davidsberry

Right in the middle of Guy Fawkes season, I have just been rummaging in the further reaches of Westminster procedures and so appalled by what I keep coming up with that I increasingly believe Guy’s had a bum deal down the years. Perhaps I should regard it as a blessing that, post-Martin, the Speaker no longer wears breeches and a wig. But the extent to which obfuscating flummery still dominates our ‘mother of all parliaments’ (I mean that more in the Saddam Hussein sense) is quite astonishing.

Example 1. The decisions on bills are still recorded in Norman French. In the 21st century, we are still governed by laws that are not simple ‘passed’ but “soit baillé aux communes” and “A ceste Bille les Seigneurs sont assentus” and “La Reyne le veult.” All three are required to make it law. This thousand-year-old thing might pull in tourists for Changing of the Guard or Beefeating about the Tower…but it’s no way to run a railroad.

Example 2. You are encouraged, especially when you have a beef that your minister MP is restricted as to what they may criticise and/or question, to contact a Lord. But you are enjoined to do so in one of the eleven different correct addresses that corresponds to the rank of a Marquess or Archbishop or whatever. Not having archbishops in my country, I am at a loss to discern their relevance to modern politics there.

Example 3. Snuff is provided, at public expense, for Members and Officers of the House. It is kept at the doorkeepers’ box at the entrance to the Chamber. Yet smoking has been banned in the Chamber and in committees since 1693. As our American cousins like to say: go figure.

Example 4. Each sitting of the House begins with prayers, for which Members stand, facing the wall behind them.  This practice is attributed to the difficulty Members would once have faced of kneeling to pray whilst wearing a sword(!) Members may leave cards on seats to indicate that they intend to attend  prayers (and so secure seats for the remainder of the sitting). This used to be done with top hats (on the assumption that a gentleman would not leave the building without his hat) until an Irish MP cheated by bringing two hats to Parliament.

Example 5.  Alfred Kinnear MP summed up (in 1900) the niceties of wearing a hat:-

“At all times remove your hat on entering the House, and put it on upon taking your seat; and remove it again on rising for whatever purpose.  If the MP asks a question he will stand, and with his hat off; and he may receive the answer of the Minister seated and with his hat on.  If on a division he should have to challenge the ruling of the chair, he will sit and put his hat on.  If he wishes to address the Speaker on a point of order not connected with a division, he will do so standing with his hat off.  When he leaves the House to participate in a division he will take his hat off, but will vote with it on.”

Got that? Pardon me while I am temporarily discommoded with nausea.

For those of you who wish to learn more, feel free to contact the nice people manning any one of the four official sources listed below. For myself, repealing the control this pile of superannuated Heath-Robinson eccentricities has over my country can’t come soon enough.

• House of Commons Information Office
• House of Commons
• London SW1A 2TT
• Phone 020 7219 4272
• Fax 020 7219 5839
• hcinfo@parliament.uk
• http://www.parliament.uk

• House of Lords Information Office
• House of Lords
• London SW1A 0PW
• Phone 020 7219 3107
• Fax 020 7219 0620
• hlinfo@parliament.uk

• Parliamentary Education Service
• House of Commons
• London SW1A 2TT
• Phone 020 7219 2105
• Fax 020 7219 0818
• education@parliament.uk

• Parliamentary Archives
• House of Lords
• London SW1A 0PW
• Phone 020 7219 3074
• Fax 020 7219 2570
• archives@parliament.uk

…are doomed to repeat it.” (Burke) It can be hard to discern key turning points in history as they happen, especially when centuries of tradition and inertia colour viewpoints. But we are coming up to the 70^th anniversary of what can be seen, in retrospect, to have been the end of the British Empire. I leave the reader to interpret this as a metaphor but would welcome any comments they may have on that.

In November 1941, Britain still represented a real world power; within 90 days, the most humiliating surrender British forces ever suffered would define its eclipse. Although Malaya and Singapore were recovered from the Japanese, they would seize independence within a dozen years, despite intense anti-guerrilla campaigns fought in the 1950’s. The balance of the pink-painted empire was soon to follow.

At this remove, only senior citizens are likely to remember the pride and awe once accorded the British Empire, not only from its subjects. It was the largest and most successful global venture the world had seen and bestrode that globe by virtue of a naval dominance that was seen to reach its apogee in the Fortress of Singapore.

