davidsberry

These first weeks of the New Year have been dominated in Scotland by an escalation of the debate over the possibility of Scotland declaring its union with England at an end. In general, I welcome this new intensity because, not only has it finally intruded into the Gormenghast cogitations of Westminster, but it has also raised international interest, culminating in the Burns Day gathering of fifty journalists from two dozen countries to hear Alex Salmond launch the referendum consultation in the Great Hall of Edinburgh Castle.

I see this as historic and stimulating stuff but recognise that others—especially unionists—are unhappy with it all. Ordinarily, I would have sympathy for an opposing view. But, knowing the history of the last forty years, I see the unionists as having played a rather loaded game to date, absconding with all the oil in the ’70’s, rigging the ’78 referendum, disemboweling Scottish heavy industry in the ’80s, foisting the Poll Tax on us, stalling the Claim of Right and, even in the shadow of the 1999 Scottish Parliament, filching 6,000 square miles of rich seabed East of the Forth into English control.

So, for me, this year’s debate does not start out on a level playing field. From Paxman to Osborne, there is a continuation of history, a similar readiness to use any means—fair or foul—to derail aspiration not to be part of this state called Britain.

I recognise that many people may consider UK troops in Helmand, two aircraft carriers with no aircraft or four Trident submarines at Faslane to be sensible deployment for the second-rate power Britain has become. I recognise that many English feel strongly that Brussels has taken too much power to itself, that too many foreigners have come to these shores and that John Bull glares out from the beetling cliffs of Albion, daring Johnny Foreigner to make his day.

But I share none of those views and, truth be told, find them all rather odious.

But, unfortunately, such attitudes are defining how this independence debate is shaping up. On the one hand, I witness a Scottish Government who explain their position, move steadily towards a goal that was part of their manifesto and receive a barrage of hysteria from unionists. They appear to have lost balance of judgement and moral compass in debate when it comes to the lengths, if not depths, they’ll go to in discrediting not just independence but those who believe in it.

Much has been said by unionists of the need to make a positive case for the union. That is something I would welcome but there is little sign. Anas Sarwar on BBC’s GMS made it plain that there is no reason to doubt Scotland’s viability as a country. My hopes rose that reason was prevailing. Almost immediately he then launches into dire predictions of how Scottish firms could not compete across a new border with England.

In a reversal of the ‘Braveheart’ romanticism so often flung at independistas, most unionist arguments—especially those coming from the rump Tory flank—reek of a frenzy to discredit that would shame the worst tabloid journalist. A romanticising of Britain by selective re-telling of its history combines with a venom towards those seen to threaten it. An example is ToryHoose, whose bias finds expression by lashing out at others.

“The SNP are not, as they may sometimes seem, just made up of social democrats; but are a mixed band of far left, socialists, left wingers, right wingers, and even some of those on the hard right. They are republicans, monarchists, free marketers, Europhiles, euro sceptics, moderates, extremists, some are anti-english, some are anti-British, some want indy-lite, others only want devo-max.”

Apparently, being such a rag-tag, representative cross-section of the Scottish public who have the audacity to agree with one another is reprehensible. ToryHoose offer no explanation why such a fragmented mob are not at each other’s throats, let alone could win an election. It’s not ToryHoose’s opposing view that bothers me—I actually respect their position and would welcome articulation. It’s their venom I decry. It clouds their understanding of (or any desire to understand) the perfectly normal non-baby-eating people to whom they are so venally opposed.

Contributions to the debate to articulate a non-SNP perspective are largely being made by people from civic Scotland, certainly those distant from the clueless and idea-free zones that currently encompass all three opposition parties. Canon Kenyon Wright recently pitched in with an eloquent plea for “devo-max”. Perhaps the most balanced take on the whole debate that I’ve seen so far came from Gerry Hassan’s recent blog.

“This moment requires a calmness and consideration to allow Scotland and the UK to have a reasoned debate and discussion. So far both the British political classes and media, and a large part of unionist opinion in Scotland has shown no indications that it has the capacity or qualities to do so.”

There is certainly a place for passion in this debate. But when either side allows their own bias to assert a moral ascendancy over the other, then reason becomes an early casualty, usually followed by truth. Salmond said from the start “we have no monopoly on wisdom”. We also have no crystal ball to answer the increasingly shrill insistence that the SNP define every step and defang every threat into the future. But it was not emotion that drew the conclusion that Scotland would be the sixth-richest country in the world.

