Preaching to the unconverted

The thick haar around Brigadoon has prevented me from posting of late, but through the occasional gaps in the mist my faithful carrier pigeon, Coocoo, does manage to steal out with the odd message. One such comment seemed to find favour with, of all things, a Unionist yesterday, over at the hallowed turf of Cobblers with Cochrane. Who knows, maybe I'm onto something with the approach below? Although it didn't quite seem to convert that wayward soul, perhaps it might be an angle to try on any Unionist, erm, acquaintances that you have...?

Effie Deans:
The SNP has always been a single issue party. People join and campaign, not because they are opposed to Nato or the royal family, but because they want independence and can't bear being part of the UK. The reason for this is largely emotional. A true nationalist would want independence even if it meant Scotland would be poorer. It is for this reason that the SNP and its supporters are willing to do anything and to give up anything to achieve secession. This is necessary in order to try to persuade the two thirds us Scots who do not have their emotional needs. It is for this reason that the nationalist response to criticism and reasoned argument tends to be anger and hysteria. No doubt this time also.


forfar-loon:

Hi Effie, with respect I think your perception of nationalists/SNP members is maybe 20 or 30 years out of date. This group is a broad church, and a lot of them (but by no means all!) now have a much more rational reason for supporting independence. Namely, that successive UK governments of all flavours have shown themselves incapable of transforming Scotland's economic fortunes.

Imagine you are the UK PM/Chancellor with an election a few short years away. What do you do? Look after the economy of course. Which, with a short term view, means looking after the bit that generates most of the cash. Which of course means SE England and London. You do a good job, and these two areas get even more investment, jobs and wealth. Well done!

If you had the luxury of a longer term view you might think differently. You might remember for example, that you are supposed to be the PM/Chancellor for the whole of the UK. And that therefore, you perhaps ought to be moving to a state of affairs wherein all of the areas of the UK are economically successful. Wouldn't that be a better UK, economically as well as socially?

But sadly there are elections looming, and ignoring our love of the trappings of power for a second,
we can't let the other lot in. They would be a disaster (for the simple
reason that they are not us). No, we'd better go back to the short term view. I know, we'll set up a few special enterprise zones in "the North". That'll do.

Ignoring the silly overreaction to the front cover (which does demonstrate a kernel of truth in what you say!), the Economist article this week was interesting, basically saying that Scotland would be fine and dandy if it became independent now, but that of course the oil/gas revenues will have to be replaced over the next few decades. That is Scotland's big challenge. But it's coming whether we are independent or not. Look at the state of UK plc right now - and then subtract any oil/gas revenue...the UK safety net, such as it is, seems to be developing bigger and bigger holes as time passes.

Will we have the fiscal flexibility or political will necessary to perk up our economy if we stay in the UK? Recent history under UK governments of all flavours suggests not. Sadly Scotland is just not important enough within the UK. All of the UK parties have to (or rather choose to) consider how policies implemented in Scotland will play in England. This is doubly so if the policy is an important one that would actually make a big difference. This acts as a considerable brake on the changes that Scotland needs.

With independence however, I think that necessity will prove to be the mother of invention. Scotland will have to change to prosper. Agility and flexibility will be more and more important as the world grows more interconnected. If Scotland always has to look over its shoulder for approval from Westminster politicians, then I would argue we'll be far too sluggish to be competitive. And consider that Scotland has everything it needs to be a successful country: well educated people, respect for law and order, established institutions, diverse industries that are a good base upon which to build, natural resources, freedom of speech, etc. That's a pretty good hand - I have confidence that the people of Scotland would make a success of it.

Effie Deans:

This is as good an argument for the SNP as I have seen and this unionist enjoyed reading it.

High praise indeed, or was it damning with faint praise? Either way, even the oft-splenetic orraquine recommended Effie's parting comment.

We're doooomed!

I really have heard it all now. For those of you who missed this in the Herald yesterday, another of our ermine-bedecked superiors, aka Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, former deputy leader of the Tory party, has retched up quite the worst argument against independence that I've ever heard. And that's saying something.

It seems that if an independent Scotland decides to scale defensive capabilities back to a few fishery protection vessels then it is "asking to be invaded", and if some evil foreign johnnies decide to invade Scotland to gain a bridgehead for invading England (but of course, we wouldn't be important enough ourselves!), then under these circumstances England would have no choice but to "bomb the hell out of" Scotland's airports. So there you have it. Vote No in 2014 or else.