This consisted of a major naval base, twelve coastal batteries (guns from 6” and 15”), four airfields and supporting military bases. Built in the 1930’s, it was actually an expression of British weakness. Unable to afford battle fleets to dominate both Atlantic and Pacific, Singapore was chosen as the strategic crossroads of south-east Asia at which to base a fleet to be sent out from Britain, should need arise.

Within three years of the fortress’ completion in 1938, the need arose. Japan struck the Philippines and Malaya in co-ordination with their December 7th strike on Pearl Harbour. Since war had been looming, the British had reinforced the garrison, which was now 88,600 strong—three divisions, a dozen RAF squadrons—but no fleet. From Lt. General Percival, GOC Malaya Command, right down to the lowliest erk, the spirit of the defenders was high, verging on the cocky. Lt Col. Stewart, CO 2^nd Bn. Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders asked Percival “Don’t you think our men are worthy of a better enemy than the Japanese?” 

When the Japanese seized French Indochina in September 1941, all that the Admiralty could spare as the ‘fleet’ to provide teeth to the fortress was ‘Force Z’: the split-new battleship Prince of Wales and a lighter, faster battle cruiser Repulse. They arrived just as war broke out in the Pacific.

Underestimation of the enemy was rife and heavily racist. Japanese were regarded as undersize, short-sighted makers of shoddy goods. Actually, the British were the shoddy specialists. Traditionally a soft ‘cocktail command’, officers (and their wives especially) lived very well, enjoying more parties than manuevers in the tropical heat. Many of the “British” troops were Indian or Malay; even those from Britain were mostly white-kneed conscripts. There were no tanks. The bulk of RAF fighters were Brewster Buffalos declared to be “good enough for Malaya” by Air Marshal Brooke-Popham. whose cheery estimate was 70% of any invading force would be sunk at sea.

They had not yet met Lt. General Yamashita’s 70,000 China veterans in the 25th Army, who invaded the north coast of Malaya, cuffed the defending 9^th Indian division aside and would cover the 700 miles to Singapore in 70 days through audacity and a myriad of successful deceptions (including stolen bicycles). But the heaviest shock came early on when Force Z, sent north to intercept and sink Yamashita’s invasion fleet, was itself intercepted by the Japanese 22^nd Air Flotilla. Both huge ships were sent to the bottom in a virtuoso display of precision bombing. Aircraft—including the Luftwaffe’s much-vaunted Stuka precision bombers—had never sunk capital ships at sea before.

This blow alone sent shock waves through the garrison, fanned by rumours about how Yamashita’s men were ghosting through the jungle, trouncing every effort to block them. Morale started to waver. But the coup-de-grace came when the Japanese ranged their artillery across the Johore Strait and started pounding Singapore. Only then was it realised that few guns of the coastal batteries could be swiveled to respond, because new hoods protecting them from air attack also restricted their traverse. This greatest but fleetless of fleet bases had left its back door unlocked.

Singapore was both the greatest and hollowest symbol of Western colonial might. Its capitulation on February 15^th 1942 shocked the world. When news reached that arch-exponent of empire, Churchill, he later wrote “I put the telephone down. I was thankful to be alone. In all the war I never received a more direct shock.” Carefully fabricated over centuries, the edifice of colonial invincibility was shattered. Though the Americans would hold out in the Philippines for another four months and all Western colonies were restored within five years, the great colonial game was up.

The British surrender party is escorted to Yamashita's Headquarters. Lt-General A E Percival is on the extreme right. (Keystone/Getty Images)

As I was about to say yesterday when Nick Clegg’s transatlantic ego pushed me off course, there are a number of people in Scotland to whom the motives—let alone the aims—of the SNP are suspect. There has been (as Mr Deltoid of Clockwork Orange fame might have framed it) “some extreme nastiness, yes?” across the blogosphere implying that no debate can be had while ravenous packs of cybernats roam the net looking for a Labour Red Riding Hood to molest. What say we cool our jets, squad?

