Can Scotland escape the killer zombies?

Iain MacWhirter

Columnist

Sunday 24 February 2013

 

LIKE me, you probably don't pay too much attention to the monthly unemployment figures, since they don't seem to be going anywhere in particular.

LIKE me, you probably don't pay too much attention to the monthly unemployment figures, since they don't seem to be going anywhere in particular.

     

In fact, something quite extraordinary is happening, which is transforming the world of work, making a nonsense of Government policies such as the much-criticised Work Programme and turning a once prosperous and relatively secure society into one driven by insecurity and debt. It also poses a very serious question about Scotland's future.

      

You see, UK unemployment – at 2.5 million – is a lot lower than it should be. Indeed, the number of those out of work has been falling even as the country heads into a triple-dip recession. Unemployment rose to 8% in November 2011 and has been falling more or less ever since. Yet, in the recession of the 1980s, which was mild compared to this one, unemployment rose to 12% and stayed there.

Stranger still, unemployment in Scotland has been running at a lower rate than the UK.
This month, 7.7% of Scots were out of work, against 7.8% for the UK. In the 1980s, unemployment in Scotland soared to 15% – almost double what it is today and far ahead of the rest of the UK. Indeed it was nearer 18% in the west, as Scotland's industrial heartlands were ripped out and thrown on the scrapheap. So, although this recession has lasted twice as long as the 1980s' and is far deeper, unemployment is falling when it should be rising.

This is all exceedingly strange, because I defy anyone to look around Scotland today and regard it as a country in economic recovery – despite the claims made by the Scottish Government, which can't seem to decide whether Scotland is being dragged down by UK Chancellor George Osborne's austerity or being held aloft by Alex Salmond's Plan McB.

What has happened is something we haven't seen in Britain since the 19th century: a productivity recession, in which the economy is going back in time. The reason unemployment hasn't increased is largely because people are accepting lower wages. Pay (except, of course, for bankers) has been falling by 1% per year, in real terms, which may not sound like much, but equates to about £1500 in reduced income for average households so far, and earnings will continue to fall until 2018 at least. This is unprecedented. Firms are using cheap labour instead of new machines – which is why productivity is falling in Britain. We're getting poorer by making ourselves less efficient. This is why high-street shops have been closing and Britain isn't recovering through exports, despite the fall in the value of the pound.

This only sounds counter-intuitive because our political culture is still essentially neo-liberal and assumes that, if you hold down wages, the economy must do better. In fact, quite the reverse is true. Low wages breed economic stagnation because worker-consumers lack money to buy goods and firms have no incentive to apply new techniques and machinery because labour is so cheap. That's why this depression is unlike any during the past 140 years. You have to go back to the 1870s to find a recession as long and as deep – although even then, industrial output continued to grow through the application of new technologies. Today's Coalition policies are taking us back to the days when people wore top hats and the Government was run by ex-public schoolboys. Oh, I forgot, it still is.

In all previous recessions this century – and this includes the 1930s – recovery has come through consumer spending led by housebuilding. In the 1930s, the recession ended as a result of a building boom in the southeast of England, plus new consumer industries such as radios and cars. This time around, housebuilding has been falling year on year and is at its lowest levels since the second world war. Britain has largely opted out of the productivity race because firms have been told that the falling value of the pound will boost British exports by making them cheaper. But that only works if the economy is producing something that other countries want to buy. All Britain has produced in the last decade is debt, and the rest of the world has plenty of that.

So it's hardly surprising that the Government's Work Programme is failing. Equipping workers for employment – quite reasonable in its own way – can only succeed when there is a buoyant labour market, with lots of turnover, to create openings, and that isn't happening. We have a cobweb labour market, with lots of under-employed workers hanging around in companies that would be out of business were it not for near-zero interest rates and the low pound. There are a million extra part-time jobs, mainly among male employees, plus 4.2 million self-employed – mostly redundant workers who have set up on their own and are staying alive through the burgeoning "cash-only" black economy. There are also nearly a million people of pension age still working.

We've heard of zombie households, which can't pay their debts and are only surviving because of near-zero interest rates and forbearance by the banks. We also have thousands of zombie companies that would go out of business the moment interest rates returned to normal. On top of them, we have the zombie banks, which only cling on to existence because the Government is printing money and guaranteeing the value of their bad debts. So it won't surprise you to learn that the UK is turning into a zombie country, which is about to lose its credit rating.

And the only remedy the governor of the Bank of England, Sir Mervyn King, can offer is yet more inflation. The euphemism currently employed by the governor, who has missed his inflation target for the last four years, is that we have to "see through" high inflation, to the sunny uplands beyond. But there aren't any. Inflation applied to a stagnant economy will only lead to further falls in consumer spending, as wages are eroded by the rising cost of imports. Fuel and energy are rising at 10% year-on-year even though Scotland is sitting on massive energy reserves.

There is a third way. Scotland could conceivably depart from this by becoming independent, using its natural resources – oil and green energy – to develop a high-value economy based on Scotland's lead in higher education. We have more top universities than France. There's no guarantee, of course, and some might regard it as morally wrong for Scotland to cut adrift from the zombie UK.

But Scotland bailed out the UK economy in the 1980s with Scottish oil revenues, and received precious little in return except factory closures and the highest mortality rates in Europe. And it doesn't take a genius to see that any improvement in the UK economy is going to happen in London and the southeast, rather than in Scotland. Like the high-speed rail link, it might eventually extend to Manchester but no further. Scotland is on its own whether it likes it or not. A very big choice for those in and out of work.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/can-scotland-escape-the-killer-zombies.20312845

MacCormick v Lord Advocate (1953)

"The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law... Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced them by a new Parliament, I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/MacCormick_v_Lord_Advocate

Extract from the Judgement in MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 the famous case brought by Ian Hamilton and John MacCormick (one of the most important early Scottish nationalists if not the most).

 

Also some background info on the Treaty of Union which clearly establishes that it was a treaty under international law not an act of Parliament. The acts are seperate and ratified the treaty.

 

http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/52-6/1004238.aspx

 

While I'm sure the intention of England was to subsume Scotland within her parliament and the effect of the treaty was perhaps similar (we got roughly the same amount of MP's as Cornwall at the time) the legal position is that this was an internationally binding treaty between two seperate and equal nations.

