davidsberry

Having had a fairly stiff diet of politics this week, I had hoped to give readers a break and inject something lighter by way of a blog. (For those in desperate need of that, may I recommend Tom Harris’ dicing with the boundaries of taste in his Downfall rip-off on YouTube as an alternative?).

But along comes Johann Lamont sounding off in Hootsmon on Holyday and I just have to deconstruct what she is trying to do. I confess I was disappointed, if unsurprised, when Johann won the leadership and, despite being resolutely non-Labour myself, felt that the outcome of their leadership election was important to Scotland.

Being a parishoner of the former leader since 2007 and done my best to put him out of a job last May, my take on Iain Gray was that he was a decent guy out of his depth and whose coaching to take on Eck in the chamber had taken him far from where his soul was comfortable. Johann is much more from the doughty, salt-of-the-earth West-Central school of Labour politics and, as such, is as qualified as any other leader has been for the post. If this were 2002, she might well have done as well as Jack managed.

Johann’s approach in the article is to accuse the SNP of defining devolution as a waypoint on the road to independence, whereas she argues that it constitutes a valid end-point in itself. as she puts it: “It is wrong to conflate devolution with independence, and the kind of debate that would result would not be worthy of Scotland.” In the first part, I am in the unusual position of agreeing with her, but part company in the second.

These are, as the Chinese curse would have it, interesting times. It appears Johann (and most of her unionist allies, if not her own party) have decided this is not time for complex of interesting situations and jointly defined any choice to be laid before the people of Scotland as, of necessity, a simple “yes/no” and that to be done immediately.

A Torygraph poll from ICM, also out today has the Scots running 40% to 43% in such a yes/no tussle and, almost more interestingly, the English running 43% to 32% on the same question. When posed the three-alternative question, 37% of Scots go for the status quo, while 26% each go for ‘devo-max’ or independence. I may not be happy with those last stats but the circle I cannot square with Johann’s position is that, with such an even 3-way split, why she believes a yes/no can be the proper solution.

That is, unless I start thinking the way that Labour seems to have narrowed its thought over the last decade when the SNP has been growing in strength. That is: “How do I scupper the Nats?” Having suffered eight years at the hands of an arrogant Labour administration in my council, followed by five years with them in opposition where the rump has behaved in a surly and resentful manner that would put a grounded 14-year-old to shame, I have seen all manifestations of this tough process. Pretty, it ain’t.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me on this but all I see in Johann’s position is a tactical position that she believes is best placed to derail the Nats’ ambition. What the people might want appears to concern her rather less. Now, nationalist though I am, it is perfectly understandable to me that someone who sincerely believes in the union (as I accept Johann and many others do) would fight tooth and nail against our best effort. Once, as she believes, that the independence fox has been shot with a “no”:

“Then we can have a clear and calm debate on which powers work more effectively for the people of Scotland when they are shared with our neighbours and what new powers we need to exercise at Holyrood and in our communities to make Scotland all it can be.”

It is hard for me to think that Johann does not understand the principles of debate—nor the role into which she has been thrust. Based on Labour’s track record to date, a yes/no referendum held within the year would be dominated by the SNP and countered by a rather fragmented union argument that would be suicidally negative—all about “tearing out” and “severing ties” and “job losses at Rosyth” and “border posts at Berwick” because there would be nothing positive on the table for her, her party or any other unionists to argue for.

So, after a year of dreary barrages that resulted in a thoroughly turned-off electorate saying “no”, those same parties are then to switch into sweetness and light mode to outline the joys and/or extra powers under devolution  so that “the current devolved settlement to be renewed, refreshed and deepened”, as she wants? This seems flawed thinking, for three major reasons.

