Theresa May, Poll-Dancer Extraordinaire

Last week saw the launch of the Conservative manifesto, and I thought that Theresa May had achieved yet another stage in her immaculate transformation into the Ghost of Margaret Thatcher Made Flesh. Thatcher was labelled ‘MilkSnatcher’ for her removal of free school milk for over 7s during her time as Secretary for Education under Heath in 1971, but May’s manifesto, cutting free school meals for children in England and Wales, had surely been enough to dub her ‘LunchSnatcher’. The celebrations of Thatcher’s death included plans to bombard her hearse with milk as it made its (near) royal procession through London – could Theresa expect to have sandwiches thrown at hers?

Theresa Mary May (née Brasier) has not sought to avoid the comparison with the Iron Lady (no matter how unpopular that would make her in Scotland in particular), the idea of the vicar’s daughter from Oxfordshire somehow resonating even more with the idyllic fantasy of England’s cricket-playing village greens than that of Margaret Hilda Thatcher (née Roberts), the shopkeeper’s daughter from Grantham in Lincolnshire. If May were to follow in Thatcher’s footsteps she would pay little heed to such opprobium from the mere public – but the Conservative manifesto launch contained other gems that certainly did make her core voters sit up and take notice.

The delayed announcement of the raising of the state pension age until after the election had caused suspicions to arise, as had the delay of 6 years to women born in the 1950s receiving their state pensions, so effectively publicised by WASPI (Women Against State Pension Inequality), losing up to £45,000 each in the process. In Westminster, the SNP leader Angus Robertson MP had read the way the wind was blowing and had correctly intuited an imminent threat to the triple lock protection on the state pension, pinning May during Prime Minister’s Questions as she refused to answer whether the lock would stay or not. Sure enough, in the Conservative manifesto the scrapping of the triple lock on pensions – the guarantee that ensures that state pensions rise in line with average earnings, inflation or 2.5 per cent (whichever is the highest) – was announced, as was the removal of the winter fuel allowance for the elderly, and the introduction of what was swiftly dubbed the ‘Dementia Tax’, wherein the appropriation of people’s homes to posthumously pay for their care costs became embedded in law. Given that a report last month showed a rise in pensioner poverty across the UK, it is perhaps less than surprising that Theresa’s core support group – the elderly – did not take kindly to being taken for granted, and over the last weekend her lead halved in two polls to only 9 points above Labour. Theresa did not take this change in polling fortune lying down, however, and set about spinning on the Monday morning – just 4 days after the manifesto policy was launched – at a press conference in Wrexham that there was always going to be a ‘cap’ on the homes affected (although this had been emphatically denied by ministers the previous week – but you can see why it would be an idea given the figures in the table above), to try and recover some political support from her ‘Greys’.

For Theresa Mary May is a Poll-Dancer. She called the snap General Election in April when two polls came in over a single weekend showing a 20-21 point lead for the Conservatives over Labour. Faced with the Crown Prosecution Service in imminent danger of removing her majority, and the certainty that the economy will progressively deteriorate (pardon the oxymoron) the further we get from Article 50 having been raised to leave the European Union, it only made sense to her to opportunistically scrap the Fixed Terms Act in order to call an early election under the pretense of it strengthening her supposed hand against Brussels in the forthcoming BrExit discussions. If she did not make a fast jump now, before times get really bad, the she would risk having to go to the country for an election in 3 years time, when expectations are that BrExit fantasies will have started to implode into a grim reality. In this way – one might suspect that she reasoned – she might be able to hold on to power until after the immediate start of the bite of the BrExit-generated austerity, and perhaps ride some kind of slow delayed slight upswing, with her political opponents having been annihilated by her new post-June majority.

And now she dances to the tune of the polls again – trying to pretend that her ‘Dementia Tax’ was not nearly so bad as had been said (much like the ‘Rape Clause’ of last month). Except that Theresa went into meltdown on live television twice in one day on Monday. First of all, in calling the press conference in Wrexham to announce that there was a cap (although what the cap value of the property was, noone knew, and she was not going to say), she took questions from journalists – something she is known to be poor at…and one from a Michael Crick of Channel 4 News. Michael is the journalist who pretty much singlehandedly dug up the story of the Conservative election expenses fraud when no other media outlet was acknowledging that it existed for over 9 months, which resulted in the Crown Prosecution Service receiving files from fifteen police services. Crick started softly, comparing May to Thatcher (which she obviously relished) with her ‘the lady is not for turning’ and ‘You turn if you want to’, pointing out that May’s U-turn not only set her apart from Thatcher, but far from being ‘strong and stable’ (as her election soundbite has wearingly been) this was “weak and wobbly”. May did not respond well – and ended up shrieking in an out of control fashion “Nothing has changed! Nothing has changed!” (ironically enough to a question from the Daily Telegraph). It is a shocking piece of video to watch, for someone who occupies the office of Prime Minister to crack like this – a friend of mine watched the tape back: ‘She looks like she is going to cry’, she said. That night, she went on to be interviewed live by Andrew Neill, and despite him being no enemy of the Conservatives, she looked adrift and lost, again reduced to repeating a limited number of vapid soundbites. She must have gone to bed that night wondering how she could turn things around, when she was losing her lead even with such solid support from the British press.

And then the bomb went off at Manchester Arena after the Ariana Grande concert, killing 22 and injuring a further 59 in the (predominantly) young female audience.

Even without going down the tinfoil hat conspiracy line that this ‘intervention’ seemed almost too perfect for her agenda (this is not to ignore that it plays very well to other external agendas), it is undeniable that this has given her breathing space which she will be grateful for: political campaigning has ceased, she gets to deploy  5,000 army personnel on the streets (she cut 19,000 police officers as Home Secretary, so there are not enough armed police to cut it anymore) under Operation Temperer and bask in reflected military strength (not unlike Thatcher sending off the Falklands task force when her popularity was waning with the public), to feed off the inevitable ‘anti-immigrant’ feeling that will strengthen her hardline BrExit stance, and give the public time to forget – even if just a little – her horrendous crumpling under modest pressure on live television. At a time when politically she had – entirely through her own doing – landed herself on the ropes, she will be able to regroup once more in time to restart the campaign next week, aided by cartoons and comment in the Daily Mail and the Telegraph that seek to remind people that her opponent Jeremy Corbyn ‘associated’ with the IRA while trying to make progress for peace, and thus insinuate that in some unspoken way he bears a ‘responsibility’ for what happened in Manchester.

As Jon Stone has noted in The Independent, Theresa May has developed something of a penchant for u-turns in her ten months as Prime Minister, willing to swiftly reverse unpopular announcements from BrExit (Remain before, Leave after), increasing National Insurance for self-employed workers, calling a General Election before 2020, amongst several. What poll trend she jumps to the rhythm of next will be interesting to see – but instead of strong and stable she has instead looked startlingly inconstant and all too desperate to court public opinion. In conjunction with the recent changes in the Labour Party’s fortunes, it starts to look as though the survival of this Poll-Dancer as PM would actually be something of a surprise. But one thing is for sure – the only thing that will be ‘stable’ in the run-up to June 8th will be Theresa May’s desperate dance and willingness to reverse for the favour of the polls, lest her electoral gamble fall to dust in her hands.

