The way we were
We owe SNP communications officer Erik Geddes an indirect hat-tip for this one, as a link he posted to something else on Twitter led us to discover this superb piece from the Herald archives. It’s from the 28th of February 1979, the day before the first referendum on Scottish devolution – the one which resulted in a Yes vote, but which was rejected on the grounds of a rigged amendment by a Scottish Labour MP, delaying the return of a Scottish parliament for 20 years.
It’s absolutely startling to read the “No” responses and see just how indistinguishable most of the dire warnings about the consequences of an “Assembly” are from the arguments against independence we hear now, and to also note how few of them (in fact, none) came true when devolution finally arrived.
Indeed, the weirdest thing is to see the Labour Party being the voice of the Yes side, rather than making all the doom-laden warnings of disaster. (Although there were many prominent Labour figures in the Scotland Says No camp, including a certain Mr A. Darling of Edinburgh, now heid bummer of “Better Together”.)
You can have a browse through the entire paper here. (Page 5 in particular is also a brilliant read, as is the front-page piece Erik Geddes originally linked to, “No vote will not kill devolution, pledges Thatcher”.) While many things have changed in 34 years, the political sections are like taking a trip back in a time machine to, well, sometime around the middle of yesterday afternoon.
Morning Stu. I was wondering if you had any thoughts about this: link to heraldscotland.com
Lots of forgotten gems in there! What was particularly striking was this one;” Secretary of State’s post could not afterwards be justified”
How do the UK justify that post?
Imagine a campaign being called ‘Scotland Says No’ these days. What a bunch of debbie downers.
Lots of gems in there, mostly recycled and used in the 1997 campaign and in the current campaign. I love the typical “let’s take this top-end estimate of 750 and use it as a bottom end estimate instead” tactic – we’ve seen that one a fair few times in unionist arithmetic. But I think my favourite has to be this one:
“Anyway, what sort of people care what anyone else thinks?”
Tory mindset in a fucking nutshell.
I disagree none of the “no” stories came true though. The following were bang on the money:
“Nothing important would be devolved not already devolved and handled by Scottish MPs, Ministers or civil servants.” (And this remains true today, and will remain true in the event of a NO vote.)
“The number of our MPs would be reduced from 71 to about 57… The Secretary of State’s Cabinet post could not afterwards be justified.” (And yet they keep him around anyway?)
“It would lead to break-up [of the United Kingdom].” (Hell yeah.)
“All agreed the constitutional settlement was unstable and would not endure, because it challenged the unitary nature of the British State.” (So let’s take the logical step towards stability…?)
Can I have a “Hallelujah” for those last two?
‘At the BBC I had to endure regular and melodramatic threats from politicians over the BBC’s legal obligation of political impartiality. I used to be the regular recipient of letters from Kenny Macaskill, now our beloved “Justice Minister”, complaining that the BBC had failed to afford the SNP a reasonable crack of the whip. These letters caused much hilarity in the office, due to their being filled with grammatical errors and spelling mistakes.’
‘Also, we at the BBC were more experienced that (sic) any other organisation in the country at dealing with party politicians.’
link to firmmagazine.com
link to cdn.hivehealthmedia.com
@G.Campbell
Ah, the old Unionist two-step – all politicians are pond life, it’s just a coincidence that my public ire is reserved solely for the SNP.
Also, anyone who constructs such an abortion as ‘a regular means of progressing this debate’ should be very careful of his linguistic and grammatical glasshouse.
The recurring theme in the ‘No’ column back in ’79 was the threat posed by added bureaucracy and attendant costs.
Remarkably, I have heard exactly the same being said in arguing against independence – despite the fact we would actually be removing a layer of government – and the fattest, most expensive and deleterious layer at that!
Apart from being more depressing evidence of British political cynicism (“All politicians are evil, all government is corrupt'”) This is a message that really needs to be hammered home in the Yes Campaign – vote ‘Yes’ for leaner, fitter and fairer governance.