1. Someone must lead the unionist side. For my money, someone of the stature (on both sides of the border) of Alastair Darling is necessary. If such a person were not found then the mantle clearly falls to Johann, who has the thick edge of experience over the other new unionist party leaders. But with that, comes the need to make the real case for the union (the ‘positive vision’ she has talked about but I’ve yet to see evidence of).
2. She will need to deploy the union cavalry. Apart from reigning in the worst of the nat-bashers (which includes Sarwar because he relishes it too much), she’ll need to wipe that sour look off Margaret Curran’s face that appears every time ‘co-operation’ gets mentioned, agree a joint position with Davidson/Rennie that their troops will thole, get serious contributors like Murphy, Harris or Alexander in harness and, mobilise civic spokespeople with no perceptible party baggage.
3. Most of all, she needs to greatly expand and consistently articulate her ‘story’. That means getting positively messianic religion about what devo-now/Calman/max can do for us all. And if she doesn’t out-Eck Eck (no simple task) with this, her career as leader may not outlast the short referendum campaign she’s so desperate to have.

Perhaps, most importantly, she needs to review her own biases in order to best reach the goals she seeks. When she says “The SNP does not want to talk about the principles and practicalities of separation in this debate”, it is demonstrably untrue. Worse, it exhibits the kind of tribal pre-judgement that has cost Labour so dear. Members may be forgiven for nursing such a grudge but a leader cannot afford to let any such subjective bias cloud understanding their opponent.

Not if they want to win.

Look up the Treaty of Union and/or search for it on the web and its text is not easy to find. You’d think that something as binding and permanent as that is supposed to be would have a hallowed, prominent place. It is in our National Archives (as the American Constitution is in theirs) but there the resemblance stops.

Whereas the American Constitution is full of high-sounding principles (“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility…”) the Treaty of Union (actually two treaties—one for each country) is, by comparison, an embarrassingly pedestrian, not to say tawdry affair. (Oliver Cromwell actually enacted a pretty serviceable Treaty of Union a half century earlier but the restoration put paid to that and the clarity it might have brought.)

First of all, far from being a hallowed document that enshrined the loftier principles by which the two countries were wedded together, the Treay has been butchered by parliament down the years. Articles V, VIII to XVII, XXII and XXIII were all removed by the UK Public General Act 1906 in which a lot of loose ends like the March Dykes Act, the Lawburrows Act and other lumps of obscure legislation were either ditched or dragged into what was (at the time) modernity.

Of the remaining articles, the most odious is Article II which makes clear that “all Papists and persons marrying Papists shall be excluded from and for ever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Imperial Crown of Great Britain”. The remaining articles are replete with a combination of hedging in of vested interests (Article XIX protecting how the Court of Session and the College of Justice are appointed) and of Scots merchants finally getting their mitts on the lucrative English colonies (Articles IV, VI and VII ensuring freedom of trade, equal customs duties and taxation, respectively).

Article XXI preserves the rights and privileges of Scottish Burghs and XXV does the same for the Presbyterian Church (although the Scots had to write in that last bit and haggle over its inclusion). And, most interesting of all Article XX states (in full) “That all heritable Offices, Superiorities, heritable Jurisdictions, Offices for life and Jurisdictions for life be reserved to the Owners thereof as Rights of Property in the same manner as they are now enjoyed by the Laws of Scotland notwithstanding of this Treaty”.

Now, I am no lawyer (Scots or otherwise) but that last seems to enshrine rights that the Scots already have. In that, I would include the tenet enshrined in the Declaration of Arbroath: that the people of Scotland are sovereign. Nowhere in the Treaty can I find any evidence of such rights being taken away and this article would seem to confirm that.

Also nowhere in the Treaty is any article that extends the existing powers of the English parliament to Scotland. Not having any recognisable constitution, what is and is not valid in England is a bit of a punt: unlike the Scots, their legal system rests on precedence so, good luck if you can’t find one. As a kind of catch-all to handle this, the English parliament declared itself sovereign. But I, for one, do not see that extends north of the border, especially where it might conflict with the will of the people of Scotland.

Since that same people of Scotland gave a clear majority to the SNP last May and since all unionist parties accept that clear democratic mandate, it would seem that the SNP are well within their rights to put a referendum to the people of Scotland not just as to whether they wish to remain within the UK but about anything they damn well please. And there IS no such thing as a “legally binding” referendum anywhere in Britain. Just like Westminster can always make new laws over-ruling a decision in England so the Scottish people could at any time over-rule a decision made there.