“She is hitting older people with a classic Nasty Party triple-whammy: Scrapping the triple lock on pensions, removing the winter fuel allowance and forcing those who need social care to pay for it with their homes.” (Jeremy Corbyn responds to the Conservative manifesto launch)

A distant second: From Glasgow to Scotland in 5 years…or Everyone Wins – Except the Winners

The last week has been a fond journey into nostalgia for me. Five years ago, I had a wake-up call to overt bias, while watching television coverage of the council elections. I detailed the experience in an earlier blog – the short version is that the BBC reporting of the Glasgow Council elections was nakedly at odds with all other television channels, by virtue of (solely for Glasgow) counting the defections from Labour’s group as representing ‘losses’, and therefore the reelection of those Labour council positions as ‘Labour gains’. This was the only deviation from their otherwise uniform accounting of council changes on the basis of comparison with the 2012 result: it was plain, it was done almost with an arrogance – in the election studio, they laughed at anyone pointing out that saying Labour’s ‘gains’ in Glasgow outnumbered the SNP’s was erroneous. And yet they were the only channel reporting the Glasgow result in this idiosyncratic fashion.

Fast forward from May 4th 2012 to last Friday. The results come in – and the SNP have increased their number of council seats from 425 to 431. But hold – the BBC say that it is a drop of 7 seats? Over the ensuing days, as BBC journalists confessed they had no idea where the figures had come from, it slowly emerged that the figures had been ‘adjusted’. Apparently, if subsequent boundary changes had been in place, the SNP would (‘probably’) have won 13 more seats in 2012 – seats which they in 2017 ‘lost‘. It is a bit like ‘seasonally adjusted averages’ – those unemployment figures that first made you start to doubt the veracity of the UK Government in its reporting of unemployment in the UK – where the adjustment (however it is calculated) becomes more important than the upfront real figure. Surely the modification is a secondary figure, and should not have the headline position? It is somewhat misleading – to say the least – if not introduced by the broadcaster with the appropriate caveats.

But the raw data come out like this: the SNP increased their votes by 21% with over 108,000 more first preferences in the transferrable vote system (39.6% turnout in 2012, 46.9% turnout last week) while holding their vote share on 32.3% from the previous council election (pedants may wish to quibble that the vote share dropped by 0.03% – does not really show up when figures are being reported to one decimal place). In contrast, Labour’s votes fell by 21% (20.2% vote share, so down 11.2%) – Conservatives were up 12% (25.3% vote share) – a straight accretion of the unionist vote, coalescing around the Conservatives as it drifted from Labour, as the SNP vote held up (indeed, with more turning out, held up very well indeed) – as shown by the graphic above. (Indeed, it is striking how poorly the Conservatives did, coming in 155 seats behind the SNP, compared to Labour being only 31 seats behind in 2012.) Yet the Conservatives were hailed as ‘the winners’.

The turnout is important – it was the highest for a council election (when they have not been held on the same day as the Holyrood elections) since 1977, and that can perhaps be attributed to Theresa May’s attempt to hijack the council elections to give some sort of ‘anti-second Scottish independence referendum’ position. Although increased, it is still nowhere near the levels of turnout that we would expect for June 8th’s General Election 2015 rerun.

With the figures for the Lib Dems (6.8%, up 0.2%) and the Greens (4.1%, up 1.8%) added in to the mix, one can read it as an overall 0.6% increase for pro-independence parties since 2012. So, with an increased voting percentage for pro-independence parties, that will be Theresa telt, then?

Well, not so much…of course. Even although they have been making noises about vote share and seats, the Conservative Government just wants one good statistic to say ‘drop in SNP support’, to try and legitimise their resistance to the Scottish Parliament’s support of the SNP’s elected mandate to have a second independence referendum as a direct consequence of the result of the EU referendum. If Nicola Sturgeon engages with that game, then it will be a perpetual one – the electorate supported you this time? Well, then it has to be next time as well. Supported by the electorate again? Well, best of three, surely. It starts to sound like the IRA after the Grand Hotel bombing in Brighton – they only have to be lucky once, we have to be lucky all the time.

The SNP were right not to play that game – they would have undermined their already existing mandate, preemptively won at Holyrood last year if they had. To paraphrase Derek Bateman, how many votes do we need to emphatically record-beatingly win? When your record of support has set records in both the Westminster and Holyrood parliaments, then what can be obtained by repeating them time after time, except by giving the Unionists hope that you will inevitably one day fall as you jump through an infinite number of hoops coated with increasingly flammable materials.

As I have said before, trying to hijack the council elections for a national/constitutional issue is a grossly irresponsible approach of the Conservative Prime Minister – and perhaps shows how much they truly value local government (although given their contempt for devolved governments in the UK, that is not really a huge surprise). Fundamentally, using council elections as some sort of referendum on a national issue skews the quality of representative elected – their intention in standing is not one driven by local issues, but purely to serve the national party leader. This started to manifest itself with depressing speed, as the announcement that a series of Orange Order candidates had succeeded in being elected (without declaring their membership of said organisation, as required) to BOTH Labour and Conservative council posts was followed by some of their somewhat extremist Twitter account activity. A Moray independent councillor (who had, like many notionally independent candidates, stood as a Conservative candidate 5 years earlier) resigned, and a new Dunblane Conservative councillor  (swiftly exposed as an extremist BritNat troll) was under pressure to do the same – but had been ‘talked out of it’ by the Conservative Party.

Two out of nine Stirling Conservative councillors had similarly had their Twitter ‘backstory’ brought to light. On the one hand we can see a ‘barrel scraping’ exercise in terms of trying to get candidates for the unionist parties (particularly Conservative in Scotland) at this time – on the other there is a chill that these ‘shock troops of the union’ have been called upon, and a true indication that there is no level of racism, hatred or violence that will not be stooped to by the Union’s defenders, in order to oppose the assertion of self-determination in Scotland.

And in Stirling we might also see the exception that makes the rule of council elections have nothing to do with national or constitutional issues that are not in any way a part of the remit or competency of councils to handle.

For, in 2014, Stirling Council had an impact on the referendum question, in their approach to host Armed Forces Day in Stirling over the same weekend that commemorated the 700th anniversary of the battle that consolidated Scotland’s independent status, Bannockburn (as seen here, here and here). As it turned out, their little escapade – trying to divert numbers from the paying 700th anniversary event to the free ‘British’ event – did not exactly work out, with noteably larger numbers paying to attend Bannockburn. But they provided the opportunity for the media to parade something packaged as anti-independence, and ignore something more related to Scotland’s history as an independent nation. That had an impact, in the run up to the referendum that year.

In the end, that is the same role that is fulfilled by Theresa May trying to make every election another means of casting doubt on the SNP’s mandate – an excuse to distract, undermine and ignore. The truth of it – as shown by the reportage of the council election results, where some in London and abroad assumed that the Conservatives, with a mere 22.5% vote share, finishing 155 seats behind the SNP, had ‘won’ the election – does not really matter: it is just an opportunity to misrepresent and shout as loudly as possible – knowing the mainstream press will happily only listen to – and volubly echo – that narrative.

Last week, the Conservatives (assisted by Labour and the LibDems) threw everything they had at the SNP, to try and break through against them…even producing leaflets that mentioned no council-related policies – only ‘opposed to another independence referendum’. The SNP vote held firm. The press – led by the BBC – ignored that, adopting something akin to a New Labour education approach, where ‘everyone wins’ – except the winners. The result did not matter – they already had the script. And the script is about momentum for a very specific narrative – and not one that ends with self-determination.

 

“How many elections can we win hands down and still be angling for another referendum – like dookin’ for apples? I see the Unionist Press now indicates that the loss of any SNP seats [in the General Election on June 8th], which seems inevitable to me, will be taken as failure and loss of credibility even if Yes parties win an overwhelming number of seats and 50 per cent of the vote. They, on the other hand, have only to win a seat or two or even hold Edinburgh South to claim a major victory. This is the world of distorted democracy we inhabit.” (Derek Bateman, 19/4/2017)

50 More Days of the ‘Come What May’ Attitude: Is She Looking for Backing, Silencing Dissenting Voices by Establishing Her One Party State, or Just Worried About the Crown Prosecution Service Amputating Her Majority?