Join THE Party

And so it begins in earnest. The age old tactics, so tried and tested, scourge of many of those colonial Johnnies, are now being turned on Scotland. Yes, it's that perennial favourite, divide and rule!

The so called Earl of Caithness, Chief of Clan Sinclair, Malcolm Ian Sinclair, has added some amendments to the Scotland bill. These are to the effect that Orkney and Shetland should be removed from Scotland in the event that they reject independence while the rest of Scotland votes in favour, and that Rockall should be retained by the rump UK despite being part of the Isle of Harris and therefore under administrative control of Na h-Eileanan Siar.

It's difficult to know quite how to react to this latest unionist skulduggery. Part of me starts fantasising about Madame Guillotine, part of me rages against a Tory peer wielding this sort of influence, part of me wants to laugh at the desperation inherent in this f**kwit's proposals. I guess in the absence of a treasonous cat's paw as First Minister they can't simply redraw the maritime boundaries again to annex all of the above into English waters.

What is abundantly clear is that the Earl only cares about islands that have, or might have, oil nearby. He seems not to care about the democratic wishes of, say the people of the Hebrides, surely also a part of Scotland with significant cultural and historical differences to much of the mainland. He doesn't even single his own Earldom, Caithness, out for his special treatment, despite it also being under Norse control for a time.

In any case, I can't really imagine that the Machiavellian manoeuvrings of a Tory lord will do anything other than turn people firmly against the British state. If this is British fair play and the way the British establishment deals with my country then count me out. I always swore I would never join a political party, but Earl Caithness, congratulations! Your devilish scheming is the final straw after the last few weeks (or rather decades) of unionist lies, outlandish scare stories and disgusting denigration of Scotland and its people. You have created an enemy today, and he's off to join the SNP. I urge everyone else to do the same.

Harrbrian tells it how it is

There's actually a fair and balanced article on Scottish independence in the Telegraph today. No not penned by Alan Cochrane, but by Tom Hunter: The Scottish independence debate needs pragmatism not Braveheart (sadly the headline writers and indeed the picture editor just had to get Mel Gibson in there somehow).

But better than the article itself is a superb comment from Harrbrian which I've shamelessly copied below (Harrbrian, I've assumed your consent but I'm happy to remove this post if you prefer). It's a brilliant summary of the problems afflicting the UK. Enjoy...or rather don't enjoy, and then resolve to change this unholy mess that the UK is in...


"What the Union requires is a fact-based debate that centres around the positives – of Scotland staying put, moving out or indeed accomplishing Devo-Max." At last a grown up comment in this newspaper.

The issue for Scotland is the same for all the regions of the United Kingdom - Westminster's overwhelming grip on revenue and political power, but in Scotland's case history and sentiment may provide the energy for change. For comparison: local councils in the UK are allowed to raise only 25% of their own revenue (which is why they ramp up parking fees), the Scotland bill will allow Holyrood to raise up to 35% (while taking away some powers), meanwhile local municipalities in Denmark, nearly 100 of them in a pop'n of 5.5M, raise 60% of their own revenue, and in Sweden it is 70%.

The politicians talk about sentiment and principle but this is about power. Westminster will not hand over powers voluntarily (nobody ever does - Blair was pushed into devolution by the EU), hence the refusal to consider the undefined but popular option of Devomax. The SNP obviously want more power in Edinburgh.

The catch that Westminster cannot see is that it is precisely its monopoly of power that makes Westminster so dysfunctional. Unlike in the other European democracies, we have no other centre of power, except perhaps Holyrood, which has less revenue raising ability than a Danish municipality. In England Westminster interferes with bin collection and how often nurses make their rounds, for god's sake. Lack of local responsibility turns citizens into fractious whingeing children, (read this comments column). You cannot run a medium sized business like this let alone a complex modern country.

In whatever form it comes, Independence or Devomax - the more power that is taken from Westminster the better.

The incompetence of Westminster is clearer the further you get in any direction from London, and wider travel plus the internet have made the comparisons easier to draw. It is not just the scandals like the Iraq war, MP's expenses, News International, the power of unregulated banks, although they are shameful enough, or even the hilariously inconsequential public inquiries ("Carry on, Westminster"): it also shows in the numbers.

