Keep quiet and carry on

Yesterday there was an article in the Sunday Herald entitled 'SNP declares war on cybernats' which was written by Neil Mackay, and in which there were quotes from Angus Robertson, Alyn Smith and Stewart MacDonald of the SNP on the subject of social media and the independence movement. 

The article itself was a travesty. In the third paragraph we see this:

They described online abusers as "cowards", "weird", "creepy", "snarling", "vicious", "poisonous" and "vile".

Wow, strong stuff!  Except if you read a lot further down you'll see that the above has been taken out of context.  For example, Stewart MacDonald

... described some abuse by Yes supporters as "creepy", "vicious and poisonous", and "vile"

So it's 'abusers' in the opening paragraphs, but 'abuse' in the actual quote.

Mr MacDonald also said

They hunt in packs and it looks weird to people.

Again, not the impression given by the opening paragraphs.  And, by the way, there are only two instances of the word 'weird' in the entire article: the quote from Mr MacDonald and the out of context use of the word in the preamble.  I could go on.

Mr Mackay defends his article by saying that he provides balance by mentioning abuse by Unionist supporters on social media.  He does indeed, but only in the final few paragraphs.  The ones that most readers won't read far enough to get to.

So, what's this about?  In my opinion, it's no coincidence that this appeared the day after the massively successful All Under One Banner march in Glasgow, during which there was no trouble.  Indeed the only abuse I heard was from the tiny Unionist counter-demonstration in George Square, most of which was drowned out by cheers, whistle-blowing and vuvuvelas from the marchers.  The above article will have served to divert attention from the success of the march and onto 'all online independence supporters are abusive idiots' instead.

The SNP have not done themselves any favours by being associated with this article.  Firstly because they seem to be the only political party who see it as their job to police all supporters of their key policy.  Do we have the Tories or Labour wringing their hands over abusive Brexit supporters on Twitter (of which there are many)?  No.  The SNP need to grow a pair, and point out that independence supporters are not necessarily SNP members, while condemning abuse from any side.

Secondly, the SNP are far too passive.  Day after day independence supporters see the usual lies being peddled by the Unionist-dominated media (variations on the theme of 'too wee, too poor, too stupid') and the SNP does nothing refute the stories.  It launched a fact checking service with great fanfare, which has turned out to be a resounding damp squib.  The 'cybernats' step into this breach, attempting to refute these inaccuracies as they see them.  Perhaps if the SNP were a little less passive this wouldn't be necessary.  It's this which leads to accusations of SNP politicians getting a bit too comfortable with their positions in the current Establishment.

Thirdly, the SNP need to get away from the impression they give of a paternalistic 'just keep quiet and leave everything to we grown-ups'.  Scottish independence is far bigger than the SNP.  They are a key part of it, but they are not the sum total of it, and the upper echelons would do well to remember that.

The other purpose that this article will serve is to scare the undecideds and soft Nos away from social media.  The social media arena is one where the Yes campaign dominates because the message is not filtered by media barons and the Establishment.  It's one of the strengths of online campaigning, as well as one of the weaknesses, because it allows any and all opinions on an equal footing.  While not in any way condoning the abuse that some have received online, it's in the nature of the beast.  Fortunately the trolls and abusers are a very small minority, which can be tackled at its simplest by simply blocking or ignoring the culprits or by reporting to the police where appropriate.

We are getting far to close to suppression of free speech and this is not a good thing.  It used to be the case that we believed in 'sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.'  That no longer seems to be the case.

I do not condone online abuse.  However, in the words famously misattributed to Voltaire, we should remember that

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Division bell

Today Nicola Sturgeon appeared on the Andrew Marr show to give her views on Theresa May and Brexit more generally.  During the interview she stated that

Another Scottish independence referendum is going to happen. Nothing in this life is absolutely certain but I think it's as inevitable as its possible to be.

She also added

Before I set forward a path for Scotland I think it's reasonable for me to know what the starting point of that journey is going to be and the context in which we are going to be embarking on it. We need to know - and hopefully we will know this over the next few days and over the next three weeks. Is the UK leaving the EU? Is it leaving with a deal? Is it leaving with no deal or is it not leaving at all, perhaps looking at another referendum?"

 This should cheer up independence supporters, a minority of whom have been expressing their doubts that Ms Sturgeon still has any interest in pursuing Scottish independence.  In my opinion, if you look closely you can see the outlines of a long-term plan behind Ms Sturgeon's actions over Brexit, which includes doing her level best to ensure that Scotland's vote to remain in the EU is somehow taken account of, as well as forging ties with European leaders, whose support she will need in the event that Scotland takes back its rightful position as an independent nation.

Needless to say the usual suspects have trotted out their usual counters to this.  For example, Adam Tompkins, the Scottish Tories spokesman on constitutional affairs, said

Nicola Sturgeon's visit to London was a scam. She wasn't there because she cares about the UK leaving the EU or to try and influence proceedings in the coming days. She was there to agitate for a second independence referendum, and to set Scotland up for even more years of division. Independence is the only thing on her radar. Her obsession is stopping Scotland from getting on and doing the things that really matter to people.

This is somewhat amusing coming from a party that had a sole policy of 'say no to another independence referendum' in the most recent elections, but who nevertheless bring up the topic at every opportunity.  He also seems to have failed to notice that most of the things that really matter to people are doing pretty well under the SNP government, although there is always room for improvement of course.

Pamela Nash, chief executive of Scotland in Union said

The only thing inevitable in politics is that Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP want to create further division in society. Regardless of what she says about Brexit, the First Minister's priority will always be to break up the United Kingdom.

The interesting thing about these comments is that both stress that, in their opinion, a second independence referendum will cause 'division'.  This tends to imply that they think that, prior to the last independence referendum, Scots were a homogeneous people who all had the same opinion, namely that Scotland was and ever would be part of the United Kingdom.  This was never the case.

Their real issue is that the previous independence referendum got people thinking.  Maybe things don't have to be this way.  Maybe we can do things differently and better.  And having thought this people started having ideas about what an independent Scotland could look like, and how we could achieve those things.