Waking up to snow blizzards in Munich in the second half of April, and Theresa May has apparently called a General Election for June 8th – after saying she would do nothing of the sort for the last 8 months (she last reiterated this via a spokesperson on March 21st).

She gave a series of reasons for this turnaround, a mere 21 days after raising Article 50, citing ‘disunity’ in Westminster in contrast to the ‘coming together’ she imagined over the weekend in her ‘God Loves a BrExiter’ beatific Easter Sunday message to the nation. The House of Lords – an unelected chamber that has been a bulwark for the Conservatives and the establishment for centuries – was suddenly the ‘enemy within’ (although their amendments were quickly removed by the House of Commons). The Labour Party was identified as a problem – despite the fact that they (regardless of their leader’s wishes) have shown zero inclination to vote against anything proposed by Theresa’s government, BrExit or otherwise, so scared are they of looking like anything other than Red Tories. Even having helped Theresa obtain a majority for the BrExit bill, she felt threatened by them because they have apparently said they might vote against the final EU agreement that she would bring to Westminster after negotiations were complete. But…surely, in allowing the idea that the Commons could vote on that final agreement, as Theresa had already proposed, that means that people could vote other ways than just supporting whatever pig’s ear of a piece of nonsense she turned up with? (Although, to be fair, on recent form she may have just been expecting Labour to abstain.) But to her, ‘disagreement’ may simply be synonymous with ‘division’.

In her speech on Tuesday morning outside Downing Street, where she had left a cabinet meeting, she invoked the ‘national interest’ – a codified phrase for ‘everyone should unquestioningly be supporting me as the leader of government, come what may’. And she appealed to the public to back her, with her cartoon supervillain line of ‘Every vote for the Conservatives will make me stronger’. (No secret glowing amulet was immediately visible at her neck.)

It is perhaps significant that her domestic policies are being blocked by members in her own party in a way that her BrExit moves are most certainly not – this notion of a ‘Westminster Fifth Column’ against her BrExit is nonsense, and it is more likely that she is simply creating this myth as a pretext to get past domestic opposition from within her own party. So it may at first sight seem a little strange that she has chosen this path – especially as private polling for the Conservatives by Crosby Textor from only a couple of weeks ago (see 5th April, the New Statesman New Statesman ) indicated that more or less all the Conservatives’ 2015 gains from the LibDems looked to be returned to them in the event of an early general election call. But projections from the weekend’s two polls suggest that this move will increase her majority from 17 to somewhere between 100 and 140, and this would most likely help her a lot in bringing her domestic will to bear. She is clothing her own weakness in her capacity as leader of her own party in the robes of imagined ‘traitors’ to her at Westminster – she will brook no opposition to ‘The May Way’ from within her own party. Because, it’s…y’know…’divisive’. (Or ‘different’ – that has been a very popular thing for Conservatives to complain about, since they started adopting UKIP’s finery – perhaps they are just taking that fear of ‘difference’ that little bit further?)

She did note her current small majority of 17 seats in Tuesday morning’s announcement of the June 8th General Election – and perhaps that is the key deciding factor for her…perhaps even more than the 20-21 point lead over Labour that those two polls over the weekend gave her. It is worth noting that early the same morning as May’s announcement, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that they would deliver their judgement on Tory election fraud in the 2015 General Election in the next few days. With fifteen police forces having handed files to the CPS regarding possible electoral fraud, and 30 individuals consisting of sitting Conservative MPs and their agents under consideration for charges as a result, the chance of Theresa May losing (or having vastly reduced) her current 17 seat majority cannot have been far from any strategic decision that she made in the cabinet meeting before she walked out of Number 10 to stand in front of the cameras to announce the snap election. The CPS will now be in an invidious position in terms of making a decision, given that many of the suspected electoral fraudster MPs will already be out campaigning by the time such a decision is announced. Despite this, Theresa has made clear that she has no problem with those individual MPs standing for the June election – in spite of the fact that they might be under investigation for – and guilty of – criminal wrongdoing in campaigning for the previous General election. (Having said that, a by-election to a Manchester seat has also been confirmed as going ahead shortly, in spite of the fact that it will be to a doomed parliament with less than 50 days to run – farce may simply be compulsory for General Election 2017.)

Within minutes of Tuesday’s announcement, the pound started to recover (by around 1% against both US Dollar and Euro), with London stocks similarly falling (90% of the FTSE 100 fell – see image above, from Newsnet ) – perhaps because the markets could see a glimmer of light for the first time that maybe the London financial market was not going to disappear into the wilderness for 40 years plus due to BrExit locking it out of the European Union (but more likely because businesses relying on income from abroad would start to lose with a strengthening pound…still, it is a nice idea that that might be the cause.).

In recent weeks, Theresa May has looked by turns confused (this is just the latest position that she has reversed on), isolated, at times even quite dangerously deluded – anything but strong, as her narrative of a resolute hard and successful BrExit went cascading off the rails before she had even raised Article 50, with Nicola Sturgeon so predictably preempting her, ensuring no easy negotiations with the EU. She has looked so out of her depth – up to and including calling this ‘snap’ election – that she has seemed the real ‘player of political games’ – playing at being a grown-up possessing the political aptitude to carry out the responsibilities of the position that she occupies, when she clearly does not.

Making a move to use local council elections in Scotland as a vote against an independence referendum mandate secured by the SNP and Scottish Greens in last year’s Holyrood election was a strange tactical move by her, and could be seen as wrong on many levels – but perhaps the most important one being that it is hijacking an election of representatives for local councils which have nothing whatsoever to do with referenda. In short: prioritising the election of a political gesture so that the electorate feel pressured into using their vote for something other than selecting the best council service representative – then are stuck with that individual instead of the representative that they might have selected to do the job for 5 years, as opposed to be a proxy for 1 day of election result exploitation. (An almost Mayfly-like fleeting political existence, one might say.)

In contrast, at least in calling a General Election as a vote of confidence in her (thus far) unmandated BrExit strategy, May’s result will actually be relevant to the representatives elected, in that the elected MPs will actually have an influence as representatives on that BrExit process (even if it is merely as her personal rubber stamp in the House of Commons) – unlike electing council representatives as a proxy for whether or not an already-mandated Scottish independence referendum happens.

[This is a bit of an academic sidebar of a question now, perhaps, but what would have been the benchmark criteria for that, anyway? How could one say a win or a loss either way for May? Simply whether or not the Conservative vote share increased? The SNP’s went down? Or just a straight win on numbers? Or numbers of councils controlled? This question now looks to be applicable to the General Election in 50 days time, as far as Scotland is concerned…what – if anything – would Theresa ‘accept’ as not undermining the Scottish Government’s current mandate? The right wing press are arguing that – less than a direct measure of one party’s fortunes relative to another’s – any metric that in any way declines for the SNP (be it seats, votes cast, vote share, numbers of jellybeans) at all from its astonishing current level, would be swiftly interpreted as a ‘Conservative victory’. But surely – if she is effectively ignoring the mandates of the devolved parliament in Edinburgh, then we are back to the old pre-devolution metric – that a majority of Scottish MPs being SNP would automatically start negotiations for independence?]

Regardless of this, something appears to have changed since Theresa May’s Easter Sunday message about ‘sensing a coming together’ behind BrExit – although one could easily argue that her Easter message was all about establishing a narrative that ‘the country was unifying’, when there was precious little evidence that it was doing anything of the sort, so that she could justify calling a General Election against those naughty (and possibly largely fictional?) MPs who were not mirroring that ‘pattern’. In fact, one could far more easily make the counter argument: the 52% to 48% vote for leaving the European Union has shown little sign of change, whereas the vote to raise Article 50 in Westminster was achieved with a 498 to 114 majority. If anything, the country remains divided, whereas Westminster has – inexplicably, and with a few noteworthy exceptions – united behind her headlong charge at national self-harm.