Google almost any economic measure - GPD per capita, percentage industrialisation, balance of payments history, balanced budgets, external debt levels - and all the North European countries, (except France and Finland on some measures), outperform the UK. The UK's long term economic failure versus its Northern European competitors is being achieved despite reduced union bargaining power, significant privatisation, and it being made easier to sack staff than in any of them, and also despite repeated devaluations (a factor of 5 compared with German currencies of the last 40 years). The UK has had North Sea oil and still achieved a permanent trade deficit: genius.

For most social indicators - life expectancy, obesity, cocaine usage, teenage pregnancy, % GDP spent on Health, % of the population in prison, etc - the UK is nearly always the worst, and the more time you spend in Northern Europe the more you sense this. The internet also reveals that the same is true for less obvious indicators - social mobility, Gini index, percentage of women in positions of power, pay differentials, pension regulation, percentage of youth in training, liveable cities,
renewable energy capacity, etc.

With its secretive ways (look up the McCrone report if you live in Scotland), and massive centralisation of power, Westminster is failing the individual populations of England, Scotland and Wales. The McCrone report also contains some interesting remarks about the inevitable failure of regional policies.

But despite the crowded trains, the cracked pavements and pot holed streets that catch your eye when you return here, Westminster will not make the comparisons: it thinks in terms of its own importance, total GDP -" we're 6th in the world", rather than that of its citizens, GDP per capita - "we're poorer than everyone in Northern Europe". It is not just Westminster that is dysfunctional, but so is the underpinning "Great British" culture of its political and chattering classes, a culture that is encapsulated in its veneration of the polar explorer Scott, whose men died of starvation and who lost to Amundsen, whose men put on weight. It is not just the endless wrangling of left and right idealogues, any form of drama is more valued than a grasp of the numbers, cooperation and long term thinking. Costly and outdated assumptions are not challenged, as if Britain somehow deserves its UN security council seat, as if it can afford Trident and its military spend, and so, from Suez to Iraq, it is considered normal to indulge in murderous, self important adventures. Most disabling are the myths - Westminster being the mother of parliaments has nothing to learn from other democracies - and distorted narratives of identity - we won WW2 and have little to learn from our neighbours. The arrogance of empire without the fact.

The current British state works well for the metropolitan chattering and political classes, Westminster in short, who even if they do not believe all the myths buy themselves out from sharing the health and education services of their fellow citizens, and who, looking only to the USA, enjoy empire by association; however, for over a generation Westminster has failed to meet the test of basic competence, let alone the aspirations of the governed.

Unlike the successfully capitalist countries of Northern Europe, the UK is simply not earning its living in the world. As a result it can afford less and less of the modern goodies, like infrastructure investment, market regulation, targeted welfare and wide access to education and training: this leads to its making worse use of its only asset, its people, who become relatively less resourced, educated, numerate, healthy, less
socially mobile and less united in purpose, which in turn leads to relatively less wealth creation, which in turn leads ... etc, etc.

In Scotland the SNP are quite rightly looking to the more successful countries of Northern Europe as their model, because it would be almost impossible to be more dysfunctional than Westminster, from whom the rest of us should try to remove as much power as possible: the more the SNP succeed, the more we may all benefit.

George Osborne: a UK Chancellor damaging Scotland's reputation

George Osborne is doing a marvellous job for the Yes campaign. In one breath he says uncertainty over the constitution is harming investment (no evidence provided), in the next he is saying Scotland would be worse off if independent. Aren't you creating a self-fulfilling prophesy there George, effectively creating uncertainty by telling investors that Scotland could be struggling in 3 or 4 years time? What damage will that do to investor confidence? Rather reminds of me of his French counterpart who recently, to howls of protest from the UK government, highlighted the UK's massive debt and called for it to be downgraded ahead of France. Extraordinary though his attack was, at least he was speaking about a foreign country, rather than part of his own.

Contrast Osborne's damaging remarks with Alex Salmond's recent trips trying to drum up business for Scotland in China and the Middle East. Perhaps the Chancellor needs reminding that Scotland is still part of his responsibility, right up to the point of independence. Instead Scotland (for his attack was on Scotland, not just the SNP) is already on "the other team" to Osborne. How quickly, easily and smoothly the mask of ruling the UK in the interests of the entire UK has slipped.

And suddenly rumours are swirling that rUK would stop Scotland using the Pound after independence. Quite how they would do this I'm not sure. Similarly, Scottish bank notes would no longer be accepted south of the border. I guess that's the end of any pretence of common sense from the Treasury then. All that cross-border traffic, English people hurriedly trying to get rid of their last Scottish notes before heading back south. Madness.