My basic premise: there will be an independence referendum in the life of this parliament and, whoever wins, the other side better feel they made their best pitch (or they will torture themselves over it for the next decade). Playground abuse is not going to achieve that so let’s move on/grow up, eh? There are five basic steps to be taken:

1. Outline of the country that would become independent. For avoidance of doubt this would be Scotland and its seabed out to agreed boundaries. It would include all civic institutions within Scotland and would require either the creation of those missing or an understanding with another country, probably the Rest of the UK (RoUK), to provide them. Some of the most important among those are: a) Treasury; b) Armed forces; c) Welfare system; d) Tax system; e) Embassy/foreign/diplomatic service
2. Agree all-new relationships to be forged with neighbours in particular and the world in general. This will involve a series of bilateral talks starting with, but not confined to, RoUK. Among the most important will be our long-term links to: a) RoUK; b) pound/euro; c) EU; d) NATO; e) Nordic Union
3. Once concrete proposals and provisional agreement on the key points above are available, that form of independence needs to be debated while the formulation and timing of the referendum on that basis are planned. This, more than anything, explains why several years are required to pose the question to an informed populace. The format of the question(s) must be agreed but I argue that a multiple-choice under STV should be the format.
4. If any result other than status quo is chosen, the Scottish Government will form multiple task groups to negotiate the details and timing of dismantling civic structures of the British state and, where appropriate, allocating them between the two countries. Mutual, peaceful examples like Norway/Sweden (1905), Eire/UK (1922) and Czech/Slovakia (1993) should be studied for lessons and suggestions.
5. Break out the bubbly (or the 18-year-old malt). Although independence will be more of a process than an event (c.f. how Eire relied on many aspects of the British state continuing while they worked to replace them with ‘local’ civic ability) we should pick a day and celebrate it. 24th June would be good (Bannockburn), 1st May almost as good (Workers’ Day and also Act of Union which would be hereby dissolved) but something in the summer so we can (unlike St Andrew’s or Burns’ Days) get the barbie out.

Now, that’s not too difficult to grasp, is it? Good—we have 60 months; get debating!

Some lost souls milling around the Royal Concert Hall on Sunday seemed desperately in need of some direction. I had therefore intended to blog supposed ‘gaps’ in the SNP case for independence so they might see the error of their ways. But I was distracted by a quote from Clegg in the Observer:

“We stand tall in Washington because we stand tall in Brussels, Paris and Berlin”

It stopped me dead. A supposedly intelligent leader of a major UK party comes out with something barely appropriate to the playground. Now, I can understand the many people who are proud of Britain and its history. Together with the Welsh and Irish, we Scots and English created a major achievement of Western civilisation in the British Empire that was the envy of most of the planet a century ago.

Because my grandad lost a leg at Ypres (6th Bn Scots Guards) and my dad drove a tank across Africa and Europe (44th RTR) and I grew up with a pink-painted map hung on the classroom wall like other kids in the fifties, I share that pride. I’m also proud my Appin Stewarts were front and centre at Culloden and that 300 local Gododdin were gloriously gubbed by Angle hordes at Catterick in 600AD. But, though I connect with all three, all are now history. Done.

Since my dad parked his Sherman for the last time, Britain has been in trouble. The last country to recover from WWII, its innovations of jet airliner and mini, Beatles and Quant were undermined by industry, politics and empire in equally antiquated amounts that led to a ’70s nadir. Since then, ‘Britain’ has grown tenuous as its various components have diverged. This is not obvious to our English cousins because they (as well as many abroad) always conflate England with Britain.

We Scots developed a chip on our shoulders about that. After Thatcher depredations, the Labour party going native at Westminster, the Beeb retrenching from received pronunciation to ‘regional accents’ and growing hostility towards immigrants Scots don’t share, justification for that chip grew. And yet, today’s Scots, with their own Parliament, rejuvenated arts scene, resiliently cheerful Tartan Army & post-industrial economy, have dumped that chip. If you want to see a capital city of which anyone would be proud, try Edinburgh in August—abuzz with life and culture but relaxed and at peace with itself.

Not so our English cousins. Let’s leave aside this summer’s urban riots, all is not well even in the leafy shires. Tory backwoodsmen bicker about Europe, sabre-rattle about action in Kosovo, Iraq or Afghanistan when justification—let alone the goal—is unclear. It is from pandering to such thinking that Clegg’s appalling pompous comment derives. It highlights that England urgently needs to find a post-Empire identity. Whether it revisits hoary old traditions, like a catholic-free throne or a non-royal as head of its church, right down to wigs on its barristers, is for the English—not Scots—to decide.

And they would do well to travel abroad more before they come to any conclusion. Not only the Germans but the Portuguese and Singaporeans have overtaken England in building a modern society. The Brazilians and Poles are about to do the same. Only the Americans seem stuck in the same time warp of nostalgia for when their word was law and their writ ran around the globe. It’s not just Clegg who needs to drop the hype and get out more.

