Wings Over Scotland

For some time now, we’ve been documenting a couple of intriguing aspects of the No campaign. One is its apparent shortage of grassroots activists, leaving “Better Together” to instead rely on the Scottish and UK media to get its message out. The other is a reluctance to engage in public debate with adults.

Where BT has deigned to participate in public hustings at all, the bulk of the events have been those at schools and colleges. Invited to debate independence in front of crowds of grown-ups, the No camp is oddly reticent, as we discovered ourselves last year when we offered to pay for and set up a head-to-head, with a neutral and mutually-approved chair, between respective campaign figureheads Dennis Canavan and Alistair Darling, getting only abuse in response.

Of course, a bunch of evil cybernats such as ourselves might expect to be rebuffed. But what if the cuddly, respectable official Yes Scotland organisation had a go?

Because “Better Together” isn’t all that keen on informal clashes either. Since last summer we’ve been recording its attempts to get Yes Scotland events closed down or banned altogether, usually on the grounds that BT isn’t sending anyone along to make the No case. We’ve even seen occasions of direct threats or actual physical violence used against Yes campaigners.

So when Yes Glasgow activist, Cowdenbeath by-election candidate and SNP member Natalie McGarry started trying to arrange a friendly debate in Scotland’s biggest city last year, she might have felt that in making such modest demands of the No camp’s manpower – a couple of people for a platform and a few leaflets for publicity – in such a controlled and safe setting, she’d have a bit more luck.

Four months on, though, the story was a familiar one.

———————————————————————————————————–

3 October 2013
Natalie McGarry to Rob Shorthouse
(“Better Together” Director of Communications):

Rob,

I am writing on behalf of Yes Glasgow to ask if you could put me in contact with a counterpart in Glasgow from the No campaign with whom I can discuss hosting a joint public meeting/debate with for the new year.

I am willing to do most of the work in sourcing a venue and we can agree a neutral chair. Obviously the representatives of either side are entirely up to them. I suggest three from either side to broaden out the debate. I would also suggest, informally, that some consideration is given to gender balance

I note with interest your actions in contacting national broadcasters this week regarding a public debate, so I am sure that you are committed to public accountability and access to information.

I appreciate that your public launch in Glasgow was by registration only, but I would not support a similar approach to a joint public meeting. Openness and transparency are key going forward in this debate and I’d moot we should make it as easy as possible for people to access information.

The dates I have in mind are either the 23rd or 30th of January. Given the Yes Glasgow launch attracted over 700 persons, booking a large venue would be appropriate as it would be good to accommodate as many of the public as possible.

I anticipate that promoting the event would be a joint responsibility and not limited to online websites, but in mailings and a poster campaign. Would you support this endeavour?

Do you have a budget for public meetings, and would you be amenable to joint funding the cost of hosting the event?

Last, but not least, in addition to the debate, we support hosting stalls for organisations who would like to come along. For example, on the Yes side of the debate that would include organisations like Women For Independence and National Collective among others.

Clearly you are not the correct person to discuss this as it is a local issue. however, I welcome your thoughts and suggestions, and your passing my email to the correct person at your earliest convenience.

Wearing my other hat, Women For Independence would like to organise a one day women’s round table supported by the third sector and culminating in a debate. We envisage this at some point in March. Who is the best person to contact about coming together to discuss the viability of this?

Kind regards

To Blair McDougall
(“Better Together” Campaign Director)

Blair,

Please see below forwarded email to Rob Shorthouse.

I hope that one or other of you can assist me with the correct person to contact to organise this.

To Kayleigh Harvey
(“Better Together” full-time Organiser for Glasgow)

Kayleigh,

I have been given your contact details as a local area coordinator for Better Together in Glasgow. 

Please see below an email I addressed to Rob Shorthouse yesterday as I already had his email. As yet I have had no response, but hope you can help me move this forward. 

Kind regards

Natalie McGarry

On behalf of Yes Glasgow

To Rob Murray
(“Better Together” National Campaign Organiser (Grassroots):

Rob,

Please see below an email I addressed to Rob Shorthouse yesterday as I already had his email. As yet I have had no response, but hope you can help me move this forward. 