People having thoughts and opinions are anathema to the Unionist parties.  The Tories, Labour and the LibDems simply regarded the Scots as voting fodder, useful only in playing their part in allowing these parties to play their games on the larger stage of Westminster.  No thinking required on the part of the electorate.

The previous independence referendum shattered that comfortable status quo for ever, and there is no going back,. however much the Unionists wish it.  Scots have woken up to the political realities of the Union, and nearly half of them (currently) are not minded to go back to sleep.  That's what terrifies the Unionists, hence their harping on about 'division', as if any population (other than in North Korea) has the same opinion about everything. 

Half of Scotland has already moved on.  It's time the Unionists started giving it some thought or be lost to history.

Beating a grouse

Yesterday a huge argument blew up about a blogpost by Grousebeater in which he examines the role of the GMB and Rhea Wolfson in the recent strike by female employees of Glasgow City Council in pursuit of their claim for equal pay.  The controversial passage was this:

In Part 1 of Mein Kampf Hitler attacks unions over an over again. Unions are fascism’s Public Enemy Number 1. He went further. He accused ‘The Jew’ of gradually assuming leadership of the trade union movement. Hitler wanted a blindly obedient fighting force loyal only to the national leader of government.

As it turns out Ms Wolfson is of Jewish heritage and apparently interpreted 'The Jew' as being a reference to this, despite the fact it is a direct quote from Mein Kampf illustrating how trade unions have been viewed unfavourably by Fascists in the past. This led to a complaint being made to the SNP (of which Grousebeater is a member) of antisemitism, which led to Grousebeater being suspended from the party pending investigation.  This has not gone down well with many party members, with some saying that they will consider their membership status over this.

I myself had similar thoughts, since the SNP have not covered themselves in glory by their handling of it, especially when they said that 'the blog should not have been shared by any SNP member'.  Indeed it was evident that some MSPs were commenting unfavourably on the blogpost without actually having read it.  On reflection, however, I will adopt a wait-and-see attitude.  Of course, being an SNP member and having shared the blogpost in question, this decision may well be taken out of my hands.

What people have to ask themselves is what do Labour have to gain from this?

The main players in the complaint are Rhea Wolfson and Neil Findlay, both of whom are of the Corbyn faction of the Labour party who are desperate to see their man in Downing Street after the next General Election.  (Bear in mind also that Ms Wolfson herself is a failed MP candidate from the last General Election). The party's Brexit 'strategy' is to let the Conservatives make a mess of Brexit on the basis that this will surely see them win the next General Election, at which point they can fix all of the problems that have been created.  One might think that it would be better to prevent the problems from occurring in the first place, but it must be borne in mind that Mr Corbyn is a Eurosceptic too, although for different reasons to most Conservatives.

Currently the polls are not in their favour.  They are in opposition to one of the most inept governments in living memory, whose handling of Brexit has been laughable, and they should therefore be out in front by a country mile in any polls on Westminster voting intentions.  Instead the two parties are pretty much tied, suggesting that the next election will see a hung parliament again.

Labour north of the border have never got over seeing Scotland as their private fiefdom in which they were entitled to Scottish votes in perpetuity and therefore see the SNP as a party which has 'stolen' their rightful votes.  In their view, in order to win a General Election, they need to get back all of the seats they lost in the recent past if Mr Corbyn is to stand any chance of winning the next General Election.  They therefore need some means of discrediting the SNP in order to try and win back those seats.  It is evident they will use any means possible to try to do this.  Indeed, one might think that the recent strikes are also part of this strategy.

The Labour party itself has recently had to deal with accusations of antisemitism, which have been quite damaging.  It is coincidence, I'm sure, that they are now using similar accusations against the party they see as their bitterest enemy in Scotland.

The fly in the ointment, however, is that even if the SNP loses some members over this, it does not necessarily mean that the voters will flock back to Labour.  Independence is the lynchpin of Scottish politics at the moment and Labour, being a Unionist party, is not going to pick up votes from those who support independence.

Was the blogpost antisemitic?  I don't think it was.  The reference to Hitler and his views was always going to be controversial, and could probably have been omitted without detracting from the point he was trying to make.  However, there is, as yet, no law against expressing your views, even if those views may be distasteful to some.  Let's hope we never become the sort of society where controversial views can no longer be expressed.

Eyes on the Prize

Last week the SNP announced the results of the election for Depute Leader of the party. which was won by Keith Brown.  The Conservatives in Scotland were moved to tweet this in response:

At first glance, this would seem a nonsensical thing to say.  The Depute Leader of the SNP supports independence for Scotland?  Definitely high on the 'D'uh' scale. If you think about it, though, this reveals a little more than they might have thought.

Let's take the Labour party.  Formed in the late 19th century as the Independent Labour Party, this had its origins in the growing Trade Union movement and had as its aim the representation of working class interests in Parliament.  They formed their first government in 1924, and became the official opposition when not in government after that.  Fast forward to today, and the Tory and Labour parties are almost indistinguishable apart from some tinkering round the edges.  To all intents and purposes the Labour party has been absorbed into the Establishment and the threat they originally posed to the interests of the wealthy and property-owning classes has been essentially neutered.

Evidently the Establishment thought that the strategy that had worked well for Labour would also work for the SNP.  Give them some privileges, show them how things really work and they will soon be at the trough with the rest of them. The Establishment can relax once more, the threat to the their power neutered.

The tweet above reveals, I think, a certain frustration that the strategy doesn't seem to be working.  The SNP need to be very careful that they don't fall for the same tricks that the Labour party fell for and don't get too comfortable with their positions in Westminster and Holyrood.  First and foremost the aim of the SNP is to obtain a return to independence for Scotland, and they need to keep their eyes on this prize and not get too comfortable with the trappings of power as currently constituted.

Wha daur meddle wi' me

Last night the Westminster government essentially drove a coach and horses through the current devolution settlement by only permitting 15 minutes for debate on clause 11 of the EU Withdrawal Bill and filling that time with a speech from David Lidington, a Tory minister.  No Scottish MPs were allowed to speak.  This now means that powers being repatriated from Brussels which are currently within the competence of the devolved parliaments will be instead retained by Westminster.  The government claims that this will be for a period of seven years, after which the powers could be devolved once more.  However, a week is a long time in politics, and it's not as if the major parties have ever reneged on a promise before.  Oh wait...

