Fairies and unicorns
We must admit, the “Red Paper Collective” – dragged up for a quote today by the Herald’s Magnus Gardham – was a new entity on us. A quick Google reveals that they seem to be a Labour Party offshoot, a fact Gardham unaccountably neglected to mention in his piece describing them merely as “trade union activists”.
So we perhaps shouldn’t waste too much time paying attention to their critical views about “Yes To A Just Scotland”, the document released by the official Yes campaign today. But one line does rather beg to be highlighted for the contempt in which the No campaign evidently holds the people of Scotland.
Gardham reports the group’s Pauline Bryan as saying this:
“Given the policy constraints of using a shared currency and the EU as envisaged by the Yes campaign, the document asks almost nothing which could not be answered by greater powers to a Scottish Parliament or ideally a federal arrangement within the UK.”
We feel compelled to point out that such answers could also be provided by Santa Claus or Superman too, should either figure choose to involve themselves in the Scottish independence debate. Not a single party in the UK currently offers a federal UK as a manifesto policy, and “greater powers” for the Scottish Parliament after a No vote are a myth not even the “Better Together” campaign bothers to peddle any more.
Ms Bryan (who enjoys the interest of an impressive 19 followers on her eight-month-old Twitter account) is therefore calling on Scots to reject independence in favour of a fantasy which nobody is even promising, let alone intending, to deliver. We’ve encountered tramps in bus stations with more constructive contributions to make to the debate, though strangely none of them (to the best of our knowledge, that is) have ever been quoted in the Herald.
The YesScotland document walks a difficult line rather deftly, pointing out the possibilities for social justice in an independent Scotland without committing itself inappropriately to specific policies. As a simple statement of the positive case for independence, it’s short, clear and to the point.
We keenly await the Union’s equivalent.
Whatever happens Rev, don’t hold yer breath.
You’ll wait a while. 😀
In the fantasy politics stakes Ms Bryan is a mere beginner. Everyone’s favourite devomax-fan with a laptop Kenny Farquharson trumped her feeble efforts with his “You don’t have to be a unionist to vote no” line earlier today. Would whoever nobbled Kenny’s dictionary please own up?
Strange things I learned today, part ninety two in a continuing series: The per capita GDP of the USSR in 1989 at the black market exchange rate was $225. Yes, that is just two hundred and twenty-five dollars. About the cost of a Nintendo SNES when it came out. The USSR was poorer than India. No, really. Don’t you just love economics?
“Red Paper Collective, eh?”
A few caustic instructions from Londonia will soon have them turning as blue as Lamont’s favourite jaikit, the one on the shoogly peg.
Henry McLeish at Edinburgh Central Library 2
Pauline Bryan (Who?) is clutching at straws while Magnus Gardham clutches at straws by reporting it. Desperation like this makes me hopeful.
I bet those 18 people are the ones who buy the 18 Heralds they sell every day.
Unionists are passionless, all they want is money. But cheer up, Niko and Grahamski, there are easy marks everywhere and scum like you will never starve. Nobody with a sweet voice will ever sing to you, though. Sad lost lives. Enquire of your resources what ‘new strung harp’ means. Google doesn’t find anything, except more of the same girl playing harp.
link to youtube.com
“the contempt in which the No campaign evidently holds the people of Scotland.”
Doesn’t “evidently” require some “evidence”? I see none.
After all, the Red Paper document walks a difficult line rather deftly, pointing out the possibilities for social justice in a devolved Scotland without committing itself inappropriately to specific policies.
Doesn’t it?
“Doesn’t “evidently” require some “evidence”? I see none.”
Apart from using something that isn’t on offer and isn’t going to happen as your alternative proposal?
Hermione, I think the evidence for contempt issue is right there in that the NO campaign think they can hoodwink us into believing that a No vote wil deliver devo-max or federalism when a) none of those options are even on the table and b) they have no intention whatsoever of putting those options on the table in the event of a no vote.
Silly woman.
Power devolved, is power retained.
Hermione, may I ask which party would deliver ‘socially just’ policies in a future devolved Scotland within the UK?
It’s just that One Nation Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberals are economically all right-wing/neo-liberal and varyingly socially authoritarian (dictatorial) in socio-economic stance.
link to politicalcompass.org
This is why they all increasingly advocate the (neo)liberal means tested benefits models over the social democratic/democratic socialist centrist to left liberal universal benefits approach.
link to tinyurl.com
Without a UK-wide centrist or left liberal party, I’m really struggling to see how the rightwards shift of the UK can be halted and socially just policies be implemented. Maybe you have some theories?
