Reinventing the right
In the 1979 general election, the Scottish Conservatives received 916,000 votes. In 1984, only a few years later, the US historian Barbara Tuchman wrote The March of Folly which explored the bizarre fact that governments sometimes act directly against their own interest, and lose the American colonies or the Vietnam war as a result.
She identifies the chief folly as ‘wooden-headedness’ – sticking blindly to a policy despite all evidence that it is failing. Since 1976, the Scottish Tories have been doing just that. Too stupid to realise that they had to act differently or suffer for it. Too poor in imagination to reach for alternatives. And rapidly becoming too wee to be relevant.
In a recent post on The 2016 Wish Tree blog, Conservative councillor David Meikle contemplates the future of his party in an independent Scotland. He points, correctly, to the fact that it still garners a substantial vote in every election. But he does not spell out what a party of the right might look like in an Independent Scotland, and how, exactly, it might maintain or increase that vote. So let me try to do that job for him
One thing, is clear: a new party of the right will need to be radically different from anything that exists at present. Propping up the status quo won’t cut any ice after a Yes vote. So a reinvented party of the right will need a new constituency, and that constituency is to be found in advocating more, not less, change, and in thinking clearly about what Independence will mean to individuals.
Let us assume that the opposition between right and left (discounting all the theoretical bollocks) boils down to where the balance of power between the individual and the state ought to lie. During my lifetime, I’ve seen excesses in both directions, from the industrial policies of Tony Benn to the greed-is-good mantra of Thatcher and Blair. The ultimate result in both cases was disaster.
The reason for the disaster? When you set an ideologically-driven, large-scale policy in motion, it inevitably runs out of control, and you get fall-out in the shape of British Leyland on the one hand or RBS on the other. To counter this, you need to think small – and a reinvented right must look to the individual, not the corporate.
It must cease to be seduced by wealth and look again at how it can best serve its individual constituents, from the well-off to the deprived. For the left should not have a monopoly on social justice: that it has such a monopoly goes to show how badly the right has failed.
Where is the constituency of Scotland’s reinvented right? It is rural Scotland – the country of farmers, of small tourist businesses, of people living on, or with, the land and sea. A country where poverty is common, but is ignored because it is not obvious.
Before 2011, in every Scottish election, people living in rural Scotland have largely voted differently from those in urban Scotland, especially the central belt. Since 2011, the SNP have, for the first time, a majority of their MSPs from within the central belt, and it is not hard to imagine that their policies will become shaped to the needs of those central belt seats, at the expense of those outside – where needs are different.
This is where a reinvented right needs to look for its votes. It should be where the LibDems stand. But they currently prefer to grovel, so let a new party take over where they have failed. If you scratch the surface of rural Scotland, you find a radical tradition, from the Covenanters to Gladstone to the West Highland Free Press. The reinvented right needs to capitalise on that radicalism.
So what should it stand for?
1. Land reform.
Cut out the excesses of landlordism within two generations. Use the tax weapon, working to reverse the lingering injustice of the clearances, cut our ducal estates down to size, and re-populate our straths with a mix of sustainable business, owned farms, housing, smallholdings, such that people once again have a stake in the land and an interest in caring for it.
Eigg and Assynt show us the way – but we could move a lot faster if we were prepared to tread on a few more toes. This is an area Scottish government(s) have hitherto tiptoed around. It’s complex and it makes politicians queasy. But read Andy Wightman’s blog from start to finish, and you’ll see that something needs to happen. So the reinvented right will do that.
2. Devolution of power.
The median size of a French commune is 380 inhabitants. A commune has a mayor, real power, a budget, and responsibilities. What do we have? Dying Community councils with no power, staffed by volunteers, – glorified talking shops. We have a situation where Dunvegan on Skye is administered from Inverness. Is that the best way of countering rural deprivation and delivering efficient local services? It is not.
We also have far too many councils where political squabbles are more important than serving the interests of the people. Power needs to be taken to the lowest practical level. A reinvented right will do that.
3. Counter the centralising tendency.
We’ve inherited too many trappings of the old Scottish office – purposely designed to govern an obedient people from the centre. It’s tempting for leftist parties, lacking the right’s inherent distrust of the state, to slip into those clothes. The reinvented right must probe everything from our top-down planning hierarchies right through to education policies in remote areas. Where they are not fit for purpose, existing structures must be scrapped and re-designed on a much smaller scale to suit what people actually say they need.
4. Demand better infrastructure.
The re-making of rural Scotland won’t happen unless resource is ploughed into it. Norway has 51 airports, Scotland has 23. In Norway, 64% of the rail network is electrified; in Scotland, 29%. In Norway, there are 664km of motorway; in Scotland 380km. Of course there’s a difference in the geography, but the problems of getting people and goods into and out of remote areas are the same.
There’s no question but that the state can do many things better than individuals, and infrastructure is one of them. But who will speak for the expensive needs of rural Scotland as opposed to the central belt? The reinvented right will.
The party might not provide a First Minister in any hurry. Its natural allies would likely be among the Socialists, the Greens, and whatever is left of the LibDems. It would share many of the same ends as those parties, but would work to them from a different perspective. If it does its job, it will be a vital player in the reinvention of Scotland.
David Meikle’s beloved party needs to contemplate a totally different future. Or contemplate complete and final oblivion.
Cllr Meikle is a weird one. He sees the Unionist Parties for what they are, but releentlessly sticks to the Union, without giving a positive reason for it. He seems a nice chap though.
I was watching “Yes Prime Minster” lately. In one episode a scheme like this is proposed to break the power of Councils, until it is realised it will also harm the Party machine, so democracy is delayed, postponed, put off
Good piece Andrew and well written.
As you say their will be a need for a centre right party in Scotland, though might I add the actual name of “Conservative” might just be too toxic for Scots to look upon it favourably, after independence.
As you say its a fine line between social justice through spreading wealth, and leaning too far to the right, and neglecting your original goals, which of course is social justice through wealth.
I must add that Margaret Thatcher was a big fan of Milton Friedman, and his Chicago School of economic thinking, Thatcher started the ball rolling on Friedmans policies, and David Cameron has carried them on.
Interestingly General Pinochet tried Friedmans policies in Chile, (Of whom Thatcher was a great admirer and friend), and it resulted in riots and many deaths.