 

The reason why they could not just conquer Scotland (though there was a threat of military force and the equivalent of economic sanctions in effect at the time) was the 400 years or so of relative peace after we defended our liberty in the Wars of Independence.

Without that historic event we would now be in a much shakier legal position. Thank you William Wallace and Robert the Bruce! Also the foresighted Scots Nobles who signed the Declaration of Arbroath on our behalf which is the basis of Scotland's Claim of Right and which was agreed in modern times by every unionist politician.  

Hope will trump Fear - the case for YES

The case for independence is very simple. We are in an unequal union with a country ten times our size who has very little in common with us politically. What we need is equality in world affairs ie a seat in the UN and full control over all domestic and foreign policy. That is likely to be from within the EU but if the unlikely prospect of being forced to leave the EU actually happened (in which case England would be in the same boat) then EFTA is actually a reasonable and probably popular alternative.

Of course what the UK is now saying is that England and its dominions (as they see it though I am sure Wales won't accept such a status for long post Scots independence though NI probably will) would be treated entirely differently from Scotland because the rest of the UK (rUK) would be treated as the successor state.

Westminster is so desperate for a legal opinion that rUK/England will be the only successor state that they now are saying that Scotland was politically extinguished by the union, that Scotland leaving the UK would have no effect on its status whatsoever and that every treaty signed by Britain had no connection with one of the main countries that was a part of it!

Logically this means that Scotland has got nothing from being in the union apart from a tenth share in Britain's enormous national debt and if we had zero status within the union there is no reason why we should accept that either!

This doesn't strike me as a positive case for the union and directly contradicts their traditional narrative that we have all being doing great things together for the last 300 years and we just can't afford to break our beautiful friendship. No doubt this will be deployed as well in time but it rather undermines that case when you admit that what was supposed to be an equal British union was actually just a device to expand English power abroad. (That's the raw truth but Westminster must be in dire straits to be actually admitting it).

The Tory Government and their friends in the press seem to think that its OK to stigmatise the unemployed as lazy wasters and chancers and that workers should be encouraged to sell out all their working rights to their employer at the beginning of their working life This type of political attitude is alien to the Scots psyche and the obvious choice is to remain with Conservative rule (or their Labour imitators) or take a chance on trusting ourselves.

Eventually hope always trumps fear so I suggest the YES campaign has an excellent chance of victory.

Excellent letters in Scotsman today

Hidden options in referendum report

Published on Wednesday 13 February 2013 00:00

The No Campaign’s press conference on Monday emphasised that its expert opinion concluded that the UK would continue as an existing state, holding on to all the benefits, and that Scotland would have to be created as a new state, with all the disadvantages that this could bring.

The media followed this line in their reporting. It now appears (your report, 12
February) that the expert opinion offered three scenarios, not one. The second was that two new states would be formed, and the third was that Scotland would be resurrected as the state that existed before 1707. Why were these options hidden? 
It is clear that the Westminster government would prefer the first option.

It may profess great respect for Scotland, and a strong 
desire for us to remain in the Union; but as soon as the 
status quo is threatened it will try to take all the benefits for itself and positively work to make things difficult for Scotland.

Those who are timorous about voting Yes, and are hoping for a form of devo-plus following a No vote, should realise that once England has seen off the threat of independence the devolutionary process will come to a shuddering halt.

Westminster will continue to work and legislate for the majority, English, voter. We have been warned!

Alison Halley
Newbattle Abbey Crescent
Edinburgh
As Scottish Secretary Michael Moore proclaims the benefits to Scotland of staying in the UK with the launch in the first of a series of UK government information reports, one has to ask some fundamental questions: is 
anyone naïve enough to 
believe that significant 
information which undermines this proposition will not be withheld if possible, especially given the UK government’s non-disclosure of the true status of North Sea oil reserves prior to the referendum on devolution?

If unsure, is the UK Government’s reluctance to seek clarification from the EU on Scotland’s possible position in the event of a positive vote in the referendum not at odds with any sincere desire that the Scottish people base their decision on facts, not fiction?

Does anyone actually believe that those parties, which so recently endorsed the recommendations of the Calman Commission as being a great deal for Scotland (with some Tories expressing the view that perhaps devolution had gone too far), will immediately work together after a negative vote in the referendum to deliver substantially increased powers for Scotland (“devo-Moore”), whatever the result of the UK elections in 2015 and whatever is contained in their
manifestos?

Those with short memories should note that these same parties unashamedly reneged on key promises such as reform of the House of Lords and a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU.
Has anyone such little understanding of basic economics and politics that they think that whatever benefits Scotland would still derive as a member of a Union whose influence around the world has dramatically declined would come without paying a considerable price for sustaining the bureaucracy around an increasingly 
redundant Westminster parliament, never mind the social cost of further governments pursuing policies not in tune with the wishes of the people of Scotland?

Hopefully now that we are entering a period of more serious debate on Scotland’s independence that will determine the prospects we 
bequeath future generations, more people will make the effort to look objectively 
beneath the surface of what is presented by the UK Government and a media predominantly committed to the constitutional status quo.

Stan Grodynski
Longniddry
East Lothian

I am not an expert on international law, unlike the respected professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle of Cambridge and Edinburgh Universities, who have provided legal advice to the UK Government on the legal implications of Scottish independence (your report, 11 February), but there appears to me to be a fundamental misconception of the position of the two countries, England and Scotland.

The Treaty of Union 1707 was an agreement between two sovereign independent states to form a political union. If Scotland elects to secede from that union, then the two countries, Scotland and England, revert to being two separate countries.

England would not continue to be the “rest of the UK”, as that entity would not exist. Wales and Northern Ireland are part of the English state by military conquest. There would be no question of a “continuing state”, as England and Scotland would be newly restored independent states.
The examples quoted of new states are quite different from the position of England and Scotland, being mainly the result of the break up of empires.

Interestingly, the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, on becoming independent of the USSR in 1991, were admitted to the United Nations without any question.

George I M Chapman
Moor Road
Glasgow

AND THE NO CAMPAIGN SPEAKS OUT TOO:

Big questions

Published on Tuesday 12 February 2013 00:00

I write as a disillusioned observer of proceedings at First Minister’s Questions in the Scottish Parliament.