Just because Scots MPs have served in Westminster does not mean that Westminster can apply its English privileges outside of the country in whose laws those privileges were originally couched. In part because the Treaty of Union was handled like a cheap bill of sale for the benefit of merchants and vested interests on both sides of the border, it is almost incapable of withstanding close scrutiny. Had this been the US, clever lawyers would have shredded it into useless chaff centuries ago.

And so, with nothing but this Swiss Cheese Treaty to build on, I wish the unionist parties well in finding sold ground on which to found their arguments. Deference and obfuscating tradition may have allowed Westminster to have its own way for most of those 300 years. But under any kind of examination, the major holes in the unionist position—no constitution to speak of, a Treaty not fit for purpose and a convention of arrogance that has not—until now—ever been challenged, become fuzzy liabilities that undermine their cleverest argument.

Looking back, people will say the Treaty of Union was dead long before now. It just took the Scottish people, exercising a right they never lost, to choose their destiny. And, unlike many historic documents, one as tawdry and hollow as this one will not be long remembered. Or, the English might display it in their National Archives, along with verse 3 of their National Anthem—you know, the one that sings about “rebellious Scots to crush”.

I find it just hilarious how unionists of all stripes are falling over themselves to demand an independence referendum the day before yesterday when—until six months ago—they did all they could to block the possibility of any such thing. Most claim that there is no reason to delay, in fact delay is causing uncertainty and that;s damaging business and investment. The fact that a record investment in North Sea oil for 2012 has just been announced shows which side is closer to the truth.

The time between now and Autumn 2014 must be properly taken advantage of if we Scots are to have the scale of debate that the seriousness of an independence choice deserves. The calls for much clearer definition of what it is we would voting for/against are actually reasonable. Ask even SNP members and you will not necessarily get a coherent picture of what an independent Scotland would look like. Over next few months, this blog will try to address these key questions, starting with probably the most fundamental questions of all:

What kind of country do we want Scotland to be?

We need to do this right—ready, aim, fire takes time but that is the way to hit targets. Though we will not all share the same ambitions, there will need to be cultural coherence so we all feel at home: little is gained from anyone feeling foreign in their own or their chosen country. Everyone wants a country that is prosperous and peaceful, that can sustain its industries and enjoy a high quality of life indefinitely. But those are goals most countries share; what would be so special about Scotland?

Firstly, it would surely further develop its sense of Scottish identity. At the height of our partnership in the UK, this was at a low ebb, with Harry Lauder parodies and a chip-on-the-shoulder sense of inferiority. But Glasgow’s savage, devastating humour found wider expression in Billy Connolly; playwrights and poets, actors and dancers followed. By the 1990’s we were laughing at ourselves in Para Handy or Rab C. Nesbitt—a huge cultural renaissance was rolling that is with us to this day. From defining ourselves as not English or (worse) English side-kicks, the Scots have lost that chip and come of age.

Secondly, our English bête-noire has mellowed. The see-you-Jimmy pugnaciousness through which the English were seen as patronising colonials has mellowed to the point that a close social union with our now-friendly neighbours is seen as both natural and desirable. Whereas once Scots ‘patriots’ might have jumped down the throat of any English using ‘England’ and ‘Britain’ as interchangeable we are shifting to treating them with the same good-humoured tolerance extended to Americans who make the same mistake—as we would to a granny who is forever misplacing her glasses.

This profound development towards our southern neighbours derives from the Scots—always the junior partner in the Union—realising, as the Norwegians or Dutch have done for decades, that they were always just a small corner of the world. Arrogance or hubris or talking louder so the foreigner can better understand never took hold in Scotland as a method of cultural outreach; a more modest approach came naturally. When you’ve run a fifth of the globe as you own feifdom, as the English have, it’s hard to be humble.

So the international outlook of Scotland would be very different from that which Britain has displayed even after the empire was dusty memories. For a start, while there might be global friendships (Canada, New Zealand, Australia, US) there would be no global ambition beyond selling quality products (whisky, financial services, produce, energy equipment) and attracting tourists. The defense posture would, therefore be defensive.