All of this only serves to show the truth: Sterling is the English currency, even after 300+ years of union, and as long as we behave and do what George and Dave tell us they will let us keep using it. Just like they let us keep using their embassies, their military, their membership of the EU, their treaties negotiated with other countries, etc., etc. What a fine recipe for a happy and contented Scottish population within the UK that is! Dangerous tactics in my opinion. Even if they do help them to win the referendum, it will be a victory achieved by fear and intimidation, a victory that will only serve to breed resentment north of the border. Hardly a harbinger of goodwill and peaceful co-existence in the grievously wounded Union that would follow. We still await the positive case for the Union...

Negative Unionism

I live in hope, but there is still no sign of a positive case for the Union emerging from the Unionist parties. This troubles me, not because I want them to miraculously conjure up a convincing case for the Union, but rather because of the consequences if they stick with negativity.

First up, imagine the post-referendum scene, Scotland has voted against independence after years of being hammered with doubts, half-truths, downright lies and pessimism at the hands of the Unionists. In short Scotland has been cowed and frightened into voting No. The spoils of war are a downtrodden, depressed and shrunken Scotland, our people trampled underfoot, bereft of ambition, introverted, knowing our place in the world is the cold, wet corner of an inconsequential little island adrift from a fading continent. This is the victory that the Unionists seemingly crave with their unremitting negativity.

Alternatively (and let us hope and pray that it comes to pass), Scotland sees through the scaremongering and votes for independence. What then for those parties that tried to hold us back without offering any positive, that is to say honourable, vision? I'm sure their self-preservation instincts will kick in and they'll scrabble for some way to become relevant in the new Scotland that they so despised. But I wonder if the electorate will be so quick to forgive and forget.

Union dividend

There is a good article by Ian Bell in the Herald, laying bare the complicity of successive UK governments in renditions and torture in Libya.

As he rightly concludes:

Now we applaud the movement we betrayed, and bomb the torturer we succoured. And they say Gaddafi is mad.

Depending on your point of view Scotland has either ceded it's sovereignty over the past 300 years or had it roughly taken away. In return we are told that we benefit from the union in various ways, invariably rather vague and nebulous ways. Chief among them is often the notion that we punch above our weight in the world. Well, perhaps it's time to update that worn out phrase. Recently it seems rather to be the case that we tear fingernails out above our weight. Or waterboard above our weight.

This moral descent is the very real price that we in Scotland pay today for allowing our sovereignty to be mishandled by successive UK governments. These atrocities are done in our name. The British people are responsible since we elected politicians that either failed to stop it, tacitly condoned it or even ordered it. And for what? All these betrayals of basic human decency are committed so that Britain has a place at the far corner of the big boys' table, or worse, for grubby oil deals that will benefit the local populace not one iota.

Britain once held itself to stand for fair play, decency and democratic values. Perhaps this self-image was never a reality. As the new Foreign Minister in 1997 the late Robin Cook spoke of Britain developing an ethical foreign policy. Well, that aspiration was brutally crushed in the intervening 14 years. Whether it's the waging of illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with no thought given to reconstruction afterwards, the use of bribery to sell weapons to repressive regimes, complicity in the rendition and torture of "terrorists" (was ever a more useful and flexible term coined?), abuse of so-called anti-terror legislation to silence an old age pensioner or to freeze the assets of Iceland (that hotbed of terrorism), rioting and looting in English cities or the callous robbing of a young man injured in the violence, the notion of Britain as home of fair play and the gentleman is dead and buried.

The pertinent question for Scotland today is, do we get a sufficient return on the investment of our sovereignty? Do the benefits of union outweigh the loss of control over our destiny? Well, Scotland should be in no doubt that it is inhumane, cold and calculating acts and values like those mentioned above that we continue to give our sovereignty away for. Britain has become a country with a nasty, vindictive ruling class that will do anything to anyone in the name of national interest. In truth this is the narrow nationalism that supporters of independence are often accused of. Now I don't doubt for a moment that there are Scots among this ruling class. As a people we are no more immune to human failings than anyone else. But an independent Scotland nevertheless has a chance to take a different path. We will assuredly suffer no delusions of being the world's policeman, or indeed his faithful poodle. We can leave the posturing death throes of imperial Britain behind and instead become a modern social democracy, one that seeks partnerships with like-minded peoples around the world. Let's try cooperating above our weight instead of punching everyone within reach.