And here was me wanting about TEN new parties to spring up,cannabis for medical use,fishermans partys,things like that PLEASE NOT NEW TORIES,the simple fact is if ONE tory had acted with honour since 1979 they wouldent be in this position,no the party and southeast of England come first for these people even after independance,which i dont think the SHEEPLE of Scotland are ready for.
Anybody who uses the term “sheeple” needs the back of their legs smacked
There will always be a need for a right-of-centre political party but the real test for that party will how right of what will be the centre in an independent Scotland.
The “right” in Denmark is to the left of Labour in the UK, for example.
People forget that a form of Right was the majority in Scotland after the war and Glasgow voted for it in a big way.
It was called the Progressive (and Unionist) Party and was allied to the Conservatives in Westminster like Labour and the Co-op are allied.
Ted heath stuffed that up royally and forced them into the Tory fold sending them on a helter-skelter downword twister which was turned into a plunge into a metaphorical political black hole by Maggie.
As I said there will be a political need for these people who are naturally to the right and they must be accommodated or they would be right in accusing the system of a democratic deficit.
The trick will be in bringing them out of the Westminster Punch and Judy politics and into a consensual multi party system with alliances and coalition governments being the norm, thereby reflecting a true democratic mandate.
The incumbents in all three of the Unionist parties need to be pensioned off and new generation of genuine Scots, of all colours and age, arise to fulfill that role.
The Common Weel seems to me to one great opportunity not to be lost. The SNP will in time morph into this, partly anyway, and hopefully their experience of working together for a common purpose will carry over into the greater Holyrood new mosaic of political parties.
All the new parties will need to renounce the Westminster corrupted system of confrontational (false and manufactured confrontation) politics.
I should say that post WW2 the Tories were a One Nation party and could be described as being to the left of today’s Labour Party.
Right and left are relative terms in politics, as in everything.
I think the whole point about Independence is the it should create better conditions for all sections of society.
Dividing the electorate into country and urban is simply going back to where Scotland was fifty years ago. Rural areas voted Tory because the landowners and farmers were Tories.
The division is artificial. Thousands of the incomer ‘rural’ workers from Poland are from towns, and many have university training.
The students at out local agricultural college are from towns, but many will work in the country.
The fishing business in the town where I grew up were just in the part of the town around the harbour. The houses were the same, the pubs, schools etc share
The ‘younger’ ones don’t go for the old model and want the same life as those in the towns.
We want to get beyond divide. The rights of all are protected and representation should be based on a common model, not start with ‘you are different from me’.
There are working differences but these should be forced into a political mold.
Sheeple so asleep do you want nukes in Scotland NO,do you want the NHS privitised NO,do you want free education stopped NO,what way are you going to vote sir madam NO the poor in UK must stick together for a better deal their not fekking sheeple LOL
Good article. These are excellent policies for any party regardless of ideals. I think the right/left stuff prevents parties working in the interest of people. It serves as a prison for ideas.
The Conservative brand is way too toxic something, I think another poster has pointed out. It would also serve as the “prison” for the brand. Two generations would not be enough for it to recover.
Erchie says:
20 October, 2013 at 3:55 pm
Anybody who uses the term “sheeple” needs the back of their legs smacked YEA and anyone who thinks using Violance is acceptible in this day and age needs a 5 streach.
Sorry to seem to monopolise this early part of the thread but, we need the left to be reborn as well as the plumb centre.
It should be all about representing the people and working for all the peoples.
A psx on both your houses I say to Westminster.
Is the Scottish Democratic Alliance not an embryonic party of the centre right?
@Jen
I was careful to emphasise a ‘new’ party. I agree, I think ‘Conservative’ is dead as a name.
@Brian
I agree with you – in theory. It would be nice if we got over the divide. But in practice, I wonder. There’s always going to be competition about how the cake is divided up; MSPs have a duty to fight for their constituents; governments will want to represent the interests of those who put them into power – so that they can be re-elected. And the urban/central belt voice is dominant. Hence my suggestion that rural Scotland needs a party dedicated above all to its interests.
Derick
No the SDA is well right of centre
I’ve said before that it would not surprise me if an independent Scotland ended up with some sort of conservative (small c) government. We have been there before. I think the SNP does have an element of that Scottish conservatism that is part of their appeal to pragmatic Scots.
Whether the current Scottish “right” can organise into any kind of coherent conservative party I sincerely doubt. I think it more likely that there will be a political re-alignment amongst the parties in Scotland if we vote for independence. Whatever parties/policies emerge from that will dictate the political landscape.
I can’t disagree with what you consider it should stand for but I’m not so sure the Conservatives currently have enough vision to capitalise.
“There are working differences but these should be forced into a political mold.”
That should have been ‘shouldn’t’, not ‘should’. And ‘mould’, not ‘mold’! Though some political parties are like a fungus!
The Scots right, like STUC too, have sold their jerseys. They should have bargained their support, but they gave it to London parties freely & now have no leverage.
Cite tags AND spelling, I’d get yer crash helmet on the noo… 😉
@Bugger
Agree. I’m hoping someone (you?) might come up with a piece how the left should be reinvented. It needs it.
To me the right was stand on your own two feet and the left was we will achieve more if we work together. Quite how they got into mine, Mine, MINE and we’ll win if you do what we tell you I don’t know.
What does surprise me is the lack of support for Yes from the Tories. You would have thought that those who support standing on your own two feet would support Scottish independance but less than 10% do. But the Liberals, freedom for the individual, are even worse at less than 5% pro-indy.
Neither left nor right has a monopoly on social justice and that is what I want in an independent Scotland so I will vote for the party that delivers on that.
I am old enough (Just) to remember the old school Conservative governments. This was before they became toxic. They were not all that bad but it was Thatcher that turned them into the party of unrepentant greed with their “I’m alright Jack fuck you” attitude. It will take a long time for people here in Scotland to say “We forgive but we will not forget!”
Having said that I think that democracy is best served when there is a home for every vote.
Surely the political spectrum, right, centre, left or other view, should not be what drives our political system – at least not in the way it does at present.
Artificial, confrontational politics of the style that goes for debate in Westminster and, sadly, Holyrood at present need to be limited. Party politics, increasingly empty US style, serve only to promote individuals who want to work within that system for their own career purposes.
