeon said a minimum price was 'not a magic bullet'"
(Alcohol Policy UK, 1 Nov 2011)

"Minimum pricing is not a magic bullet, but it is a huge step in the right direction."
(Nicola Sturgeon, Evening Times, 8 Sep 2011)

"[Nicola Sturgeon] doesn’t and never has believed that minimum pricing is the magic bullet solution."
(Holyrood magazine, 15 Oct 2010)

"We should not see any particular initiative as a magic bullet — we need a strong package of measures. That initiative was simply another tool in the box."
(Nicola Sturgeon, Findlaw UK, 30 Sep 2010)

"While [minimum pricing] is not a magic bullet, it would effectively target problem drinkers and help them reduce their alcohol consumption."
(Nicola Sturgeon, STV News, 31 Aug 2010)

"While it's not a magic bullet, we believe that minimum pricing would effectively target problem drinkers."
(Nicola Sturgeon, Newsnet Scotland, 9 June 2010)

"The SNP seem to think that minimum unit pricing is some sort of silver bullet."
(Richard Simpson, Labour Shadow Health Minister, 14 Nov 2011)

Sigh.

Lots of stuff going on in the papers on Saturday and Sunday which we didn't have time to feature individually. The Daily Record covers Lord Forsyth's latest bright idea, namely that SNP MSPs should be forced to pay for the referendum should it be judged unlawful, a bizarre notion given that if the referendum were to be so judged it's hard to see how it could go ahead at all.

Conversely, the New Statesman runs a balanced and realistic piece on "Who owns the Scottish independence referendum?", identifying some of the possible legal implications but also coming to a practical conclusion about what will actually happen. Meanwhile – in fact from earlier last week but having hitherto escaped our attention – Aidan O'Neill QC pens a rather less balanced and less realistic view for The Guardian on the same subject, which ends up insisting that not only would any referendum have to be run by Westminster but that it would have to be conducted across the UK. The article is strikingly detached from the real world, but is notable for some excellent and highly-informed reader comments. (After the first one.)

The Scottish Left Review has a somewhat daunting but detailed account of the conduct of Labour-led Glasgow City Council, in the light of Newsnet Scotland's revelation that the head of the City Building ALEO (arm's-length external organisation), set up by the disgraced former council leader Steven Purcell and the subject of allegations of cronyism and patronage, is set to receive a £615,000 payoff funded by the taxpayer after just five years' service to the company.

Scotland On Sunday features the story that Labour flak-magnet Tom Harris (of whom more shortly) is trying to push a so-called "Clarity Act" through Westminster in order to grant the UK Parliament de facto control over the referendum, based on Harris' erroneous claim that "The Scottish Government has a mandate but it is for a specific question on independence."

The same paper also details Michael Portillo's advocation of full fiscal autonomy for Scotland, the first time (so far as we're aware) that a significant Tory figure has called for a version of "devo max" as their preferred option for Scotland's constitutional future. These are interesting times.

There's a mildly remarkable story on the BBC website today. While the Herald reports that John Swinney has "thwarted" the UK coalition government's plans to drastically slash public-sector pensions, the BBC covers an SNP claim, based on the UK Government's own GERS statistics, that Scotland is better placed to afford pensions and welfare than the UK.

One might imagine that when responding to this claim, the Scotland Office would be armed with its own interpretation of the facts and figures with which to refute the SNP's assertions. Instead, what we actually get is an extraordinary playground outburst in which the Scottish Government is accused of "Flat Earth economics", and an increasingly hysterical rant in which an unnamed spokesman rages:

"Their argument completely fails to explain how much pensions and welfare would be and who would administer or pay for them or exactly how a separate Scotland with a smaller tax base [1], an ageing population [2] and a bigger ratio of public sector workers and welfare claimants [3] could possibly lead to things being better."

…to which the answer would presumably be "for the precise reasons outlined in the UK Government's own figures – Scotland spends less on those things than the UK does, and could therefore afford to be more generous, even if you discount the argument that an independent Scotland would be better off than at present."

The Scotland Office is funded by the taxpayer. We're not sure it should be getting this angry about what would appear by any interpretation to be positive news for Scotland.

[1] In fact Scotland contributes 9.4% of UK taxation with 8.4% of the population.

[2] Also true of the UK as a whole, not just Scotland.

[3] This is, of course, already factored into the GERS figures.

We hitherto haven't bothered adding the Caledonian Mercury to the Wings over Scotland link bar, because it appeared to be all but dead. After a promising start, updates had slowed to a trickle on Stewart Kirkpatrick's bold attempt at creating a new online-only Scottish quality newspaper staffed by proper journalists from all points on the political spectrum, and most of the ones that did appear – in the politics section at least – were in the form of the toe-curling "Friday song" posts.

However, we may have been a little hasty, as the CalMerc this week ran a really interesting and exclusive piece by Hamish Macdonnell about some parts of the UK which are already governed under arrangements strikingly similar to what most people would describe as "devo max". The Isle Of Man, for example, has full fiscal autonomy and cedes control of only immigration and defence to the UK, a status that you suspect the SNP would consider a very acceptable step along the path to full independence, and which has plainly not resulted in the Isle's sky falling in.

But enough spoilers. You can read the full story here.

The debate about whether an independent Scotland which joined or remained in the EU would be forced to adopt the Euro – and therefore be liable for a multi-billion-pound contribution to the eurozone bailout fund, the subject of much Unionist scaremongering in recent days – would appear to have reached a definitive end. A letter in today's Scotsman from Drew Scott, Professor of European Union Studies at the University of Edinburgh, backs up a blog on Thursday from SNP activist and EU law graduate Stephen Noon by noting that regardless of current rules which say new members must join the currency, the EU also stipulates that no member can do so without first being a member of the Exchange Rate Mechanism for two years.

ERM participation, however, is not compulsory for new members. And therefore any country joining the EU – whether as a successor state or from scratch – which doesn't want to join the Euro can simply elect to remain outwith the ERM, and therefore put off joining the Euro indefinitely. Noon points to the specific chapter and verse in EU regulations, and Professor Scott backs his conclusion. Scotland CAN join the EU but stay out of the Euro. The argument would seem to be over.