Your name has been supplied to me as a coordinator of local campaigns, so in fact you are probably the correct person to direct me to the coordinator of the campaign in Glasgow. Someone has suggested Kayleigh Harvey, so I have forwarded my email to her to her too. 

Kind regards

Natalie McGarry

On behalf of Yes Glasgow

Rob Shorthouse:

Hello Natalie

Apologies for the delay.

I’ll pass your note onto our Glasgow group who will, I’m sure, respond.

Rob

5 October 2013
Billy McCauley
(BT student activist in Glasgow):

Hi Natalie,

Rob Shorthouse at Better Together passed your details onto me, and asked me to get back to you.

A debate does sound interesting, however, I hardly think that the referendum campaign has been lacking in debates, especially with the upcoming Strathclyde University mock referendum amongst others.

I agree, if we are going to do something, then doing it next year would probably be best. We already have a number of events booked in for January, so perhaps later in the year. Perhaps you could get back in touch with us early next year?

Many thanks,

Yours

Billy

Better Together Glasgow

McGarry to McCauley:

Billy,

I am disappointed by your response. I don’t think that a university debate equates to a debate in an open public spectrum. 

I have, today, spoken to Anas Sarwar, and he was supportive of the idea. 

Should you not wish to be involved in the organisation or promotion of a Glasgow wide debate at this time, that is entirely up to you at Better Together to take that decision, however, we will be pressing ahead with an open forum, and will invite political representatives of the constituent parties which support a No vote. 

We had hoped that this could be an initiative that we worked on together in the interests of open democracy.

Is this a decision you have taken in isolation, or is it a representative position of the Better Together Glasgow Group?

Regards

McCauley to McGarry:

Hi Natalie,

Apologies if I wasn’t clear earlier, we are supportive of the idea. However, we already have a number of events planned for January 2014. Thus, we would happily revisit the subject with you after the new year.

Yours,

Billy

McGarry to McCauley:

Billy,

I appreciate you getting back to me, and I have clarified that you have invited us to get back in contact post January. 

That said, an event of this size and magnitude requires months of organisation and advertisement if it is to attract undecideds to attend. 

Negotiating this after January does not allow for much room to manoeuvre – especially given the regulated period kicking in in June – and many of us being busy campaigning actively for our own side. 

I have suggested two dates in January, or we can look at the beginning of February. We are agreeable to doing most of the organisation – subject to agreement between Yes Glasgow and Better Together’s counterpart grassroots campaign about constitution of event, chair and a joint advertising campaign. 

I urge you to reconsider your intention to postpone any discussions of feasibility. After January is too late.  

Regards

124 DAYS PASS UNEVENTFULLY.

4 Feb 2014
Natalie McGarry to Rob Shorthouse, Blair McDougall

Dear Rob/Blair,

It is now 124 days since we first approached yourself and Better Together to discuss the joint hosting of a public debate in Glasgow.  For your reference, I have attached a copy of my initial communication.  At the time – after emailing yourself, Rob Murray, Blair McDougall and Kayleigh Quinn – I was eventually passed to Billy McCauley who replied on 5/10/13 to say that the main focus of your local campaign was the series of debates taking place at the University of Strathclyde. 

Given these are now halfway completed, with the penultimate one taking place next week, I am sure you and the rest of the team can turn your attention to the wider debate we would like you to actively participate in across the city.

There are now only 225 days from now until polling day.  It would be a disservice to the people of Glasgow to allow this period to go by without there being as wide a range of participation and discussion as possible – and I am sure you agree that a major part of this process must be public debates between representatives of our respective views on the matter.

Whilst our organisations represent opposite shades of opinion on the issue of independence, we can surely agree that the decision faced by the people of Glasgow and Scotland is of fundamental importance to the future of all, whether in favour, against, or undecided.  It is precisely this latter group for whom the kind of open, public forum we are proposing is so important.

We would be delighted if both local campaigns could meet timeously as to expedite the arrangements for jointly hosting such a debate, including issues such as the venue, funding, publicity, format, and the involvement of third party campaign groups at the event.

We look forward to a speedy and constructive response.

Yours etc.

Natalie McGarry

On behalf of Yes Glasgow

Rob Shorthouse

Hi Natalie

Thanks for the note.