Scottish Political Archive (Stirling Univ) has literature from the 1979 campaign. This link is remarkable for its relevance to the present campaign. Uncannily familiar are the words from Neal Ascherson’s reporter’s notebook:
The No side have no fresh arguments, or at least the four or five they laid down in December – cost, extra tier of government, more bureaucracy, “separation” – have stopped making converts; the Yes side is now demolishing these arguments. But, the “vote no and get a better Act ploy” is new….Mass defection to No by Labour Councillors, regional and district….Many now work for the (Tory-run) “Scotland Says No”. In their dim minds, this is less disloyal than working for Tam Dalyell and the “Labour Vote No” campaign.
Anybody feel that is familiar?
link to scottishpoliticalarchive.org.uk
Liked the letter from Sir Angus Cunninghame Graham in the Herald who advocated a No vote all due to the ordering of books.
“Mr Salmond seemed to be enjoying himself though. Given that the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey reports a continuing decline in support for independence, this might have seemed odd. But here was a man for whom every cloud bears silvery brocade.”
Sigh. Ian, why must you be such an arse at times like the rest of the blindly unionist media?
Meanwhile, in a completely tangential universe, Ruth Davidson admits that the Tories are shi*e but she’s still proud of them.
link to bbc.co.uk
Keep up the good work, Ruth.
Do the Scottish media think that simply by saying something is so it suddenly becomes the truth? Is it that they hope to constantly portray the option as unpopular or dwindling and hope that percieved peer pressure from people you don’t see or know will make you change your mind in turn?
@Seasick Dave
Ah, Ruth. A sacrificial caretaker leader if there was one. She’s there to soak up the vomit with sawdust and warm a seat until after everything blows over and a real leader can get in once the party has a realistic chance of going somewhere without lasting reputation damage.
Dear Hen
Earlier this month, I started an online blog of my observations on the referendum campaign, our preparations for Scotland to become independent, and the reasons why we believe that bringing powers home will better equip us to build the kind of country we want Scotland to be.?
I now plan on summarising the best bits and sending them to you directly.
Today we welcomed the findings in the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey. Reading the papers you’d think it was bad news. However, the figures tell a different story. The fact is that when people are presented with a range of constitutional choices open to Scotland, independence emerges as the most popular.
Independence is supported by 35%, Devo max 32%, status quo 24% and no devolution 6% – you won’t read that in many papers, but it is what the survey says.
Here’s some other highlights from the survey, ideal for your conversations with the [as yet] undecided:
• 63% believe that the Scottish Government should have most influence over how Scotland is run
• 64% believe that Holyrood should make decisions about welfare benefits
• 56% believe that Holyrood should make decisions about the level of taxes.
Yesterday, of course, months after criticising the Scottish Government over the timing of the independence referendum, David Cameron tells us he wants his own referendum – on Europe – but not for another 4 years or so!
Alex Salmond summed this up nicely. The fact is that being independent within the EU will allow us to assert and protect our national interests much more effectively than we can as part of the UK.
Following a Yes vote in 2014, and in parallel to negotiations with the UK, there will be a negotiation with the EU on the terms of our continuing membership. Just like Sweden, we would not join the Euro. And just like Ireland, we would not enter Schengen but would instead co-operate with Ireland and the rest of the UK in the Common Travel Area.
Tomorrow I’m off to Dublin to give a speech to the British Irish Chamber of Commerce Annual Conference. One of the bonds we share with Ireland is our commitment to Europe and our appreciation of the benefits that the EU brings to our citizens.
The EU is easily our biggest international trading partner accounting for nearly half of Scotland’s exports. And membership of the EU is one of the major factors that make us attractive for inward investment.
Watch Reporting Scotland tomorrow night to see how I get on. But there is one thing I am fairly sure of, even before I go – there are not many people in Ireland who would agree with the view that being independent is the wrong choice in terms of European and international engagement. Not many at all.