While much attention would be paid to the British social union with our good friends the  English, Welsh and Irish, new bonds to the Nordic Union countries will be forged. Similarity with Norway would extend beyond interests in oil, energy and fish to social programmes, specialist ship technology, foreign aid programmes and international peacekeeping under UN leadership. And, by becoming an active member of the Nordic Union, we Scots would have access to one of the richest international clubs in the world and re-forge trans-North-Sea ties that 300 years of fixation on London had lost us.

By staying a member of the EU, the whole relationship with that body would change. No longer the recalcitrant semi-member that Britain has played under English leadership, Scotland’s oil-fuelled economy and fish-rich seas would make them a valued member and  its fifteen members (comparable to Sweden or Austria) would soon be pulling more than its weight by leading groups of smaller countries with a common interest to balance even those of France and Germany. By being proactive, Scotland would be influential with friends to an extent greater than the rump UK with its 75 members has ever been.

Perhaps most importantly, Scotland could forge a unique role for itself in the world. Much funnier and full of character than the stodgy Scandinavians, better known than any other country its size through golf, its 20m+ diaspora, English-speaking friend of the US, historic friend of the Russians, former partner in the British empire with links to the Commonwealth, a place of beauty and energy riches, if Singapore can be a recognised trend-setting world leader, which price the Scots could do better?

It’s up to us: we could be rich Norway with a wider set of friends and a better sense of humour. We could be prosperous Austria, doing business all over Eastern Europe but with a magnificent coast to match our magnificent mountains. We could be easy-living Portugal, proud of empire-building history and content to compete amicably with its much-larger neighbour on the same land mass. Or—best of all—we could make some new contribution to civilisation that puts our 2,000-year-history-so-far in the shade.

It’s a future of hope, of ambition and (if we play this right) better relations with England than we have ever had.

I’ve always enjoyed the way Scots tell jokes against themselves. One that sprang to mind recently during an intense Twitter slugfest on the topic of independence referenda was the one about “if you don’t like the weather in Scotland, just wait five minutes”.

I have just had my evening political fix, having watched Anas Sanwar MP pitch for his party against an unperturbed Nicola Sturgeon on two separate channels. Can’t take anything away from Mr Sarwar’s intense, almost crusading pursuit of why a referendum could not be held yesterday. But something didn’t sit right with me. It was only when I visited the Wings Over Scotland blog site that I realised why his delivery rang so false.

They have researched Labour’s position on this and it is little wonder that I (and many other people) stand confused. If I may steal the core of WoS’s blog it is that Labour has taken no fewer than eight positions on this over the last four years:

4th May 2007 to 3rd May 2008:
There should be no referendum.

4th May 2008 to 6th May 2008:
We should have a referendum immediately.

7th May 2008:
There should definitely be no referendum now – we must wait for the Calman Commission to deliver its report on devolution in a year’s time.

8th May 2008 to 14th May 2008:
We must have a referendum immediately, in order to end uncertainty.

13th May 2008 to 30th August 2009:
There should definitely be no referendum.

31st August 2009 to 30th April 2011:
There can be a referendum, but definitely not now, and not until the economy has recovered and is in sustained and steady growth.

1st May 2011 to 6th May 2011:
Definitely no referendum, not even if it’s held very early in the new Parliament to end uncertainty and help the economy recover*.

7th May 2011 to present day:
There must be an early referendum, even though the economy is stagnant and heading back into recession.

These are testing times for commentators like me who try, despite my own beliefs, to keep an open mind and (somewhat harder) make commentary that includes others’ points of view. And just to prove how wide I have been casting my nets, I was brought up short by a piece on the Scottish Labour website that went far in testing my resolve.

Thomas Docherty, MP for the corner of the Kingdom that includes Rosyth, has a piece claiming to have written to SNP Defence Spokesman Angus Robertson MSP challenging the party to state whether they will retain one of the two aircraft carriers to be assembled there in an independent Scotland. He states:

“”The commitment to carriers will be warmly welcomed at Rosyth Dockyard, as it secures the jobs of 1500 skilled workers, including 200 apprentices, and guarantees work at this site for more than five decades. There is no doubt that the loss of the carriers would have a devastating impact on the Fife and indeed the Scottish economy and the SNP has a responsibility to make people aware of the full consequences of separation.”