Scots have already discovered an identity for the 21st century. Their economy will be based on energy, specialised engineering, financial services, whisky and tourism. They will be part of the European Union, friendly and open with neighbours, modeling society on the enlightened Scandinavians. Small as Scotland might be, a positive profile will be welcomed, its sports teams spreading goodwill and its military adding its full share to peacekeeping around the globe.

What it will NOT be doing is talking glaury guff like “punching above our weight” or Clegg-esque gobshite. It will have no Trident, no £7bn ‘super-carriers and no interest in interfering in other sovereign states. But it will have a peace corps to bring aid and develop a future in less fortunate lands; its borders will be open to both its neighbours and immigrants who come to contribute. In the dark days of the late 20th ©, Scotland started a journey back towards enlightenment. Long may that remain so.

Whether our cousins ‘dahn saff’ want to emulate this is up to them. But we are done taking any lessons in identity, strategy or direction from their posturing politicians.

Having had him as my MSP for four years, been in many of the same meetings as local council leader and crossed swords with him on several occasions as we contested East Lothian closely in May, I feel I know the public Iain Gray. I make no comment about his private side but find his public face inconsistent, verging on the confusing.

As a constituency MSP, he is shrewd enough to be guided by his staff and so shows up at most events where he would be expected and gets regular mug shots, columns and press releases into the local papers as a result. When constituents write to him, he replies, takes up cases and often manages to resolve them. Many of the causes he espouses are laudable and, even where we differ—as we do on both Cockenzie and Torness power stations having a future—at least he deploys plausible arguments. In short, he appears a decent guy trying to do a difficult job.

But when we turn to his other job as Labour Leader a Jekyll & Hyde transformation occurs that is not only less flattering but stretches credulity that his utterances actually come from his own convictions. We take it as read that he is a devolutionist, believing his party delivered that. This is, again, a plausible position, especially when shored up by solid argument. But, rather than the “(Labour) needs to talk positively about what we are for and less about what we are against” from Ken Macintosh or the “By 2016, Scottish Labour will either have re-established itself as the party of aspiration, or it will be an irrelevance” from Tom Harris, at the leadership conference in Glasgow this weekend, Iain goes off the deep end.

“You will be attacked, you will be smeared, you will be lied about, you will be threatened,” he said. “The ‘cyber Nats’ and the bedsit bloggers will call you traitor, quisling, lapdog, liar and worse. They will question your appearance, your integrity and your sexuality. They will drag your family and your faith into the lies and the vitriol. If you are a woman it will be worse.

“It is no consolation to know that any journalist or commentator who gives you a fair hearing will suffer the same. This is the poison some have brought into our politics and it is vile. It is time we started talking openly about it and it is time the SNP did something about it. They know who some of these people are. This is not how you build a better Scotland and Scotland deserves better.”

Astonishing for the leader of any party to stoop to such levels and to regard this as what he wishes to be remembered by in his farewell speech. Let’s assume there is some substance to these accusations; how would the argument be advanced by venting his own spleen in this manner? Scotland indeed deserves better and any leader of Scottish Labour should help provide it, whether in power or opposition.

Independence is not the only plausible future for Scotland but it deserves serious consideration and debate. For Harris or Davidson to dismiss it out of hand ill serves Scotland but for Gray to do it ill serves anyone. The language of ‘separation’ of ‘tearing Scotland out of the UK’ is inflammatory, as is scaremongering about border posts at Berwick and trouble visiting granny in Carlisle. He claims devolution to be the ideal settlement but has never articulated why the Irish are not clamouring to return to the fold and why the most devastated part of Ireland should be the part that remained in the UK after 1922.

As leader during the ‘attack dog’ period of Scottish Labour when their MSPs sulked for four years after 2007 and then wondered why they had their heads handed to them last May, Gray symbolises how bankrupt of ideas the whole party became. To accuse the entire SNP as he does above means he learned nothing and ought to have stepped down sooner, rather then peddling the same poison for another six months. Scotland needs a mature and thoughtful Labour party to hold the SNP to democratic account. Even as an SNP member, I am not so foolish as to think we have all the answers. But this toys-out-the-pram spite from Glasgow makes me despair of that ever happening.

There are extremists in and on the periphery of all parties. Scotland is poorly served when their bias and unreasonableness becomes the lingua franca of any major party. When leadership contender Tom Harris claims that  “Labour has not had a vision for 12 years” he deserves to be taken seriously. Instead, the best their leader can do is insult the party that just wiped the floor with his own by inspiring a majority of Scots.