Really Johann?

Yesterday was First Minister's Questions, in which the leaders of Scotland's other political parties that are represented in Holyrood take part in a formal debate, where they are allowed to put questions to the First Minister and he is obliged to answer them.  It's a formulaic affair, where each person asks a set question (eg 'What engagements does the First Minister have planned for the rest of the day?'), followed by a question on any subject.

Johann Lamont is notoriously bad at this and yesterday was up to her usual standards.  She simply cannot hide her loathing of Alex Salmond, with the result that she couldn't resist a couple of snide remarks in the course of her question of cancer waiting times in Scotland.

The reference to 'his failed referendum' was superficially correct.  From the SNP's point of view, the referendum did not deliver a Yes vote and is therefore, in the strict sense, a failure.  However, the fact that both the SNP and the Scottish Greens have tripled their membership, and that the Scottish Socialist Party has also seen a healthy increase would suggest that on many levels the referendum was not a failure, and that the result has been a more politically engaged electorate.  We also have Common Weal looking to set up both online and offline spaces for people to meet and discuss their particular brand of politics and actions.  My own view is that this really doesn't mean that the referendum was a failure.  Indeed, Ms Lamont would do well to look to her own party's future in Scotland, since the polls are currently showing there may be something of a rout for them in the General Election in May.

As for asking how Alex Salmond's golf handicap was coming along, cheap shot, Ms Lamont, cheap shot indeed.  I assume from this remark that Mr Salmond may be taking more of a back seat in the running of the country.  To me this makes sense, as he is stepping down in November, handing over to Nicola Sturgeon (unless anyone else decides to stand against her, which looks unlikely).  In most jobs, when the boss decides to leave, it's normal for the person succeeding him to start taking up the reins before he does so, to make the handover gradual.  Certainly it would appear that Ms Sturgeon is doing just that, with her request to the UK government to delay implementation of Universal Credit pending the discussion on new powers for the Scottish Parliament.

Meantime, given the rumours that Ms Lamont is not happy leading Labour in Scotland and that Jim Murphy may be interested in the job, who knows?  We may see a similar handover for Labour coming to a Parliament near us soon.

First Draft of the Bill of Rights

1. There shall be 600 MPs in the Parliament, in the following proportions: England 502, Scotland 52, Wales 30, Northern Ireland 16.  All MPs from outwith England will be forbidden from voting on matters not affecting their country, even if it has an indirect effect on their country by reducing expenditure in England and therefore the block grant given to them.

2. The remuneration of MPs will be decided by a committee and voted on by the Parliament.  The increase will not need to take account of any austerity measures in place, and will be voted through after a token debate.  Furthermore, MPs will be permitted to claim for all expenses (reasonable and unreasonable) in addition to their salary.  Should any member be found to have claimed expenses incorrectly, they will be allowed to repay the money and be given a light slap on the wrist.

3. The Parliament will respect the right of all citizens to practise a religion.  However, any religion other than the Church of England will be regarded will deep suspicion and its adherents monitored as appropriate.

4. The Parliament will respect the right to free speech, except where the views espoused are deemed by a committee to be in any way contrary to sensible parliamentarian world views, in which case the right to post to Facebook and Twitter will be removed. 

5. The freedom of the press will also be respected, providing the views of the incumbent government are promoted as required.  Stories on any mischief perpetrated by any MP, their families and friends shall not be reported and will have injunctions taken out to prevent publication.

6. The people have a right to free assembly, but the Parliament reserves the right to order kettling of protesters when they deem in necessary, and possibly deployment of water cannon and/or tasers.  The people also have the right to petition the Parliament for a redress of grievances.  The Parliament will listen and then take action as it deems fit at an appropriate time, depending on other priorities, maybe.

7. Citizens will be expected to find gainful employment of any kind, not necessarily related to their skills.  Such employment may offer zero or more hours worked in a given week, and the remuneration need not be sufficient to meet a minimum of living costs.

8. In the event that a citizen is without gainful employment, they are entitled to a bare minimum of living costs from the state.  However, this will involve jumping through more hoops that a troupe of performing dogs, and may be removed at any time for any perceived infraction of the action plan agreed with Jobcentre Plus staff, regardless of the reason for this dereliction.