The SNP's Commons leader, Ian Blackford, is permitted two questions at Prime Minister's Questions and today used one of them to request an immediate vote to hold a new debate on devolution issues connected to Brexit.  This was denied by the Speaker (although the rules permit it) and Mr Blackford was ordered to leave the chamber after refusing to resume his seat despite being told to several times by the Speaker.  He was followed by the entire contingent of SNP MPs.

This will have an interesting consequence.  The mainstream media did not think that the devolution part of the 'debate' last night to be of much interest to their readers, and we were lucky to see as much as a paragraph about it.  However, the SNP walkout has generated headlines, which will bring the matter to the attention of a large section of the population, who might just perceive that the SNP alone are standing up for Scotland's interests.

Another consequence of last night and today is that the SNP have seen a surge in applications to join the party, with almost 1,000 people joining today. Many individuals have tweeted that they have joined, generally saying that last night's sham of a debate was the final straw, and many of them also claiming to have been No voters in 2014 who have realised that they were lied to on 2014.

Also today an interesting post has been circulating regarding the Act of Union 1707 and a possible way in which it could be dissolved by legal means.  I am no lawyer, so cannot speak to whether this is the case or not.  However, it's worth remembering that Nicola Sturgeon was a lawyer before she was a politician.  One wonders whether we may be seeing a plan long in the making coming to fruition.  The case is due to be heard before the Supreme Court in late July, so watch this space.

It certainly seems that the events of the last 24 hours have seen Scotland finally waking up to what is being done to the devolution settlement and many are at last coming to a realisation of just how much we have to lose if the Westminster government is allowed to get away with what it is trying to do. And an awakened Scotland is exactly what the Westminster doesn't want.  Many Scots have come to like the fact that we have our own parliament again, even if it is restricted in what it can do, and would not want it removed.

The Stuart dynasty in Scotland had as a motto 'nemo me impune lacessit', which translates as 'no-one gets away with attacking me'.  The Scots translation is generally 'wha daur meddle wi' me' or, in English 'who dares to meddle with me'.  Scotland is awake and is becoming angry, and that might be all we need to remove ourselves from this very unequal union.   Let's make sure that we tell everyone what is being done to us.  The tide is turning and we need to be ready .

Never trust a Tory

Today Ruth Davidson has written an article for the Guardian entitled 'My fellow Tories, I'm afraid the crash generation just doesn't trust us'.  It's been written on the back of a YouGov poll on behalf of the Centre for Policy Studies which says that

nearly half of 18- to 24-year-olds say that there is zero chance of them ever voting Tory. 

Honestly I'm surprised that it's as high as that, especially as the following sentence says

 Among under-40s as a whole, those who says they are certain to vote Conservative is now less than one in 10.

 So logically it would seem that 18- to 24-year-olds are actually more likely to vote Tory than 25- to 40-year-olds?  She doesn't go into detail on this.

Anyway, not to worry, Ruth is on the case.  She goes on to say

But – after making gains in both the Scottish parliament and Westminster elections in recent years – it’s also something that we know we can change. There are some lessons for the whole party in our experience.

Now there's no denying that there are now more Conservative MPs and MSPs in Scotland than there have been for a generation, so she must be doing something right.  But if we look at the campaigns she ran for the last Holyrood and Westminster elections in Scotland her strategy consisted of 'never mind the policies, we don't want a second independence referendum' and 'vote for the Ruth Davidson party'.    In other words, she appealed to the die-hard Unionists in Scotland and carefully played down any mention of the Conservatives.  It worked for her this time, but one has to think that she has already reached the peak of that particular constituency.

Ruth goes on to say that her success is because

We’ve sought to make an optimistic, positive case about that union

She has?  She kept it very quiet then.  One of the things that Yes supporters have been asking for is a positive case for remaining in the Union, and we don't appear to be any further forward on that score as a result of either of Ruth's campaigns.  Dog-whistles about 'we don't need no stinking second referendum' don't really count as a positive case for anything.

So what's a Scottish Tory leader to do?  Trumpet Conservative values apparently. 

The younger generation, and society at large, is not yearning for a five-year plan of centrally delivered tractor quotas. Instead, we are a society that prizes individual autonomy and freedom of expression, and expects government to help us to achieve our goals, not set them.

Nice dog-whistle in the 'five-year plan' reference, which will quite possibly not work on younger generations, unless they've been studying the history of Soviet Russia.   As for 'prizing individual autonomy and freedom of expression', there's a great big unspoken addendum to that, which is 'as long as you don't expect anything more than lip-service to actual support'.  Tell that to disabled people, whose goals are to live a dignified and happy life, or students from poor backgrounds who don't have family money to rely on to get an education.   Life in Toryland is grand as long as you stand on your own two feet and don't expect any practical support.

Then we get to the meat of the matter.  Ruth is helping to launch a brand new think-tank.

Next week I will help launch Onward, a new think-tank, which will work to offer practical policies to support families across the country, focusing on the under-45s

Focusing on the under-45s presumably because the poll has told them that essentially their natural constituency is older people who have a bad habit of being more likely to die, thus whittling away at Tory support.

The major priorities will be affordable housing and education.  Sounds very laudable.  Who wouldn't want to improve these areas?  But here's the thing, the Tories have been in government at Westminster for a number of years now, and we have a shortage of affordable housing and, in some areas of the UK, the highest student debt ever.  Why should we believe that this time things will change?  Mind you, think-tanks are a perfect way of making it look as if something is being done while changing not very much at all.

I think that Ms Davidson and her cohorts underestimate the younger generation.  They're not stupid, and can see for themselves the utter mess that the current government is making of things. And it's not just the younger generation that don't trust them.

They walk the line

You can't please all of the people all of the time.  All you can do is try to please as many people as possible most of the time.  This principle applies in all sorts of situations in life, and there's often a fine line to be walked.