To parry such powerful arguments, unionists cannot afford to rely on dirty tricks deployed since the seventies; they clearly haven’t worked. Nor can they believe just more hand-wringing negativity is an option—it has all but done for Labour. They need someone of stature, strength and ideas who’ll deliver Britain’s Gettysburg Address or they have no cause worthy of the name left.

Every athlete about to compete, every businessman about to launch a new venture, every swain about to pop the question sizes up the situation, draws on their every fibre of life experience, looks to their best capabilities and launches all of them into the moment. These focal points are life itself—the turning points that define the worthwhile. The life of a country is no different.

Despite being a fan since high school, I had never realised how prescient the Beatles were about things political, especially regarding Scottish Independence until I watched Jeremy Paxman slide into his sneering worst of Newsnight. A decade ago, I would have been outraged and insulted.

This time, despite having read Paxman’s various books and still enjoying University Challenge, I could not help smiling and singing the first track off the Revolver album:

“Let me tell you how it will be—Paxman!

There’s one for you, nineteen for me—Paxman!”

Because, as might have been predicted, Paxman’s deeply condescending attack on Wur Eck lit the phones up at SNP HQ like a Christmas tree. The last I heard, we had 200 more members and counting.

I say nothing about his country, other than it’s my favourite foreign one, and I say nothing personally about Paxman, other than he ranks among the most erudite of his countrymen. With one exception: he displays a trait that seems all too  common among said countrymen—that of having difficulty recognising the diversity and even the validity of other cultures.

But lang may his lum reek in this regard. He may, unwittingly and probably much to his own chagrin, be the best recruiter we’ve got.

Poll in the New Statesman

A lot of partisan and, frankly, wildly unsubstantiated, words have spouted forth since the indy/union debate took off at the turn of the year. Neither side has entirely covered itself in glory. Though I openly belong in the indy camp, I have done my best to engage with and understand the arguments deployed by opponents. Last May Alec Salmond launched the new Scottish Parliament with a clear statement that the SNP “has no monopoly on wisdom”. Who am I to gainsay His Eckness?

But, despite three parties to voice arguments and the UK Government lined up behind them, the case for the union has, so far been completely upstaged in positivism, in vision and in obvious belief that the Scottish people can make their minds up when they need to. I have heard warm words from all three opposition party leaders about the need to talk Scotland up. But I challenge readers to point me to where this has been done.

For me, the area that pro-union voices have done the greatest disservice is not to either the SNP or to Scotland but to the heart of the union itself: England. Laughable as it is, Paxman’s recent sneering dismissal of things Scottish neither represents his country nor its attitude towards Scotland. Scot though I am, I claim and am proud of my English connections—dad from Westminster; early beneficiary of the NHS born in Central Middlesex Hospital; worked three years in London, Hampshire & Cornwall, I spend at least a month a year south of the border. It remains my favourite foreign country.

So when I say the English attitude to Scotland is largely one of puzzlement, there is no judgement in that opinion. The English are broadly reasonable, comfortable in their culture and somewhat pushier than their polite demeanour might suggest. Scots could learn much from them. They are puzzled because, to the average English, we Scots are another region of Britain—slightly more diverse in culture than, say, Devon, but integral to the nation. And in describing that ‘nation’, they often use Britain or England pretty much interchangeably. This is especially true south of Peterborough. Why would anyone want to leave?

Despite a couple of decades of SNP rise being charted in Scotland, this had not registered  in England (any more than it had elsewhere). But this month has changed all that, even if it hasn’t given them any real understanding. Most English exhibit a combination of curiousness, mild resentment that Scotland seems to get more than its share (under Barnett) and a sense of “if they want to leave, let ’em”. Especially among unionists, there is also a hurt, as if all we went through together (building an empire, fighting Nazis, etc) is being discarded.

I tell my English friends not to worry. If Scotland does end the union, they are going to prove a better friends that they were partners. Firstly, the Scots “punch above their weight” even better than the UK does. Not only better known internationally than other countries their size, they are better liked than Britain/England because they exhibit little of the jingoism that, through the Tories, has tarnished England’s reputation.