Political processes do naturally develop across the spectrum but we need the system to be allowed to work in such a way that independent thinking is encouraged and not hindered. Specific policies should be debated from a greater/greatest good starting point and not simply from party lines.
Too much time and money is wasted on febrile political point scoring and too many potential beneficial policies are automatically opposed because “they thought of it first”.
Coalition politics and informed intelligent thinking for the greater good should be the way forward.
Under the present system the Tories have wiped themselves out in Scotland by following rigid party politics and Labour can’t even come up with a Part Leader who can do anything other than read off an Autocue.
Kininvie
I think the left’s rebirth is in process. It just think it is not so see-able this side of the Referendum.
I am confident that Lab for Indie contains the core of what is necessary and as the clock ticks there will be a clamour for the lifeboats.
I hope that Alan Grogan can get a real grip on what will be the short and curlies of a new left wing position and help stake out the logical, democratic position for the new Scotland. The Common Weel (weal?) will help, I am 100% certain.
We need money to set these buggers up and let them participate in the development of our democratic and patriotic, evolution.
O/T.
I do apologise if this has been covered already.
Scottish Farmers are set to lose out on £850 million, of EU subsides, because of a lack of support from the UK Government. Rural Affairs Minister Richard Lockhead warned.
Mr Lockhead said UK ministers had failed to get extra cash for Scottish Farmers, from 2014 to 2020, at recent talks.
The UK Government refused to seek a fairer share of the budget for Scotland, said Mr Lockhead.
A typical case of lack of representation in the EU for Scotland,under UK rule something independence would change, for the better.
Good article. I don’t see myself ever being right wing. My early political memories in Scotland have been Thatcher’s industrial vandalism and society wrecking. A virulent, and extremely destructive form of Neo Liberalism. She destroyed the industrial infrastructure and manufacturing base right across the UK. Bearing in mind that other European nations, such as Germany, have protected their industrial and manufacturing industries, this was a reckless and supremely idiotic thing to do. I don’t see a right wing Conservative party in an independent Scotland easily escaping this toxic and malign legacy. Having said that, they could get around 20 per cent of the vote fairly consistently, if more of the thinking of this article was incorporated into their political ideology.
I agree about the real and pressing need for land reform. The ownership of land has been used in Scotland as a means of achieving and maintaining real political power for hundreds of years. The Scottish Parliament has made a start, but that is all it has been. Time is long overdue for a real redistribution of land ownership in Scotland. Along with poverty and sectarianism, this area has been a real national shame over the course of our history. Despite the best efforts of Andy Wightman and co, the Scottish Parliament has been far too cautious and timid on land reform (this applies to both Lab/Lib coalitions, and the SNP).
muttley 79
I agree about the real and pressing need for land reform. The ownership of land has been used in Scotland as a means of achieving and maintaining real political power for hundreds of years.
That is a given.
Land is power, land is authority, land is control.
take that from the Barstewards and they are emasculated.
One great thing about the chance to start again with a new Scotland is the chance to break away from the left/right dichotomy. It’s out-dated and stupid in this day and age. The idea that shop workers in Glasgow and Manchester should have more in common than their employer who lives down the road is just divisive.
We all have a stake in our country, city, community or whatever, and a healthy economy needs strong infrastructure and social provisions, just as those need a healthy economy. Making those things clash and work against each other is damaging to everyone.
People say the SNP is a broad church with some people on the left and some on the right as if that’s a bad thing. I don’t think it’s a bad thing at all, and is probably why they sit more centrally on the political compass than any other party. A party that works with and for all who live and work in a country, but not necessarily in the interests of global corporations and wealthy oligarchs who want to take advantage would be a very good thing. If we can have some kind of PR parliament with a range of parties doing something similar, that too would be excellent.
You must have a right, for without a right, there can be no (democratic) left.
In a discussion with a Tory once, he said he wished everyone left of him would vanish. I told him:
Be careful what you wish for ‘lefty’ extremist as they’d come for you next.
Economically centrist, socially liberal Norwegian model for me.
Some ideas worthy of consideration in there.
To paraphrase the FM, ‘Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom’.
BC&UP at best can rely on ~15% Muttley. A new Scottish ‘wet’ Tory party which was more conservative in the traditional sense and dumped the neo-liberal capitalist greed bit, whilst retaining an ethos of less state control, hard work and care for the self and society could do moderately well. Would never get a majority, but that’s the benefit of PR.
YEA and anyone who thinks using Violance is acceptible in this day and age needs a 5 streach.
Wasn’t Streach the guy in Saved by the Bell?
David Cameron’s sweater solutions.
link to nationalcollective.com
A good read, but these policies, which I’d vote for, bear no resemblance to any right of centre party I’ve seen. And the present Scottish Tories are entirely incapable of such a leap, even under the circumstances of independence. Land Reform is right up there as one the first things for action in my book, a modern democracy cannot afford the feudal pattern of ownership we have at present.
Darling is flogging the dead horse AGAIN; what is plan B if Westminster refuses scotland use of sterling. Right, darling, Osborne, Ed (the talking mule) and Dave the rave. How do you stop us using sterling? Are you telling us you are rejecting Scotland using sterling, yes or know?
LAND REFORM
Use the same method to take the land back as was used to take it from the people in the first place. Eigg and Assynt IMHO involved reset, which I believe is a criminal offence.
@benarmine
these policies, which I’d vote for, bear no resemblance to any right of centre party I’ve seen
Quite true, which is why I called the piece ‘reinventing the right’. I then, (maybe unfairly), attempted to condense 250 years of history into a paragraph, by suggesting the left v right argument boiled down to the role of the state vs individual liberty. Taken to its conclusion, that puts a lot of radical movements : Covenanters, Wilkes, Highland Land League, maybe even the Chartists, into the individual liberty category – It’s that tradition that a reinvented right should seek to embrace – not that of the establishment.
@kininvie
Remember the state versus the individual is only a problem in Englsh law where the state, Crown in Parliament, is supreme. In iScotland where the people, the settled will of the people of Scotland, is supreme, then the state is at the disposal of the people. This change is so fundamental that it will take some time for the new “left” and “right” to establish themselves. It could turn out to be workers v. pensioners or the childless v. the multi-sprogged.
Just as long as its not everybody against handclapping 🙂
@wullie
If you are arguing sequestration or nationalisation of land, I’d respond by saying IMO that’s a blunt weapon, and probably subject to all kinds of human rights objections.
