Showing solidarity?

One of the reasons put forward by those wishing a 'no' vote is the idea of solidarity. This argument appears to be kinder than some that we've had to respond to but nevertheless continues the myth that our only value comes from us being run from Westminster. We'll get to that later, but first let's look at the logic:

 

'If Scotland were to vote Yes, then the remainder of the UK would be forced to endure perpetual Tory governments.'

 

In a practical sense, Scotland does not make that much of a difference. We can influence the size of any Labour or Conservative majority, but only twice in the last 70 years has seats from Scotland changed which party formed the government at Westminster, both when we had more representatives. And the number of MPs we are to have will be reduced further from 74 in 1940's, to 59 today, to 52 at the next election, making us less important than we already are.

 

The First Past the Post system championed by Westminster and the 'no' campaign means that elections are decided in a handful of marginal seats, and because Scotland has been politically stable for so long, and the number of marginal seats here are therefore so few, our significance is further lessened.

"We found that in 195 seats (30% of the total) no money was spent on public meetings by any candidate. In those seats the average majority was four points higher. In five seats nothing was spent on advertising. Of these five seats only one, Knowsley, had any money (£40) spent on public meetings at all.

These figures reflect the reality of a system where your vote counts more depending on where you live. As the loss of safe seats is rare, parties target resources on a small number of floating voters in marginal seats. This means that some voters are much more valued by the parties than others, calling into question the fundamental principle of democracy – that all votes are created equal." - Democratic Audit UK

Another fault of the First Past the Post system is that people tend to vote against who they fear instead of for who they want. This makes both parties (Labour and Conservative) afraid to offer any radical policies, and this stifles debate. Why risk wholesale reform when all you need to do to get in is trash the reputation of the opposition?

Because of this, it does not make that much difference which half of Westminster is elected. There has been much written in recent years about how similar the modern Labour and Conservatives Parties are to one another. Here are links to some of them:

Scottish independence and the English working class
Labour and Tories - two cheeks of the same arse?
UK economy: Tories and Labour now have almost identical policies - be afraid
The no campaign highlights another Tory-Labour pact

"Yet in the midst of what is quite clearly a systemic failure of the economics that Thatcher championed, Labour’s reaction to it – and to the ideology of austerity that is being promoted as the route back to “business as usual”  -remains shot through with fear.  Faced with the effect of cuts, Ed Balls’ response is to promise that Labour will keep the cuts and possibly make more of its own.  Faced with the effective destruction of state education, Stephen Twigg’s response is a near-Trappist silence.

Faced with an unprecedented assault on the living standards of the poor and disabled, Liam Byrne’s reaction is to parrot Tory language of sanction and desert, of “hard-working families” rather than citizens empowered as of right. Faced with a society in which low pay is endemic and living standards in free-fall, it falls back on vague language about “predistribution” which, as far as I can see, amounts to little more than asking big business to play nice (some chance).  This is an opposition that could not get its Peers out to amend the Health and Social Care Bill, but whips its MPs into line to attend Parliament’s tributes to Thatcher." - Neil Schofield (Notes from a broken society)

If our staying with Westminster makes almost no difference to which party gets in, no difference to the voting system, and no difference to the policies of future governments, then how exactly does this kind of solidarity help anyone? And even if that weren't the case, is it right that Scotland forces upon the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland a government which they do not want? Do they not have the responsibility to create a system which fits their needs?

I believe that Scotland can influence the world through deeds. I believe that ending Westminster's wasteful expenditure, from basing military personnel concurrently in over 80 countries around the world, to endless foreign wars, to useless nuclear weapons, will inspire those in the north of England and elsewhere to demand more from their governments. I believe the creation of a codified constitution, written by the people themselves, will guarantee the rights of future generations and inspire other nations to follow suit.

 

Many in the 'no' campaign disagree with this and suggest that Scotland would lose influence even though we have no direct representation at the UN and countless other international organisations, and the only reasons offered mirror those given against women suffrage in the early 20th century. They believe that we have no intrinsic value without Westminster.