9. All citizens have a right to an education.  Those without the means to pay will be given a free basic education to secondary level.  Tertiary education will be subject to fees set by the Universities in accordance with guidelines to be set out by Parliament.  Attendance at a University will be at the discretion of the establishment and need not necessarily be related to academic ability.

10. All citizens shall have the right to free basic health care.  Anything over and above basic health care may be obtained quickly for payment, otherwise there will be long waiting times for treatment, where available.

Tory dreams

Yesterday we learnt that David Cameron and Ruth Davidson believe that the No vote in the Scottish referendum is likely to bolster the Conservative party vote share in Scotland.  Oh, how short their memories are.  They seem to have forgotten that they formed a tri-partite alliance with Labour and the Lib-Dems to get the No vote, and both of those parties have far more supporters in Scotland than the Tories.  I can't see that that has changed.

Well, actually I think that support for Labour and Lib-Dems in Scotland has changed, and not in their favour.  The Lib-Dems have done themselves no favours by forming a coalition with the Tories as part of the current government, and around 40% of Labour supporters voted Yes in the referendum, many of whom having now moved on to join other parties in Scotland.  The General Election in May is going to prove quite interesting.  While I like to imagine a scenario where pandas > Labour MPs > Tory MPs in Scotland, reality is likely to be a reduced numbers of Labour and Lib-Dem MPs, but still outnumbering the pandas. I'm not sure David Mundell can expect any new friends to accompany him to Westminster though.

In other news Theresa May is proposing wide-ranging powers to prevent 'extremism'.  This would include bans on appearances in the media and on Internet access to those deemed to “spread or incite hatred” on grounds of gender, race or religion or who take part in “harmful activities” for the “purpose of overthrowing democracy”.  Those criteria are remarkably vague and woolly.  For example, would those of us in the Yes movement fall under the definition of having the purpose of overthrowing democracy?  Looks like it would depend on the opinion of politicians, and we know how neutral and unbiased they are. 

As for banning Internet access, that would be like trying to herd cats.  How would they prevent someone from having access to a smart phone or a tablet?  24-hour surveillance?  If they were banned from owning such items, what's to prevent them borrowing one?  And having got onto the Internet, are they really going to post openly about their intentions?  They could use the idea from the TV show 'Luther', where they write the dullest blog imaginable and the discussion goes on in code in the comments.

This seems to me to be gesture politics, and as with all such, it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.  However, I would not be surprised to see some attempt to implement this if the Tories are re-elected in May.

Done up like a Kipper

It's the Conservative Party conference, and the major theme that seems to be emerging (aside from the usual persecution of the unemployed and working poor) is just how scared they are of UKIP.  On Sunday Tory MPs were told that their personal integrity would be brought into disrepute if they should defect to UKIP, which can only lead to the conclusion that many of them have secrets they would not like to be exposed to the public.  I don't recall ever seeing such a naked threat issued, and I think it tells us a lot about the level of fear over the defections.

As a related aside, one thing that I noticed during the referendum was that we didn't see any scandal stories about Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon in the tabloids.  You'd think that would have been a big weapon in the armoury, given how tame the mainstream media were.  I can only conclude that there really wasn't anything of great interest to be told, since if there was any scandal you can bet there will be a file on it somewhere.

Yesterday we had George Osborne promising to abolish the 55% tax on pensions when they are passed on at death, and hinting at reviving his party's policy on raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million.  Pensioners are deserting the Conservatives for UKIP in increasing numbers, so again we see the fear of UKIP dictating policy.  As I get nearer pension age, I am waiting to see if I suddenly wake up one morning agreeing with everything the Conservatives say.  Maybe it's something that you get on the day you retire, along with access to the special old people's clothes shops?  I'll let you know when I get there.  Mind you, with promises of raising the retirement age to 70, it's going to be a while.

Boris Johnson has even re-extended a previous invitation for Nigel Farage to join the Conservatives - presumably a sort of reverse 'if you can't beat them, join them' scenario.  For me this raises the scary scenario of a Tory/UKIP alliance if there is a hung parliament at the next General Election, especially if, as rumoured, Boris takes over as Conservative leader.  Are you Yes yet?