Secondly, though Scots might be 8.5% of the UK population, they have 30% of the land, 50% of the seabed and gas reserves and 90% of the oil. Together with our engineering (Weir pumps; Clyde Blowers) finance, whisky and tourism industries, that makes for a prosperous country that’s already ahead of England in GDP. Thirdly, having to fend for ourselves will sharpen Scotland up, forcing us to regenerate jaded entrepreneurism and look for opportunities abroad.

Fourthly, that will stimulate our renewables industry even further as schemes like the massive Scottish & Southern offshore scheme east of Fife and the tidal potential of the Pentland Firth and Minch become tapped. Selling energy south to England at lower rates will benefit both countries. The industrial growth in Scotland will need support from and give work to the broader range of firms in England. An independent and more agile Scotland could exit recession faster than England and, by its bouyancy, help drag England back into growth.

You only have to look at Eire’s relationship with the UK. Separated in acrimonious circumstances in 1922, nonetheless, relations improved post WWII. UK trade with Eire grew by 5% in 2010 to over £41bn and, despite its financial difficulties, it still boasts more growth and a higher GDP than Ulster. In fact, Ulster was long an example of how poorly the Irish did by staying in the UK, as opposed to Eire which prospered, sharing few of the ‘troubles’ that so plagued Ulster.

How much better could the friendship between Scotland and England work in favour of both countries? With memories of any animosity hundreds of years further in the past than with Ireland, with centuries of willing and enthusiastic partnership that built the widest, most polyglot empire the world has yet seen, with contributions to science and progress to match any country, why would the close relations Scotland and England now enjoy not continue?

Imagine these British Isles as an amicable cohabitation of countries, with shared language, culture and history, but with independent diversity to enrich the mix. Would this not be a model for 21st century international co-operation? As Joyce and Becket enriched ‘English’ literature, so McMillan and Vettriano have done the same for music and art.

With English fast becoming the world’s lingua franca, the countries of Britain would be at the leading edge of Europe in the world. With Irish and Scottish enthusiasm detoxing English scepticism at ‘foreigners’ beginning at Calais, this bloc could be Europe’s gateway to the States and beyond. And, because of natural gifts the English exhibit for business, the Scots show for engineering and the Irish show for persuasive sales and good criac, what might not be achieved through liberty for each to pursue their gifts towards their own ambitions as friends together?

Apologies right off that this is another blog about things military. But this week saw quite a burst of activity that centred around the SNP releasing some ideas for an independent Scottish Defence Force (SDF) that were somewhat churlishly abridged to ‘a brigade and two bases’.

What is misleading about such peremptory dismissal is the implication that Scotland is about to abdicate from its exalted position as part of a world power and discard the 300 years of history that gave us the seamlessly integrated world-class institutions that are the British Army, the Royal Navy and the RAF. Led by Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and the ToryHoose blog, variants on that position were plentiful. But let’s consider why that might not be the balanced view. Most make the following flawed assumptions:

1. That all British forces belong to England if the Scots leave. The 1707 treaty was between equals; when such a Union breaks up, each partner is entitled to its share.
2. That three centuries of (agreed splendid) shared military history must determine our joint future. The present military posture disadvantages Scotland because:
3. Forces with a global reach of the full gamut of conventional as well as nuclear weapons are required. Scotland has no need of Trident subs, aircraft carriers, strategic lift or Challenger MBTs, all of which cost £billions:
4. That Scotland must pay £3bn to help sustain the 4th biggest military budget in the world at £28bn, yet get no maritime recce aircraft, no fast missile boats and nothing bigger than a minesweeper to defend £1tn+ of North Sea oil and infrastructure.
5. That the men of the RRS, RSDG and Scots Guards would want to serve in the English Army. If the Ladies from Hell earned a formidable reputation at the business end, their martial traditions did not derive from the snugger Home Counties.
6. That those same soldiers would see deployment in the English Army (Northern Ireland, Iraq, Falklands) as preferable to Arctic training with Norwegians, or deployment on UN blue helmet operations.
7. That current MoD attachment/TOE has any relevance. Whether the 22 Scimitars recce vehicles come with the RSDG or AAC Lynxes come with 5Scots in their role is not the point. The Scots would be morally—if not legally—entitled to 8-9% of MoD assets, including elements of 40th Regt RA, 38th Regt RE, 32nd Signal Regt, logistics, catering, etc.
8. That the present idiotic RN/RAF deployment provides a sensible defence of anything at all, let alone North Britain/Scotland: no STOL/LRMRA. A bunch of Somali pirates could strangle North Sea production as they almost sank USS Cole in Aden harbour.
9. That both Clyde and Rosyth yards would close shop with no business. Even the MoD has some sense and if it’s cheaper to finish the two aircraft carriers there, that’s what they’ll do. We also need fast missile boats and they could have 4-5 years’ work building a flotilla of six.
10. That we are obliged to retain Faslane and the nuclear submarine fleet. While we are keen to retain good relations with the English, the fact they have no appropriate base to which these could be transferred is their problem. And they can take all five nuclear subs mothballed at Rosyth with them when they go.