 

I feel that our unquestioned solidarity with all Westminster policies is misguided. Let's instead show solidarity with Sweden's education system by matching it's level of spending, let's show solidarity with Finland's research and development focus by adopting the same approach, let's show solidarity with Norway on welfare and pensions and let's show solidarity with all the Scandinavian countries when it comes to poverty:

"Let’s look at probably the most important rating for any Western democracy, poverty rates (per Unicef):

United Kingdom – 19.8%
Sweden – 2.6%
Denmark – 5.1%
Norway – 3.9%
Finland – 4.3%
Jeff Breslin - Means to a Referendum"

And most importantly, let's show solidarity with the people who call Scotland home, and not accept those who actively conspire against our interests.

The diplomat and philosopher Joseph de Maistre said: "Every nation gets the government it deserves." It is the responsibility of the people of Wales to get the government they want for Wales, it is the responsibility of the people of Northern England to get the government they want for Northern England, and it is the responsibility of us to get the government we want for Scotland. It is wrong for us to wish to impose on others a government that they do not want just because we think it would be best, just as it is wrong for others to do the same to us. Solidarity is standing alongside others as equals, not meekly agreeing to follow their every command in the hope that somehow they will change.

Let's show what can be done with a focused, representative parliament. Let's vote Yes and display true solidarity with the people of the world.

Drew
 
If you like this blog, then please consider visiting our other sites:
Facebook - Sign for Scotland
YouTube - Sign4Scotland
Twitter - Sign4Scotland

Rule It Out!

One of the favourite tactics of the ‘no’ campaign is to suggest that every and all post-independence proposals from the Scottish Government can’t work.

This approach is laced with half truths and weasel words. Rarely an out and out lie (although sometimes it is), it will often fly in the face of reality and logic. To each one we ask ‘why don’t you end any uncertainty and just rule it out?’ We’re going to look at two examples today: Currency and Shipbuilding.

 

Currency

We already covered this topic in our blog, ‘Ten a Penny - Westminster's Current Currency Threats', but we’ll highlight the main points again.

 

There are two types of currency union: ‘formal’ and ‘informal’. The Pound Sterling is a fully convertible currency and its usage by non-Westminster controlled nations cannot be denied. It would be like claiming gold would have no value in an independent Wales. The Pound will be used and accepted from day 1 of an independent Scotland, the only debate is whether we gain direct representation on the board of the Bank of England (an example of a 'formal' agreement), or if we look to create an alternative body (probably with a similar function to the Bank of North Dakota).

 

With that out of the way, let’s look at what ‘no’ campaign members are claiming:

“But if Scotland became an independent country, we would need to put in place our own currency arrangements; new currency arrangements. The bottom line is that a currency union may not be in the interests of Scotland or the continuing UK and it is highly unlikely to be agreed - not because of any malevolence, but because it wouldn't work.” Alistair Carmichael (STV News 13th of November 2013)

It wouldn’t work?  What wouldn't work, a formal or an informal currency union? In either case why say it is ‘unlikely’ to be agreed. Why would you ever agree to something that 'wouldn't work'? Why doesn’t Mr Carmichael state that the Bank of England, which independently of Westminster controls interest rates in Scotland, would simply refuse to continue this function following Scottish independence?

Of course, Mr Carmichael could just ask the Governor of the Bank of England his view on whether or not it can work:

"The Bank of England would implement whatever monetary arrangements were put in place." Mark Carney, 29th of January 2014

The problem with the 'no' campaign's approach is that, contrary to the words of the Secretary of State ‘for’ Scotland, a shared approach is the most likely outcome.

“The pound sterling is not English money, it is British money, and just as with the Bank of England it is owned by the people of Britain in proportion to population. The political union has long ago stopped working in Scotland’s favour, the currency union still makes sense and will be of equal benefit to both Scotland, and the rest of the UK if maintained. What hasn’t yet sunk in is that a Scottish currency could be made to work for Scotland, but the threat to the rest of the UK would be significant if Scottish energy and Scottish exports were removed from the sterling zone’s balance of payments.” Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp (Business for Scotland)

The interesting thing to note from the earlier interview from Mr Carmichael was him stating that "international law is clear: the UK would continue. The UK's currency would continue and the laws and institutions that control it like the Bank of England would continue for the continuing UK.” This would be fantastic news for Scotland as 'no rights = no debts'. Why should we take on debts relating to a currency which apparently had nothing to do with us?

 

We can definitely rule out Westminster denying the value of a Pound in an independent Scotland. And we can confirm that members of the ‘no’ campaign will continue to hint and suggest otherwise until the 19^th of September.

