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.

Then you win

There is a famous quote:

First they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you then you win.

It's often attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, although the evidence seems to indicate that isn't the case.  However, it is a neat summing up of the stages that any movement will go through, generally speaking.

It applies quite well to the Scottish independence movement.  From its inception until 1999, the Scottish National Party (SNP) were pretty much ignored by the Establishment as a lunatic fringe movement that would never really trouble the UK or change things in any significant way.

In 1999 The Scottish Parliament was reconvened as a result of Labour's devolution policy,  The idea was that devolution would see off the Scottish independence movement by giving just enough autonomy to satisfy the lunatic fringe but not any sort of significant power, which would be retained at Westminster.  It was a nice theory.

Once people were used to having the Scottish Parliament back, using the limited powers it had been given we started to see the second phase.  It was ridiculed as being a 'wee pretendy Parliament' or 'glorified town council' by those who were British nationalists.  It was seen as giving the Scots too many ideas that might threaten the Westminster hegemony, which could not be countenanced,

In 2007 the SNP were elected to Holyrood as a minority administration, on a platform of, among other things, holding a referendum on Scottish independence in 2010.  In the event they were unable to pass the necessary legislation to hold the referendum.  However, they were re-elected as a majority administration in 2011, again on a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on Scottish independence, and this time were able to pass the legislation to hold the referendum on 18th September 2014.  The campaigning began in 2012, and it was from this time that we saw more and more ridicule used against the idea of Scottish independence.

Scotland was too poor to be able to support itself, despite the fact that Scotland has an embarrassment of natural resources.  It had too small a population to form the sort of tax base required to support an independent country (which will be news to countries like Denmark).  It didn't have politicians who would be able to take the decisions needed to run an independent country (too stupid).  Didn't we know that we were just a comedy region of Greater England, the skirt-wearing, incomprehensible, drunken, blue-faced people who lived on deep-fried anything, to be pointed at and mocked?  Didn't we know that the North Sea oil was running out at any moment?  Why couldn't we understand that we were just ridiculous creatures, not fit to run a piss-up in a brewery?  Get back in your box and be quiet was the contemptuous message.

The outcome of the referendum was a bit too close for comfort for the Establishment.  Indeed, there was sheer panic towards the end, when one survey showed the Yes vote was in the lead, leading to a hastily written vow of more powers, the nearest thing to federalism.

A strange thing happened after the referendum however.  The Yes movement didn't shrivel up and die as expected.  And when the Vow was not fulfilled, to the surprise of no-one in the Yes movement, talk of a second independence referendum began to be heard.  Following the surprise Tory majority in the UK General Election in 2015, a referendum on EU membership became inevitable.  In the 2016 Scottish election the SNP were again returned as a minority administration, this time on a platform of a second independence referendum in the event of a material change in circumstances, the specific example being Scotland being taken out of the EU against the expressed will of the Scottish people.

Guess what?  That was exactly the result of the EU referendum.  Scotland now faces being removed from the EU despite the fact that every region of Scotland voted to stay in.  A second referendum is now almost certainly on the cards.  How is this being received?  The rhetoric is being stepped up.  British nationalists have taken to describing the referendum as 'divisive' and have called on the Westminster government not to grant the necessary Section 30 order required for Westminster to respect the result of a new independence referendum.  Politicians such as Ruth Davidson are starting to describe a new independence campaign in warlike terms, such as saying the SNP 'tried and failed to weaponise Brexit for independence'.  Some Unionist commentators like to bandy about terms like 'Ulsterisation', with all its implications of violence and sectarianism. Kezia Dugdale has pledged to oppose a second referendum on on independence. instead touting the non-starter of federalisation. 

We seem to be moving into the 'then they fight you' phase.  There's only once phase after this.  Then we win.

Don't wanna choose, I want them both

Today The Guardian carries an interview with Kezia Dugdale, in which she outlines her current thinking on the state of UK politics.  The interviewer attended a speech Ms Dugdale was giving on the lessons of the EU referendum, of which he says

The promising premise of Dugdale’s speech is undermined by her fondness for political cliche: “Here’s the thing”; “It’s in our DNA”; “Entering uncharted waters”; “It’s a wake-up call”.

Sounds like a typical Dugdale speech right enough.  Heavy on the cliche, not so much on the inspiring rhetoric.  At best her speeches can be described as 'workmanlike' and unlikely to scare any passing horses.

The interviewer then gets to the meat of his one-to-one interview.  First of all they discuss why she wanted the job of Labour in Scotland leader in the first place.  The answer seems to be 'out of a sense of duty rather than an overarching careerism'.  One has to suspect that she was voted in as being the most middle-of-the-road candidate, who offended none of the various factions within her party.  However, kudos to her for stepping up and grasping the poisoned chalice. It's not like there's  anyone queueing up to take it from her (at least not before next year's council elections).