The history of the Labour party is a good example of this.  It was originally formed out of the trade union movement, with the intention of representing the interests of the working class in politics and fighting for changes that would benefit the working man.  People would vote for it, especially in Scotland, trusting in their representatives to do their best for them.  However, gradually the party began to see working class votes as an entitlement which would enable the political class to get into power/remain in power - a means to an end, if you will.  This has led the the situation where the Labour party in Scotland has no idea how to campaign, because for many years they could rely on the working class voting for them by default without having to have too much in the way of policies to attract them.  Nowadays we hear a repeated cry of 'come home to Labour' aimed at voters in Scotland who are now voting for the SNP.  The Labour party in Scotland has not yet lost its sense of entitlement to votes.

The SNP, the main rivals to Labour in Scotland, would do well to learn from this example.  Following the referendum in 2014 they saw a massive increase in membership, mainly from supporters of independence who see the SNP as the main way in which this goal will be achieved.  Four years on, however, the SNP are in danger of falling into the same trap as Labour.  At branch level they seem to be seeing the massive increase in membership as a resource to be leveraged in order to get the SNP into power at all levels from local councils upwards.  In the process they appear to be losing sight of the bigger picture, the reason why many of the new members joined.

Most of the new members did not join in order to become embroiled in the local minutiae of bus routes, community councils and budgets. They joined in order to fight for Scottish independence and are not particularly interested in schools or waste collections.  There is a danger that, in losing sight of the bigger picture, the SNP leadership risk losing many of their new members, who will be quite happy to move on to some other group if they offer a more direct fight for independence.

The SNP as the Scottish government have concentrated on the past few years in offering decent governance, which is important in demonstrating that there is no reason why Scots can't run their own affairs competently.  However, at the moment the SNP seem to be forgetting their core reason for being, and would do well to bring it back into focus.

There will never be a time when the fight for independence will be without some risk.  No major change has ever come about without it.  The time is fast approaching where the SNP will either have to offer leadership in the struggle for independence or move over to allow other groups to take the lead, in the process becoming just like all the other political parties in Scotland.  Let's hope they opt for the former.

Divisive

'Shall we have a second referendum on Scottish independence?'

'No!  Divisive!' comes the loud reply from supporters of the Union.

Divisive.  The reflex answer, without much thought going into it, parroted time and time again.  But what does that actually mean?

The dictionary definition of  'divisive' is 'tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people'.  On the surface I think both sides of the independence debate could agree on the 'cause disagreement' part.  The hostility seems to me to come more from the Unionist side, but I'm pretty sure they would argue that it mainly comes from the independista side.  Certainly it is always deployed by the Unionist side as a reason not to have another referendum, but I don't believe I've ever heard the independence side use it in any context.

If we dig a little deeper though, and look at the derivation of the term we find

Mid 16th century (as a noun denoting something that divides or separates): from late Latin divisivus, from Latin dividere (see divide).

Isn't division the very reason we have politics in the first place?  You're never going to get an issue that 100% of the population agrees on, so there are always going to be sides, and therefore division no matter what the particular issue under discussion is.  If you have an election, there are going to be two or more sides competing for the votes of the electorate in any democracy, and they may have wildly differing views on how best to run the country.  So why aren't General Elections viewed as divisive? To take another example, the Brexit referendum was a very close run thing, far more so than the one on independence.  Yet, when it's suggested that there should be another one before we actually leave the EU, you don't hear cries of 'divisive!' from the leavers or remainers.  Rather you hear from the leavers that the will of the people has been expressed and is therefore inviolate.

What makes the issue of Scottish independence uniquely 'divisive' then?

Some Unionists have argued that the previous referendum on independence resulted in fallings-out between friends and family members, causing wounds that have barely begun to heal.  I have to say that neither I nor anyone else I know has found themselves in the position of not talking to friends or family because they voted different ways.  Indeed, my experience was that, where opinions differed, there was a lot of friendly banter, but nothing serious.  This is not to say that this never happened, but I think it's not nearly as common as the Unionist side are claiming.  The same could also be said of the Brexit referendum.  At best this is a superficial reason.

Let's dig a little deeper.  Here in the UK we have two major parties and a number of minor parties who take part in Westminster General Elections.  The major parties are the Conservatives (Tories) and Labour.  During most of the twentieth century the Conservatives represented the interests of the property-owning classes, while Labour represented the interests of the working classes and had close ties to the trade unions.  Conservatives believe in minimal governmental regulation while Labour believed in more governmental regulation to prevent exploitation of the majority of the populace by the property-owning classes. In the 1990s, however, Labour under Tony Blair became much more 'business-friendly' and much less tied to the trade unions.  Nowadays the Conservatives and Labour have very similar core values, with some tinkering at the edges of governmental regulation, Labour being more inclined to have it and the Conservatives not as far as business is concerned, while both are becoming ever more draconian in their attempts to control what ordinary people do.  There is a third UK party, the Liberal Democrats, but most people would be hard-pressed to say how they differ from the Conservatives and Labour.  All three parties have in common that they support the status quo in the form of the monarchy and control by the Westminster parliament.

In Scotland the SNP have existed for seventy years, and for most of that time they were very much a tiny, special-interest party, held of no account by the Establishment.  However, since devolution in 1999 the SNP have seen a meteoric rise, resulting in the first independence referendum in 2014.  At that point the UK parties woke up to the fact that there was a real threat to the comfortable status quo where each of them had a turn at power to one degree or another and were free to do whatever they liked with Scottish resources.  The independence referendum made many people realise that there might just be an opportunity to run things differently from the UK model.

Here, I think, is the real root of the cry of 'divisive'.  The division is between those who are comfortable with the status quo and resent/fear being made to think about it and those who dare to dream that things could be very different. The fear from the Unionist side shows in their desperation not to have another referendum, since the last result was far closer than was anticipated and there is no guarantee that they would win another one.

So, next time the idea of a second independence referendum is met with the clarion cry of 'divisive', perhaps we should push right back and ask why division is a uniquely bad thing in the context of Scottish independence.  I think the Unionist side will be hard-pressed to explain it.

Alea iacta est

There continues to be a huge debate about the timing of a second Scottish independence referendum, although it would appear that most supporters of Scottish independence would prefer it to take place before the next Scottish elections in 2021.  However, it remains to be seen whether the Scottish government will do so, especially with stalwarts of the Yes movement like Jim Sillars proclaiming very stringent conditions to be met before calling one.