 

Shipbuilding

This topic can also apply to the broader issue of manufacturing in Scotland but shipbuilding has been most prominently used example by the main stream media since news of over 800 job loses between the Clyde BAE shipyards was announced.

 

First, let’s look at what the ‘no’ campaign claims:

"It is worth noting that, other than procurement activity undertaken during the World Wars, no complex warships for the Royal Navy were constructed outside the UK in the 20th Century and the UK Government remains committed to using the strengths of UK industry in this specialist area." Philip Hammond (Herald Newspaper)

Apart from the specific falsehoods within this statement, the overall suggestion that the UK Government would have no ships built in Scotland is highly unlikely. There is a rather obvious reason for this: military contracts are given to BAE systems. They decide where ships are built, not the UK.

"BAE owns the yards and pays the workers. BAE is the shipbuilder. The shipbuilder is  not the state. The state is the client which orders and pays. BAE delivers. BAE has restructured its naval defence business in agreement with the state so that future orders can be delivered on time and on budget. How likely is it that, having reached this agreement, the state would renege and leave BAE with empty yards and unemployed staff? If that decision was based on a political reason and if that had been predictable all along – like a referendum – wouldn’t the state be liable for BAE’s costs (£3bn) and might it not be in breach of contract?
 
Also, from what Hammond and the procurement minister Philip Dunne have already said – as I mentioned in a previous post – the frigate decision is coming after the referendum and before the establishment of an independent state. In other words, Scotland will still be inside the UK when the contract is awarded. Therefore, technically, no conflict with the aim of building “in the UK.” Derek Bateman (Derek Bateman Broadcaster)

There’s another important point to consider: how well is Westminster managing our shipbuilding industry under there watch? With the added boost of defence contracts, which they assure us will forever take place in the UK, surely our shipyards would be amongst the busiest in Europe, with perhaps only our largest neighbours rivalling our success?

“Yet today the shipbuilders of Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, none of which are low-wage economies, still thrive, each pulling in hundreds of millions of pounds of orders annually, with even little Scotland-sized Norway providing 2% of Europe’s output compared to the UK’s paltry showing of less than 1%.” Scott Minto (Wings Over Scotland).

Why doesn’t the ‘no’ campaign rule out, categorically, any UK Navy vessel being even partially built in Scotland following independence? Because the most likely outcome is that some UK warships will be constructed on the Clyde. That is what BAE wants and that is what’s best for Westminster. The ‘no’ campaign won’t rule it out because it would tie their hands and hurt their interests following a Yes vote.

Better Together debate coach

Conclusion

You can extend the ‘rule it out’ response to most Westminster scare stories, including Pensions, the EU and NATO.

 

If what they say doesn’t mean yes and doesn't mean no, then it doesn’t mean anything.

Drew

 
If you like this blog, then please consider visiting our other sites:
Facebook - Sign for Scotland
YouTube - Sign4Scotland
Twitter - Sign4Scotland

Not in the paper review - January edition

Welcome to the first of our monthly series looking back at the stories which the main stream media in Scotland didn't offer much attention to, and comparing them to those that hit the front pages.

Opposition unionist politicians vote against increased childcare provision and free school meals for Primary 1, 2 and 3 children

(You can find more details about the story here)

"Yesterday the Labour Party’s representatives in the Scottish Parliament voted against a motion to provide free school meals to all Scottish children in Primary 1 to Primary 3, and to increase childcare funding for two-year-olds. They did so barely 48 hours after angrily demanding that the Scottish Government provide better childcare, an issue which Labour had explicitly tied into the independence debate by using an opinion poll commissioned by the “Better Together” campaign." Reverend Stuart Campbell - Wings over Scotland

Afterwards, Labour Education Spokewoman Kezia Dugdale MSP stated:

"We had to vote against the government’s motion today because the last line of the motion said that you needed independence to ensure that kids in Scotland had the best start in life, the best opportunity to grow up in the best country in the world. We disagree, we don’t think you need independence to do that." Kezia Dugdale MSP - Interview on Scotland Tonight 7/1/14

Labour would only accept the added provision for childcare and hot school meals for young children if the following text was included:

S4M-08707.3 Johann Lamont: Scotland’s Future—As an amendment to motion S4M-08707 in the name of Alex Salmond (Scotland’s Future), leave out from “deplores” to end and insert “believes that the UK Government’s economic and social strategies have failed and threaten the progress made by the previous Labour administration in tackling child poverty; agrees that devolution allows the Scottish Parliament to take a different approach; notes that progress in tackling child poverty has stalled in Scotland under the current administration, and, while recognising the value of free school meals, calls on the Scottish Government to take action to deliver for children now, including providing 50% of two-year-olds with 600 hours of free early learning and care in 2014.”