@Rev Stu
They are mentioned in the Scottish Left Review. I think the Red Paper Collective contain Neil Findlay, the Scottish Labour MSP. I found another quote from the women named in your article on the Jimmy Reid Foundation website:
Thanks to Robin for his comments on Red Paper Collective event. The report was correct in that a critique was made of the Radical Independence position, but there were also highly critical contributions on the Labour Party. The concern about the Radical Independence position is that it encourages people to think that a winning the referendum for independence will provide a blank sheet on which to write the future of Scotland. No state that has gained independence has had that opportunity. Look at the countries of former Yugoslavia for examples. In their desire to be in NATO and the EU they wrote the free market into their constitutions (along with NATO and the EU). Scotland is very likely to follow that model.
If Robin has ever seen The Citizen (the magazine of the Campaign for Socialism) he would have seen plenty of articles from people on the Labour left’s criticising the Scottish Labour Party. The Red Paper Collective’s contributions to Scottish Left Review were all from a position of opposition to the Better Together campaign.
We can agree that we all seek the most likely to route to a democratic socialist future, but we have a genuine disagreement about what that route is.
PS before anyone gets too upset, my user name is simply part of my email address and not political statement.
“Apart from using something that isn’t on offer and isn’t going to happen as your alternative proposal?”
Which is how different from “walks a difficult line rather deftly, pointing out the possibilities for social justice in… …Scotland without committing itself inappropriately to specific policies”?
After all, we are repeatedly told by some that vote for “independence” is not the same as a vote for Nat policies.
By the same logic, a vote for the Union is not a vote for any specific party.
Happy to help.
“After all, we are repeatedly told by some that vote for “independence” is not the same as a vote for Nat policies.
By the same logic, a vote for the Union is not a vote for any specific party.”
I’m at a loss as to how any of that relates to anything I’ve said. The point is that NO party is actually offering anything after a No vote. All three are mumbling vaguely and evasively about maybe thinking about something IF we reject independence, and in reality none will do anything. If they wanted to, after all, they could have had it on the ballot paper.
Herminme – so the comparision is:
A vote for independence provides possibilities for social justice.
whereas
A NO vote provides possibilities for federalism and/or devo max.
Which do you think is the more likely?
But we all know that a no vote will mean bugger all, or worse, a neoliberal consensus forced on us that’ll make the sick, the unemployed and those with spare rooms in their houses enemies of the state.
@Hermione
After all, the Red Paper document walks a difficult line rather deftly, pointing out the possibilities for social justice in a devolved Scotland without committing itself inappropriately to specific policies.
Doesn’t it?
Why do you not join Dennis Cannavan, Tommy Brennan, John McAllion and Alan Grogan etc in campaigning for a Yes vote in the referendum? Surely the evidence of the last 40 years under Westminster rule proves beyond doubt that the main UK parties are welded to right- wing politics and policies. This very much includes New Labour. It is time to chose which side you are on because we are never going to get major powers from London if we vote No in the referendum. If you believe that a repeat of the UK government of 1945-51 is ever going to happen again then you need to go on a tour of the City of London, and wake up and smell the coffee. You must know that a No vote will most probably see the privatisation of the NHS in Scotland, continuing austerity by a Tory government, and a very likely exit from the EU. If you are a radical, and want what is best for Scotland, vote YES!
By the same logic, a vote for the Union is not a vote for any specific party.
It is a vote for one of two parties (at least for the foreseeable); One Nation Labour or the Conservatives (with a touch of liberal democrat if you are lucky/unlucky). Certainly, if you are not keen on the policies of the big two you should vote for independence as the PR-type parliament at Holyrood means whatever your party preference your vote will be counted.
This is in direct contrast to Westminster where it is not uncommon that 70% of votes cast do not count towards the make up of those elected. I’ve voted in 4 UK General Elections. No idea why I bothered as my vote has never once influenced the result. It has every time in Holyrood though; which I have found very liberating.
@ Hermione
Do you think there would ever be the potential for a written constitution in the UK? Are you happy that your civil liberties are defendant on the “continued” good will of Westminster?
@scottish_skier
Good point, a vote for the Union is highly unlikely to deliver social justice whilst the Tories and Labour are just two sides of the same (devalued) coin.
