Wings Over Scotland

So, who saw that coming? Johann Lamont, leader of Scottish Labour, just abandoned over a century of Labour values in a single speech. More so even than Tony Blair did when he set light to Clause 4 in the name of “New Labour”,  Lamont made a bonfire of pretty much the entire set of founding principles of social democracy. Because, as George Eaton succinctly put it in today’s New Statesman:

“universal public services, to which all contribute and from which all benefit, are the essence of social democracy. Once this principle is abandoned, greater cuts will inevitably follow as the rich, no longer receiving, have less incentive to give (you could call it “nothing for something”). For this reason, as Richard Titmuss sagely observed, “services for the poor will always be poor services””

And let’s make no mistake: what Johann Lamont did yesterday was consign the entire notion of universal services to the dustbin of history. Because if you accept her argument that universal services mean “the poorest pay for the tax breaks for the rich”, then you inescapably also accept that they’re a fundamentally, inherently bad thing whether a country can afford them or not.

Is it EVER good to have the poor subsidise the rich? You’d have a job finding even the most extreme right-wing Tory prepared to say such a thing out loud, so Johann certainly isn’t going to, and that means that all universal services must go, because every one of them is subject to the same “unfairness”. (In the perverted modern sense of the word.) Every service provided free to a person who could afford to pay for it themselves must by definition rob the poor to do so.

Read the rest of this entry →

We’ve already seen that the latest Social Attitudes Survey reveals Scotland to be a deeply schizophrenic country, which wants independence but doesn’t want to admit it (even, it seems, to itself). But the deeper you get into the statistics the stranger the picture gets. Ponder, for example, the “Expectations” section.

The survey asked “If Scotland was an independent country, would the following things be better or worse than they are now?”, and recorded the answers in six categories.

NATIONAL PRIDE
Better: 67%
Worse: 2%

VOICE IN THE WORLD
Better: 51%
Worse: 19%

HEALTH SERVICE
Better: 37%
Worse: 19%

STANDARD OF LIVING
Better: 34%
Worse: 23%

ECONOMY
Better: 34%
Worse: 29%

TAXES
Better: 10%
Worse: 53%

(All other respondents in each category thought there would be no difference.)

So we see that Scots think independence will mean higher taxes. (Though it’s not clear WHY they think that – the SNP only has influence over Council Tax, and they’ve cut that in real terms in every one of their five years of government). But people also think that in return for those taxes they’ll get a healthier economy, a stronger NHS, a louder voice in the world, more national pride and, crucially, a better standard of living.

Seems like a good deal, no? Is it not worth paying higher taxes if it results in a higher standard of living and better public services (basically the Scandinavian model beloved of the SNP), especially if you fancy yourselves as a somewhat left-wing nation? You’d think so. By any measure, the survey shows that the nationalists have won the argument – the people believe that independence will mean a better Scotland.

But when offered that higher standard of living, that prouder, more confident country with a stronger economy and superior public services, the people of Scotland bizarrely turn away from the change that they themselves believe would deliver it. There’s only one rational reason for that disconnect between thought and deed, and it’s fear.

So far the “No” campaign has been founded entirely in scaremongering, and the creation of doubt and uncertainty. And it’s plainly working, to at least some degree, because it’s got the people frightened to act in what they think are their own interests. So expect the negative campaigning to continue all the way up to the referendum.

But at the same time, note that the percentage of people saying they’d vote Yes has only been higher in two of the last 14 years. Note that support is up by a third compared to the year the SNP came to power, despite the economic catastrophe that’s unfolded since then. Note that support for independence is highest – by far – among the young and vital, and lowest among the dying.

You don’t often win the argument and lose the vote. Two years to go.

As part of their desperate attempts to politicise the Olympics, a number of Unionist pundits and comedians have this week been pointing out that some of the talented Scottish athletes who’ve won medals wouldn’t have been able to do so were they not able to join together in a team with English, Welsh and Northern Irish competitors.