Although yesterday Theresa May managed to suspend the Fixed Term Act (another tight vote in the House of Commons that she barely scraped through by 522 in favour and 13 against – another ‘clear example’ of Westminster refusing to support anything she does for BrExit…) brought in by her predecessor David Cameron to stop Prime Ministers opportunistically calling elections based on positive opinion polls (although the veracity and sincerity of that move by Cameron is open to question, see here), what might have been of more immediate concern to her was the possible fixed term sentences (a year in prison) that might be handed out to a possible 15-30 of her sitting MPs.

So once again it seems that Britain’s future is being thrown into the tombola wheel – or perhaps simply under the nearest leftover ‘Leave’ campaign bus – purely for the sake of the Conservative Party leadership. By the time May began the debate yesterday to suspend the Fixed Terms Act in parliament, the Crown Prosecution Service had indicated to Channel 4 News that the early General Election would not affect their prosecutions of any of the 30 individuals that they are currently considering charging in connection with 2015’s Conservative Party electoral fraud. And perhaps that was what had changed since her broadcast message on Sunday.

Perhaps May simply knows that the police investigations are not going so well for some of her MPs, and is therefore choosing to jump before the collar (to use the vernacular) is felt of the ‘May Majority’ – to consolidate it, before it is taken from her by her dear BrExit friend – the judiciary.

 

“If any hint of that impending reality has dawned on the UK Prime Minister then she will move heaven and earth to stop Scotland being given an option to choose a better, more progressive, international and egalitarian national culture than post-Brexit Britain can offer…Not least since without Scotland, the UK’s balance of payments deficit would collapse the UK economy and Sterling would sink below the dollar without Scottish exports of food and drink and oil and gas. ..If Scotland’s independence referendum is announced before the Brexit negotiations complete, then the only bargaining chip Theresa May has to retain financial passporting, is offering access to Scottish fishing waters, and if Scotland is to become independent with an option to be fast tracked to full EU membership after a period of EFTA/EEA single market access (if we want it) then May will enter the Brexit negotiations empty handed while simultaneously facing ScotRef, where the economic certainty of the single market, and potentially hundreds of thousands of new jobs would be on offer to an independent Scotland.” (Gordon Macintyre-Kemp, 7/4/2017)

The ‘Once in a Generation’ Game: 12 Referenda for ‘No’ Monkeys

A reviewer took me to task recently, over my use of the word ‘generation’: in the paper that I had submitted, I was comparing two historically separated figures variously engaged with Enlightenment science, and had said that there was a generation between them. A furious note was scribbled on the manuscript when it came back from review: ‘a generation is 25 years’. I had to confess that I had never before heard anyone say that there was a specific mathematical figure for how many years a ‘generation’ constituted, and thus considered myself duly enlightened.

‘Generations’ are topical right now: there has recently been an upswell in what is colloquially referred to as the ‘YoonStream’ (the Unionist social media bubble), regarding the recurrence of an independence referendum. The prospect of a second independence referendum is taken as perhaps the equivalent of the notorious ‘Vow’ made by the Westminster parties a few days before the 2014 vote, wherein large-scale, wide-ranging new powers would come to Scotland’s Parliament if we only voted ‘No’ to independence. It would be (Scotland was told) the same as Home Rule, the abiding aim of the de facto Labour Party’s founder, Keir Hardie – effectively a federal UK. (If any of this sounds familiar, that is because a couple of Saturdays ago you might have heard similar promises by Gordon Brown, the same architect as last time. What is interesting is that he was wheeled out in the final week of the campaign in 2014, as the polls showed Yes was ahead – perhaps his early appearance now, before the campaign has even started, is a similar reflection of recent polling showing that ‘Yes’ is again ahead…although it may equally have been an attempt to divert attention away from Nicola Sturgeon’s keynote SNP spring party conference speech to former ‘No’ voters, on the same day.) This ‘Vow’ naturally failed to materialise once the No vote had been secured – but the ‘vow’ equivalent that Yes is accused of, is that there was a ‘promise’ that this referendum was a ‘once in a generation’ or once in a lifetime event – ergo there should be decades before there was even the possibility of it happening again.

However, the whole premise is rot, relying as it does on the wilful misrepresentation of comments made by Alex Salmond in the run-up to the vote on 18th September 2014.

I remember seeing the reports in 2014, with him being asked about the referendum by somewhat hostile journalists, in terms of the frequency of such things. Alex swerved the question neatly, choosing to emphasise the rarity of having the chance to have such a vote for independence. “It is a once in a generation opportunity”, he replied. I understood exactly what he meant: it was a warning. He did not want anyone to be relaxed that this plebiscite might commonly recur in the future, that it was a question that could easily be regularly revisited, so no pressure to go with it this time. He did not want such an impression to spread, making the electorate complacent and feel that they could casually vote ‘No’ (or not vote at all) without serious consideration, as there would be ‘another independence referendum along soon’, like a number 11 bus. There had been no vote – or even token gesture of consultation – on the Act of Union in 1707 (to be fair, the closest that regular non-land-owning people had to free expression back then was the series of riots that took place in virtually every Scottish town and city in protest at the idea of the Union coming in to being), or at any point in the ensuing three centuries plus. So to say that the opportunity to have such a say was rare (or even once every twenty five years) is a significant understatement.

It seems fairly safe to say that a major reason for the 2014 plebiscite being agreed to by Westminster was that David Cameron was confident that he could use it to destroy the SNP as a political force.

There was no largesse here, or great love of democracy – he felt he could use it against his political opponents (in much the same way that he disastrously initiated the EU referendum purely to resolve the Conservative Party ascendancy) to his own ends. If Cameron had not seen an opportunity for himself, then that referendum would most likely have been denied – of course, not by being as foolhardy as to say ‘no’, but probably under the guise of ‘now not being the right time’, as Theresa May tried last week: hitting it into the long grass, as the political golfing metaphor goes. In short, it was a fluke of Conservative arrogance and caprice that the first independence referendum happened – Salmond was never, ever in any way shape or form saying ‘fair dos, if you win this, we will not ever mention it again’ – he was saying ‘they have never been so daft as to let the question be asked before, and this will probably be our one shot at it’. You cannot misrepresent the act of encouraging someone to vote because it is a rare chance that may well not come again, as equating to making a promise or vow – such as Cameron, Clegg and Milliband did in that last week of the campaign, in trying to make the referendum seem to be about ‘independence or more powers’, instead of In or Out of the UK. (You can read elsewhere about how that intervention undermined what the referendum was actually asking, as commented on by political scientist Professor Tony Carty, at https://50daysofyes.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/beyond-conditional-nos-the-ongoing-political-uncertainty-of-what-the-no-vote-actually-meant .) The two simply do not equate – but perhaps it says more about a certain kind of Unionist mindset that they would hear Salmond’s words as those of someone coming cap-in-hand to beg a favour, rather than a warning to the Scottish electorate against being complacent, because the state might well block any future calls for Scottish self-determination in perpetuity. Instead, they prefer to play the Once-in-a-Generation Game.