There are endless arguments about the ways to achieve land reform. Personally, I have my doubts about almost all of them.
It’s something that requires gradual, not sudden, change. My own favoured solution is to tax the big estates above a certain size heavily, but to allow that tax to be offset against release of parcels of land to communities, small businesses, or individuals. If no one wants to buy, well and good – you can go on being the laird of a million acres until next time round….
But I’m just an idealist, and it’s not my field of expertise….
The left, the right , centre left, centre right , blah blah blah.
Here is a founding principle for politics., Dogma Doesn’t Pay.
NEoLiberalism? – Selling the Royal Mail, the abuse of political power, Dogma. So, apply a punitive tax to the purchasers of the RM shares on their profit now. Call it a Super Profits tax or whatever. and apply the tax not when they sell the shares to realise their gains but right now. A denial of your right to speculate on stock? No,buy private stock, do not indulge in profiteering on public-owned assets.
Either comply or we close the plant. Dogma. Arbitrate or you lose the plant to State intervention.
Strike action? The abuse of labour power,and potentially damaging the public welfare.Dogma. Disputes to be resolved by arbitration. A denial of the right to withdraw your labour? No, you can leave your job.
The sale of Royal Mail.Selling to those with the funds to purchase what the public, including they themselves, already own.What a scam.
Probably I’ve offended the Left, the Right, and the political intellectuals. Bridge building-JoLa, any room in your bunker? Jackie, any pies? Ruthie, I’ll bring the wine. Wullie,… forget it.
As someone who moves in small c conservative circles quite a lot (including many Christians), this is often my starting point in discussion with people about independence. “Imagine a genuinely Scottish conservative party that wasn’t beholden to Thatcherite economics or big London business. You’d possibly vote for that – but you’d only get it in an independent Scotland!”
Every little helps, right?
@Andy-B: Pinochet (and Reagan and Thatcher) may have tried some of Friedman’s policies, but they didn’t try negative income tax [Wikipedia]. It may come as a surprise to some to learn that Friedman reckoned his greatest achievement was the end of conscription in the USA. And the arguments which led him to oppose conscription would, I suspect, have made him a bitter enemy of workfare (as found in the UK today). Not a fan myself, but there was more to his thinking than monetarism.
Hmm, we all thought that PR in Holyrood might give Scots Tories a chance to garner votes, but it doesn’t seem to have happened.
I can just about remember the Butskellist Tory party under Ted Heath, brought Ugandan Asians to the UK when they were threatened by Idi Amin. I can’t imagine any Westminster party doing that now.
Whichever party (or parties) in whatever format eventually wins popular elections in an independent Scotland, I would like to see a written constitution that sets out and protects individual rights and freedoms.
I would hope the constitution would also set out specific limits on the powers of Parliament without the express wishes of the electorate.
I too am sick of the right v left stuff where each side harks back to the wise words, or dogma, of dead intellectuals.
Interesting article Andrew – nice to here some constructive ideas.
I think one aspect we have overlooked that will shape the future of all parties in Scotland will be the constitution issue.
I hope we take a similar path to that of Iceland, in electing a panel from the general population to canvass, formulate and present the proposals for a written constitution in which we can all participate.
That constitution doesn’t have to be solely concerned with human rights as many may think. there are many things we could ‘enshrine’
– the natural resources of Scotland should remain in public hands and cannot be ‘sold off’ without the express consent of the people
– the NHS and Scottish water should remain in public hands
– new companies investing in renewable energy must make available a 20% holding of those investments to the Scottish people or government
– business lobbying and party political funding from rich private individuals is banned. Political parties will be funded from the public purse for campaigning purposes (yes, even if this costs us £20m a year – after all, as the UK Tories have received £50m of their £100m in donations in recent years from the city financiers and bankers, who really believes that they will regulate the banks knowing this ?)
These are just a few examples of the things we could include in our constitution, and once we have those things in place, they will set the template for the political parties to shape themselves.
@kininvie
I’m with you on everything there, it’s just the dissonance of reconciling these radical policies with the Right we’ve experienced in our lifetimes. Part of the excitement of our future though lies in the marvellous possibilities it holds in new thinking for our country, so please keep it up. On land reform I agree we cannot afford to just grab it back, however justified the prospect, and that punitive taxation on large estates would be the solution.
@benarmine
Yup – dissonance with what we’ve experienced, but that’s the name of the whole Indyref game, no?
So much opportunity to do a radical re-think of where we are and where we should be going. So exciting!
in short, in an independent scotland, any right wing party would have to move significantly to the left in social affairs in order to attract votes. This is precisely what happens in Scandinavia with most countries now run by right of centre parties, not one is talking of dismantling the welfare state, let alone privatizing it
I think the Icelandic inclusive approach towards a written constitution could reinvigorate widespread interest in how our country is run and make people think they are a part of it.
I’ve lived and/or worked in various parts of Scotland and I have a particular affection for the SW and NW. I sometimes think they are neglected (maybe even forgotten) in Scotland’s development. Andrew’s points all make sense in striking a balance between sustainable development and not falling into the trap of these areas being “living museums”.
I think the tendency at the moment in Westminster-driven politics is for everything to be presented as an either or choice, e.g. living wage or jobs; clean energy or development; safety or fear … It all gives the impression that change is an endless list of mutually exclusive choices that are basically beyond the reach of our efforts.
I’m sort of echoing the conversation between Kininvie and Benarmine. Land reform is one of my top wishes for an independent Scotland. The amount of land held by a few people is stifling to the country, and the idea that we should be looking up to these people as “nobles” is frankly nauseating.
I agree with Kininvie that a gradual solution is required, but with Benarmine I’m struggling to see how such a policy qualifies as “of the right” in any shape or form.
Yes Darling needs to be put on the spot.
The BBC etc should be asking him OK are you saying that the next Labour government at Westminster will obstruct the Scottish government over use of Sterling. EU or NATO membership, share of defence assets etc, and do you think the Tory government should sit down and resolve these issues to avoid uncertainty for British businesses and industries.
Same goes for his boss David Cameron.
It is a fallacy that those on the right believe in a small state. They just believe in a small state for the little people. However state support for the big people, for war industries, banks, asset-strippers and large-scale tax dodgers should be encouraged.