This is, of course, perfectly true and fair comment (though it’s also a fact that Scotland would be likely to have around four times as many competitors at the Games as an independent nation as it does within “Team GB”, and Union Flag-waver Sir Chris Hoy would have been able to defend the individual cycling title he so brilliantly won in Beijing 2008 rather than being pushed out in favour of an English rider).

However, when set against the ability to expel Trident nuclear submarines from Scottish waters, to protect the NHS from Tory privatisation, to save Scottish soldiers from dying in illegal foreign wars, to keep university tuition available to everyone rather than just the rich, to avoid mortgaging the futures of our children and grandchildren with crippling PFI bills, to look after our elderly and sick with free personal care and prescriptions, to build new social housing rather than condemn tens of thousands to homelessness, to power our country with clean, renewable energy rather than risking another Fukushima, and most of all to never again in our lifetimes be ruled by a Tory government, to be quite honest this blog would willingly sacrifice half of a gold medal in the Lightweight Women’s Rowing (Double Sculls) every four years, and the rest.

Maybe our priorities are just off. Sorry.

The “No to independence” campaign launched last month, and at its showpiece event we listened to Alistair Darling talk of the things that we’ve shared as the United Kingdom – we heard him talk proudly, for example, of the NHS and the Welfare State. At the same time David Cameron was spelling out future welfare reforms for a system which will exclude the under 25s from housing benefit and which may lead to people on benefits in the South East receiving more money than those in the less affluent areas of Britain. Once again, David Cameron is targeting the poor and the most vulnerable in society in an effort to fix the mess that the rich and the greedy caused.

Read the rest of this entry →

I’ve been a nationalist pretty much all my life, or at least since I was old enough to grasp the basic concept of politics (probably from about the age of 10 or so). Leaving aside any precocious notions of specific policies, I’ve never been able to grasp the basic concept of a people who consider themselves to be a nation being afraid to actually stand up and take responsibility for running that nation themselves.

If you think you’re a country, you shouldn’t be having foreigners pick your government for you. And if you don’t, you need to accept that you’re just a region with ideas above its station, and act accordingly – no more “national” football teams, no rugby teams, no flags, no anthems, no different laws or any of the rest of it.

To me, the idea goes far beyond anything so base as cowardice, and belongs instead in the realm of “simply too mad to understand”. It’s like not believing in gravity or evolution or the Earth being round and orbiting the Sun – that is, once someone’s pointed it out to you, it’s just a bit mental to keep disputing it.

Nobody can have two countries, or at least not simultaneously. You can be a citizen of somewhere, carry a passport for it, live there for as long as you like, or whatever else, but countries are like wives and livers – you can only have one at a time. You can change your nationality, if that’s what’s in your heart, but not have two at once. I’ve only agreed with Norman Tebbit about one thing in my entire life, and it’s that.

I’m Scottish. I’m British too, just like I’m from West Lothian and from Europe and from the Northern Hemisphere and plenty more things, but only one of them is my country. As such, I believe that it’s a self-evident truth that the government of Scotland should be chosen by the people of Scotland, and the people of Scotland alone.

But occasionally, just very occasionally, I have the misfortune to witness something like BBC Scotland’s “Big Debate” last night, and I’m not so sure we can be trusted.

Read the rest of this entry →

If you’ve been reading this site for a while, you could be forgiven for thinking that the “positive case for the Union” was some sort of mythical beast, akin to the fabled unicorn. But that’s not quite the case. It did once exist, many moons ago, but has since become extinct – a victim of an ever-changing world where it was unable to compete and it couldn’t adapt to its new environment, thereby spelling its doom.

So just what was the positive case when it existed? Let’s find out.

Read the rest of this entry →

A curious phenomenon occurs when debating the issues of independence with those of the Labour party – one that was highlighted again in the debate published on this site last week. Labour constantly repeats the mantra of being “stronger together” and asserts that the SNP only cares about a poor child in Glasgow but not about a poor child in Bradford, citing this as a reason to maintain the Union.

(Quite why the Scottish National Party would ever be expected to concern itself with the sovereign affairs of England is a question we’ll leave for another day.)