Both MoD and their ministers are still wedded to a Central Europe WWIII posture and a delusion of global strength. As described in earlier blogs, Scotland could develop an appropriate defence for half what it currently pays and evict Trident from the Clyde as a bonus. We need allies like the English and the Scandinavians and we need to contribute to common defence. But, realistically, who’s going to invade us without taking on England first?

I am all in favour of the SDF maintaining close links with the English. But the MoD has decimated the traditions of Scottish regiments. Reconstituting the five that were forced into the RRS would be a start in redressing that. And, because we would need proportionally more infantry, forming Territorial regiments that revived the heritage of the Cameronians or the five kilted regiments that merged to form 4Scots (Highlanders) would be sensible.

The SDF army component is likely to consist of 6-8 infantry battalions and, like the present RRS, exhibit several specialties from 5Scots Air Assault training to 4Scots mechanised deployment. These would probably form an active and a reserve brigade and would require the appropriate support units mentioned above.

Comparison with the Danish, Norwegian or Irish armed forces show this scale is proportionate. No country of 5m expects to fight a war by itself, nor to be deployed far overseas and engage in, in von Clausewitz’s ringing phrase, ‘diplomacy by other means’. Most of the unionists arguing against the above seem to be military types for whom ‘a whiff of grapeshot’ or ‘in the service of empire’ still belong in the lexicon. If the English wish to retain such tradition, they are welcome. But Scotland wants to live in the now.

It is sad that Lord George Robertson of Port Ellen should be so vocal and bitter about the prospect of an SDF. Port Ellen was once the heart of MacDonald power as Lords of the Isles. They once deployed such a highly efficient military, based on clan infantry and the Norse birlinn that they could thumb their nose at the King of Scotland. But they did not change with the times; carracks and carronades defeated them. From his stint in NATO, George apparently can only think in Cold War terms of tanks, nukes and aircraft carriers. Such big-ticket items may belong in the hands of superpowers, but those are not sensible weapons for small-to-medium countries in the 21st century.

Perishing though the weather has been of late, it has been dry and (largely) calm so we’ve been taking a break from the rarified world of the Twitterati and blogosphere where debate has been especially intense on Scotland’s future. Being deeply interested in that, I tend to ‘get tore in’ and not worry about the rarified atmosphere of such debate.

But, out on the doorsteps of East Lothian having a chat with some ‘normal’ people puts things in more realistic perspective. People out there are far more preoccupied with real and immediate things. While I’m sure they are capable of dreaming and speculating, when you show up to ask what concerns them, you get it tight about the streetlight across the way, the abandoned skip, the rowdy pub, the safety of the walk to school or some such highly localised issue.

Truth be told, this is the meat-and-potatoes of representation. While you need to show vision, integrity and tenacity, people are pleased when you simply listen to their concerns and doubly so when you do something about them. And while mobile phones, e-mail, secretaries, offices, surgeries, newsletters and all the accoutrements of political life are helpful, if you’re not out on the street meeting people then your radar’s simply not plugged in.

Which makes me wonder who our opponents are talking to—if anyone at all. I have been astonished since New Year not so much that the debate on if/when/how/etc a referendum on Scotland’s independence is to be held has taken off such as to be on the London news media for the first time, but that all three opposition parties are singing a close harmony on it. They have not, to my recollection, been able to do this before, so you have to wonder what is actually going on.