I don’t think that there is a gaping hole in the debate market that we need to fill. I don’t really see the need for us to have a specific debate organised by the campaigns when there are so many debates organised by third parties which both campaigns are participating in.

Thanks

Rob

Natalie McGarry

Rob,

Thank you for your quick response. However, in responding so quickly, I don’t think you have taken full cognisance of the exclusion of most ordinary Glaswegians from access to information from – and to and question – both sides of the debate.

Clearly there are debates organised by third sector organisations, schools and universities, but I fail to see where there are genuine opportunities for the general public to access the same opportunity to get involved. I am sure it is not an unsurprising fact to you that the vast majority of people who will vote in the referendum do not fall in to any one of the groups above, are aware that some exist or that they hold debates which are open to people outwith those institutions or organisations.

For example, the reasoning for Better Together’s refusal to engage at the beginning of our correspondence was based on the time and resources being devoted to a series of debates and mock referendum at the University of Strathclyde.  Whilst all and any efforts to involve societal groups are always welcome, it is hard to see how these events fulfil a wider purpose in terms of including as wide an audience demographic as possible.

Additionally, a high-profile, widely publicised open debate, involving many of the key players on either side of the argument, and with the backing of both campaigns and their infrastructure, will attract a much greater degree of public attention than the, by their nature, smaller-scale events you refer to.

If you can disprove this and show where real community engagement is going on, I would welcome that input.

From a Yes Glasgow perspective, we are open, transparent and unafraid to argue our position on independence. To that end we have, and continue to hold meetings across Glasgow with the locales becoming ever smaller.  These are accessible to any member of the public and are advertised as such.  

Only tonight, for example, the local Yes group are hosting a public meeting in Scotstoun, explicitly advertised and promoted for undecided voters.  There certainly appears to be no similar commitment from Better Together to local engagement.  Handing out leaflets at train stations has all the appearance of a sticking plaster over a lack of real grassroots communitarianism.  Not all folk are at train stations of a morning and evening.

Whilst Yes Glasgow are committed to our strategy of engaging with people in their communities, we are very aware that people would like to be able to ask questions of and compare and contrast the messages from both sides of the debate.  We are confident enough in our arguments to put them in a public arena directly opposed yours – can you say the same?

In signing off, I urge you to send me examples where you think genuine debate is advertised and attracts local and disengaged people, and whilst I wait for that, I urge you to reconsider your immediate negative.

We have a real opportunity to work together to ensure that the electorate goes in to the biggest democratic question of our lives fully informed. It would be a shame to let that opportunity fall by the wayside.

Regards

Rob Shorthouse

Hello again Natalie

I don’t agree with your assessment that people are being excluded.

Thanks

Rob

Natalie McGarry

Rob,

Thank you for your considered response to all the points in my email.

Whilst you seem reticent to address the inequality of access to information from Better Together, we will continue to ensure that our campaign, at least, is engaging with voters at community level.

Given how important we consider these debates, we commit to organising them with or without your assistance and will approach representatives from the No side of the debate individually.

Rob Shorthouse

Best of British!

Natalie McGarry

Rob

Despite the tone of your previous replies, I’d imagine our invite to join us for a voter registration programme – which is forthcoming – won’t be met with the same pithy disregard; especially given that tomorrow is the Bite the Ballot initiative, National Voter Registration Day.

I can see no occasion for raising an objection to any attempt to increase the number of participants in the referendum. Extending the reach of democracy must surely be the aim of all fair-minded campaigners.

I look forward to a positive response in this regard and hope that Yes Glasgow and our Better Together counterparts can coalesce around ensuring fair access to democracy.

Yours etc

Rob Shorthouse

Hi Natalie

Great to hear from you again.

We will be doing our own voter registration events.

Cheers

Rob

———————————————————————————————————–

And that was that. Readers can determine for themselves the validity of the excuses offered by “Better Together” for dodging the debate. Is it reasonable to decline an opportunity to make and argue your case to hundreds of members of the public just because there are occasional debates on TV? Is it a service to democracy, and an indication of confidence, to only engage with the public in situations where nobody can dispute your claims?

We have our view, of course. But we’re grateful that at least this time nobody’s had the police called on them, and Natalie McGarry hasn’t had her wrist broken. We suppose we should chalk that up as some sort of progress.