Donald Dewar, advocate of the concept of the Scottish Executive, would have been appalled at the behaviour of certain SNP politicians within the debating chamber in today’s parliament.
The Labour leader, Johann Lamont, was completely justified recently, during First Minister’s Questions, when she accused SNP backbenchers of braying when opposition leaders put quite valid questions to Alex Salmond.

She also made the point that most questions asked by SNP members are so well vetted by their leader that they become irrelevant to the debate.

First Minister’s Questions is appallingly awful – Salmond makes every attempt to ridicule, in turn, the points made by the Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat leaders. In this ploy he gets full support from the rows of “hyenas” on his back benches.

Also one of these days, John Swinney, in his usual state of misplaced mirth, is quite likely to fall off his chair, which is usually perched precariously on just two legs.

As 2014, the referendum year, approaches, let us reflect on the status quo – what the UK has achieved, and will continue to achieve: stability in an even more complex political and economic scenario; under very difficult circumstances, maintenance of a strong voice in the EU; a continued special relationship with the USA.

So prithee, what will Alex Salmond’s concept of an independent Scotland really achieve? I really do feel that we Scots deserve more than he is capable of providing.

Just some of the pitfalls of his policies/assertions are obvious: Scotland would certainly have to apply to join the EU, and join the queue; if Scotland, as a new state, did gain entry eventually, it would require to adopt the euro; how effective would Scotland be within Nato? (its much reduced level of armed forces and weaponry might be unacceptable to other members); as would the SNP’s rejection of the established Faslane submarine base.

Then, of course, terms would have to be negotiated with the Bank of England – perhaps more difficult if Scotland is admitted to the EU and has to accept the euro as its currency.

So think carefully, fellow Scots, before casting your vote in the Scottish referendum.

If you make the wrong choice then you and your family might regret it forever.

Robert I G Scott
Ceres
Fife

Translation: "I write as a biased Brit who has no interest in his own country and is content to  be ruled from England. While Westminster is a shambles where Scots are outvoted by a margin of 10-1 I prefer to criticise the Scottish Government for having political debates and Alex Salmond for winning them.

It is far better to be bitter together with Tory England than have the gross effrontery to imagine that the Saltire could fly in Europe and the UN and that we could rule ourselves. Don't vote for equality or we will all be D-O-O-M-E-D and S-K-I-N-T. We need London to rule us as we are too wee and too dumb to ever rule ourselves."

Another positive message from the NO YOU DON'T! campaign. Gee thanks Mr Scott!

Salmond sets the record straight in Glasgow Herald Letter

From The Herald, Monday June 28, a letter from Alex Salmond:

Your report on my interview with another newspaper was headlined, in quotation marks, “Independence is not key aim’” (Herald, June 26), despite the fact that no-one – least of all myself – actually said this, and the reference to independence “no longer” being the SNP’s central aim was just silly.

I was in fact making exactly the opposite point – that the centre of gravity in Scottish politics is shifting towards independence not away from it.

A generation ago it was for an Assembly, then for a Parliament, then for Calman, now for fiscal responsibility, which is currently galvanising a range of opinion across Scottish society.

At each stage in that road, the SNP campaigned in favour of more powers for Scotland as well as pursuing the independence campaign. There has never been any contradiction in doing that – nor is there now.

Indeed, one of the essential ingredients of gaining more power for Scotland is the vigour of the independence campaign. It is the engine which fires the debate.

The publication of the Government Expenditure & Revenue Scotland report – showing in 2008/09 a Scottish current budget surplus of £1.3 billion, compared to a UK current budget deficit of £48.9 billion – is a strong illustration of the argument which both increases the urgency of fiscal responsibility as an alternative to a dismal decade of Westminster spending cuts, and also shifts the centre of gravity in Scottish politics towards independence.

Alex Salmond, Edinburgh

TV debate farce is an undemocratic disgrace

There is a lot of anger about this on Twitter and other social networking sites. No wonder, it is an undemocratic disgrace that the political views of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall can be completely and utterly ignored.

Labour have failed to regulate financial system

Letter to the Editor(s)

Dear Sir or Madam,

Given that the UK central bank, the Bank of England, has cut interest rates
to 0.5% one might imagine that our bailed out banks would have passed on
this change in interest rates to their customers. They certainly have in
respect of savings accounts. Most people will have found that their interest
rates in that respect have been drastically cut. On mortgages they have
reduced slightly, but not by much. It also still costs a fortune to arrange
a fixed rate mortgage.

Meanwhile the interest rates on loans, credit cards and overdrafts remain
extortionately high. The average yearly rate for a credit card is currently
18.8%. Why? If the base rate is reduced then that reduction should have been
passed on throughout the banking system. That way borrowers could afford to
spend more, boosting the economy and ending the economic depression.

The government should have forced a wholesale reduction in interest rates at
the point they offered tax payers money to prop up the financial system.
They could still do so for the semi-nationalised banks today. If the
political will was there.

I witnessed a TV advert this morning that encouraged customers with debts to
avail themselves of an internet based loans system at quickquid.co.uk. The
only catch? An eye watering interest rate of 2356% APR!

It is blatantly obvious that Labour have failed to put in effective
legislation to control lenders and that the banks themselves are happy to
extort horrendous sums from borrowers. Clearly proper regulation is
required. Unfortunately the main 'opposition' the Conservatives are in a
large part to blame for the 'big bang' of de-regulation in the first place
which ultimately led to this mess.

This upcoming British general election offers no choice between two parties
which are equally as awful as each other. Both want to drastically slash
public expenditure while allowing the banks to bully their own borrowers.

Surely we can do better? Proportional representation, independence for every
country in the UK, removal of the House of Lords and the end of the
undemocratic oath to the Queen are all measures which could and should have
happened long ago.

Old Britain is bust and we need to try something radically different.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

Jim Sillars pamphlet on Scots independence

Thoughts on getting to the only sensible choice for Scotland - Independence

by Jim Sillars

The full pamphlet is here:

http://www.scottishindependence.com/jim-sillars.pdf

Answers to Scotlands Future about Scottish independence

I have decided to answer some of the Questions from someone calling themselves ScotlandsFuture on Twitter about Scots independence:

1) Discussion of Scottish independence in chatrooms and forums is always shut down by extreme SNP supporters

That's not my experience, quite the reverse. British unionists own the papers and can block pro-independence comments. I find that the independence side tends to provide a logical argument ie that independence is normality and most countries are independent. The unionist case depends upon the illogical assumption that Scotland is incapable of independence and often it descends into abuse against 'sweaty socks' (Jocks) etc I could point you towards loads of such comments on youtube and in fact I've made a film about it here!