Of course, the issue of self-determination is not evenly spread throughout time, and becomes more of an issue at times when the colonial or ‘parental’ government becomes more obviously incompetent or unwilling to represent broader interests and concerns. This has the effect of reminding people of the state that they are in, and how brazenly unresponsive it can be to their needs. At other times, this is not so obvious – although having come through the crucible of 2014, the Scottish electorate look more forensically at Westminster’s performance than ever before. As hard as it was to battle through to the end of the September 2014 referendum and see it end in a failure, the more sanguine among us had been considering that it was an exercise in waking ourselves up – ready for the next time. Like Morpheus in the Nebuchadnezzar, unplugging as many individuals from the mainstream media Matrix as we could, so that they looked more critically at the political world around them, and what it really means to be Scotland in Britain. (Given the recent Panelbase media survey, whereby only 32% of Scots expressed confidence in the BBC as a balanced news-provider regarding constitutional issues, I think we can say that we have had some significant success in that regard.) That has meant the awakening of critical political thinking in Scotland – with political parties judged harshly, and rewarded richly, according to how well they stood up to public scrutiny. The political landscape of Scotland has been transformed – and, some might argue, this has had a knock-on effect in England. It also means that the electorate are a lot more questioning of the media that they more passively consumed in the past.

The ‘Yes’ Movement suffered last time from failing to criticise how Scotland faired as a component within the UK, instead focussing on the many possibilities and opportunities that would come with becoming an independent state. (One of Cameron’s purported reasons for refusing to debate Salmond during that campaign, was to avoid turning it into a referendum on Westminster’s ‘custodianship’ of Scotland within the Union.) Ian Bell wrote that he felt the main reason that ‘Yes’ lost, was in its failure to address why one might not wish to be considered British – in truth, Westminster has stage-managed exposure of precisely why one might not wish to be considered that since the result in 2014, running from English Votes for English Laws, the failure of the Smith Commission, the watering down of those insipid proposals, and the implosion of the EU Referendum and the sudden xenophobic leap towards a hard BrExit. And, so, we find ourselves once more looking at a Scottish Independence Referendum – perhaps more as an indication of the need to call Westminster’s performance over the last three years in the wake of 18th September 2014 to account, than anything else.

It is fair to say that the British state has not favoured the Scottish question being asked, and has relied on a series of unlikely-to-be-surmounted obstacles to prevent that from happening. But how ‘precious’ is that long-lasting union, if the countries of the UK are only in it because none of them are allowed to leave? As one commentator noted, it is the difference between parliamentary democracy and political capture – are we really being treated as though we are nothing more than a 19th century colony, in this ‘union of equal partners’?

For example, it is worth noting that, prior to devolution, there was no consideration of a referendum as the mechanism for Scotland attaining independence – all the SNP had to do was secure a majority of the MPs representing Scotland at Westminster, to automatically gain the right to declare independence. That was, of course, seen to be astronomically unlikely…but Westminster could not have foreseen the degree to which people in Scotland would become so utterly disillusioned with first the Conservatives (primarily from Thatcher), then Labour (through Blair in Iraq), and finally the Liberal Democrats (through coalition with Cameron’s aggressive government). Suddenly, the SNP were the only credible party of government left in Scotland. Today, those old Westminster guidelines seem laughable, with 56 out of 59 MPs elected to represent Scotland in Westminster being Scottish National Party members: never mind a simple ‘majority’ of Scottish Westminster seats as a requisite for declaring independence, they were close to getting ALL of the seats. That could easily be taken as a mandate – but the SNP have even more than that to underpin their right to hold a further independence referendum.

As I write this, the Scottish Parliament is debating the motion to pass a request for a Section 30 Order from Westminster, to make an independence referendum legal and binding. That same Scottish Parliament is governed by the SNP, who were elected explicitly on a manifesto that said that if Scotland voted to stay in the EU but the UK voted to Leave, then this would constitute grounds for a new independence referendum on Scottish independence (especially given that continued membership of the EU was supposedly one of the major reasons to vote ‘No’ in 2014 – although that argument was hotly disputed by ‘Yes’). Although the SNP dropped their absolute majority of the previous Scottish Parliament (which was supposed to be mathematically well-nigh impossible to achieve), the SNP have enough members to pass the motion against united Conservative, Labour and LibDem opposition in Holyrood, and they also have the support of the Scottish Greens for an independent Scotland. The SNP have a clear mandate for an independence referendum from their manifesto for the Scottish Parliament elections last year, which described the specific EU vote circumstances that transpired – never mind what would have been a pre-devolution mandate from their near unanimous occupation of the Scottish benches at Westminster. But as you once more hear the desperate unionist howl of ‘but you PROMISED it was only once in a generation!’, remember that there was never any undertaking to Unionists, by either politicians or by the Scottish people, that there would not be another one – it was a warning to the Scottish electorate that, with the paucity of opportunities during the lifetime of the Union for Scots to assess whether the Union should be dismantled, that another chance might well never come again. Not an undertaking, but an expectation – and who could have expected that the Conservatives would press such a self-destructive button on their relationship with the EU, less than two years after citing it as the main reason for Scotland to stay in the UK?

It is interesting to note that Alex Salmond’s explanation to Andrew Marr (see quote below) of the sort of timescale that he imagined for a political generation is not so far from the literary one mentioned at the start of this article – the gap between the Scottish Assembly vote in 1979 (won on the same 52:48 majority as the UK’s EU referendum, incidentally) and the 1997 vote for the Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers, is one of 18 years – and between that and the independence referendum, 17 years. This time, the gap will be much smaller, because circumstances have changed catastrophically over an incredibly short timeframe…and it is hard to envisage another change as cataclysmic (Conservatives take UK out of the UN? Offer to join with Russia as an appeasement to Trump for a better trade deal to circumvent US protectionism? Yeah, I know…as unlikely as hard BrExit was 18 months ago) as to once more demonstrate a clear need to reassess the viability of the Union again. But – as much as Westminster might like to pretend that this is all a ‘plot’ of the SNP, or whomever is in charge of the party at any given time (because they always like to personalise it as an individual’s ‘obsession’, rather than the electoral preference of the electorate…although that is arguably far far more true of Theresa May’s premiership than Nicola Sturgeon’s), it is ultimately the people of Scotland that have that power – and who make the choice of when and if any given political party is given a mandate for an independence referendum. And if the people say it shall be so, then so it shall be.

But if the Unionists want it to be once in a generation, then we have quite a backlog of overdue independence referenda to get through – if it is twelve (for each unassessed batch of 25 years since 1707), then by my reckoning that leaves nine still outstanding, after 1979, 1997 and 2014 are taken into account. The sooner Scotland starts on getting through that backlog of referenda, the better.

Either way, it is coming.

 

“If you remember that previous constitutional referendum in Scotland – there was one in 1979 and then the next one was 1997. That’s what I mean by a political generation…In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, this is a once in a generation opportunity for Scotland.” (Alex Salmond to Andrew Marr, 14/9/2014)

 

 

‘Questions, a Burden to Others’: The True Divisiveness of the Scottish Independence Referendum

The 1960s television series ‘The Prisoner’ warned against asking questions when living in The Village. ‘Questions, a Burden to Others’, followed by the ever-so slightly patronising companion message ‘Answers, a Prison for Oneself’. Nobody wants you to ask questions, is the message – and you will not like any answers that you get. Perhaps they saw it as ‘Divisive’?

‘Divisive’ has become a very popular word in the press recently, in reference to referenda: it is supposed to indicate that asking a referendum question is a bad thing, because it ‘divides’ people. The usage seems to me to be desperately trying to ignore that any democratic process – whether referendum or election – becomes therefore intrinsically ‘divisive’. There is a reason why they ring a ‘Division bell’ in Westminster to signal MPs to go to their division lobby to vote for or against a resolution. Should they rename it something less ‘choicey’? Something that sounds less – dare I say it? – ‘separatist’? If democracy was not divisive, then that would be because everyone thought the same….and therefore there would be no reason to check which was the preferred option for any given question. So, in that sense, ‘divisive’ though asking a question may be, it is also kind of intrinsic to the idea of democracy in the first place…otherwise people are just being dictated to. (We might guess that the individuals that ran The Village were more in favour of the latter – rather than the former – option of government.)