Nicola Sturgeon has proved herself an excellent administrator and statesman, as have others in her government.  This is not a bad thing at this stage, as it has given people a sense that Scots are more than capable of running their own affairs (albeit currently in a limited way), as well as a politics quite different from that elsewhere in the UK.  The Unionists will, of course, sneer that everything isn't perfect under the SNP, conveniently forgetting that everything hasn't been perfect under their parties of choice either.  Nevertheless, people who are not tied to a particular party will likely now have some confidence in our abilities to do things for ourselves.

How does this relate to the second independence referendum?  Essentially because I don't get a sense from Nicola Sturgeon that she has the bold streak that will be required to go for it.  Let's face it, there will never be certainty.  There are too many people who will decide on the day which way to vote.

Imagine the scene.  Julius Caesar and his generals approach the Rubicon, knowing that to cross it will start a civil war.  They cannot be certain that they will win it.  Nevertheless, Caesar crosses the Rubicon and utters the phrase 'alea iacta est' (let the die be cast).  He can't be certain of victory, but is willing to play the odds with the information he has.

Imagine the scene.  Robert the Bruce is contemplating a battle with the English at Bannockburn.  He almost calls it off, but is told that morale in the English army is poor, so decides to go ahead with it.  He can't be certain he will win, but thinks that his chances are good enough to at least try.

Imagine the scene.  Henry V is at Agincourt, about to face a much larger French army.  He believes his Welsh archers will give him the advantage, but he cannot be certain of victory.  Nevertheless, he is sufficiently confident that he can win the day to go ahead with the battle anyway.

As far as another indyref, we can never be certain we can win it.  The best we can do is start with as much support as possible and try as best we can to convince enough floating voters to our side.  It requires, however, a leader with a certain boldness, willing to go all-in if they were a poker player.  This I am not certain the current leadership has.

What if we lose?  We don't give up.  It may be the next generation that has to take on the fight.  Fear of losing should not prevent us from trying however.  The lesson of history is quite clear on this, and we would do well to heed it.

Ready, steady...

Recently there has been a big debate going on in the indy-supporting community as to the timing of a second referendum on Scottish independence.  This has been sparked by Pete Wishart MP, who urges caution on holding a second independence referendum unless it's all but certain it will be won.  This has provoked a strong reaction from people who believe that the mandate that the SNP and Greens won at the last Scottish Parliamentary Elections to hold another independence referendum in the event of a material change in circumstances should be honoured in the course of the current Scottish parliament, on the basis that the fact that Scotland voted to stay in the EU but it being taken out of it anyway constitutes that material change.

I am one of the many people who joined the SNP in the wake of the 2014 referendum.  Why?  Because, like it or not, the SNP are going to be the main vehicle that gets us to independence.  There are many other groups which support Scottish independence, each with their own agenda once we get there, and all have their part to play, but the SNP are the biggest group by far.  It therefore falls to Nicola Sturgeon, as leader of the SNP, to determine when the next independence referendum will be.

Initially Ms Sturgeon made all the right noises in the wake of the Brexit referendum result, which saw Scotland being taken out of the EU at the behest of the voters in England and Wales, even though every Scottish council district had voted to stay in.  However, many people feel that she has rowed back on that commitment (see here for example, from about six minutes in)

To a degree this is understandable.  Ms Sturgeon and her government have to walk a fine line between standing up for what Scotland voted for and not scaring the currently Unionist-voting people.

The current SNP strategy appears to be to show competence in government, whether that's at Westminster by standing up to the Tory government, both on behalf on Scotland and on wider UK matters, or at Holyrood by proving that they can run a country successfully using the powers they have (such as they are) to improve the lives of Scots.  In this they have been pretty successful, and Nicola Sturgeon in particular has shown real statesmanlike qualities.

However, those of Peter Wishart's belief tend to come across as being comfortable with the status quo and unwilling to upset the applecart, whether they mean to or not.  Pete Wishart's argument is that in his constituency he has had many people who voted for him tell him that they would favour the Tories in another election, and that this therefore implies falling support for independence or at least no guarantee that another independence referendum would be winnable, and that another referendum defeat would end the independence movement and mean that future generations would never forgive us.

With respect to Mr Wishart, however, Perth cannot be considered typical of everywhere in Scotland.  Perth and the surrounding area were represented at Westminster by Nicholas Fairbairn from 1974 to 1995, an arch-Tory if ever there was one.  This would tend to imply a vein of Toryism running through the electorate in Perth, which you are unlikely to find in other areas of Scotland.

The other side of the debate thinks that the Scottish government should hold a second independence referendum, certainly before the next Scottish parliamentary elections and for some before Brexit actually takes place.  There is some merit to this argument.  Nicola Sturgeon wants to wait until the terms of Brexit are crystal-clear, countered by the argument that we are already seeing the effects of Brexit on the UK and that things are not going to improve once Brexit actually takes place.  If anything they will be much, much worse.

If another independence referendum were called tomorrow, we would be starting off from a much better position than in the last one.  Current polling suggests that support for independence is holding steady at around 46%, compared with around 22% at the beginning of the last indyref campaign.  However, getting that extra 5% will take a lot of work in persuading previous No voters that Scottish independence will not make their lives worse and will conceivably make it considerably better, this in the face of a concerted campaign from the British Establishment to keep us in the UK.

Where do I stand on this? Discretion is often the better part of valour, and I can see where the SNP are coming from with their 'steady as she goes' philosophy.  However,  major changes like Scottish independence are not won by being cautious. There comes a time when you just have to cross the Rubicon and deal with whatever the outcome is. Pete Wishart's view is that future generations will never forgive us if we try again and lose. However, I don't think we should be held back by what future generations might possibly think. We can't tell what the future will be, we can only deal with what we have now. We are starting from a much better position than we were in 2014, and Brexit will, I think, give us additional support from people who believed in 2014 that remaining in the Union was the only way to retain EU membership. I do understand that some Yessers don't support EU membership, so it's important to make it clear that an indyref isn't tied to EU membership, which can be decided (possibly by another referendum) after independence is obtained. The SNP have their mandate for another indyref, and it would be unforgivable to refuse to use that mandate because you are afraid that you might not win. 