2) It seems they can't answer valid questions so they mount ad-hominem attacks, calling people traiters, anti-Scottish, Labour stooges etc

No Questions yet but more witless allegations.

3) But I want those questions out in the open. I want people to really think about the consequences and implications of independence

In other words I want to scaremonger and put people of, yet no questions yet

4) Maybe there are good answers and I have nothing to worry about. I would very much like to hear some answers from decent SNP supporters

You'll get them but I doubt you will listen!

5) So I'll use this account to ask some of those questions. Who knows, maybe someone will answer...

Maybe they will, get on with it!

6) Here goes - How much would an independent Scottish government have to spend on services and how would it compare to the current arrangement?

This is impossible to answer because we don't know what the economic situation will be when we are independent. We do know from GERS that Scotland puts more in than we get back out, that Labour wasted hundreds of billions and lied about Scotland's economic prospects with independence in the 1970's. But just as Gordon Brown can't accurately predict the British budget in ten years time I can't forsee the future either, what a shock eh, bet you're really disappointed.

7) SNP want to reduce voting age in independence referendum. A cynical attempt to manipulate the result?

No. The SNP have had this policy for years to reduce the voting age to 16. It's not new and it wasn't arrived at recently.

8) How can the SNP find the money for a bill which won't get through parliament when they're cutting spending on everything else?

As you should be aware the Scottish parliament as a devolved parliament exists on a financial settlement provided by Westminster. Within that settlement the SNP can choose to use the money as they see fit. The pary has already produced a draft bill. They have also extended the debate through the National Conversation. The unionists didn't want to discuss independence and set up the Calman commission and filled it with various worthies whose only qualification was that they were willing to ignore independence. That cost money, produced a report and then it was kicked into the long grass because the Tories (who are likely to form the next Government) didn't like its conclusions.

All they suggested was a 10p unusable tax rather than 3p unusable tax but the Conservatives prefer as little power as possible going to Scotland (as they proved in office last time) Calman was a costly sham.

Labour have said they support a referendum on independence and would vote for it. That was when Wendy was leader, unfortunately she didn't clear it with Gordon (her boss) so the policy has always been confused.

Despite the SNP coming up with the only possible question which reflects the current powers of the Scots parliament Labour like to pretend the question is 'rigged' (they are experts in this area themselves after the 1979 referendum) and now pretend that because of the recession we can't have a referendum. Yet they caused the recession by following Conservative gospel on deregulation and it is obvious we need power over our own economy. So I'm sorry this bill would be cheap, it is important and yes we can and should be able to consult the people on their future.

The SNP are working within a lower financial settlement in real terms but so far they are not 'cutting spending on everything else' this is simply inaccurate.

9) Assuming an independent Scotland dumps the pound, what effect will exchange rate fluctuation and conversion charges have on our businesses?

SNP Policy is actually to retain the pound for as long as required then move to the Euro when it is economically appropriate. Some of your other questions relate to this point.

10) If we did adopt the Euro wouldn't that take financial decision making even further away from Scotland than it is already?

Well your question admits that financial decision making is far from Scotland just now and indeed it is. If we are in the Euro then we have a common currency with much of the EU. This makes trade easier. It also means we would have a more stable currency, as the pound fluctuates violently against other currencies at the moment.

Yes the European Central Bank would take decisions on interest rates etc for the good of the EU as a whole but in the interests of financial stability I think that makes better sense.

However it is important to remember that the ultimate decision on whether to stay in the EU or adopt the Euro or keep the Queen as head of state will be made by our own Government after independence. The SNP have a policy on these things and it right that they have but that does not mean that is what will happen after independence.

11) Would those who vote against independence be stripped of British citizenship and forced to adopt Scottish nationality against their will?

Since Britain would no longer exist there would ultimately be a choice between English and Scots nationality, however Mike Russell has indicated that there might be some interim arrangements with the rump UK state for as long as that exists.

12) What would happen to Scots living in England and Wales who become unemployed? Would they be paid benefits by Scotland, Britain or neither?

For those who live In England and Wales it would be paid by the Governments there. In Scotland it would be paid by the Scottish Government

13) What about the 10% of Scotland's population who were born in England? Will they be forced to choose between Scottishness and Englishness?

No, those who live in Scotland will be treated as Scots, those who think of themselves as Scottish or were born in Scotland could also apply for Scottish citizenship if they chose.

14) Will the 800,000+ Scots living in England and Wales be forced to choose between Scottish and British citizenship?

Ultimately yes because Britain won't exist any more but as I say the Scottish Government is open to suggestions for an interim arrangement.

15) Our remaining shipywards are only surviving because of large orders from the UK navy. What would happen to them after independence?

Well there isn't many of them left but those that do have a contract which wil run its course. Afterwards Scotland will require a Navy and under EU rules they could also apply for English military contracts on an equitable basis.

16) The (Scotland's conversation) website doesn't answer the key questions around currency or finance nor can it guarantee how the EU and UK will react.

No that's correct, we can't guarantee how the EU or rump UK will react to independence because it hasn't happened yet! British unionists like to pretend that the EU will reject Scots membership however our opinion (unsurprisingly) is that the reverse is true. If we do have to re-negotiate membership we might well end up with a better deal or Scotland's independent Government might decide that it prefers to stay out of the EU altogether. That is the ultimate beauty of independence the Scots will decide what we want to do in Scotland! The UK/British state as it stands will not exist however we do know that because without Scotland there is no Britain.

Anyway, 'Scotlandsfuture' you can no longer say that no-one has answered your questions. You might not like the answers but you have got them.

Personally I think you should remove your Union Jack tinted specs and genuinely think about Scotland's future. Unlike the UK or Britain, Scotland is a country and we deserve better than the sterile status quo or right wing Government whether that be from Labour or Tories.

So why is he still in it?