Therefore, the treatment by politicians and the press of ‘Divisiveness’ as incredibly unusual in a democracy, and something that people need to be protected from, needs closer examination. Political elections are HIGHLY ‘Divisive’ – and the fact that they happen pretty much annually, whether for local councils, Holyrood, Westminster or to the European Parliament – suggests that society somehow manages to recover and continue on, no matter how ‘divisive’ – or ‘choice-ive’ – multiple parties on a ballot paper are. So are the dangers of being ‘Divisive’ more unique to the clearly terrible phenomenon of a referendum, rather than an election, then? Astonishingly, Switzerland – which had 31 referenda between 1995 and 2005, to answer 103 questions – has not collapsed into internecine violence and anarchy as a result of this ‘division’ in its political culture. It seems that asking questions is not so dangerous after all.

One thing that the prospective referendum certainly seems to have been ‘Divisive’ about, is the response of the political parties. At their conference in Perth on Saturday, the Scottish LibDems said they would oppose a second independence referendum – just as Nick Clegg (former Deputy Prime Minister and ex-party leader) said that Westminster should not block one. The leaders of the political parties opposing the SNP in Holyrood have faired little better: the Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson has gone on record saying that she opposed a second independence referendum, but that Westminster should not block it.  In September 2015, the Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale said that she would allow Scottish Labour MSPs to have a free vote on a second independence referendum, even permitting them to campaign for independence. However, since then she has moved from her position, saying in July 2016 in the wake of the EU Referendum (The Guardian on 7th July) that it would be “categorically wrong” for the UK Government to refuse a second independence referendum, and now saying that she will oppose such a referendum. And – to top it all – the UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said on Saturday that it would be “fine” for there to be a second Scottish independence referendum. He changed his position again this morning, just before Nicola’s announcement from Bute House – but not before a Labour supporter had started a Twitter poll on whether or not Corbyn was right to approve of the referendum, and 89% of the votes cast said ‘Yes, he was’. So the latest statement from Jeremy is that Scottish Labour will vote to block the referendum in Holyrood, but UK Labour will not vote to block it in Westminster. All clear, then? All this from the party that brought you the new Twitter hashtag of #unitescotlandnotdivide with zero sense of irony.

‘Divisive’ – the word was even used by No.10 Downing Street today, straight after Nicola Sturgeon’s announcement, when the Prime Minister’s Office said that an independence referendum would be ‘Divisive’. This would presumably be ‘Divisive’ in a similar way to BrExit, except that BrExit gets more and more ‘Divisive’ as it continues, steering harder towards an antiquated imperialistic world-view, and away from the liberal state that people once thought the UK was…even going so far as for Theresa May to threaten to take devolved areas back from Holyrood.

In this regard, Theresa May seems to have been keen to be as provocative as possible and make people in Scotland feel divided from the UK’s decision-making, even if she does not want them to vote for independence so that Scotland is actually away from the UK. That single odd action by Theresa May at the Scottish Conservative conference a couple of weeks ago – talking about taking powers back from the Scottish Parliament, for some new devolved settlement – exemplifies how unnecessary it was for Westminster to be facing the prospect of another Scottish independence referendum again, especially so soon. All of this is happening as a result of the UK Government’s mismanagement not so much of the 2014 Referendum, as of the aftermath of the Referendum: from Cameron’s English Votes for English Laws on the morning of the 19th September 2014 (rendering Scottish MPs second-class members of the Westminster parliament, hot on the heels of promises that the Union was a partnership of equals), on to the homeopathic treatment of the Smith Commission to make the promised ‘Vow’ an irrelevance. All this, just at the time they should have been endeavouring to woo people back, to make them feel valued as part of the Union – as JK Rowling opined in her advocacy of a ‘No’ vote: “I doubt whether we will ever have been more popular, or in a better position to dictate terms, than if we vote to stay.” But no: on it went, with the disappointing response to the differential EU referendum result for Scotland…it has all been botched by an indifferent Westminster government, who did not seem to realise that there was ever a ‘peace’ to win, once the first campaign was finished and won.

So ‘wooing’ (rough or otherwise) was the path not chosen by the UK Government. Instead, the message of ‘gotcha, suckers’ was writ large. They were so confident that such an SNP mandate was a one-off circumstance that would not be repeated, that they could be as boorish and triumphalist as they wanted about their victory, secure in the knowledge of the inevitable collapse in support for the Scottish National Party now they had lost the September 2014 Referendum. This was clearly the end of the SNP, and the end of aspirations for an independent Scotland.

Well, not so much. We arrived today at the First Minister’s residence in Bute House for a morning press conference called at short notice. A series of recent polls showing increased support for Scottish independence (one even exceeding 50%) and the campaign had not even had the starting pistol fired. At the end of the First Minister’s announcement to the press that she was going to ask the Scottish Parliament to pass legislation for a second referendum on Scottish independence, a fundraiser was launched to raise a million pounds for the referendum campaign in 100 days. In seven hours, it had raised over a hundred thousand pounds (almost an hour after Wings Over Scotland’s annual crowd-fundraiser had coincidentally hit the same figure following 14 days on Indiegogo).

As much as the rhetoric has been about ‘Divisiveness’ from the unionist parties run from London, it is the negative actions of those parties that have led to a uniting of Scots from different party backgrounds under a Yes banner. Far more so than when the last starting gun was fired, back in 2012, with support for Scottish independence on 28%. The answer this time may – or may not – be different, but the responsibility for the question being asked lies solely in London.

 

“A country denied the ability to run its own economy is blamed for being bankrupt by the authority which exercises those macro-economic powers over it. The British Treasury pulls our wings off then laughs when we can’t fly.” (Derek Bateman, former BBC Scotland broadcaster)

(Thanks to Chris Cairns of Cairnstoon for the above cartoon, first published 11/3/2017)

P.S. I would love to have said that Scotland might culturally be more comfortable with the idea of having referenda than many other areas of the UK, due to its tradition that the people – rather than parliament – are sovereign…but that might be giving a lot of people a little more credit for knowing more details of Scottish political history than might perhaps be realistic. Especially as I could not have claimed to have known this myself before the previous referendum occurred…. 🙂

Tales from BrExitLand: BrExit and the New Darien, An ‘Equivalent’ for the 1651 Navigation Act

Alex Harvey was a remarkable musician – Glasgow-born, a committed pacifist, toured with the Beatles in Hamburg, eclectically famous reworkings of Jacques Brel’s tango ‘Next’ and Tom Jones’ ‘Delilah’ with his proto-punk Sensational Alex Harvey Band. Hearing his music, I realised everything that I wanted to do as a musician had already been done – and brilliantly well. Sadly, I put down my guitar, and turned my attention elsewhere…

Alex also did a song called ‘Roman Wall Blues’. In it, he imagined himself as a legionnaire guarding the wall as the rain lashed down on him from Scotland, feeling miserable, fed up, and wishing he could go home. It’s a perspective of the Roman Empire’s interface with (what would become) Scotland that I reflect on, when I hear the ‘Scottish cringe’ version of that history. You could say that Scotland (let’s keep those geopolitical concepts contemporary) was ‘more trouble than it was worth’ for the Romans to subjugate. But that description holds true whether you think it was militarily too difficult to conquer (more trouble), or just too miserable to bother taking (not worth enough). Your interpretation tends to be coloured by whether you think Scotland has/had intrinsic value, or only had value when incorporated into something larger – an Empire. Alex’s Roman legionnaire had a very clear opinion on the subject. And the Romans – one could perhaps say – were the first serious attempt at a Europe-wide empire.