The “solidarity” narrative insists that both issues must be tackled at the same time, and that it would be unfair to focus on only one of the children while failing to provide the same attention and resources to the other. In order to show solidarity, the fate of both children must be tied to that of the worst-off, and if the fortunes of both cannot be improved then neither should be.

(For some reason this narrative doesn’t usually extend to covering children from Istanbul or Delhi. There’s no discernible intent among Labour activists to create a European superstate so that all deprivation can be addressed simultaneously. The party appears to apply double standards for the UK and the rest of the world, only serving to highlight its British-nationalist ethos rather than any commitment to a global brotherhood of man.)

By way of illustration, imagine that (Heaven forbid) you find yourself in a lifeboat in the immediate aftermath of some terrible maritime disaster, and there are two groups of children in the water. The lifeboat can only accommodate one of the groups, and so a decision must be made which to save. At present the boat is captained by the SNP, who are intent on plucking the nearest of the two groups from the ocean and moving them to safety. Within the lifeboat, however, there are also Labour politicians who insist that as they cannot save all the children, it would be selfish and unfair to save only a few, and that therefore in order to show “solidarity” the lifeboat should pick up no children at all, leaving all to drown or succumb to hypothermia, comforted only by the identical fate of their companions.

Read the rest of this entry →

As huge crowds of primitive villagers turn out to marvel at some fire this weekend, here's some old-fashioned journalism to ponder. Click the image to read the article.

Enjoy the torch (possibly the last spectacle invented by Adolf Hitler to still be regularly performed and celebrated), and the two weeks of the Games while they last. Try not to get sick, in either sense of the term. Try not to be alarmed if anyone sticks a missile battery on your roof (and slaps an eviction order on you for making a fuss about it or for just not being lucrative enough), or a sonic cannon, or by the bored police with machine guns hanging around your train station waiting to shoot anyone who tries to protest or take an unlicenced beverage or snack into one of the state-of-the-art stadia.

Enjoy all the top events (on telly, unless you're a corporate sponsor), and as Boris Johnson gallivants around turning them into a giant Tory showpiece, take a moment out to give thanks to Tony Blair and the rest of Labour for making it all possible (with our money, of course) for him. Who needs hospitals and schools anyway?

As huge crowds of primitive villagers turn out to marvel at some fire this weekend, here’s some old-fashioned journalism to ponder. Click the image to read the article.

Enjoy the torch (possibly the last spectacle invented by Adolf Hitler to still be regularly performed and celebrated), and the two weeks of the Games while they last. Try not to get sick, in either sense of the term. Try not to be alarmed if anyone sticks a missile battery on your roof (and slaps an eviction order on you for making a fuss about it or for just not being lucrative enough), or a sonic cannon, or by the bored police with machine guns hanging around your train station waiting to shoot anyone who tries to protest or take an unlicenced beverage or snack into one of the state-of-the-art stadia.

Enjoy all the top events (on telly, unless you’re a corporate sponsor), and as Boris Johnson gallivants around turning them into a giant Tory showpiece, take a moment out to give thanks to Tony Blair and the rest of Labour for making it all possible (with our money, of course) for him. Who needs hospitals and schools anyway?

We’ve noticed, and perhaps you have too, that things have been very quiet on the “positive case for the Union” front recently. (Partly, we suspect, because the constant hooting of nationalists over its continued absence was starting to become so loud and embarrassing that even the Unionist media couldn’t keep ignoring it.)

Ever since David Cameron visited Scotland in February and mumbled some vague platitudes about maybe getting more powers someday if we voted No in 2014, Unionists seem to have given up on even promising a “positive” case and have concentrated more doggedly than ever on the blood-curdling scare tactics that they’re much more familiar and comfortable with.

(Recent weeks have delivered a particularly fine crop, which can be concisely and accurately summed up by the sentence “Vote Yes and Scotland will be blown up by terrorists and bombed by England, then everyone left will die of cancer.”)