Faint heart never won fair maiden, as they say.

Sending a message

We are about to vote in the General Election that Theresa May insisted she wasn't going to call.  Here in Scotland the battle is principally between those who support independence for Scotland and those who want Scotland to remain part of the UK.  Indeed both Labour in Scotland and the Tories in Scotland have staked their campaigns on it.

For those who support independence the choice is easy - vote SNP.  For those who support remaining in the UK there are three main choices - Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrat.  However, Ruth Davidson of the Tories has been urging Unionists to vote for her party to 'send a message to Nicola Sturgeon' that 'we don't want another divisive referendum'.

For those who are thinking of voting Tory to show their support for the Unionist cause I would ask you to consider one thing.  When you put your cross against the Tory candidate there is no room for nuance.  That cross means that you are implicitly supporting all Tory policies like massive cuts to welfare benefits, the rape clause, continuing austerity, Trident renewal, support for fracking and hard Brexit.  You are also likely supporting cuts to the NHS in England (which has knock-on effects on the Scottish NHS) and most likely changes to the devolution settlement which will see powers removed from Holyrood.

Now it may be that you are in favour of all these things.  If so, that is a matter between you and your conscience (if you have one).  If, however, that list gave you pause for thought, please rethink your voting choice for tomorrow.  The best option for Scotland is to vote for the SNP, who have Scotland's interests front and foremost.  If you feel you can't do that, please consider voting for Labour or the Liberal Democrats instead.

Let's send a message to Ruth Davidson that her party's appalling programme is not welcome here.

Second place victory

There is a new poll out which shows Labour gaining on the Tories, with the gap between them reduced to 9%..  This would bring the General Election closer to hung parliament territory, which would be in stark contrast to the expected Tory tsunami when Theresa May called it.  The question is why would this be?

The Labour manifesto has been criticised for being uncosted and for reverting back to the 1970s, with talk of renationalising railways and scrapping tuition fees for example.  In general, however, the manifesto is likely to resonate most with young voters.  The Tories would normal be expected to appeal to the grey vote by safeguarding things such as pensions.  Interestingly, however, they are going in quite the opposite direction by removing the triple lock on pensions, removing the winter heating allowance from pensioners and proposals to make pensioners requiring care to now have the value of their house taken into account when valuing their assets, with only £100,000 being protected.  Given that the elderly are most likely to vote, and to vote Tory, why is Theresa May taking this course?

The thought occurs that maybe the Tories don't want to win the election.  Having got the UK into the position of going through with Brexit (and a hard Brexit at that), they are best placed to know just what they are up against in terms of negotiating with the EU.  Wouldn't it just be typical of the Tories who, having made a huge mess, now want someone else to deal with it so that they can attempt to avoid responsibility for what's about to happen?

Maybe this is verging on conspiracy theory territory, but it would not be out of character for the Tories to try something likes this.  In Scotland, in the last two elections, the Tories have come second but have essentially been declared the winners.  Looks like they are trying for something similar for the whole UK this time round.

Gone fishing?

Has Ruth Davidson's PR person gone on holiday?  I ask because she has dropped a couple of real clangers in the past few days.  First there was this

(From the party that brought in the rape clause)

Then there was this

(From the party that has removed disability vehicles from over 50,000 people)

I know we're used to the Tories having a tin ear with regard to their communications with the unwashed masses, but you'd think someone at party HQ might have cast their eye over these and told Ms Davidson to have a word with herself.  I almost dread to think what she'll come up with next.

Mind you, with the rate that senior Conservative officials are resigning at the moment, amid bitter in-fighting within Theresa May's government, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that things like this are allowed to slip through.

All-in

Theresa May yesterday called for a snap General Election on 8th June.  She has to get a vote of two-thirds of MPs in the Commons to make that happen, but since Jeremy Corbyn has announced that his MPs will be whipped to support it, it's pretty much a racing certainty that it's going to happen.  So why now?  I think there are several reasons.

The first and most obvious one is that polls are showing a strong lead for the Tories, making it the right time to try and get a large majority in Parliament rather than the razor-thin one Ms May has at the moment.  Ms May herself says that she wants to ensure that she has a strong mandate for Brexit,  The right time for an election would therefore be before the economic consequences of that really start to bite.  A large majority would allow her to pass whatever legislation she feels she needs to without any serious opposition.  This should ring alarm bells for anyone who has observed Ms May's authoritarian tendencies in her previous post as Home Secretary.

The less publicised reason is, however, that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) have told Channel 4 that they have prepared cases against more than 30 individuals for breaching the law on electoral expenses. This includes MPs as well as their election agents.  Since the current Tory majority is only 17 MPs there has to be a possibility of this being reduced, if not lost altogether, if MPs are found guilty.  This would have two consequences.  One is that this would reduce Ms May's ability to force through her Brexit programme.  The other is that there could potentially be a large number of by-elections to be fought.  Best grasp the nettle now would seem to be the thinking.

Another reason for the snap election is, I think, an attempt to thwart Nicola Sturgeon in her push for another referendum on independence once the details of the Brexit deal become clear.  This may seem a bit tangential, but bear with me.

At the moment Ms Sturgeon is pressing Ms May's government for a Section 30 order. which would be required for the result of a second referendum to be recognised as legally binding by Westminster.  So far Ms May has refused to respond to this. So why would a General Election help?

Most obviously Ms May would be hoping that the SNP would lose a large number of the seats they won, mainly from Labour, in 2015.  She could the use this to claim that the SNP do not have popular support for another referendum on independence which would then justify a refusal of the section 30 order.  Less obviously, it is very likely that, in the event of winning by a large majority, the Tories will start to dismantle the devolution settlement, which they have never been in favour of, thus preventing any further attempts to regain Scottish independence.  This would then make their bargaining position with the EU much stronger, as they would be able to use Scottish resources such as fishing and farming as bargaining chips.  Under current circumstances the EU negotiators would simply point out that these things might not be Westminster's to bargain with under current circumstances.