The final interesting thing for me was John Redwood warning businesses not to give their opinion on leaving the EU.  To be fair to Mr Redwood, he doesn't think businesses should have given an opinion on the Scottish referendum either, a view clearly not shared by David Cameron and his chums.  I don't think they will want businesses giving their opinions on the EU, as they are not likely to agree with Mr Cameron this time, given that he is willing to recommend that people vote to leave the EU in the event that he doesn't get changes in the terms of the UKs membership, ie if he doesn't get his own way.  Getting his own way seems a little unlikely, as he doesn't have a great record of success in negotiating with the EU.  Also, the fact that he wants schools to go back to teaching imperial measurements rather than metric would suggest a deep-rooted anti-Europeanism and a hankering after the days of Empire, something that I don't think is shared to the same degree in Scotland.

Patriotism is a relative thing

David Cameron said this on the Andrew Marr Show:

"I am just a deeply patriotic politician and person. I do this job because I love my country, I care passionately about its future and I want it to be a strong, proud, self-governing independent nation.”

45% of Scots feel the same way about Scotland, but apparently that's different.

He said this in the context of the EU, when he said he would be prepared to recommend that people vote No to staying in the EU in the forthcoming referendum in 2017 if he doesn't get a satisfactory agreement (ie his own way) on the UK's opt-outs.  That could be one of the triggers for another referendum on Scottish independence in the event that Scotland votes to stay in the EU and England votes to leave, which certainly seems to be a possibility on the evidence of the polls.  Here's hoping!

A new media

One of the major bones of contention throughout the referendum campaign was the bias against Yes from the media, both print and broadcast.  This entailed both the promotion of stories from the No side pretty much uncritically, while attacking stories from the Yes side and also by not covering positive stories from the Yes side but ensuring the No stories were reported prominently.  Some of the issues were exposed by Professor John Robertson of the University of the West of Scotland.

There are 37 newspapers available to the Scottish public, 36 of which espoused the No side.  The one exception was, of course, the Sunday Herald, whose sales figures more than doubled following their support for the Yes campaign.  This is not to say that the Sunday Herald acted as an uncritical cheerleader for Yes.  They printed interviews with representatives of the No side, as well as analysis of the issues raised by the prospect of independence.  Clearly there was a gap in the market for this type of coverage.


The difficulty faced by the media supporting No was that Internet access is now widely available, something that was not the case in previous referendums in Scotland.  This meant that scare stories could be quickly debunked using information that was readily available on the Internet.  This was not something that the traditional media was used to.  I think that one of the reasons that sites like Wings over Scotland were so reviled by them is that they persistently embarrassed the BBC and newspapers by exposing the flaws in their stories using carefully researched and linked data.

So, if all the information was out there, why did we get a No vote?  One telling point here is the data showing how the various age groups voted.  It is quite striking to note that the young and middle-aged, the ones who are familiar with the Internet and social media, generally voted Yes, while the elderly, who are more likely to rely on traditional media, tended to vote No.

Where do we go from here?

The Sunday Herald  appears to be continuing its pro-independence stance.  However, it only appears weekly, which leaves a huge gap in the market.  A gap which is now being addressed by several initiatives such as The Scottish Independent, an offering from Derek Bateman and Newsnet Scotland, the Caledonian Mercury, Freedom TV, Referendum TV and an initiative from the guys behind Dateline Scotland and Wings over Scotland.  The size of the gap in the market is, I think, demonstrated by the fact that this last is being crowd funded and has raised more than three times the money they were looking for in two days.  Most of the offerings are not solely independence-oriented, but are more about providing a Scottish perspective on the news that is not biased against independence.

There are naysayers, of course, who point to the difficulties in starting up a new newspaper - see this thread on Guardian CiF for an example.  However, just because something is difficult and may not succeed is no reason not to try it.  Even if only one or two of the above initiatives succeed, it can only be an improvement on the current situation.

I firmly believe that Scotland will see independence in my lifetime (and I'm in my fifties now).  To succeed in the next referendum we need to be able to provide a strong voice in contrast to the establishment media, and not just online.  A diversity of opinion can only be a good thing for democracy.  Let's make sure that next time, people have access to both sides of the argument.