We’ve spotted a couple of stray mentions – neither of which, it probably goes without saying, go on to actually offer the positive case they cite – but nothing very significant:

“Although Unionists seem to find it difficult to articulate a positive argument for union, Scottish nationalists are not afflicted by the same inhibitions.”
(Colin Kidd, The Scotsman, 15 May 2012)

“It’s our job to drown out [Alex Salmond’s] separatist rhetoric with a positive case for keeping the Union intact.”
(Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, Conservative Party chairman, 23 March 2012)

That was until today, however. Our regular bout of hope-over-expectation Googling threw up a site called “Free Advice For Unionists”, in which someone by the name of Rob Marrs who lays claim to no fewer than THREE nationalities (Scottish, English and British) boldly attempted to go where no Unionist had gone before.

Read the rest of this entry →

The political is the personal. Nobody comes out of the womb with a view on the merits of the free market versus state interventionism – opinions are formed by someone’s experiences and environment. So where do “cybernats” come from? Speaking as one myself, and quite a recently-minted one at that, let me see if I can explain it.

I wasn’t indoctrinated into the Nationalist cause as a child – my parents are pro-Union (but I’m working on that). My upbringing was British, and I was proud of it. So what went wrong with the United Kingdom that now in adult life I disavow the very notion of Britishness and strive to bring that same UK to an end?

Read the rest of this entry →

So was that it? The Unionist media is briefing hard that David Cameron finally laid out the fabled “positive case for the Union” in Edinburgh this week. You can judge the positivity or otherwise for yourself by reading the full text of his speech (which was far more delicately-judged than his previous clodhopping intervention, but still contained the traditional doom-laden warnings of “danger”, terrorist attack, banking collapse and so on) here, but whether the message was positive or not, the one thing it certainly wasn’t was a case for the Union.

Cameron listed a fairly impressive set of reasons why Scotland was great (even managing to cite Keir Hardie through what must have been gritted teeth). He explained why the past was great, because in it the UK had forged great institutions like the NHS (which is already an entirely separate and fully-devolved body in Scotland) and a “generous” welfare state – both of which his government is now dismantling as fast as it humanly (and inhumanly) can. And he hinted at a great future, in which Scotland would enjoy greater devolved powers and responsibilities.

The problem is, the referendum will be a straight choice not between independence and a possible imaginary Union of the future, but between independence and the Union we have now. (Cameron is unequivocal on this, insisting that his hypothetical vision of a more devolved Scotland within the United Kingdom isn’t actually offered to the Scottish people, but left entirely in the trust of Westminster.) And for THAT Union, Cameron made no case at all. Indeed, it could plausibly be argued that he all but explicitly abandoned it.

It’s hard to construct any sort of plausible justification for the Prime Minister’s refusal, when repeatedly challenged by journalists after the speech, to outline the specific devolution proposals which might be negotiated or acknowledge any need for a democratic mandate for them. Cameron has two years in which he could, if he wished, put together an “enhanced devolution” package which could go on the ballot paper. That’s plenty of time, especially given that the Unionist parties have already had a  two-year head start while working on the Calman Commission and Scotland Bill. So why is he so implacably opposed to the idea?

It seems unlikely that the Scottish electorate will fall for such a flimsy pig in a poke. They have, after all, been here before (as the SNP will be sure to constantly remind them), and the vague implied promises of some sort of possible jam tomorrow will carry no more weight for also coming from the hopelessly discredited mouths of Nick Clegg and Michael Moore. (And less still if Labour join in, should they somehow get so far as managing to develop a policy at all.)

David Cameron didn’t make the positive case for the Union on Thursday. He made a case for a positive version of the Union. It’s a version which exists only in abstract conceptual form and which the Prime Minister will neither describe nor commit himself to. (And indeed, one which he may be in no power to honour even if he wanted to, given that by the time the referendum is over a UK general election will loom a matter of months over the horizon.)

It is, in other words, a con trick – a honey trap, built with sugar-sweet words and little else. The Scottish people were badly stung 33 years ago. We suspect this time it’s Cameron who will come unstuck.