Of course, a Scottish right wing politics doesn’t have to be like that – which is I suppose the point of the article.
It is all about making GOOD choices, that’s it !
Linda’s Back
Trouble is if you ask these questions of Darling he can’t give you an answer because he is (are all NO spokespersons) no part of the government of the UK.
That is why I am disappointed that in interviews re: Will Salmond and Darling debate, it is not made more plain that Darling is just on a par with Mr Jenkins and can’t speak for any UK policy matters.
It’s got to be pointed out at every opportunity. BBC interviewers should be tackling him for sure but he can’t answer! Only Cameron can.
Rev Stu has been reading the SDA Website! Thanks for talking about our agenda which is exactly what is laid out in the article. Pity you didn’t mention us in it. The SDA isn’t so far right as many may think and our policies contain a great deal of common sense. If you want to know more read the stuff on the website or tune in to Radio Free Scotland on Tuesday 22 October 2013 from 9 to 11 where I’ll be talking about the SDA.
@Morag
@kininvie
I think Andrew kind of doubts whether such a transformation of the right is possible either in the short term, but the article is a great starting point for discussion and a right of centre party is necessary ( mumbles, concedes ). What I love about this site is people coming from all sides with ideas all for the good of Scotland. I’d like to think that the SNP could hold together after Indy for a few years at least in a similar manner as a broad church trying to steer a middle course for the good of all.
@Morag
I’m struggling to see how such a policy qualifies as “of the right” in any shape or form.
Quite simply because it says individual freedom lies at the heart of good governance. This is not to stop folk coming together in communities of interest of course, but anything which smacks of too much top-down one-size-fits-all government is automatically suspect. That’s a rightist approach – no?
But that suspicion of top-down governance should apply just as much to feudal estates and massive corporates as it does to centralising government. The loss of that perception is why the right has lost its voice in Scotland imo.
Let’s take an example: Should an educatrion policy be prescriptive and applied universally, or should it be tailored to circumstance? Should it argue that something like the curriculum for excellence should be applied in all cases, or should it actually look at how individual talents can best be nurtured?
(and, before I’m classed as elitist I’m a huge believer in the idea that every child has talent – and that we are losing far too much of it through expectations (family, school, tradition) which are too low…
What to do about it? I don’t know. But it needs a radical solution which puts the individual at the heart of policy-making
OK, but how are the Tory-voting landowners going to react to any party that proposes policies that will see their vast estates broken up and their blue-blooded families lose their hereditary privileges?
@ Michael Granados
If you had bothered to look more closely, you would have seen that Stu did not write this article. I am entirely responsible for its opinions.
I note that the policy of your party is to withdraw from the EU. It is my opinion that this would be a disaster for Scotland.
I note that your party contested the Aberdeenshire Donside election and received 35 votes.
I conclude you have some way to go. All the best 🙂
Regards education, it’s a parents legal responsibility to ensure their child is educated according to their, ‘age, aptitude and ability’. Most parents hand over their children to the state and do not take too much notice about the actual content of the ‘education’ that their child is receiving. Ken Robinson has some good things to say on how children learn or don’t, look on TED.com. The individual requires freedom while belonging and working for the common good, or at least you’d think so!
@Jock McDonnell
The Scots right, like STUC too, have sold their jerseys.
I am not sure that is fair on the STUC. They have been long standing and principled supporters of Home Rule. They have had good leaders like Campbell Christie and Bill Spiers. As far as I am aware, they have not backed the No campaign outright, and the Yes campaign got a good reception and hearing at their last conference. There will be people in the STUC who support the Yes campaign. They have asked questions about both campaigns.
In terms of left, right, libertarian, authoritarian… the political compass is really good for putting it into simple terms. you can of course take the test yourself to determine whether you are a closet Tory 😉
link to politicalcompass.org
It is of course full of intricacies and left vs right, liberty vs authority can manifest in many complex forms. Capitalism for example is not specifically about money, but about dominance/superiority over others, normally by an individual or a group. Wealth is just one form of power. Religion can be used as capitalist weaponry all to easily for example…
The most stable and prosperous society is where the government represents the centre in terms of the true democratic wishes of its voters. Generally, on a global scale, that is somewhere close to the centre on the compass. That equals equilibrium; the most ideal state.
Scotland has on balance hovered around the centre since the advent of universal suffrage and arguably further back. That’s a very good thing.
England in contrast is more centre-right than Scotland in its voting history. However, it too doesn’t get the government it wants; it is more left that what it gets. Best thing Scots can do to help with that is break the current system by voting Yes. It is a vote to improve democracy across the isles, not just in Scotland.
how are the Tory-voting landowners going to react to any party that proposes policies that will see their vast estates broken up and their blue-blooded families lose their hereditary privileges?
The sensible ones (and there are some) will see the inevitabilty of it, and will work with the idea to the ultimate benefit of all, including themselves. Others (see my link under ‘ducal estates’) won’t. But I for one not going to object if the price of a Highland estate of 80,000+ acres drops a bit. And I’m not talking about breaking up sporting estates overnight. I’m talking about release of land slowly and rationally. Not everywhere is habitable; not everyone wants to live in a midge-ridden strath. So we temper supply and demand – but make sure we have the levers to produce the supply.
great article, there is a need and a place for Scottish conservative voices and like all other kinds of voice there is no real place for them to be heard at the moment, who would break ranks in the parties based at Westminister and speak their minds, it’s political suicide in the minds of many, and it says a lot about Alan Grogan et al that there is a Labour for Independence group at all.
I was thinking about land reform, and turning them into co-operatives could leave a place for those current owners to stay involved, then you’d find out which ones really did connect with the land and which ones were just seeing it as an asset which can be sold on, despite it containing the houses and livelihoods of other people. If they weren’t interested in being in a cooperative then an agreed buyout akin to compulsory purchase should be enforced. After all if you’re in the way of a road or a tunnel or a new railway the government considers that to be an over-riding need compared to your need, and making estates work for the benefit of those living on them, modernising them, making them more prosperous and not keeping them in a ‘Downtown’ era time warp is a need that benefits the country over the individual in the same way. But perhaps those living on the estates would be the best people to ask how they want to move forward, as I understand some recent legislation has actually caused problems in some cases.