Next she says that she believes that Labour can fight back in Scotland as 'they are the only party that believes in the redistribution of both wealth and power'.  I rather think she's wrong on that score, since the Greens and Scottish Socialist Party are also quite keen on this for example, but at least she's retaining some optimism, hard as that must be given their recent lack of electoral success.

Ms Dugdale then goes on to talk about the result of the EU referendum and how she doesn't want to have to choose between staying in the EU or staying in the UK.  One rather suspects she has come to this view as it's one that no-one else is espousing, and there's a very good reason for that.  Ms Dugdale says that we don't yet have the full picture of what we're faced with, and she can't therefore choose between them.  Unfortunately she's behind the curve on this, since we already know that the EU leaders have told Nicola Sturgeon that they can't negotiate with Scotland while it remains a member of the UK and that if it remains in the UK it will be out of the EU along with the other home nations after the post-Article 50 negotiations are concluded.  This being the case, the whole federalism idea that she and her party are pinning their hopes on is about to run aground on the rocks of real-politik.

Really the federalism option is the last stand of the Establishment to try and stop the UK breaking up, losing them power and money.  However, it's not going to gain much traction in Scotland I suspect, because we still remember how Gordon Brown already promised 'the nearest thing to federalism' back in 2014, and look how that turned out.  The Smith Commission turned in a very watered down set of powers in its reports, which in turn was further watered down in the Scotland Bill.  Why on earth should Scots believe them this time round?

Ms Dugdale is revealed in this interview as a perfectly nice person and as a not particularly talented politician.  One can see that she and her party will have to be dragged kicking and screaming towards an independent Scotland, assuming that they actually survive the current civil war within their own party.

Devo-not-quite-max

Now the dust of the Scottish General election is beginning to settle Labour are looking for a new role following their second humiliation at the ballot box.  The market place of Scottish politics is quite crowded now, with SNP (independence, centre-left), Tory (Union, right), Green (independence, left-wing/environmental), RISE (independence, far-left) and LibDems (federalism, errrrr help me out here).  Where are Labour to place themselves to stand out from the crowd?

The answer appears to be to become the party of the centre-left that supports full federalism within the UK.  The party of Devo-max.  Devo-max is generally agreed to mean that the Scottish parliament has all powers except for those over defence and foreign affairs and retains all money raised in Scotland, paying an agreed contribution towards defence and foreign affairs.

This would seem like a smart move for Labour.  It would give them a unique selling point to the voters, one which could get them back in the game, since it would almost certainly have been the most popular option had it been permitted on the referendum ballot paper.  But what is this we see?

[Anas] Sarwar, who is expected to take a senior frontbench role after winning a Holyrood seat on Thursday, said finding a middle way between nationalism and unionism was the “fundamental challenge” still facing the party.

[...] Sarwar’s intervention adds to growing pressure on Dugdale to agree that Scottish Labour should investigate home rule, a form of federal arrangement in which Holyrood has more control over taxation, welfare services and law-making.

Under that model, Westminster would chiefly control foreign policy, defence and perhaps some major spending areas such as pensions.

Dear god, it's the Smith Commission all over again.  Despite the fact that federalism/Devo-max has a generally accepted definition, Labour want to interpret it as a few more token powers that they feel like having, leaving most of them with Westminster.

Clearly Labour have still learned nothing from their precipitous decline.  And despite all the protests about how they will start listening to the voters, it's clear that they have no intention of doing any such thing.  They are still of the mindset that they know what's best for Scotland, so we needn't worry out little heads about it.

Mr Sarwar is widely tipped to be Ms Dugdale's successor, possibly after next year's council elections if their performance is as bad as this year's.  On the above evidence of his thinking, he may well be the last.

Turd polishing

This weekend has seen most of the commentary on last week's Scottish general election, and anyone unfamiliar with Scottish politics would be forgiven for thinking that Ruth Davidson and her party won it.  The Guardian, long regarded as a bastion of left-wing thought, is besotted with Ms Davidson, with article after article on her and the Scottish Tories.  Other papers and TV programmes are also giving us variations on the theme of 'Hail the Conquering Heroine Comes'.  It might therefore come as a surprise to many that Ms Davidson and her party came second, and by a long way behind the SNP.

Mind you, Labour being beaten into third place in Scotland is quite a story.  The most amazing sight during the election results was that of a Tory taking a seat from Labour in Glasgow, something that would have been quite unthinkable prior to the referendum in 2014.  How far are the mighty fallen.

One of the main reasons Ms Davidson won second place is by running a campaign almost exclusively on the topic of a second referendum on Scottish independence and how the Tories would oppose it.  They did have some other policies, such as bringing back prescription charges and bring in tuition fees, but there was very little mention of these in her coverage.  Instead Ms Davidson harped on and on about the subject of a second referendum and how she would be the chief defender of the Union.  Clearly this was a very successful strategy for her, since she evidently picked up the die-hard Unionist voted which might otherwise have gone to Labour, who vacillated on the question.  It was, however, a somewhat ironic campaign, in that she was demanding that the SNP respect the result of the last referendum and move on while dwelling on the constitutional question to the exclusion of everything else herself.