Historically, all three parties have held a variety of views and, though I disagree with most of them, I respect that they reflected significant constituencies of views and looked on them as obstacles that would need to be overcome for victory in any independence vote. The Tories, to their credit, oppose more (any?) power to Scotland and have been consistent in this. Lib-Dems consistently argued for a federal state and Labour, after decades of welshing on Kier Hardie’s original promise, did come good with devolution under the late (and I say with all respect lamented) Donald Dewar.

These last two parties even went so far as to form the Constitutional Convention and the first MSPs of both parties signed the “Claim of Right” that asserted the principle to which the SNP also subscribes—that, unlike England neither the monarch nor the parliament but only the people of Scotland are sovereign.

Many in the Labour party had made positive contributions to the Calman proposals to extend powers for Scotland and some went so far as to agree with many Lib-Dems that the proper solution was ‘devo max’ under which Scotland would raise all its taxes and leave only defence, foreign policy and the like to the British state.

So it was with some surprise and disappointment that this year the debate got underway by all three parties ringing down a unified curtain to try to define the terms of any referendum the SNP might try to hold. Michael Moore, backed by ex-MSP (and Claim signatory) Jim (now Lord) Wallace both said Scotland had no right to hold any such thing but, if they did, it must be soon and with a straight yes/no question. In London, Cameron Clegg & Milliband and in Edinburgh, Davidson, Rennie and Lamont almost fell over themselves backing this position. The variety of positions once seen disappeared.

Every spokesperson on the subject from those quarters, be it Jim Murphy, Douglas Alexander or George Osborne, sang from identical song sheets—that an answer must be found soon because of uncertainty and that the choice could not be complicated. Just last week Jim Murphy said “people want clarity now”. Yet, as recently as October, he was demanding that Salmond define ‘devo max’. Douglas Alexander was reported as “heading in the same direction”. Yet both Calman and Devo Max have all but disappeared from any opposition statement.

Which is a puzzle that makes me wonder who—if anyone—the opposition parties can be talking to. Because what we are seeing is a spread across the five basic options:

1. Revert to pre-devolution. (<5%) Easily the least popular option, there are enough people with rose-tinted memories of Britain’s glory days where the SP doesn’t belong
2. Status Quo. (15%) Held onto with some principle by mainly Labour folk, there seems to be a feeling that Labour’s creation of the SP shouldn’t be tinkered with.
3. Calman/Augmented Scotland Bill. (10%) The Commission took submissions across Scotland and the findings are the basis of a modified bill now before the UK parliament. Including many ‘tweaks’ to current responsibilities, this is a significant departure from the status quo simply because revenue would be raised
4. Devo Max (16%) Mostly embraced (until recently) by Lib-Dems, this seems to have grown in popularity under its other moniker of “Indy Lite”. There is no definitive interpretation that I can find, but it would be similar to a federal state, where Scotland would raise all its own taxes and provide all its own services, except for things like defence and foreign policy, for which it would pay London a fee.
5. Independence (34%) This would mean Scotland becoming like any other EU member state, including its own armed forces, foreign policy and membership of international bodies. In the option being promoted by the SNP, there would be as close a social union with England as both were comfortable with. Scotland would keep both the monarchy and the pound until we decided otherwise.

What concerns me is that our statistics on these options seem broadly reflected in national polls. Though the numbers vary, something less than a third like what we have at present and more than a third support. But all three opposition parties are suddenly insisting a black/white choice between those two must be the only option.  The Tories at least show consistency in stuffing unpalatable choices down Scots throats (as witnessed by Cameron’s clumsy intervention a week ago), But both other parties once enjoyed a better democratic record.

But when Murphy, supported by Lamont, ignores all the work on Calman and all Labour MPs/MSPs fall silent, for whom does he speak? The people of Scotland or some tactical plan to scupper the distressingly successful SNP? When Rennie, backed by  Wallace, says “devo max is a second class option” and swings his party into lock-step with Tories and Labour, what price their long tradition of seeking a federal Britain?

Most tellingly, the original Labour and Lib-Dem MSPs in the first parliament of 1999, along with many from ‘civic Scotland’, all signed the Claim of Right and therefore agree with us that “the people of Scotland are sovereign”. If they believe that, why dismiss the third of Scots who appear to want to give Scotland more power than it has now but want to stop short of full independence?