Bob Thomson paints a truly terrible (and accurate) picture of the state of the Labour party in Scotland in this month's Scottish Left Review

Here's a sample:

Then I was at the Scottish Labour Party Conference in Dundee in March.
There were few MPs (perhaps not so surprising) but there were also few MSPs and indeed few ordinary party members present. If it hadn't been for Trade Union
delegates the conference could have been held in a side hall. In debate after
debate I was struck by the hypocrisy of front bench speakers attacking the SNP
for not implementing policies Labour failed to implement over eight years in
power such as teacher and police numbers and student debt. And since the party
isn't exactly bursting with front-bench talent they don't even do it well.

There was no serious analysis of why Labour lost the Scottish Parliament
election and why we were failing to make an impact in opposition. Most trade
unions act and think as Labour loyalists when in fact they were being New Labour
apologists. On PFI/PPP the platform, except the trade unionist Chairman,
continued to support this disastrous policy while rubbishing the SNP's only
slightly better Scottish Futures Trust alternative. The three UK Cabinet
Ministers who spoke did not address the Scottish dimension or provide any
Scottish solutions.

We lost because of the neo liberal economic and war policies of UK
Labour government. Scottish Labour failed - unlike the Welsh Labour Party - to
put 'clear red water' between them and New Labour. The people who inhabit the
Labour Party bureaucracy either don't know about devolution or more probably
arrogantly ignore it. I am constantly getting emails about policy initiatives
which only apply in England but fail to say this. When I point this out, I
receive no reply.

and from there it gets worse, Labour have no organisation, no ideas, no competent people... etc, etc, etc...!

Obviously this is highly amusing for any nationalist, and it is undoubtedly accurate. It begs the question though, if Labour are as bad as this, and you know it, why on earth would anyone still be a member?

I presume Mr Thomson thinks facing up to the truth might get Labour to buck up their ideas.

My own experience of politics is that 'shoot the messenger' is much more likely however. No political parties ever like hearing bad news even if it's based on obvious evidence.

Parties are only as good as their ideas. When their ideas fail they have failed their purpose and Labour are I think a dead party walking. With Blair as leader a bullet was put into the brain of the party or at least it's social conscience. The process had begun some time before that though.

Thomson writes perceptively:

The unions ought to have been helping Labour to realise its situation and find a
way out of the hole. They haven't. In fact, the main thing the unions have done
is to cover the party's backs while it just kept on digging. And in ten years
Labour has had almost nothing to do with all the other political movements in
Scotland (such as the anti-war movement) and so have just been written off by
most. The Party has no friends to have a quiet word in its ear.

Their real problem isn't the numerous arguments enumerated here though, that's the symptoms, but it's their unthinking support for a disastrous union which has ultimately killed their credibility.

As mediawatch pointed out today, Brian Wilson also attacked the party in the Sunday Times but my guess is that he saw Thomson's article and wanted to have his own spin on it. His article has some similar observations but according to him it's all Labour's own fault for creating a Scottish parliament. Yes the democratic demand never comes into it for Brian, the wasted years of Thatcherism, who cares? The Scots could have been ignored in his eyes.

He's a man who has sold his soul to unionism and nothing else will do.

What shocks me is that an honest (or at least straight talking) man like Thomson would share a party with the likes of Wilson. Surely he could do a damn sight better.

Letter to the Editor of the North Edinburgh News

25/05/2009

Dear Mary,

I was browsing the BBC iplayer the other day and happened to stumble upon
some coverage of our Scottish parliament in action. The motion in question
was about student debt and was sponsored by Labour and the Tories with
support from the Liberal Democrats.

This unionist triumvirate, who have been jointly responsible for scrapping
the grant system of education and the principle of free education along with
it had the gross cheek to lambast the SNP for failing to 'dump the debt' of
students!

Sadly most of these parties MSPs weren't even in the chamber to listen to
their own debate! I suggest this indicates the actual priority they give to
student debt.

Labour and Tories appear to now wish students to have the power to borrow
more ie saddle them with even more debt, albeit delayed till the day they
earn the princely sum of 15K a year. Such an attitude is unlikely to
encourage anyone of modest means to enter university but let's face it the
days when Labour supported anyone outside the ranks of the middle classes
are long over.

Manifesto commitments are important for all political parties and they
should never be undertaken lightly, however in a devolved pocket money
parliament like ours the money is only available if Westminster provides it.
The SNP are a minority government. While this makes it more difficult for
them to govern it also (rightly) reflects the narrow nature of the election
result. It also means that they are, to an extent, reliant on the other MSP's
in parliament acting in a mature fashion and not deliberately obstructing
them for the sake of it.

The unionist parties deliberately forced through the unpopular Edinburgh
tramworks proposals which slashed hundreds of millions of pounds from the
money the SNP had to work with. The British government furthermore provided
the tightest financial settlement since devolution began. In those
circumstances the fact that the SNP have managed to remove tuition fees is
fairly extraordinary. The fact that they have increased financial support to
poorer students is also pretty praiseworthy.

If student leaders are willing to sup with the Liberals, Labour and even the
Tories and attack the SNP Government on this issue then they are either
suffering from total collective amnesia or they need new leadership which is
not puppeteered by our unionist UK establishment.

I trust that if the SNP Government are in power long enough they will
eventually rid students of all debts. We know that Labour would never
consider such an action by their own actions in the British parliament which
they currently control.

Are we really supposed to imagine that the same New Labour who were bribed
by F1's Bernie Ecclestone over fag advertising to the tune of one million
pounds, covered up a bribery scandal involving BAE systems and who
themselves introduced the Graduate endowment fee and the student loan are
really serious in Scotland about student debt?

Aye right!

Labour's priority in recent years has been to feather their own nest and
sell their soul to the political right. If they lose this election they will
leave a legacy of a near bankrupt Britain represented by UKIP and (god help
us) possibly the BNP in Europe while Scotland will have no distinct voice
and a lot less than half our rightful share of Euro MP's.

David Cameron's Conservatives are an extension of the Thatcherite project,
he might have a nicer smile than Tony but he represents the same old clapped
out 'let business handle everything' political philosophy that has entirely
wasted Labour's years in power.

What happened with reform of the House of Lords? The independent hereditary
toffs got turfed and were replaced by a bunch of new Labour puppets. Great!
No actual meaningful reform there then.