Tomorrow also sees Yes Scotland launch the first in a series of major campaigns with a rallying call for Scots to put their hands up for a better Scotland. 2013 will see us move the debate from the how to the why of independence.
We want people to start thinking about what kind of country they want; what kind of country Scotland could be and to think about why being independent could be the best way to achieve our aspirations and goals.
‘So the “Hands Up for a Better Scotland” initiative is asking: “Are you happy with the way things are? Or do you think they could be better? We’re asking people to really think about it…
Before I sign off, why not check out some useful talking points that you can send on to friends and workmates.
My latest blog reveals that, contrary to press reports before Christmas, President José Manuel Barroso wasn’t talking about Scotland. Kevin McKenna and Joyce McMillan reveal why independence is fast becoming the only option.
There was also a cracking speech this week by former US Ambassador Prof. David Scheffer on how Scotland will be an equal member of the EU.
And finally, Alex Salmond has recorded a short video explaining why people should have a constitutional right to a home and a free education.
If you’ve found this email helpful, interesting and informative, why not forward it on?
Best,
Independence is supported by 35%, Devo max 32%, status quo 24% and no devolution 6% – you won’t read that in many papers, but it is what the survey says.
Here’s some other highlights from the survey, ideal for your conversations with the [as yet] undecided:
• 63% believe that the Scottish Government should have most influence over how Scotland is run
• 64% believe that Holyrood should make decisions about welfare benefits
• 56% believe that Holyrood should make decisions about the level of taxes.
Yesterday, of course, months after criticising the Scottish Government over the timing of the independence referendum, David Cameron tells us he wants his own referendum – on Europe – but not for another 4 years or so!
Alex Salmond summed this up nicely. The fact is that being independent within the EU will allow us to assert and protect our national interests much more effectively than we can as part of the UK.
Following a Yes vote in 2014, and in parallel to negotiations with the UK, there will be a negotiation with the EU on the terms of our continuing membership. Just like Sweden, we would not join the Euro. And just like Ireland, we would not enter Schengen but would instead co-operate with Ireland and the rest of the UK in the Common Travel Area.
Tomorrow I’m off to Dublin to give a speech to the British Irish Chamber of Commerce Annual Conference. One of the bonds we share with Ireland is our commitment to Europe and our appreciation of the benefits that the EU brings to our citizens.
The EU is easily our biggest international trading partner accounting for nearly half of Scotland’s exports. And membership of the EU is one of the major factors that make us attractive for inward investment.
Watch Reporting Scotland tomorrow night to see how I get on. But there is one thing I am fairly sure of, even before I go – there are not many people in Ireland who would agree with the view that being independent is the wrong choice in terms of European and international engagement. Not many at all.
Tomorrow also sees Yes Scotland launch the first in a series of major campaigns with a rallying call for Scots to put their hands up for a better Scotland. 2013 will see us move the debate from the how to the why of independence.
We want people to start thinking about what kind of country they want; what kind of country Scotland could be and to think about why being independent could be the best way to achieve our aspirations and goals.
‘So the “Hands Up for a Better Scotland” initiative is asking: “Are you happy with the way things are? Or do you think they could be better? We’re asking people to really think about it…
Before I sign off, why not check out some useful talking points that you can send on to friends and workmates.
My latest blog reveals that, contrary to press reports before Christmas, President José Manuel Barroso wasn’t talking about Scotland. Kevin McKenna and Joyce McMillan reveal why independence is fast becoming the only option.
There was also a cracking speech this week by former US Ambassador Prof. David Scheffer on how Scotland will be an equal member of the EU.
And finally, Alex Salmond has recorded a short video explaining why people should have a constitutional right to a home and a free education.
If you’ve found this email helpful, interesting and informative, why not forward it on?
Best,
Nicola Sturgeon.
I don’t remember 1979, but I think the 1997 No campaign, Think Twice, was similar to Better Together. The only difference is that they have the media in Scotland on their side, particularly the BBC.