So now Ms Davidson is leader of the 'official opposition' (something which does not actually exist at Holyrood), with the right to ask the first questions of Nicola Sturgeon at FMQs.  This could prove a double-edged sword however.  For while Ms Davidson gets to question Ms Sturgeon on her government's policies, she will also have to defend the policies of the Tory Westminster government as they affect Scotland.  I suspect that will lead to more than a few embarrassing moments for her.

When all's said and done, Ms Davidson is a Tory, someone who believes in removing benefits from the disabled and unemployed, who believes in low taxes for the rich and who believes in every person for themselves.  All the plaudits from the press don't change this.  In fact the adulatory coverage from the press is simply a demonstration of that fact that, while you can't polish a turd, you can roll it in glitter.  However, it's still a turd, and glitter has a terrible habit of being shed.  One wonders how long it will take before the press fall out of love with Ms Davidson and return to business as usual.

Private dancer

Today the Guardian carries this video of Kezia Dugdale being interviewed by Owen Jones.  In it they discuss Labour's toxicity in Scotland, what it's like to be LGBT in Scotland and the perceived role of Brian Soutar in forming SNP policy.

Ms Dugdale attributes the Tories' toxicity in Scotland to 18 years of Thatcherism but seems at a loss to explain why Labour is becoming equally toxic in Scotland. In my opinion this is because of the referendum, not because they worked with the Tories in Better Together but because a lot more people became politically informed and began to question why, if Labour has been in power in Scotland for so many, many years, does Scotland still have huge problems with poverty and inequality, given her wealth of resources? Labour supporters will, no doubt, point out that they have not been in government in Holyrood for the past nine years, ignoring the fact that they still control the majority of local councils and therefore local spending and policy decisions.

With regard to the LGBT and equality issues Ms Dugdale raises, there is no doubt that more can be done on this front.  However, some credit should be given to the SNP for having a gender-balanced cabinet.  It was notable that Labour immediately copied this idea, for the first time in their history in Scotland, perhaps in an attempt to shift the perception that they are a party where business is done between men behind closed doors.

Mr Soutar seems to have become something of a scarecrow for Labour, dragged out whenever Labour want to suggest a shadowy conspiracy in Holyrood.  There is no doubt that the man holds some unpleasant views on LGBT matters, but to suggest that he is somehow the eminence grise of Scottish politics is a bit of a stretch.  It is also quite hypocritical of Labour, who have not always been very particular about their donors.

Ms Dugdale, to me, comes across as someone who talks the talk but doesn't really walk the walk. It's as if she knows all the steps but just doesn't have the natural talent to make a good dancer. She is in good company, however, as I don't see any of her colleagues as having any more talent than she does. The overall effect is that it gives what she says a certain air of insincerity which people are picking up on. This is one of their major problems, and not one that can be solved easily.

Marshmallow woman

STV's political editor Bernard Ponsonby is conducting a series of one-to-one interviews with the leaders of the parties fighting the Scottish General Election.  The most excruciating of these is the one with Kezia Dugdale.

She reminds me of someone who has brought a family-sized bag of marshmallows to a gunfight, with about the level of effectiveness you'd expect from such a scenario.  She doesn't have her facts at her fingertips and constantly relies on 'well that's what I've been told'.  Shades of Johann Lamont, whose interviewing style was equally hapless.  See, for example, this interview with Gordon Brewer regarding one of Labour's tax plans.  Compare and contrast with Nicola Sturgeon, who is generally well-prepared on the topic she's discussing and is therefore almost always able to think on her feet when challenged. 

This illustrates a fundamental weakness with Labour politicians in Scotland.  They try to reduce debate to the level of soundbites, and when the interviewer asks a question that departs from their script, they flounder.  One wonders if this is because any Scottish Labour politician with any talent is quickly moved off to Westminster, leaving behind the less talented for the Scottish parliament, which is to be regarded as the minor leagues.  This is key to understanding why Labour in Scotland are doing so very badly in the Scottish general election.

The SNP are very much a party for the people of Scotland, and this is illustrated by the fact that not all of their best politicians are hived off to Westminster.  Labour and also the Tories are perceived not to be interested in Scotland and its people, preferring instead to send all of their best to London.  The electorate are not stupid and can discern which parties are for Scotland first and which are for the UK first.

If Labour and the Tories in Scotland want to become serious contenders for the Scottish government, they will have to find some way to show the electorate that Scotland is important to them.  Almost inevitably this will mean them supporting federalism at the very least and probably ultimately independence.  So far this is not a step they are prepared to take, and they risk the very real possibility of being left behind by history if they are not prepared to change.