Why Yes?

One of my hobbies is genealogy and family history.  Naturally, my first project was to research my own family, which I've traced back to the early 18th-century on both sides.  As it turns out, 98% of my direct ancestors were born in Scotland.  The others are either Irish-born or English-born.

I was immensely aided by the fact that both of my parents have very unusual surnames.  Unusual to the degree that I have never found them in any of the surname books for either Scotland or the UK.  Family lore has it that both sides originated from Europe, although I haven't been able to prove it.  Nevertheless, the implication is that my family were originally immigrants.

All of my ancestors are from the working class.  There are tailors and dressmakers, crofters and ploughboys, dairymaids and housemaids, drivers and railway workers, masons and canal tenders.  None of them wealthy, and some of them very poor indeed.  Most of them are Scots.

Let's go back in time to the late 1930s, when my dad was born, the eighth of nine children.  He has an elder brother who he will never know.  His brother died at the age of 2 from pneumonia.  At that time you had to pay for a doctor's visit, and his family doesn't have much money.

Fast forward.  It's the late 1940s.  My grandmother has died in the mid-1940s, at the age of 47, and my grandfather has remarried.  My dad has some great news.  He has passed his 11-plus, and a place at the local grammar school awaits.  His parents have some bad news however.  Wearing a uniform is compulsory at the local grammar school, and the family budget will not stretch to cover the cost.  He will have to attend the local secondary modern school instead.

Fast forward.  It's the late 1950s.  My dad gets married to my mum, a nurse.  She is also a talented musician, but nursing offers a steadier way of making a living.  He is called up for national service and opts for the Royal Navy, where he makes a career and learns the skills of an aircraft engineer.

Fast forward.  It's the late 1960s.  My dad has worked his way through the ranks to Petty Officer.  However, he decides it's time to leave the Navy, and he takes his skills to the world of commercial aviation.  My mum has been a stay-at-home mum while I was growing up, but is thinking of going back to work once the youngest of my siblings goes to school.

Fast forward.  It's the late 1970s.  I have passed my exams and have a place at Glasgow University.  There are no tuition fees and I am entitled to a maintenance grant.  It's not the full grant, as both of my parents are working, so they are expected to pay a contribution to my maintenance.  They do this.  My brother also goes to Glasgow University the year after me.  They also pay a contribution to his maintenance.  Meantime our two remaining siblings are attending school.

Fast forward.  It's the early 2000s.  Two of my nephews are going to University, one to Glasgow and one to Stirling.  The one going to Glasgow has lived in England for most of his life and must therefore pay tuition fees as well as taking on student loans for maintenance.  Fortunately my brother has had a successful career and is in a position to help his son with this.  My other nephew has lived in Scotland all his life.  He doesn't have to pay tuition fees but does have to take on student loans.  I have been diagnosed with a chronic health condition.  I have received excellent care from the Scottish NHS.  My condition is manageable, and the introduction of free prescriptions will be of great help when they are introduced in 2011.  My dad has retired.  Among other things, he has taken to writing poems.  He has talent.

Fast forward.  It's September 2014.  In a few days we will be voting in the referendum on Scotland's independence.  In England the NHS is being privatised by stealth.  It's thought that in 5 years there will be no NHS in England in its original form, free at the point of need.  Tuition fees in England currently stand at £9,000 per year and look like they will shortly rise to around £11,000 per year.  If we vote No, Scotland will follow suit.  Not because we want to, but because the UK government will take a No vote as implicit approval for their policies and will use the block grant to impose them.

I don't want to return to a time when healthcare depended on the money at your disposal.  I don't want to return to a time when education depended on what you could afford, leading to a huge waste of talent.  I do want to do things differently. I wanted future generations to have the opportunities I had.  That's why, on the 18th September, I will vote Yes.

Fast forward.  It's a week after the referendum.  Sadly, we did not get our independence.  Not this time.  However, I am heartened by the fact that 45% of us wanted the change that independence would have brought.  I am also heartened by the fact that we are not giving up in the quest for independence.  The future is still bright with possibility.