Referendummies

Some suggestions are doing the rounds that 2 referenda are required in order to achieve independence for Scotland. The first would seek the permission of the Scottish people to negotiate the terms of independence. The second would then allow the people to decide if they liked the results of those negotiations. Sounds reasonable enough in principle...except it does rather assume a level playing field.

As David Cameron has said, he will fight an independence referendum with every fibre of his being. Now, fast forwarding a bit, let's imagine the first referendum has been won and the negotiations are about to take place. If I were David Cameron I would have a very good incentive to drive the hardest deal I possibly could in order to influence the result of that second referendum. Give Scotland a terrible deal and the people will surely reject it. Sounds like the sort of thing one would do if one was desperate to keep Scotland in the union. And what would happen after that rejection? We would be in tricky territory - the Scots want independence, but not on the agreed terms. Does that mean more negotiations and a further referendum, repeated until a palatable solution is found? Or is the whole thing shelved, despite the Scots having voted for independence? Sounds like a recipe for chaos.

The knock against the single referendum is of course that approval would give the Scottish government carte blanche to get any old negotiated settlement from Westminster. But quite why the Scottish government would be content to get a bad deal I'm not sure. More plausibly the fear might be that a spurned and spiteful Westminster would only offer grossly unfavourable terms. But that would hardly be conducive to good relations between neighbours. And it would surely be in everyone's interests for the neighbours to get along - even after independence we will still have many interests in common. And it wouldn't play terribly well in the international arena for rump UK to be seen to be thwarting the legitimate democratic aspirations of Scotland.

Interesting times ahead anyway. I just hope Lord Forsyth keeps out of it - how he can possibly think he has a right to influence our nation's future one way or the other is beyond me. Twenty years on and he's still none the wiser.

Scotland comes of age!

Well it's official - the SNP now have a majority in the Scottish Parliament with 21 seats still up for grabs. Unbelievable. Having sat up all through the night enjoying the banter at Subrosa's blog I'm still buzzing. Result after result just kept tumbling our way with some ludicrous swings to the SNP, principally (though not exclusively) from the Lib Dems.

Breaking the Glasgow Labour hegemony is surely a watershed moment in Scotland's modern political history. The habit of many lifetimes has been broken, once and forever. Now that people have come over to the SNP once they will surely find it much easier to do so in future.

The referendum is now a certainty, though I agree with Alex Salmond that this should not be rushed. It's a crucial vote for Scotland's future and the unofficial campaign for a Yes vote should begin right now. Opponents have already begun talking Scotland down (Danny Alexander conspicuously doing so on the BBC earlier today, happily falling into bed with Ed Balls of all people).

Top priority for the SNP though must be getting enhanced powers for Holyrood asap. My great fear is that the reality of cuts to the Scottish block grant will make manifesto commitments extremely difficult to deliver. And we can't use the excuse of minority government now. Labour will paint these as SNP cuts, despite the truth that they are coming from Westminster and are due to Labour's 13 years of misrule. The solution is to gain the extra powers that will allow us to lift our economy up towards its potential. Once that is done we will be in a much better position to persuade the electorate that Scotland's future will best be served as an independent nation, able to govern itself according to its own priorities, taking its place with the other free nations of the world and cooperating with them where common interests occur. We must all play our part in lifting our nation up.

Up Periscope!

The mists have cleared over Brigadoon just long enough to send you in the direction of a terrific read over at Calum Cashley's blog. Scarce a wild-eyed, woad-daubed argument to be found. He'll be giving independence a good name if he's not careful.

PS to whom it may concern: the population of Brigadoon increased by one earlier in the summer, hence the dearth of posts of late! Normal (i.e. sporadic) service will be resumed at some point, more than likely in the run up to the elections next year when the Labour bullshit machine will be in overdrive.

Hung by a Scottish rope

Indulge me in a little electoral arithmetic...

First up, the UK General Election result 2010 (minus the safe Tory seat of Thirsk & Malton, where one of the candidates passed away shortly before the election):

Well hung

Next up, the England, Wales and Northern Ireland General Election result 2010:

Hung-ky Tory

Spot the difference! Looks like a Tory majority of 10 if only those pesky Scots would bugger off and take their oil with them! If I remember correctly, Alex Salmond predicted Westminster would be "hung by a Scottish rope" (sadly not "hung by an SNP rope"!). How right he was!