@muttley79 sure, but my main point is that the left too has been bound to Labour, partly through misplaced fraternity with people elsewhere via a party of hypocritical careerists
They could have done so much more for core members by being less willing to follow London’s rules. All they get is platitudes and disappointment. Too many see supporting labour like supporting a football team. Labour’s life has been made too easy.
Good article Andrew I hope independence will allow ALL parties to dump the old way. And as soon as one starts acting like baw heids they called out and their vote disappears. There will always be disagreements but we need to agree we can have them and if anyone resorts to SLAB /Tory/Libbers behaviour the PO has supreme power to chuck them out and call a by election. Politics in a free Scotland should be about consensus and making the best nation for our people. Oh and no unelected second house either. As regards land reform simple return it to the people in the form of Common Land. The landowning class took it. So it’s payback time for hundreds of years of theft, clearing, exploitation and environmental mismanagement.
O/T
How is Ed Miliband going to freeze energy prices?
Ed Davey, the energy secretary, was holding 11th-hour discussions this weekend with EDF, France’s state-owned nuclear giant, about an agreement for two new reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
The French said they would not build them without subsidies, which will be added to household energy rates when the plant is operational in the 2020s. Government sources said there is no upfront cost to consumers and the deal is vital to “keep the lights on”.
EDF had been expected to secure a guaranteed rate of about £93 a megawatt hour — double the current wholesale price— for at least 35 years. It is thought Davey was holding out for a final figure under £90.
A source said: “We are on the brink of agreeing things but it is going right down to the wire. Ministers are digging in their heels to get a better price.”
Even at that level the deal would mean that EDF and Beijing’s state-owned China General Nuclear Power Group, which is expected to invest in the project, will receive £90bn over the life of the contract.
The plants will take at least eight years to build. If they were operating today, the subsidies would put more than £1bn a year on top of the normal electricity rate, according to Roland Vetter at CF Partners, an energy investment bank.
“This cost will be borne by our children,” Vetter said.
Kininvie
It is not just the SDA that views EU membership for independent Scotland as a disastrous policy on the part of a section of the SNP. I have spent well over 40 years working in European integration academically and professionally at top government level. I know of no other international institution so unsuitable for Scottish membership as the EU.
Scotland outside the EU would still be at the heart of Europe through membership of the all-European institutions like the 47-member Strasbourg-based Council of Europe (which was the one that forced devolution on the UK under threat of sanctions), the 56-member UNECE or the 57-member OSCE, or even NATO with its 50 member and partner states. The sub-regional 28-member EU represents half of Europe, and can’t compete with the access to markets worldwide that would open up with membership of EFTA and the European Economic Area. EFTA/EEA membership is the way to go for Scotland.
As far as I am aware I am the only Scot with experience of how an independent state of Scotland’s size is actually run in a world where global governance is expanding with hitherto unknown speed. If you want more details, I have expanded on the subject in various articles that can be read on the Electric Scotland website, especially, but not exclusively:
link to electricscotland.com
link to electricscotland.com
@Jock McDonnell
sure, but my main point is that the left too has been bound to Labour, partly through misplaced fraternity with people elsewhere via a party of hypocritical careerists
They could have done so much more for core members by being less willing to follow London’s rules. All they get is platitudes and disappointment. Too many see supporting labour like supporting a football team. Labour’s life has been made too easy.
Not really sure what you mean. The left have been gradually leaving SLAB since the 1980s onwards. The SSP was essentially formed by those who had left SLAB after the internal disputes (Militant and SLAB). Labour voters for Independence is clearly those on the left of SLAB who support a Yes vote. Dennis Canavan and John McAllion (ex Labour MP, now SSP) were both either prevented from standing or marginalised. Mary Lockhart also supports a Yes vote (she is a left winger from the Co-operative Party). Trade Union leaders like Tommy Brennan also support a Yes vote. There is also the Radical Independence Campaign, made up mostly of Socialists (ISG), SNP left, SLAB left etc, and trade unionists supporting a Yes vote. Most of the left in Scotland appear to be supporting independence. The only left wing grouping that appear to support Unionist SLAB are the Red Paper Collective. Basically, there really does not appear to be much of a left-wing presence left in SLAB who support a No vote.
@kininvie – my abject apology for not noting the byline. 🙂
SDA is pro EFTA as a better deal for Scotland but further that any union be it UK, EU or EFTA should be by the democratic will of the people of Scotland through a referendum.
EU membership is being presented by the current SNP Scottish Government as definitive of an independent Scotland when it should be an option of choice post independence. You may opine that it would be a ‘disaster’ for Scotland but others may disagree including the undecideds for independence who have as yet not been moved to the side of yes. If undecideds remain unconvinced about independence then the arguments for it have failed. EU membership may well pass in a referendum but why is it so wrong to ask? Would that move an undecided voter?
The SNP was not always a powerhouse so you have to start small but at least we are moving in the right direction.
@Michael
Is one of the problems of not being in the EU (being in EFTA for example) is that you are still affected to a large degree by the decisions that the EU makes anyway?
EFTA has all the Contraints of being in the EU with no influence over the rules
However, in an SDA Gov’t, if we object to the resulting chaos, they will trigger the Martial Law portion of their proposed Constitution and that will be that
Independence in Europe has always been the SNP policy, since the 1980s at least. They got elected on that policy.
Post independence it will be up to any party which advocates leaving the EU to campaign for election on that manifesto, and get elected, and hold a referendum. Anyone is entirely free to do that.
It’s completely unreasonable to demand that the SNP hold referendums on this, that and the other (EU, monarchy, currency to name but three I’ve heard mooted) when these things are not core SNP policy. The SNP does not believe in leaving the EU. The route for those who want to do that is clear – run for election in 2016 on that ticket.
@Erchie you have some problem with a constitution strictly limiting the parameters by which government exercises power in a state of emergency? Bear in mind that a PM with a majority in parliament could declare martial law tomorrow with no check on power. Or I suppose you would have no provision for a state of emergency and face the possibility of a state of emergency along with a constitutional crisis at the same time. That would be a great recipe for stability.
We’ve been treated to a constant stream of pleas from people who reckon that we’ll save our society by granting immortality to those who did everything in their power to kill it.