I find myself reflecting on this subjectivity of perspective – and the political dimension of such perspectives – in the light of BrExit. It reminds me very much of another subjective historical event that is often trotted out by unionists with the weary predictability of Scotland ‘not being worth the Romans conquering’ – a little story called the Darien Project.

The enacting of Westminster’s Navigation Act of 1651 followed a period of decline in Scotland’s fortunes since the point of the Union of the Crowns almost 15 years earlier. The ensuing years had seen Scotland become poorer, suffering from its new close association with its neighbour through being dragged into England’s wars on other countries (does this scenario sound familiar, yet?), where before Scotland had separate and secure international alliances. Westminster’s Navigation Act, often enforced with gunboat diplomacy, had the effect of circumscribing Scotland’s international trade, placing an ever-tightening iron grip on her economy. Having lost her only colony – Nova Scotia – in 1632 (as a result of England’s war with France), Scotland therefore desperately needed a new colony to develop international commerce with, without being ringfenced and suffocated. The plan was to form a colony in central America (what today is the Isthmus of Panama on the Gulf of Darién), in order to establish trading links with Africa and the Far East. But the East India Company was keen to preserve its monopoly in traffic from these territories, and applied pressure on the King in London, and those who had invested in this bold scheme, to withdraw their support. This left Scotland no choice but to be the sole investor in this ambitious project: in the face of disappearing external investment in the scheme, the only option remaining was for the people themselves to take the financial risk entirely on themselves.

It seems remarkable in this day and age that such a venture was entirely privately-supported (therefore zero national debt entailed), by all walks of Scottish society. Yet perhaps this reflects that in this time of sharp national decline, it must have been a comparatively easy and straightforward decision…there being no other option left to the people except to sit and watch the situation deteriorate more as they were further starved of commerce by the powers in London. In this scenario, Darien was a last throw of the dice for a country being bullied by its supposed ‘ally’ – the other alternative would have been to respond with similar gunboat diplomacy. As a population of only around 1 million at the time, there would seem to have been some strong resentment of the treatment of them by both the King and Parliament, for the Scots to so enthusiastically have bought into the Darien scheme, raising £400K in a few weeks – equivalent to 20% of the nation’s wealth at the time – from all walks of society, so that every lowland Scotland family was affected or linked in some direct way to the outcome of Darien.

Tellingly, the first ships set out in secret from Leith, going the long way round the north of Scotland to start their journey west, anticipating that they would be attacked by English warships as part of the ongoing ‘gunboat diplomacy’ of the Westminster Navigation Act which had cost Scotland so many ships by that stage. Ultimately, the project failed, in large part due to the King and Parliament in London: the intended initial trade with the West Indies and North America, prior to the trade routes west being established, did not materialise, because the King had forbidden those colonies to trade – or even communicate – with the new colony, for fear of upsetting either the Spanish (who had neighbouring holdings) or the East India Company. The colony died in disease and isolation, further betrayed by their King in London.

Although the Darien Project was a bold gamble by the people of Scotland…it seems somehow less bold when you consider that it was a gamble made by a People with no remaining choices.

The cost, however, was much greater than one of money. As unrest at London’s treatment of the Darien colony increased in Scotland, the monarchy in London, in an attempt to stem the increasing likelihood of a war with Scotland that they could ill afford, initiated the Union of the Parliaments. They knew that many of the members of the Scottish Parliament (including some exceptionally wealthy landowners) had invested heavily in Darien, therefore would be susceptible to some financial leverage – in particular a ‘get out of jail free’ card to write off their losses. Hence Article 14 of the Treaty of Union was ‘The Bribe’ (called ‘The Equivalent’, it consisted of £398,085 and 10 shillings) to pay off the debts (and more, in some cases) in the event of union being agreed to by the Scottish Parliament.

Daniel Defoe (known today as the author of the novel ‘Robinson Crusoe’) was at that time a spy, and this quote from him summed up the clear intentions of the Union of the Parliaments – “ …all that is dear to us, daily in danger of being encroached upon, altered or wholly subverted by the English In a British Parliament, wherein the mean representation allowed for Scotland can never signify in securing to us the interest reserved by us, or granted to us by the English.

In one smooth manoeuvre – probably not even an intended outcome from the hostile approaches to Darien – London rid itself of a potential war on its doorstep (with the possible result of asserting a different monarchy on a London throne), and acquired a truly lucrative asset for its long-term future. The members of the Scottish Parliament were plied with financial promises until the required numbers were achieved to vote through the Act of Union, in spite of the riots in protest throughout the country, so that they could salvage their own personal financial resources – Scotland itself was still in credit at the time of union, and not (as widely stated within more pejorative accounts of Darien) a ‘bankrupt nation’. The bells of St Giles rang ‘Oh why am I so sad on my wedding day’, the signatories were chased through the streets of Edinburgh by an angry mob, ultimately forced to sign the act (so it is said) in a baker’s shop off Edinburgh’s Royal Mile.

Here comes the subjectivity of perspective, and Alex Harvey’s legionnaire: today, the Darien Project is often propounded by unionists as being ‘proof’ of either Scots being incapable of running a project or of the quite exceptional generosity of the English in bailing them out – but (of course) usually omitting the negative role played by the king in London at the time, in attempting to ensure that the project would fail. Scott Minto (see quote at end) deals with the subject more extensively in the context of political revisionism, pointing out that rather than an example of great charity, it is “more akin to having your neighbour beat you with a baseball bat in order to gain access to your home, only to chastise you and claim you should be grateful for the first-aid they administered after they’d got your keys” – but notes that the issue was all about access to international trade.

And so we come – perhaps less than seamlessly – to BrExit, which presents a remarkably similar threat of restricted trade access as the Navigation Act did almost 400 years ago. But the world has changed – as has Scotland: the interconnectedness of the modern global marketplace prevents such embargos as could be initiated by London centuries ago – unless we are isolated within an inward-looking UK outside of the EU.

This time we need no Darien Project as a gamble for a lifeline to our own economic salvation. In this context, if Article 50 is invoked by the Westminster Government to pull Scotland backwards out of Europe, it will again have the effect – whether intentional or otherwise is irrelevant – of once again threatening Scotland’s international trade economy. This time we need no colony, no great gamble, no declaration of war (as was considered back in the early 1700s) to defend ourselves. Our economy is strong, so strong that we can entirely discount the oil and gas sector (when the oil price is low, it still only provides added extras to a healthy economy, and does no harm – indeed quite the reverse), and still have the same living standards as the rest of the UK (the GDP per person is almost identical to the UK, even when Scotland’s oil and gas revenues are excluded), and our economy is more evenly spread with far less reliance on financial services than the rest of the UK – and ready for independence. We are a net export economy (not a net import one as per our southern neighbours, who are overly dependent on their financial services sector), and therefore far more able to stand on our own feet.

Subjectivity of perspective means that no doubt unionists would argue that Scotland has to stay in the UK outside of the EU to preserve its future…meaning, to preserve the future of the UK, not the future of Scotland. Other perspectives would say that Britain has become a toxic thing to be associated with, particularly in the last 20-30 years.

Staying with Britain has now become the Worst of all Worlds, representing the worst possible future for Scotland. It’s time to move on from trade blockades – whether through legislation or gunboats – and move away from the imperial xenophobia of our island neighbour.

Alex Harvey’s legionnaire would be only too happy to agree.

 

“…would you consider the Union as an act of rescue from England towards Scotland? It is, I’d venture, more akin to having your neighbour beat you with a baseball bat in order to gain access to your home, only to chastise you and claim you should be grateful for the first-aid they administered after they’d got your keys. To describe the Union, as Professor Chalmers did this week, as a benefit that had ‘convinced the  business classes that they needed the military protection of the Royal Navy if they were to benefit from the new riches that colonialism promised’ is to stretch the truth to breaking point. In reality Scotland’s nobles were bullied and bribed into signing the treaty by their more powerful neighbour, and when they none-too-reluctantly acquiesced it wasn’t for the benefit of the people of Scotland.