What should Ms Sturgeon do about it?  In my opinion it's time to go for broke.  The SNP should include in their manifesto a pledge that if more than half of the MPs returned by Scotland as a result of the General Election are SNP, this should be taken as a de facto vote in favour of independence.  This would cut through the need to gain 'permission' from Westminster to hold a referendum and would, I think, satisfy bodies such as the EU and UN that the Scottish government has a mandate from the people to declare independence (with the usual disclaimer that I am not a lawyer of course).

We are entering a high-stakes game of poker.  Do we feel lucky?

Referendum the second

The Scottish parliament yesterday voted for a second independence referendum by a margin of 69-59, after a debate stretching over two days.  I watched some of the final day of the debate and was struck by the tone of the debate coming from the Unionist side.  From Ruth Davidson's 'Sit Down!' directed at the First Minister to so-called jokes about the Greens' 'vegan diets' there was a complete disrespect for fellow MSPs, not to mention an implication that the Unionists were entitled to tell independistas what to do.

The vote shows how the battle lines are now drawn, with the SNP and Greens on one side and the Tories/Labour/LibDems on the other.  It was also interesting to note that the parties on the Unionist side voted against allowing 16- and 17-year olds the vote, presumably because they are likely to vote for independence.  You could argue that the independence-supporting parties wanted them in the electorate for that very reason, but there is another aspect, which is that 16- and 17-years olds are the ones who will have to live longest with the decision, so deserve to have a say.  And before anyone says 'why not 15-year olds then', the answer is that at 16 you can join the army, get married and pay taxes, so that would seem to be a fair cut-off point.

More interesting was the swift response from David Mundell, who said that

We won’t be entering into any negotiations at all until the Brexit process is complete. Now is the time for the Scottish government to come together with the UK government, work together to get the best possible deal for the UK, and that will mean for Scotland as we leave the EU.

He also indicated that the matter would not be considered until any transitional arrangements are also complete, which could push the date back even further.  This is, of course, an attempt to kick the whole thing into the long grass, to say 'no' without actually saying 'no'.   However, in a leaked copy of a European parliament resolution it appears that any transitional arrangements will not be allowed to last longer than three years, which would mean a date of 2022 for the second referendum.

The Tories will, however, be playing the odds that a lot can happen in five years.  One thing that should worry us is the Great Repeal Bill, which is due this week.  This will convert all laws based on EU law to British law.  One thing that has been mooted is that Theresa May will want to have so-called Henry 8th powers included in order to allow ministers to amend with these laws without having to go through parliament.  It does not take much imagination to think that it might be used to get rid of the devolved governments, returning all countries to direct rule from Westminster.  This would allow Westminster to squash any thought of another referendum on Scottish independence.  I hope I'm wrong on this, but the Tories have always been against the devolution settlement and would relish the chance to sweep them away.  Now that really would lead to interesting times.

Division

In today's Observer Kevin McKenna has an article about the 'divisiveness' of another referendum on Scotland's independence.  It's a word we hear incessantly from the Scottish branches of Labour and the Conservatives, and I must admit it has always puzzled me.  People never agree on anything.  Some like curry, some prefer Chinese food.  Some like to drink alcohol, others don't.  Some prefer to pay low taxes, others prefer to have better public services. Each side will often try to persuade the other side of the merits of their view.  That, in a nutshell, is politics.

Since the nature of politics is to support a particular set of views, it follows that politics is divisive by default.  So why has it suddenly become the word du jour amongst Unionists?  After all, surely they must be used to division of opinion and the art of persuading people to support their particular world view?  Even votes in Westminster are known as 'divisions'.

The answer lies, I think, in the Unionist politicians being jolted out of their comfort zone by the previous referendum on independence.  Until that took place they had a cosy world-view.  Sure, Labour wanted higher taxes for the rich to pay for better public services and the Conservatives wanted low taxes and a minimal state.  But behind those differences they were in agreement that it was best for Scotland to be part of the UK.  Sometimes Labour would be in government, sometimes the Conservatives.  Each would get their turn, so if you lost a General Election, it was only a matter of time before it would be your turn to win.

The SNP and the wider Yes movement have disrupted that.  The SNP have proved that Labour and the Conservatives are not the only choices in Scotland, having proved that they have some competence in managing Scotland.  Of course, the Unionists politicians like to dramatically claim that services are falling apart in Scotland, that the SNP couldn't run a corner shop, let alone a country.  However, for the ordinary Scot, these shrill screams do not chime with their everyday experience of living in Scotland, which is why they continue to vote in SNP governments.

The wider Yes movement has disrupted things by coming very close to winning the independence referendum in 2014.  Suddenly being run by Westminster isn't the only option in town.  And since the Brexit vote in June last year, independence has become more attractive to those voting No last time, meaning that this time the campaign for independence is starting from a position of 50-50 rather than the 28-72 it started from last time.

This is, I think, what is at the root of the cries of 'divisive!'.  Labour and the Conservatives no longer have a monopoly on what's best for Scotland, ie remaining in the Union.  Now they have to produce a case to to persuade the voters on why they should vote to remain in the UK.  In the last referendum they didn't do this, relying instead on scary stories and threats of vengeance.  I don't think that will work nearly as well this time around, since people have seen it all before.  This time they will have to produce a positive case for staying in the Union, and that will take a great deal of hard work.  Better, then, to try and avoid the necessity by demonising the independence movement.  After all, the Unionists have their own careers to think about, and some of them don't fancy being in a small country that doesn't punch above its weight.

I honestly think that no positive case for the Union will be produced.  Instead I suspect that we will get Project Fear Mk 2, this time with the volume cranked up to 11.  However, the independence movement has also learned from 2014, and we will be ready to counter their arguments.  Bring it on.

Brexit deal irony

Yesterday morning Nicola Sturgeon caught Downing Street on the hop by announcing that she would be asking the Scottish Parliament next week to approve a request for a Section 30 order, thus firing the starting pistol on a second independence referendum for Scotland.  This is expected to take place sometime between autumn 2018 and spring 2019, although it could be slightly later, depending on when the details of the Brexit deal become clear.  In any event, it is planned to have the referendum before the UK finally leaves the EU.