Feel free to share these numbers with any Tory friends (ok, acquaintances) you might have elsewhere in the Divided Kingdom, then stand well back while the fireworks begin!

Update

Thanks to Dubbieside for pointing out the following interesting blog post at the Wall Street Journal: Union Between England and Scotland May Soon Be Toast

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheJNLQujP0FVfJhLbI0DcBfcdTMRBprcHkhgTp-KuSSnQxMd0gkzvTv_y5taLBZh5NzWUI4QPMYTyZovn376vu-GOimChyQD5KLtjlJTNPMRNfMBPfqGGV1fm4U8SETIsR1bXGs8mP8PKy/s1600/EWNI_2010.png

Greased Lightbox

→←+-↻

Loading image

Click anywhere to cancel

Image unavailable

Greased Lightbox

→←+-↻

Loading image

Click anywhere to cancel

Image unavailable

Greased Lightbox

→←+-↻

Loading image

Click anywhere to cancel

Image unavailable

Greased Lightbox

→←+-↻

Loading image

Click anywhere to cancel

Image unavailable

Pride or prostration?

A great deal has been written about Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to grant Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi compassionate release. I don't propose to repeat any of the analysis of the rights or wrongs of that decision, or of the reasoning behind it.

Instead I'd like to focus on the reaction to the reaction. That is to say, how our politicians in Scotland have reacted to the criticism this decision has been met with elsewhere, and what this might tell us about the current political landscape in Scotland.

The positions, with one or two notable exceptions, have been drawn as follows:

* Tory/LibDem/Labour - disagree with the decision, worried about the effect on our relationship with US, "repulsed" by the Libyan reaction.
* SNP - sticking with the decision despite criticism from the USA, emphasising that our relationship with the US is bigger than this one issue, unhappy with the "inappropriate" reaction in Libya.

In my opinion the SNP have demonstrated greater political maturity by correctly making the decision on judicial grounds despite external political pressures, and also by steadfastly holding true to their position in the face of quite vicious criticism. It has been nothing other than the behaviour of a responsible government, acting according to the law and recognising that a nation's credibility is ill-served by meekly rolling over and being tickled on the belly when the first dissenting voices are raised. In short, it's exactly the behaviour you would expect and demand of a sovereign national government, and hopefully a nice taste of things to come in an independent Scotland.

In contrast let's examine the opposition stance. Unable to find any substantive criticisms of the way the decision was made, and boy how they've tried, they have been restricted to feeble and ill-conceived sniping around the fringes (Megrahi should go to a hospice?! Nice one Goldie). There is of course nothing wrong with proper scrutiny of the executive. But the opposition have gone beyond this and badly shamed themselves by their attempts to score party political points over this issue, as notably expressed by Labour MSP Malcolm Chisholm.

Almost as bad has been the opposition's hand wringing display in the face of US criticism. It betrays an appallingly deferential attitude, born of a very obvious inferiority complex. Ironic really, as this was always the accusation levelled at proponents of independence.

Indeed, these recent developments have made it abundantly clear that the SNP desire for independence is an expression of nothing other than self-confidence in the abilities and status of Scotland. One could put it as follows: We will make our own decisions; where others disagree we will take account of their concerns, but we will make our own decisions; we are confident and secure in our relationships with other countries; we are confident in our ability to manage these relationships when we disagree.

This stands in marked contrast to the servile dependence of the unionist parties, and hence the UK, on the goodwill of the US to the exclusion of all other considerations. One could summarise this approach as follows: Please don't hate us, please! We'll do anything, if only you'll be our friend!

Soon Scotland will again face a choice at the ballot box. Take control of our future, assume full responsibility for our nation's fortunes and take our place among the fellowship of nations. Or skulk along as America's poodle's puppy, looking up with those big eyes, desperate to be loved.

I know which country I would rather live in.

Logan's run

The BBC ICM poll details have been published (available here). Some interesting snippets therein, particularly the mixed feeling on Brown as PM, the foreboding at the prospect of Cameron as PM, and the high aproval for Salmond as FM.

The two big questions posed were around how Scotland should be governed and how Scots would vote in a referendum next year. Mischievous type that I am I couldn't help but notice that the 65+ age group responded quite differently to the rest on these questions...

Q.14 Which of the following comes closest to your view about how Scotland should be governed....