Some will see this as simply a conscientious MP arguing the case for their local constituents, as can be seen daily in Westminster. I see this as exactly the kind of grandstanding self-serving piffle that makes MPs like Mr Docherty the target of anger by the great bulk of Scottish voters who aren’t riding the Labour gravy train (currently stalled in a siding outside Crewe). Allow me to explain.

Labour has a long and evil history in Scotland of throwing money at industrial projects for short-term reasons that seldom account for the the wider world and economic reality. Their Willie Ross is regarded as a ‘great’ Scottish Secretary of State. Though I can’t gainsay him some achievements, it was he who blessed us with Linwood, Monktonhall, Ravenscraig and other ‘make-work’ fag-ends of the Wilson/Benn “white heat of technology” guff. Those same white elephants caused no end of grief to workers and their families when global economic reality pulled the wool from their eyes.

And here we are, forty years on. Another Labour government has hatched another series of white elephants for their own short-sighted purpose. Worst among them were two aircraft carriers. Nothing wrong with carriers if you are running a blue water navy and require global military reach. But even worse than its conversion to nuclear weapons has been Labour being infected by the Tory delusion that Britain is a global power and can afford such things. If the mighty US has just announced £290bn in CUTS to its defence budget and that is seven times the total UK defence budget, what more proof do you need that we can’t afford to play this silly global game any more?

And just look at the story so far of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth. These are not propitious names, even for Royalists: the previous owners were both sunk in 1941 (respectively) off Malaya by the Japanese 22nd Squadron and in Alexandria Harbour by some brave Italian frogmen. From a budget of under £4bn, these two huge ships have escalated to over £7bn—so much, in fact, that one is to be mothballed upon completion and neither will have a suitable aircraft deployed on their decks until five years after completion (sometime in the 2020s).

Far from Scotland being able to afford one of the carriers, Britain can’t afford to run even one of the carriers. The sooner this registers in Whitehall, the better for all. Docherty is typical of yer bog-standard MP who only sees jobs for his boys and apparently would not know a strategy or a global trend if one bit him in the arse. He thinks he’s clever, arguing that, with him, Labour and the Union, his “jobs of 1500 skilled workers, including 200 apprentices” are secure and taunts the SNP to put all that in jeopardy by going indy and scrapping any carriers. He is playing politics with the jobs of his voters.

Reality is that, after another year when Osborne misjudges things by £111bn, the carriers may be toast anyway, just like the Nimrod replacements. But if they’re not, and Britain really does want these things, an independent Scotland would happily build them (and by staying competitive, stand little risk of losing the contract).

But more likely—and where Mr Docherty and his ilk entirely misses the point—an independent Scotland would require an appropriate Navy. Carriers would be stupid in such a context. A balanced Scottish Navy would include not just a few ex-RN frigates but a series of fast patrol boats that would need to be built to protect North Sea infrastructure. This is a role in which the Royal Navy has been hopelessly inept for some years now and which the scrapping of Lossiemouth’s Nimrods has thrown into stark relief. See my earlier blog for details.

An independent Scotland would have plenty of work for both the Clyde and Rosyth yards. Since its defence budget would not include Trident or Challenger tanks or strategic lift/global deployment, it could afford the real workhorses of local defence that the Scandinavians have specialised in for years. Going after terrorists trying to smoke an oil platform from a RIB with an aircraft carrier (even if it was where it was needed) is like going after a wasp with a 12-gauge.

But a fast patrol craft like the Finnish Hamina—capable of 40 knots, stealth profile, water-jet-powered (for shallow waters) and armed to the teeth—would make short work of any naval El Quaeda. Does the RN have any? Well, er, actually, no. All the money’s gone to Trident, Afghanistan and a couple of carriers. But, building a squadron of, say, six for an independent Scotland would keep Mr Docherty’s constituents very busy for a number of years.

And—most important of all—there would be a use for them.