Reading that piece, I was interested to see the use of the phrase “business community”. I was surprised to see it being used as long ago as ’79 – does anyone know when this euphemistic rebranding for “the [greedy bastard] capitalist class” became widespread?
I’ve asked once before but to no avail.
Can anyone tell me where Nicola gets the figure of 35% for Independence.
“Can anyone tell me where Nicola gets the figure of 35% for Independence. ”
I assume it’s from here:
link to scotcen.org.uk
There are no page or table numbers that I can see, but there’s a table with the question “Which of the statements on this card comes closest to your view about who should make government decisions for Scotland?”
Answers are 35-32-24-6 for options equating to independence, devo-max, status quo and no Holyrood.
A very interesting change of direction from Ruth Davidson, at last a distancing on behalf of the Scottish Conservative Party, from Westminster imposed policies. She’s starting to show the strength she needs.
What comes next, Ruth?
Keef says:
25 January, 2013 at 11:24 am
“I’ve asked once before but to no avail.
Can anyone tell me where Nicola gets the figure of 35% for Independence. ”
Asked if full powers should be given to the Scottish government (a much more straightforward question ( i.e. 4 questions 4 answers) than the one giving the 23% for Inde), the results were – 35% Independence, 32% Devo Max, 24% status quo, 6% home rule.
My distinct memory of pre-1979, living as I was in the West of Edinburgh (the Glasgow ghetto!) and working out that way, was of the great success of the “Vote No for a better Devolution Act campaign”. It worked with some at least Labour activists and Trade Unionists – some /many of them Independence Supporters, and early on, to an extent with SNP activists as well, though later they did put their weight behind YES. The damage was enormous; without its success the YES vote could easily have been many percentage votes higher – perhaps as high as the 1997 referendum.
I read recently that SNP supporters had in some cases, to distribute piles of Labour leaflets left lying in Labour offices because of the lack of interest from Labour. That sounds about right to me.
The YES campaign (as the NO campaign) it making a big point of getting people on the ground. This is completely correct.
Keef
link to scotcen.org.uk page 4
Many thanks Stu.
A mere co-incidence the timing of the release of this document and Cameron’s speech.
Is it any wonder the timing of Cameron’s speech is followed on a Friday by the announcement in the Gruniad that, the UK’s triple dip recession is imminent and that the UK is in the longest recovery phase of any recession in 100 years!
Another so called union ‘dividend’ then.
Thanks also Hen Broon and Andra’ fae Govan.
They way we were – on February 29th, 1979? (Don’t you just hate pedants!)
Keep up the good work Rev. First port of call these days…
“They way we were – on February 29th, 1979?”
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU MEAN.
Great win by Murray over Federer.
LOL
The(y) way we were, and 1979 wasn’t a leap year
I know, I know, I’m a very sad individual…
“The(y) way we were, and 1979 wasn’t a leap year
I know, I know, I’m a very sad individual…”
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU MEAN.
The more I think about the Referendum question the more I am convinced that the question, “Do you agree that Scotland should be an Independent countrty?” will not be used.
The sad reality is that numerous people do not understand “independent country”. This I suspect will be the findings of the Electoral Commission. As we are aware the word separation derives images of being ripped apart and possibly ending up in the Arctic. The word Independent appears to be just a notch below that for many people. Independent is the opposive of dependant. This I suspect will derive images of losing benefits etc, currently payable by the British state, for many.
I aslo suspect that the SNP know this and will abide by the Commission’s finding. OK, we’ll define Independence in the question. Transfer of power held by The Westminster Parliament to The Scottish Parliament. That appears to be the most popular option in the recent poll!
LOL! Well corrected…
Just a tiny pedantic point, but although George Cunningham himself was Scottish, he was never an MP for a Scottish constituency. That’s what I’d generally understand by the term “Scottish MP”.
My point is, he was never made to answer for his gerrymandering by Scottish voters.