Yesterday evening the Bill to trigger Article 50 was once again debated by the House of Lords, specifically on the two amendments proposed by the Lords, that is to protect the status of EU citizens already resident in the UK and to give Parliament of vote on the Brexit deal before it is accepted.  Both amendments were rejected when the Labour Lords sided with the Conservatives to vote them down, so the Bill has now passed unamended.

This leads to a slight irony over the Brexit deal, where MPs and Lords, who are supposed to be running the country, will not get a say in the final Brexit deal.  However the people of Scotland will essentially get a vote on it by voting for independence rather than accept the deal.  Odd the way these things shake out.

Holy Wullie

This weekend is the Liberal Democrats' spring conference, in which we can expect to hear lots of 'SNP bad' and 'we don't want no referendum' (isn't there a song about that?).  This is also the time for their leader, Willie Rennie, to expect some coverage of his views.

Yesterday he had a somewhat disastrous interview with Gary Robertson on Good Morning Scotland, in which he was hard pressed to explain the difference between his idea on having another referendum on EU membership once the exit deal has been negotiated to see if people want to accept it and leave or not and simply having another referendum to see if people still want to leave or not,  I imagine the idea sounded great in his own head.  He was also hard pressed to explain why, if he wants a second referendum on leaving the EU, it's not OK for Scotland to have another referendum on independence given that circumstances have changed dramatically since 2014, when Scots were told that voting No was the only way to guarantee continuing EU membership.

Today Mr Rennie is set to make the 'emotional' case for Scotland to remain in the UK in his conference speech.  It kind of suggests that the LibDems can't muster up any other kind of case for remaining in the UK, which doesn't bode well for the forthcoming Better Together 2.0 campaign.  Certainly it's noticeable that, when arguing the case for Scottish independence on news websites, the British Nationalists are still regurgitating more or less verbatim all the lines from Better Together 1.0.  However, it does take a certain amount of hypocrisy to make the 'emotional' case, given that last time round the Better Together campaign, of which Mr Rennie was part, sneeringly dismissed Scottish nationalists as 'Bravehearts', thinking with their hearts rather than their heads.  How times have changed.

Here is the news

I'm currently reading 'All Out War: The Full Story of How Brexit Sank Britain's Political Class' by Tim Shipman.  It's an analysis of both the Remain and Leave campaigns and has extensive interviews with many of the backroom people as well as the frontmen from each side.

One chapter deals with the BBC coverage in the purdah period in the 30 days leading up to the referendum and whether its duty is to question the claims by each side or whether it merely has to provide balance.  In it (and I never thought I'd say this) David Mundell has something to say which I think will be very germane to the second independence referendum.  This is an extract from the chapter:

The situation [regarding BBC coverage] ought not to have come as a surprise to David Cameron, who had been warned about how the broadcasting rules would play out in the final four weeks by the Scottish secretary David Mundell, who knew better than most what had happened north of the border in 2014.  In a Remain cabinet meeting held after the deal was done, Mundell told his colleagues that the contest would get difficult when the short campaign began.  He says, 'There was a failure to understand that in the final part of the campaign, which is a regulated media part, you just get a quantitative balance on the television.  George Osborne can pop up with a five-hundred-page document, and the other side just need someone else to turn up and say, 'That's crap.'  And that counts as a debate.  It's not a qualitative debate.'  After the referendum Mundell said, 'That's what the Leave side did much better.  They just had a number of simplistic slogans to use for their two-second clip.  There's no point in saying ' here's a 5,000 page report saying everything's going to go belly-up' when somebody else rocks up and says 'No it's not.  We're taking back control.'

The parallels with the last independence referendum are clear.  The Yes side had the 600-page white paper which set out their case for an independent Scotland.  However, the content was mainly never debated.  Instead the No side stuck to a few simple slogans, such as 'What currency will you use?', 'You'll lose your pension' and 'You'll be out of the EU and will have to join the back of the queue'.  Simple concepts, hammered home time after time, and not questioned by the BBC, who saw their duty as providing balance rather than investigation.

We need to learn from this for the next indyref.  By all means have documents setting out the case for independence in great detail, but as far as television news goes, boil it down to some simple concepts.

We need to take our lessons where we find them, regardless of the source.  After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Following the rules

Woman deported from UK despite being married to Briton for 27 years

The non-EU workers who'll be deported for earning less than £35,000

Frail pensioner faces deportation after decade in UK to China where she knows no-one

Woman with no hands had her benefits stopped because she couldn't open a letter

DWP head denies sanctions and suicide link

Outrage at claims DWP 'Grinches' are refusing to process appeals before Christmas while pursuing sanctions

What do all these things have in common?  Yes, they are the result of Tory ideology, which prioritises self over collective responsibility, but you can no more blame Tories for that than you can blame a scorpion for stinging.  It's in their nature and we all know it.  However, that's not the thing I'm thinking of.  The thing that they have in common is that someone, somewhere was following the rules.  Not just following the rules, but prioritising the rules over common sense.

Now there can be various reasons for doing this.  A small number of people will do it because they dislike foreigners or benefit 'scroungers' or because they think that disabled people should be left to sink or swim.  Some will do it because they enjoy having power over other people.  The vast majority will do it, however, because those are the rules and not following them could result in losing their job.  This will be a fear especially affecting those working for the DWP, who will be well aware of the cruelties of the system that awaits them if they can't find another job.  So they will comfort themselves by telling themselves that they were 'only doing their job' or 'only following the rules'  What's become known as the 'Superior Orders' defence, and it has never worked out well, historically speaking.

Soon Scotland will be have an independent welfare system.  I would hope it will be far more humane than the current UK system.  We do not yet have control over immigration, and the signs are that the UK system will become a great deal more harsh in the near future.  Is this really the way that Scots want to go?

I think not.  The time has come for us to leave England to follow her path and to demonstrate that another way is possible.  Westminster will, of course, fight to prevent Scottish independence, and will use any means necessary to do it.  We have seen how harsh the current regime can be,  We need to be strong, gather our courage and vote for independence.  Yes, the initial years after independence will most likely be hard and require some sacrifices.  However, it will be worth it if we can end up with a country where people don't have to follow harsh rules with no leeway for common humanity.  It's an ambition we can all get behind.