Westminster, the Union, the banks, the Labour Party, the Tories, the LibDems and a full supporting cast of John Bull’s bairns have thrown us into the pit and demanded that we pay for their crimes as we sink further into despair. Why on earth would anyone offer a plea in mitigation for an establishment that shows no mercy to its victims or remorse for its atrocities?
If, after independence, our rights are enshrined in a new Scottish constitution, won’t those rights apply equally thoughout the land? With equal rights assured, what happens to the dreaded divide between the central belt and the rest?
I’m sure we’ve all read numerous articles offering survival training and escape routes for Westminster’s pals and plunderers. I wonder if others see them, as I do, as a get-out-of-jail card for people who, to my mind, have no right of parole.
Jock Tamson’s heid must be birlin’.
Ouch. Given what Jock Tamson actually means in that context, that sounds painful. Even to a girl-type person.
@Morag EU, monarchy, currency – Three SNP policies firmly rooted that have as yet failed to swing undecided voters to yes. Without independence the rest doesn’t matter and unless the case is made to to enough voters to win the referendum we don’t get to decide anything else. If the SNP are so wedded to their EU, monarchy and currency policies that it scuppers the yes vote that would be a real shame. Perhaps there should be room for debate?
In my response above I did fail to thank Andrew Leslie for an excellent article.
My blah blah blah was directed at the political industry, for that is what it is. Participants,whether elected or not, take up their entrenched positions of right or left in politics oblivious to the disengaged public. And the media who ad nauseum discuss this industry. Easy programme schedule filling I suspect.
I think undecided voters will work it out in their own good time.
If everyone holds out for the independent Scotland they want, otherwise they’ll vote No, we’ll never be independent. If we allow this to be a debate about that, rather than about whether or not we should put ourselves in a position to be able to take these decisions for ourselves, in principle, we’ll never be independent.
The SNP is what we’ve got, it’s what has brought us to this point, and it’s what we actually voted for. For people who weren’t voted for to try to hijack the debate at this point in an effort to advance their own narrow agenda, is disingenuous to put it mildly.
The SNP is what we’ve got, it’s what has brought us to this point, and it’s what we actually voted for. For people who weren’t voted for to try to hijack the debate at this point in an effort to advance their own narrow agenda, is disingenuous to put it mildly.
+1
I have a problem with a bunch of Free-marketeers right wingers slavering at the bit to have the ability to call the troops in so much, they want to have a Constitutional right to do it
@Morag
Ooh, err, missus! 🙂
Right…Left…Ballox
We have a chance in Scotland to do the right thing and win back our country. Then we must do the right thing by doing what’s right for Scotland. irrespective of out-dated political labels.
Erchie & muttley79
What you are stating is a very widespread misconception. Read the 1974 EEA Agreement, especially Articles 99 to 101. This Treaty gives the EEA’s EFTA member states exactly the same rights as its EU members in the preparation of economic legislation, including membership of EU Commission special committees etc. I explained the situation in: http://www.electricscotland.com/independence/efta.htm
I was around when the SNP adopted its “Independence in Europe” policy for the purpose of countering the prevailing opposition campaign alleging that the SNP’s Scotland would be cut off from the world. That situation has changed totally since then, and even Jim Sillars, who instigated the policy, is now defining Scotland in Europe as Scotland in the EFTA side of the EEA instead of the EU side. And those SNP members who are still for the EU are just clinging to an outdated ideology without rethinking it in the light of vastly changed conditions.
The SNP has done a magnificent job on domestic policies, but it is right out of its depth on diplomacy and international affairs. For example, the extent to which Global Governance (not the same as global government) has now rendered regional (e.g. European) organisations superfluous over a wide range of functions. Scotland still has a lot to do to catch up with the rest of the world.
Jim Sillars barely speaks for himself, let alone the SNP
What Morag says…..
The reason I submitted this piece to Stu was not to disrupt the unity of Yes voters: We must grip onto Yes and work for it for the next eleven months, no matter who we are or what we believe in.
But there are so many positive visions of what an independent Scotland might be: Let’s write them, and read them, and question them, and dispute them. I’m fed up to the back teeth with reading the BT trash about how it’s all too difficult, and there’s no point in thinking about it. It makes me seethe to contemplate that poverty of spirit. We can do so much more on the back of a Yes vote, so let’s have the vision at the same time as the dogged determination to win.
Ooh, err, missus! 🙂
“All Jock Tamson’s bairns” – work it out.
Kininvie, if I said what I thought about some of the posts above, I’d probably be summarily banned. So I won’t. Just – don’t take people at their own self-valuation.
@Morag
Work what out? Which of ‘Jock Tamson’s’ many meanings is causing confusion? (Not that it matters much)
The one that leads to bairns. (Try translating it into English.)
The point about the EU, currency and monarchy stance of the SNP at the moment is that they are all no-change options. The referendum is about independence. It is not a vehicle to deliver any other change.
It is in fact a vehicle to transfer to Scots voters the power to decide on further changes, should these be the direction the country as a whole desires to go in, after due consideration. How arrogant to demand or insist that this power should simultaneously be neutered by making these decisions part of the referendum process.
If there is a commitment to set up a new currency on independence day, we lose the support of voters who believe they might see a huge chunk wiped off their savings by that move. If there is a commitment to become a republic, we lose the support of the voters who cherish the tradition of the Kingdom of Scots and/or drool over royal babies. If there is a commitment to leave the EU, we lose the support of the majority who believe Scotland’s interests are best served within the EU.
That is no way to win a referendum. It’s also daft, strategically. These are all decisions that should be made on their own merits once we see where an independent Scotland stands in relation to the issues, not second-guessed during a time of flux.
A pox on everyone who says “no independence except on my terms”, and even on everyone who says, “if you’d just add my preferred terms to the independence proposal, I’m sure all the don’t knows would come round.” It’s arrogant, and it’s counter-productive, and it’s undemocratic.
@Morag “Try translating it into English”
That’s why I offered one of Frankie Howerd’s catchphrases in reply.
When I was a child, ‘John Thomas’ was the prudish preference. I got your joke, but now I’ve ruined it by explaining that it had no relevance for me, so I’m not sure whether to follow this with a smile or a frown. I thought it was funny 🙂 So, why am I feeling like I’ve cocked it up? 🙁
@Morag
“A pox on everyone who says “no independence except on my terms”, and even on everyone who says, “if you’d just add my preferred terms to the independence proposal, I’m sure all the don’t knows would come round.” It’s arrogant, and it’s counter-productive, and it’s undemocratic.”