The free school meals policy adopted by the Scottish Government will offer a great deal of help to the needy and avoid children being unfairly stigmatized. We can understand people standing on a platform that they believe there are more deserving causes, but we can't accept politicians who claim that they support a policy only to vote against it when it has a chance of becoming law.

The party which once coined the phrase 'Thatcher the milk snatcher' is gone, replaced by a leadership which say they will only support a motion on free school meals if they get praised for 'progress' they made whilst in office nearly 7 (Scotland) / 4 (UK) years earlier. The question we ask is would those in Labour for Independence have voted against extra childcare and free school meals?

Other stories which didn't make it

Quantifiable proof that the British State Broadcaster has been biased in its referendum coverage came to light following research from the University of the West of Scotland. STV was also found to be favouring the 'no' campaign, but not quite to the same extent. We first came across this story on Newsnet Scotland which was once again ahead of the mainstream media.

 

The research proves that the BBC broke article 1.3.2 of its own charter and it follows the revelation that BBC Scotland was found guilty of breaching editorial guidelines on accuracy by the BBC Trust, completing a miserable month for Pacific Quay.

 

Finally, the Office of National Statistics were forced to correct their own figures after having been found understating Scotland's economic growth since 1998 in an experimental report. According to the editor of the Financial Times, Chris Giles, this wrong data had the potential to change ‘the balance of the independence debate’. Once again, there weren't many articles in the Scottish media about this topic.

 
 
Glance over the BBC

While the story of Labour voting against their own policies (extra childcare provision and hot meals for young children) was taking place, another, vastly most important issue, was dominating the BBC News website.

  

Scottish Independence: Call for 'truce' during Glasgow 2014 was the big headline. The 'story' was about the sincere hope of Lord Jack McConnell, Baron McConnell of Glenscorrodale, that athletes won't be used for political gain during the upcoming Commonwealth Games. The story became embarrassing for the Peer when Westminster's Secretary of State for Scotland, Alistair Carmichael, made the following statement just a few days later:

Whether that's the British Lions [sic], or next month's Winter Olympics, or of course, our astonishing achievements in the London 2012 Olympic Games. At those Games, the UK won 29 gold medals. And over the Games, as the tally went higher, so did our collective sense of national pride. Chris Hoy, Jessica Ennis, Andy Murray, Mo Farah, Katherine Granger. Those outstanding athletes weren't cheered on by parts of the UK, but by all of us. They were our representatives. They worked together, they competed together – many had trained together at facilities across the UK. Their success fed our pride."

Lord Jack McConnell, previously using athletes for political gain

Although the Commonwealth Games will be a fantastic sporting event, we don't believe that the referendum debate should be put on hold (and we're not going to be influenced by 'Peer' pressure).

 
  
Glance over the papers

Our comedy headline from the newspapers comes courtesy of The Telegraph from the 29th of December 2013: David Cameron: I would check my wallet after a drink with Alex Salmond.

 

David Cameron said that, out of Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Alex Salmond, he would prefer to have a drink with his deputy Nick Clegg. This is presumably because Mr Clegg would be the most likely of the trio to act as waiter.

The Daily Record came a close second with the headline 'Alex Salmond admits Scotland could be forced to ditch pound if country votes Yes in September's referendum', even though Alex Salmond didn't say anything and Scotland can't be forced into using an alternative currency.

 

The very next day came a rebuttal from Lawyer George C Gebbie who wrote that instead of increasing the likelihood that the Scotland would drop the pound, the story was "...an affirmation of the use of Sterling now and in the future by the Scottish Government." At the time of writing, we aren't aware of any corrections made by the Daily Record.

 
Join us again for our next 'not in the paper' review in February!
Drew
 
If you like this blog, then please consider visiting our other sites:
Facebook - Sign for Scotland
YouTube - Sign4Scotland
Twitter - Sign4Scotland