The electoral system which hands huge power to one party and helped Scots
suffer under Thatcher? That's staying the same as well because Labour want
to make sure they get another bite (one day) at the cherry. No electoral
reform means the British Government will always be sheep led by shepherds.
Whether it is Labour sheep or newly grown Tory sheep makes no difference, at
all.

We Scots have one chance of saving our country and that is by choosing
independence when we get the chance. There are no urgent issues in Scotland
which are better off being decided 300 hundred miles away!

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

Breaking Up Britain: Four Nations after a Union

Breaking Up Britain: Four Nations after a Union

New book by Kevin Williamson and others.

Information from website:

'This brilliant book helps us understand what Scots, Welsh, Irish and English neighbours, freed from an unhappy Union, might look like.'

Billy Bragg

May 2009 will be the tenth anniversary of the first elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. This was the beginning of a decade of change - which now includes the restoration of powers to Stormont - that is showing every sign of being an irreversible process.
Breaking Up Britain is a unique collection of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish contributors, featuring key political activists from the nationalist parties, commentators and campaigners, academics and journalists. Each writer explores the change that the break-up demands in their own nation, but also discusses its impact upon the whole.

This dialogue of differences is essential reading for anyone interested in the shape of politics and culture after a Union.

Contributors:

Gerry Adams, Arthur Aughey, Gregor Gall, John Harris, Michael Kenny, Peadar Kirby, Guy Lodge, Inez McCormack, John Osmond, Mike Parker, Lesley Riddoch, Richard Thomson, Vron Ware, Charlotte Williams, Kevin Williamson, Leanne Wood and Salma Yaqoob.

You can read Kev Williamson's chapter here and Mark Perryman's here and there is an online discussion of the book here. A couple of other chapters are available from the website as well.

It looks very interesting and relevant and from the sample chapters provided it is obviously a work of real quality. I will do a proper review once I get a hold of a copy.

20 Questions with a fellow blogger

A guy called Paul Burgin got in touch with me for an interview on his blog and it appears here for anyone who is interested:

20 Questions for a fellow Blogger

Why the British Union doesn't work

Since a British u is attacking my arithmetic here is my reply:

Total Number of British MP's at Westminster: 646

Scots MP's: 59

England on it's own has 529 MP's.

This means that English MP's heavily outweigh all the other countries in the British state and it means that the union is highly unequal as a result.

A majority of Scottish MP's voted against Trident but the British Government is pushing ahead anyway. If we were independent we would have our own direct voice in the EU and UN. We would have a seat in the Council of Ministers, we would have our own European commissioner and we would have more Euro MP's.

Most importantly our flag would fly at the United Nations and we would have our own seat there. We would control our own defence, foreign policy, benefits policy, broadcasting and pensions which are currently controlled by Westminster.

So if we voted against Trident it wouldn't happen and we wouldn't be wasting billions on an unusable deterrent which is intended to prop up the old fiction of Britain being a world power.

Scotland doesn't want to be a world power but we do need to have the same powers as every other country around the world and that can only happen with independence.

If the Scots in the cabinet worked in Scotland's interests that might be an advantage but it is obvious that they don't. Look at the HBOS takeover for a current obvious example.

Scotland would benefit if HBOS remained an independent bank based in Scotland. Brown wants it to be merged with Lloyds TSB which is likely to result in the HQ moving south and the loss of thousands of Scottish jobs.

To do this he is using Billions of borrowed pounds, much of which will be raised from future taxation on Scotland. So we're paying for the wrong decision to happen to our bank with the added rider that Mr Brown believes this indicates that Scotland is too poor to have independence and has the cheek to compare oil rich Scotland with tiny Iceland which was in part destabalised by the actions of the British Government! So much for the 'union dividend'.

----

I've printed the whole post below with my replies to each point:


Joe,

Good morning. It’s actually about 10:1 (587:59 MPs). But the exact ratio is largely irrelevant.
I don’t accept your notion that Scotland is “outvoted”. There’s no anti-Scottish bloc voting against our interests. Scots are no more “outvoted” than any other identifiable subgroup: elderly people, non-Caucasians or gay people, for example. Geography is only one distinguishing factor. But I’ll use inverted commas around the word “outvoted” and tackle you on your own terms.

Scotland is a country and represents the people who live in Scotland. Scottish MP's are recognised as a group within the British Parliament and they actually meet occasionally as a group (the Scottish Grand Committee).

Now obviously there are a variety of MP's from different parties, well two kinds actually, the Trident supporting right wing Brits ie Labour, Lib Dems and Tories and the SNP. The SNP are the only party which is based in Scotland and represents Scottish interests but nonetheless MP's elected in Scotland can fairly be described as Scottish MP's even when their first loyalty is not necessarily to Scotland.

Consider this: there being about 70,000 voters in the Glenrothes constituency, each individual is massively “outvoted” when it comes to electing the local MP.

Not really. everyone gets a vote and the winner wins. PR is fairer than FPTP as a system and we have that in the Scottish parliament and would likely have that in an independent Scottish Government but the voters of Fife have a democratic choice at the moment.

Even within the Kingdom of Fife, Glenrothes is only one of four Westminster constituencies, so could perhaps be said to be “outvoted” by a factor of 3:1.

Not really I think you will find that MP's in Fife are likely to work together, particularly when they are all Labour as they are currently.

And Fife itself is “outvoted” by a factor of 642:4 (about 160:1) in the UK parliament.

Fife is not a country. It is part of Scotland but the country of Scotland as a whole is indeed outvoted by a factor of 11-1 in the UK parliament.

Being “outvoted”, as you put it, is in the nature of representative democracy.

English MP's are not outvoted, the other countries are.

So why are you seemingly unconcerned about Fife being in such a position, but telling anyone who will listen that Scotland is “outvoted by a factor of 11-1” within Britain?

Because it's the truth.

I would suggest that your nationalism, rather than any argument about democratic representation, is at the root of your thinking. You see Scots (not Fifers) as separate, are outraged that we aren’t, and so that nationalistic tail wags your political dog.

After all, Scots – unlike Fifers – form a “nation without a state”, not unlike the Sioux, Bretons, Tamils, Sardinians and many others. Can you see yet where your argument breaks down? Should they all be independent? Should the USA, France, Sri Lanka, Italy and other nations cease to exist in their current forms as a result? But I digress.