Well said, Morag. Independence first.
“The point about the EU, currency and monarchy stance of the SNP at the moment is that they are all no-change options. The referendum is about independence. It is not a vehicle to deliver any other change.”
Absolutely, Morag. The same goes for NATO, and I do think it’s probably for the best the SNP changed its policy on NATO (even though I’m still unsure if I agree with it yet), as it allows them to ensure Scotland remains within NATO post-independence, which is the no-change scenario. I’m not sure they could really have done that if they still had a NATO withdrawal policy – there’d be cries of hypocrisy all over the shop, and a huge split in the party at the most critical time.
The SNP did not win a mandate to make any decisions on reserved matters when they got the landslide victory in 2011, so would it really be right for them to try and make the Scotland that emerges on Independence Day look any different to the Scotland that voted for independence 18 months earlier? We’ll be voting for the right to decide who makes decisions on things like taxation, foreign affairs and defence, but that right cannot be invoked until the 2016 election, so in the meantime, there’s no mandate for anyone to decide to abolish the monarchy, take Scotland out of the EU, or any of that stuff.
So, why am I feeling like I’ve cocked it up?
Bwahahahaha! I just wasn’t sure you had got it. I don’t think you ruined it! If anybody ruined it, it was me.
The SNP did not win a mandate to make any decisions on reserved matters when they got the landslide victory in 2011, so would it really be right for them to try and make the Scotland that emerges on Independence Day look any different to the Scotland that voted for independence 18 months earlier? We’ll be voting for the right to decide who makes decisions on things like taxation, foreign affairs and defence, but that right cannot be invoked until the 2016 election, so in the meantime, there’s no mandate for anyone to decide to abolish the monarchy, take Scotland out of the EU, or any of that stuff.
Extremely well put. I wish there was a way to explain this sensibly to the numpties who keep demanding their own personal definition of independence. That might be close to it.
I agree about NATO. I didn’t include it, but as you say again it’s the no-change option. And having looked at maps of the North Atlantic, it’s obvious that keeping Scotland out of NATO would be seriously problematic for the defence of the region as a whole. A bit like how taking Scotland out of sterling would be seriously problematic for the stability of the remaining currency.
In both cases, keeping the status quo in the short to medium term is being a good neighbour, or a good citizen of the world. We should approach any change in either department carefully and with a great deal of serious negotiation.
Enjoyed your article Andrew.
I would be happy with an SNP government in 2016, on the basis that the Unionist parties will need a clear out. The very thought of Lamont and SLAB as we know it being in government of a newly independent Scotland makes me very worried indeed.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t see two years being sufficient time for ‘new’ parties to establish themselves and achieve voter confidence. Though I do agree, the membership of the EU could be a swinger for many. (even although the polls suggest otherwise).
Anyhow, first we need that YES vote.
Stairheid (Yer Candidate for Furst Minstrel of Scotland) sez …
” Tryin tae bamboozil me wi yer big words, right Mac? Am no fallin fer yer fancy hyperbolics & yer metaphysicals. Just gee us the facts, right big boy. Wan vote fer Labour an’ wull fix the stuff that yer Maggie Thatcher jiggered up. So nae mare talkin aboot Radiscals, just gie us yer vote or Ill effin chib ye.”
Interesting article but not sure I see it myself. As someone born and brought up in Sutherland there is no way I can see a right wing party ever supporting land reform or infrastructure development. People of this creed have not delivered these under the current setup so why would that change with independence? Why would their apparent core belief of allowing the market to decide change? Are you suggesting that the ‘chicago school of economics’ viewpoint would be set aside by a new Scottish Right?
By the way when talking about radical traditions in rural Scotland, well the Highlands and Islands at least, you missed reference to the most important one, the Highland Land League. This is arguably the root from which support for the Lib Dems has come and continues to come from. I have always thought that strange and that the most natural home for this support is the SNP.
However, I should add that one of my biggest disappointments with the SNP has been their clear failure to do anything radical about land reform. We now have the likes of Rhoda Grant and David Stewart (Labour!) making more noise about the issue than the SNP. I just do not understand it and can only hope that it is a case of not worrying the horses before the referendum. Post independence I would drop the SNP like a stone if they continue to refuse to deal with this issue.
The US administration wants to get rid of Trident (can’t afford it) and wants Scotland in the EU.
There are many voters of Scottish descent in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ etc. people from Scotland work all over the world. Merkel’s second-in -command is from Scotland, a McAllister.
The Auld Alliance with the French. Scots fought in the Spanish Civil War. Etc.
If the Unions care about working people, why do they fund right wing parties. Unions fund the Labour.
Bankers fund the Tory Party
A minority fund the LibDems
The SNP are funded by it’s members. (Pro rata) the biggest political party in the UK. The SNP has to listen to the concerns of it’s membership, ordinary people.
I remember a certain Mr Massie saying that the tories were on the wrong side of history, but are content to stay there. When they had that big inquiry as to why they still suck, report simply blamed it on the voter “not getting it”. So thats what they did, and proceeded to thump their tubs and keep preaching the same dogma that was rejected out of hand by the electorate.
They are no longer capable of connecting with the electorate, only preaching to their ever shrinking core vote, which is quite literally dying out. Yet they kept pushing Annabel Goldie as having de-toxed the brand, when in reality she was providing palliative care and managing its decline.
They don’t have policies that make sense. Their big idea for the 2011 holyrood elections was to turf out 14yr olds from school. They were to given “vocational” training instead. But as most “vocational” training is actually provided through colleges, it was difficult to understand what they hoped to achieve.
The problems they suffer are outlined in this old report from about 2001. Oddly it is still very pertinent
link to polis.leeds.ac.uk
@Shinty
‘The very thought of Lamont and SLAB as we know it being in government of a newly independent Scotland makes me very worried indeed.’
Could this be part of the plan from Project Fear? It is the only part that actually could be a worry. And it plays right into the ‘too stupid’ element of TWTPTS.
@muttley79 the point I’m trying to make is that historically much of the left has been unionist although there has been movement in more recent times
while you and me would probably not describe Scottish labour as left wing many of their followers would and by pledging support to labour they perhaps unwittingly endorse the union for no reward.