Edit: dependant
“or ideally a federal arrangement within the UK”
What federal arrangement would that be? There can’t be a proper federal arrangement in the UK unless Scotland is reduced to the status of Yorkshire or the West Country. This is the sort of mince that is fed to the well meaning but gullible half wits that they are relying on to save the Union
This is the kind of garbage that the MSM pukes out. A fan of Kenny Farquarson no doubt. How the hell can anybody think that voting No will enable federalisation in the UK to occur?!
Au contraire. I’d commend the Red Paper Collective’s publication on independence to anybody who is used to or has occasion for arguing with Labour-left voters about independence, whether they live in England or Scotland. Knowing where these arguments come from is critical, theoretically, and being abreast of the Red Paper positions has been exceedingly useful, in addressing and understanding the positions of my friends in England and Scotland, who aren’t yet persuaded.
I expect we shall hear all about this tomorrow:
link to t.co
” Knowing where these arguments come from is critical, theoretically, and being abreast of the Red Paper positions has been exceedingly useful, in addressing and understanding the positions of my friends in England and Scotland, who aren’t yet persuaded.”
Fair enough. That still doesn’t mean the Herald should be presenting them as an impartial trade-union entity rather than an expressly Labour one.
Great article , but would you take back the statement about “tramps in a bus station”, these are people who are going thru a very hard time. VOTE YES!.
“After all, we are repeatedly told by some that vote for “independence” is not the same as a vote for Nat policies”
No, it isn’t. It’s a vote for Holyrood to assume the full powers of an independent parliament. Essentially for Scotland to become a soveriegn country. When that happens, Scotland will have a range of different parties to vote for, offering different policies. But these will be specifically Scottish parties, not run from Westminster.
By the same logic, a vote for the Union is not a vote for any specific party.”
A vote for the union, OTOH, is a vote for sovereignty remaining at Westminster, and Westminster remaining in control. Hence it is a vote for continued rule by the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems, controlled from Westminster, and for continuing along the UK policy direction. All 3 of those Westminster parties appear to want to make Scotland less differentiated, not more so. They all want, for example, to bring in tuition fees, to privatise the NHS as is happening in England.
That is the big difference. It’s not party political – there are Labour for independence people, Tories and Lib Dems for independence. It’s about whether Scotland becomes independent, and whether Westminster or Holyrood has sovereignty. It is, however, political in that all Westminster controlled partiesappear to favour Westminster, and all Scottish based and run parites prefer Holyrood in that decision.
Kind of interesting developments today with both Purcell and COSLA coming out and talking about the possibilities of independence, and planning for it though. Even if neither are actually coming out yet as pro-indy, there is a definite sense of beginning to see possibilities.
Or are they just trying to position powerful Labour councils for what the No campaign appear to want after a No vote, which is to hand some powers of Holyrood back to Westminster and others to councils, better to keep Tory-Labour contol over Holyrood?
As an old trade-unionist I have to say I have never found common ground with Tories and have spent my whole working life fighting them; but I must confess I prefer an honest Tory to a pretend lefty trade-unionist hiding in the bushes to ambush un- suspecting workers.
What nonsense this red paper group come up with. They should at least have learned
that SNP leadership announcements on currency or anything else do not make such statements Yes Campaign policy for the new Scotland we intend to build. There are many groups in the Yes campaign including us in Labour for independence.
The Yes Campaign is about securing a yes vote at the referendum, the policy to be secured by the new Scotland including the currency will be determined by the Scottish people.
What is beyond doubt is if I did not think I could offer a better future to Scottish working people than the austerity which the UK has to offer I think I would resign from the trade-union movement.
@Andy Anderson
I have a friend and former colleague who is a shop steward. He also thinks that the sun shines out of Cameron and Osbourns arse`s. He swallows the idle poor line hook line and sinker. I sympathise with LFI. The Labour party it becoming more right wing by the day.
I would so love to see Allan Grogan, Dennis Canavan et al becoming the real Scottish Labour party and shaping genuinely Scottish policy.
Social justice in the UK is pure fantasy!
It always will be!
There’s no Wikipedia entry for Magnus Gardham. Would’ve been interesting to see how the man was formed.
Isn’t it a bit strange that he doesn’t have an entry in Wikipedia I thought media types actors etc all had their own wiki page…..self advertisement