You're not getting anywhere with your misleading arguments. Brittany has a right to independence and France and Spain as ex-imperial states could be further broken down. The Basque and Catalan countries are obvious examples and are moving towards independence. Sardinia also has an independence movement. The USA is large but it is obviously seen as a distinct country and at this point there is no serious movement to break it up.

The Sioux are a conquered people unfortunately, but their original ownership of America (with the rest of the native Americans) is a historical fact which should not be ignored.

In your terms, Britain is similarly “outvoted” in the European Parliament – by a factor of 9:1 (in fact 707:78). But do you see me fretting about that? Of course not, because I’m a Unionist!

That is a problem, which has led to the creation of UKIP. The UK is already independent actually, but UKIP are British unionists (nationalists) like yourself. Scotland would be outvoted in the EU but no one country is large enough to dominate the whole EU which makes a difference.

Not a British nationalist. I’ll leave that to those on the fringes: to the likes of UKIP.

It's the same thing. Britain as currently constituted is a nation so the supporters of British nationhood are nationalists and (some are imperialists as well such as the BNP). If you fly the Union Jack then you are a British nationalist by definition.

But a conviction Unionist. So I’m Pro-Scotland, pro-Britain and pro-Europe.

But you are less pro Scotland than I am because you are happy to see our interests subverted to Britain's, I'm not.

That means I’m at ease with the idea of distributed sovereignty. I’ll consider what powers might best be exercised at Scottish, British or European levels not just on the basis of uncritical subsidiarity, or what’s thought to be best only for “us” (however defined).

Yes we Scots can do that as well and that is the problem, Britain stops us from making these decisions for ourselves. Post independence we might choose to work together with England on certain things but that would be our democratic choice.

Rather, the Unionist ideal is to pool resources, to come together whenever, on balance, it serves our common good. And if at times that cuts across narrow ideas of “our” versus “their” interests, then so be it – even for your hobbyhorse issues of defence and foreign affairs.

Yes, well unfortunately what actually happens is that Scotland's voice is entirely ignored altogether and Britain's voice is the only one that is heard. On Trident we don't want it, Britain does, so we get it.

Anyway, we already cede some such powers to the EU, NATO and UN (and even to the US) and while you and I could probably bicker all day about the appropriateness of the current distribution, the internationalist principle is an important one which nationalist doctrines inevitably undermine.

Yes the US controls the missiles which makes them rather pointless.

And that’s why, as David Cameron rightly said, unionists will win this battle of ideas. Your rhetoric may be pithier, but our vision is far more forward-looking, generous and inclusive.

But of course, in our relations with the rest of the world, Scotland’s and Britain’s interests are our primary focus, and there’s no contradiction between that statement and the foregoing. The distribution of sovereignty, rather like the decision-making dynamic within a healthy marriage, must work to all its parties’ net advantage, if not to each individual partner’s in every respect.

And on that score your argument falls apart completely. An independent Scotland would be “outvoted” in the European Parliament probably by 771:14 (roughly 55:1).

So again I’ll ask: why doesn’t that vex you? Where’s your consistency? Why is being “outvoted” 10:1 in Britain such a concern, but being “outvoted” 55:1 in Europe such a welcome prospect?

It's pretty obvious. Within Britain if there is a conflict of interest between what suits England and what suits Scotland and Wales then it's pretty obvious whose argument will win within the London parliament. The numbers are clear to see.

In terms of the EU yes there is also a problem there because we would be outvoted by a large factor. However no one country dominates the EU and therefore it is possible to work together on a common agenda. Also, if we are independent and we don't like the direction of the EU we would have the power to leave it, we don't have that at the moment.

Labour have sold out their traditional supporters

Letter to the Editor (Daily Record and others)

Sir,

Isn't it ironic that in the same week the Labour party savaged the SNP's John Mason for daring to suggest that there is little difference between their party and the Tories they themselves have provided the direct evidence?

Labour have now decided that the long term unemployed should be treated as criminals who must be sent out in work gangs to pick up litter and clean up chewing gum. This 'bright idea' was originally drawn up by David Cameron's Conservative party.

David Cameron is the same man who recently told the voters of Glasgow East that the poor and sick (and fat people, just for good measure) only had themselves to blame.

New Labour don't support the poor or the working classes or trade unionists. They are the tools of the rich and powerful, just like the Conservatives. Anyone who believes otherwise is either completely foolish or deliberately deluding themselves or both.

Wake up Scotland! We can do a lot better than this bunch of soulless hypocrites or their Tory pals but we need normal powers over our own country to do it.

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

Why should Murray want to be English?!

Post on the Scotsman:

The Scotsman has claimed that Murray has given up on Scotland but it's not actually true. They've said he's a new 'British bulldog' - don't make me boak. Is the Scotsman that desperate to create a pro-British story? Just because he got pictured with a flag? (probably handed to him by some Unionist hack desperate to get that pic!)Why does he have to make loads of humiliating declarations about how much he loves the English when he should just be concentrating on his game? Why is it even an issue? The last time he was at Wimbledon everyone cheered for the English players and after they went out they cheered for him, that was with his saltire armbands.

This year some supposedly 'quality' papers would prefer it if he forgot about being Scottish altogether! Sad, sad very sad and it says a lot about the Scotsman that it won't allow any Scot to be a success without the frankly sickening garbage of claiming them as a British bulldog, fair enough mention he's British if you MUST (for the moment anyway) but this cr*p is well OTT.

Brown has hurt Scotland by becoming PM, we won't get another and his boot licking of England and the Union Jack now means that England expects everyone to do it. Murray should have told them all to f*ck off. When we are independent our sportsmen will be treated with respect and won't be put through this obstacle course of abasing themselves before the glory of greater England. It's pathetic and it's not based on any actual remarks by Murray who said he would NOT be wearing any 'union jack head bands' which suggests that he remains a Scot first and foremost even if the sad hacks want to pretend otherwise.

Come out for independence Andy and kick everyone's a*se next year - even if everyone in 'SW1' hates your guts. It worked for McEnroe. - JPM

---------------

The disgusting remarks about Murray have reached their zenith with this sh*te from Tony Parsons. I don't think for a moment that Murray desires to be English, why the hell should he? However you can see that the hacks are confused since they can't tell the difference between Britishness and Scottishness themselves, don't worry Tony it will be spelt out politically soon enough.