			Excl. 65+	All
		Scotland should become independent of the rest of the UK, with the Scottish Parliament able to make all decisions about the level of taxation and government spending in Scotland	42.27%	38.35%
		Scotland should remain part of the UK, with the Scottish Parliament able to make some decisions about the level of taxation and government spending in Scotland	49.94%	53.72%
		Scotland should remain part of the UK, with decisions about the level of taxation and government spending in Scotland made by the UK Government	6.67%	6.64%
		Don't know	1.11%	1.29%

Q.19 Next year, the Scottish Government wants to hold a referendum to ask the people of Scotland whether they agree or disagree that..."the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state"

			Excl. 65+	All
For			45.92%	42.26%
Against			46.41%	50.10%
Refused			7.67%	7.64%

Interesting stuff I'm sure you'll agree! Remove the wrinklies (hypothetically speaking!) and Q.19 looks pretty close to me. Maybe Eck should wait a few more years for that referendum ;o)

The remaining difference between pro-independence and pro-devolution max responses to Q.14 comes largely from the 18-34 age group. I wonder what effect a lack of jobs for young people and a good dose of paternal Toryism might have on this group over the next few years...all to play for!

What a difference a decade makes

Ten years into the era of devolution and we live in interesting times. I'm reminded of the tale of George Bernard Shaw in conversation with a young lady: "Would you sleep with me if I gave you 10,000 pounds?" he asked her. She thought about it and decided that she would. "Good," said Shaw, "so would you also sleep with me for sixpence?" The lady was outraged. "What sort of woman do you think I am?" she thundered. "We've established what sort of woman you are," Shaw replied, "we're merely haggling over the price."

It seems to me that Britannia finds herself in a similar position to that young lady. The referendum in 1997 established the principle that Scotland was entitled to self-determination. The resounding Yes-Yes vote further established the principle of self-governance. And the argument was essentially over at that point. Scotland firmly established what sort of a union it has with the rest of the UK. Scottish sovereignty resides with the Scottish people, not with Westminster (nor indeed with Holyrood!).

Since then there has been much "haggling over the price": which powers to devolve, which to reserve? But the principle of Scottish sovereignty towers above the debate, the Scottish people must decide.

Which brings us to the question of a referendum on Scotland's future constitutional arrangements. Do we need one? Or are we all content with the current model of devolution?

Over the last decade it has appeared increasingly clear to me that change is needed. The rise in the share of the vote for the SNP has been remarkable, as has the demise of the New Labour project. Not all of this swing can be ascribed to a protest vote. Many people will have voted for the SNP precisely because they want Scotland to have more power. This has become all the more likely in light of Westminster's travails over the last year or two. For all its faults Holyrood looks like a paragon of probity next to "Wastemonster".

Meanwhile, the once barely audible discontent south of the border at the "subsidies" and "privileges" that Scotland supposedly enjoys has increased to a low rumble. As swingeing public sector cuts are applied over the next decade this perceived grievance will loom ever larger. How will a Tory government in Westminster respond? How will they handle an SNP government at Holyrood? What mandate will the Tories have to decide on reserved matters, such as Trident, for Scotland?

Alternatively, how will England react if it votes Tory but Labour's tally of Scottish MPs helps bring about a hung parliament? Suddenly that democratic deficit that Scots have railed against for so long might be keenly felt in middle England. Will the Tories happily leak votes to the English Democrats? I suspect not.

How then should Scotland face the challenges of the next decade? With a system that breeds misunderstanding and a sense of injury on both sides of the border? Or with a cleaner, simpler constitutional arrangement backed by a strong democratic mandate?

Quite simply Scotland must be given a direct choice. Not some sleekit, skewed choice, with arbitrary thresholds imposed as a spoiling tactic, nor an extrapolated choice based on the results of a general election fought over many different issues. No. We need a straight, honest choice between the main options: full independence; devolution max of whatever flavour (federalism? confederalism? Calman?); keeping the status quo; or direct rule from Westminster.

For me the choice remains clear, the principle of self-governance has been established. Independence is the logical outcome of that victory. Not "isolation", as Gordon Brown would love you to think of it (Why Gordon, do you think the Scots would vote for isolation? Is your opinion of us really so low?). But simply the freedom to run our country in a fair and just fashion according to our ever-changing needs, choosing when and on what terms to cooperate with our neighbours as common interests arise, and playing a full part in the international community.

As ever the consitutional poll remains open in Brigadoon: cast your vote in the poll on the right hand side.