“Scotland was not bankrupt and could have continued on as an independent nation. But being in the Union benefited Scotland by removing the impact of the Navigation Acts (allowing the Scots to trade with the colonies) and removing the threat of English privateers commandeering or destroying Scottish shipping. Access to trade – the same goal pursued by the Darien Scheme – was what brought Scotland into union with England, not some mythological pride in “Britishness”.” (Scott Minto, “Skintland”, Darien and the mythology of the BritNats, 14/4/2012, http://wingsoverscotland.com/weekend-essay-skintland-britnat-mythology-and-the-darien-scheme/ )

Tales from BrExitLand: From Supreme Court to Supreme Irony…and ‘They think it’s all over’?

It may be a bizarre piece of PR advice (or control), but Theresa May increasingly resembles Lou Beale in press photographs. And yet she lacks the ‘loveable’ old Eastenders matriarch’s control and dominant personality. The High Court result last week was not a huge surprise, but how clueless it made the Prime Minister appear, was.

To recap, a legal challenge had been made to Theresa May’s use of the arcane Royal Prerogative to circumvent Westminster from making the decision as to whether or not to trigger Article 50 and the ensuing two year sprint to leave the EU. The legal appeal was successful, in the eyes of the three High Court Judges (subsequently labelled ‘enemies of the people’ in the Daily Mail headline the next day) because parliament is sovereign (note the distinct difference that ‘The People’ are sovereign in Scotland), and the rights of people living in the UK could not be changed without the permission of parliament. This means that, rather than parliament only voting on the package negotiated by the Conservative Government, parliament now has to decide whether or not to enact Article 50 on the basis of an advisory referendum at all.

Suddenly the Westminster government is even more on the back foot than it looked before, with their own pet anti-Christ Farage promising a Second Coming if there is a ‘betrayal’ of the ‘Full English BrExit’ vote, the cabinet scrabbling to still look credible while promising to appeal the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court. And, you know, if that fails, the Conservative Government still have one place  that they can turn to, in order to get permission to leave the EU without looking to Parliament: that’s right – the European Court. Ah, anybody smell the scent of irony, lightly lying on the air around the cooling last autumn barbecue of 2016? A ‘Leave’ campaign stridently proclaiming their outrage at EU legislators passing ‘insane laws’ overruling ‘our own sensible law courts’, then coming in supplication to that same European Court to ask permission to overrule those same courts decision on the most insane legislation of all – the determined act of self-harm that is the UK leaving the EU (with or without parliamentary scrutiny).

From Supreme Court to supreme irony. Bravo, for ‘taking back our courts’, people. You’re doing a fine job of building confidence, winning the Peace after the vote, and showing everyone how in control you are.

Theresa must have thought she was playing a winning hand, taking the UKIP extreme position on BrExit, and thus removing UKIP’s constituency. UKIP representatives in punch-ups, declaring the party was ungovernable without Farage…’May the Farce be with UKIP’, Theresa must have hoped, and it certainly looked as though she had seen off the biggest threat to Conservative seats. But now suddenly the prospect looms of Westminster having to debate enacting Article 50 – and all the potential damage that entails.

Nothing is as important to the Conservative Party, as their own divisions over Europe. So, although theoretically if the party whip is brought out, the majority government should still win. But traditionally the Conservatives are SO split on the issue, that that is far from certain: the resignation of Stephen Phillips, the incumbent MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham directly following the High Court decision is only the top of the iceberg – especially when you consider he was pro-Leave. Again, I say nothing is as important to the Conservative Party, as their own divisions over Europe, and they have a wide spectrum of positions on that subject – so much so that it is hard to know whether they would vote for something that is not their preferred flavour, but hold out for a revised version, or ‘hold the nose’ as the division bell rings. A subject so close to their hearts…yet wanting (one would presume?) to appear ‘listening’ to their constituents opinions for the purpose of reelection – a heady and toxic brew of conflicts indeed.

This, surely, is what May was wanting to avoid: she knows the issue could rend the Conservative Party asunder, rather than emasculating UKIP, as she had hoped. So, it will be interesting to see how the Conservative MPs  vote – no matter how bullishly loyalty is demanded, there will be dissenters, and in significant numbers. That means support from other parties will be required to get parliament approval.

The Labour Party split, one might have thought, would be hard to calculate, given their ambiguous role in the EU Referendum campaign. But then Jeremy Corbyn came out critical of the government’s position, and straightaway with sad predictability the majority of Labour MPs declared they would be unquestioningly supporting the government – just to be contrary to poor old Jeremy. sigh. Extinction beckons…

And what of Scotland’s MPs? Well, the Unionist Scottish MPs – all 3 of them: the Liar, the Fool and the Puppet – will vote as irrelevantly as their numbers suggest. But what of the oh-so-Machiavellian (that’s shorthand for ‘being prepared’) SNP? It has been a long journey from the position they had just prior to last year’s General Election, when they appeared poised to conditionally open the door of 10 Downing Street to Ed Milliband, to now, cast as gatekeepers again (in the absence of any other actual parliamentary opposition in Westminster) but this time for a softened BrExit? How times change. But what concessions might the block of over 50 SNP MPs win, in exchange for their deciding votes on an Art8icle 50 package brought by the Conservatives? What deals could the SNP broker, in return for their vote for Article 50, without seeming to be undemocratic? The SNP have thus far striven to be the party acting ‘above board’, campaigning for a Remain vote for the good of the whole of the UK, and it would be tough to maintain that current public stock of integrity, if they are seen to be subsequently attaching conditions for Scotland while supporting England cancelling its (sub)membership of the EU.

In terms of Scottish independence, if Article 50 is stopped, then that removes the immediate threat which opens the door for the second referendum. So – although the government will no doubt appeal the High Court’s decision – it all comes down to whether May can get enough of her MPs to vote for enacting Article 50 or not. That’s still a big question – if her party thinks she is weak, she could have a revolt – but anyone doing so could be accused of not respecting England’s vote in the referendum, which could be political suicide for anyone going against her. The way that it will go, probably comes down to just how much control Theresa May actually has over her party – and to what extent she is exactly what she has appeared to be: a directionless puppet who has wed herself to carrying out UKIP’s policy, in the disguise of ‘people’s democratic champion’. Or does Lou Beale’s bullish resolve and cunning lie beneath her Lou Beale exterior?

One thing is for sure – if her fellow Conservatives smell a hint of weakness that she might not win the vote, it will be like blood to a pack of hunting dogs, and she will be consigned to history more quickly than Thatcher’s premiereship was by Geoffrey Howe.

Well.

Let’s see, shall we?

“When it comes to the vote, the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru will likely be against and you would think the Liberals would too, but they have a propensity to get big decisions wrong. The SNP can say Scotland voted Remain and so we will. Plaid and the Greens can stand on principle and the Tories will call for party unity to respect the Leave vote. Tory rebels will vote against in small but significant numbers, which will be important as that means Labour MPs will be needed to vote Brexit through and, given their leadership’s inability to campaign for Remain, it will be interesting to see how many Labour MPs decide to back the Government. If the Westminster parliament was to block Article 50, it would be akin to bringing UKIP back from the dead, there would be a UK democratic meltdown and widespread calls for Scotland to be thrown out of the UK. UKIP will have at least 45 per cent of the vote to play with and that is why Theresa May is going for a hard Brexit: she can’t be seen to be soft on immigration and risk splitting her own party in the face of potential Labour or UKIP revivals.” (Gordon Macintyre-Kemp, 4/11/2016)