Opinion: Tony Parsons on why Andy Murray doesn't represent England

Mirror columnist Tony Parsons wrote he wouldn't be supporting Andy Murray at Wimbledon after the Scot's anti-English remarks during the last World Cup. But would witnessing Murray's astonishing performance at first hand change his mind?

As fate would have it I was at Centre Court on Monday when Andy Murray staged one of the greatest sporting comebacks of all time against highly strung Frenchman Buster le Gasket.
Some say that the French have surrender in their bones, but this is grotesquely unfair to Andy Murray. Like several million other Englishmen I have never warmed to the dour Scot who they call Gordon Brown's lovechild.

However nobody should take anything away from what Murray did in the twilight of a Wimbledon day. He was awesome, he was magnificent, but I can't pretend I've suddenly fallen in love with the fiery Scot. His anti-English remarks cannot be forgotten so easily. No doubt there are other Englishmen and women who will feel differently because everyone loves a winner but despite his incredible performance on Monday I still can't confuse him with Bobby Moore.

I started that five set marathon cheering for the Frenchman and I ended up cheering for Murray. It would have been churlish, petty and mean-spirited to do anything else.
What I can't do is pretend Andy Murray represents me and my country.

I don't think that his remarks about England in the World Cup, when he said he would support anyone but England, were a joke I think he still feels that way and I think there are millions of people that still feel that way.

There are some people who just don't like the English, and I believe in my marrow that Murray is one of them. That's fine. Wimbledon is not really about flagwaving. Ultimately a tennis player represents no one but himself. They are as lonely as boxers.

Murray has already had an incredibly successful Wimbledon.

Whatever happens against Nadal he can be proud of himself, Scotland can be proud of him and Britain can be proud of him. But that doesn't mean we have to like him. Murray is the best thing we've seen in years in what is the most English of sports.

I am sorry that he made those stupid and insensitive remarks earlier in his career, and though he'd never admit it, I bet he is too. Viva Espana.

--- What is incredible is that this w*nker feels everyone must *automatically* support England at football! We Scots don't expect England fans to support us, or French Fans or United States fans. Then again we are not imperialist supremacists. That's the difference. To Parsons we are colonials - well it won't be for ever buddy.

A new progressive England?

St George’s Day for an imagined nation? Mark Perryman argues it is time we start thinking about England after Britain (Compass, Wednesday, April 23, 2008)

The first three terms of a Labour government have been constitutionally dominated by devolution. Whilst the English, at the outset of this process, mostly took a take-it-and-leave it attitude, the impact in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has been much more profound.

http://www.compassonline.org.uk/article.asp?n=1642

This is very good (Alan McCombes recommended it).

I have added a comment.

Independence is normality

Letter to the Editor
Edinburgh Evening News

07/04/2008

Sir,

With regard to the Evening News editorial today 'the US allows separate states to be different' I would remind your paper of the obvious fact that Scotland, like the United States, is a country and not a state.

The idea that all Scots should aspire to is the status of a federal state shows a certain lack of ambition. Just what is it about Scotland that we are judged to be uniquely incapable of running our own affairs? What is wrong with our flag, the Saltire, that it shouldn't fly on its own at the United Nations?

Why should we ever want to swear allegiance to a flag which is clearly designed to represent England's past dominance over Ireland and Scotland (Wales isn't even on it!) with the St George's cross front and centre?

Jack Straw recently admitted that the Empire was basically a device to amplify English power abroad. Yes, Scots played a part in the Empire but most of our ancestors were just as poor at the end of it as we were at the beginning!

The Empire is over, knighthoods and other honours which pretend to membership of a British empire are as absurd and anachronistic as the UK monarch's claim to be 'defender of the [Catholic] faith'.

It is time to wash away this backward looking nonsense and any along with it any innate desire to bully other nations. What we need is equality with other countries, not superiority.
Independence is normality. Scotland is entirely capable of becoming a successful independent modern state and deciding our own policy on foreign affairs and defence.

If unionist opinion is genuinely strong, why was there no celebration whatsoever of the Union of Crowns or the Union of Parliaments? The only organisation which did mark both occasions was the Orange Lodge, who are hardly the most modern of political thinkers.

The union does not suit any country, not Scotland when we are outvoted 10-1 at Westminster, not Wales which is offered sub standard forms of Devolution and not even England who are waking up to the fact that the English identity has been subsumed by a British one which doesn't necessarily represent their views either.

Alex Salmond is right, we should take courage from the US who ended their own remote control by Britain and who like most other countries warmly celebrate their independence day. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by independence.

At the very least the unionist parties should have the basic politeness after 300 years to ask the Scottish people whether they want the union to continue or not. The fact they desperately don't want to do so, suggests they already know the likely answer!

Raise your game please Evening News and think seriously about what suits our country right now, not 50 or a hundred years ago.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

Opinion-poll verdicts on independence are not the full picture

CONSIDER this: the Union – safe in Alex Salmond's hands. The SNP may be miles ahead of Labour but support for independence is sinking like a stone.

Bizarrely, a successful SNP government is helping to cement Scotland's place in the UK by demonstrating how devolution can deliver for the people. Who needs separatism when things are going so well? Former defence secretary George Robertson was right after all – devolution has indeed killed nationalism stone-dead, albeit not in the way he intended.

That's the general suggestion offered in the wake of the latest opinion poll showing support for independence at 23 per cent. There's only one problem with this analysis – it's utter rubbish.

Full article in the Scotsman

Interesting article. Personally I don't believe support for independence is as low as this though I am sure people will be happier with an ambitious devolved Government led by the SNP than a timorous devolved Government led by Labour.

If the unionists really believed that Scots supported the union they would be happy to allow the Scottish Government to hold a referendum on independence. They don't which is why they want desperately to avoid one.

If the positive arguments for normal powers for Scotland were articulated against the usual scaremongering campaign from the unionists (which ultimately failed at the last elections despite mass media support for it) then I have no doubt independence would win. JOE

St Patricks Day - The day everyone sucks up to Ireland

From Google:

Even the 'call yourself British' Daily Telegraph feels it has to change it's logo:

This just goes to show that the independent Irish Republic currently has a lot more international clout than Scotland.