Learning Lessons and Moving Forwards

Differentiating the case for independence from the SNP’s manifesto, and what did the general election tell us anyway?

When will the referendum be?  It’s not off the table and if I am reading the statement delivered yesterday correctly, Nicola Sturgeon has signalled that it’ll be in this Scottish parliamentary term.  So that’s some point before May 2021.  It’s unlikely to be May 2021, because that’s when the Holyrood elections are, so I’m guessing any time up to Autumn 2020.

That’s good.  It gives us time.

What we need to do first is learn some lessons. 

I’m going to get to the SNP and their role shortly, but first I want to look at the general election of June 2017, not for the SNP’s role, but for that of the Tories.

Was there a pro-Unionist vote or not?

We have been told that the rise in the Scottish Tory fortunes (and to some degree those of the smaller parties, Scottish Labour and Scottish Lib Dems) was because of a vote for the Union.  But was it?  Are we sure about that?

Look at the actual message.  The Tories sold two simple messages – 1. no to a “divisive second referendum on independence”, and 2. They’re the Ruth Davidson party.

Let’s take them one at a time.  The first message is not them making a case for the Union.  Nor is it simply a case against independence.  It’s a case against another referendum.

Voter fatigue

Why?  Why did they go for that angle?  My guess is that they’d done voter research and discovered that there was considerable voter fatigue. People in Scotland had had an independence referendum in 2014, a UK general election in 2015, Scottish Parliament elections in 2016, an EU referendum in 2016, local council elections in May 2017 and now a UK general election in June 2017.  I think the message the researchers were getting back was that many people had had enough.

What the Scottish Tories then had to do was hang their argument on that peg.  And they did it with single-mindedness and skill.  (I think it was a strategy they had in place long before May called the June general election, because they used it in the May local elections, too.  Which no doubt helped them continue to drive the message home in June).

Look at the wording on the leaflets:

“Another divisive referendum campaign”

“Rather than listen to people who don’t want her referendum…”

“An unwanted, divisive second referendum”.

“The only way to bring the SNP back down to size and say no to their referendum is by voting Scottish Conservative”.

This message clearly struck home for many people, some of them former SNP voters.  But let’s be precise about what the message was: it was a message opposing another referendum.

Jim Sillars has been saying this for a while now, and often getting no thanks for his pains.  I don’t agree with Jim about everything, but I do think he’s right about this.  However, it’s worth pointing out that I’m only making an educated guess, just as Sillars is.  (Robin McAlpine made some useful points about voter research here: CommonSpace. He also has something to say about the inadvisability of trying to sell the idea of a referendum per se: don’t).   But we can find out if it’s a good educated guess fairly easily.

Most people are not anoraks

Don’t misunderstand me: I don’t think referendums are “divisive”, nor do I think debate is “divisive”.  I enjoyed the 2014 indyref.  I found it an exciting and positive time.  But I’m a political anorak (and let’s face it, if you’re reading this far down the page on my blog, so are you); most people are not.  For many people, four election campaigns, two referendum campaigns, and a handful of different electoral systems all within a three-year period is more than enough.  The thought of another is probably pretty off-putting.  And the Tories skillfully tapped into that.

The second Tory message I’m less interested in.  It seems that they found that a certain target group tends to like Ruth Davidson.  I don’t personally get what it is they’re responding to, but I’m not interested in getting into a discussion of her personality.  I do think it’s inadvisable for any organisation to hook their wagon to a star in the longer term, though.  But that’s an issue for them

.

Differentiating between the movement and its largest party

Now the SNP.  During the last indyref, we had the somewhat mixed blessing of the White Paper.  For understandable reasons, it was a prospectus not so much for independence, but for the programme of an SNP government post-independence.  This is because they were being asked those questions.  But there’s actually a difference between independence and the manifesto of the SNP post-independence.  The independence movement needs to put the former, and the SNP can put the latter.  We need people to be able to distinguish the two things.  If the electorate judge the merits of the case for independence on whether or not they approve of the SNP, then we will lose the referendum again.  Remember, by Autumn 2020, the SNP will have been in government for 13 years.

What the pro indy movement needs to do is set out why independence is a good thing.  It needs to be able to make that case whether or not the SNP is the first government.  Remember, people were asked to vote for Brexit regardless of which parties would form post-Brexit UK governments.  This does not stop the SNP from setting out its stall.  But if people start to think that the only reason to have independence is to let the SNP (or any other party) implement its policies, then we’re in trouble.  The SNP needs to be a party, and the pro indy movement needs to be a movement.  The SNP will, of course, be a major part of that, but we do need the electorate to be able to differentiate between the SNP and the indy movement.  And some SNP loyalists will need to learn to realise that not everyone in the indy movement agrees with the SNP on everything, and that this is OK.

Being clear about the task for the movement

I think Robin McAlpine is right that the White Paper was too sprawling, but more importantly that much of it “barely related to the actual process of independence” (1).  He says that “Restricting ourselves only to the institutions and infrastructure required of a new country but which is not currently in place in Scotland, we should build a coherent, thought-through plan” (2). 

Correct.  That’s where we are now, and that’s what needs to be done.  Individual parties can do their own thing, but the indy movement as a whole needs to be able to make a clear case for why independence is desirable, and to be able to present a coherent plan for the process of becoming independent.

(1) McAlpine, R, (2016) Determination: how Scotland can become independent by 2021, Glasgow: CommonPrint (p27)

(2) ibid

The BBC headlines and the Currency Shenanigans

The BBC is getting it all wrong again. To the extent of misrepresentation. The headline they have is:

Independence vote: 'Yes' means no Scottish pound, says Osborne
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26166794

No it doesn't.

1. First of all, an independent Scottish currency could be called the Pound, after all that's what it was called before 1707. Several countries call their currency the Pound. Ireland did from 1928 until they joined the Euro, changing over to Euro coins and notes in 2002. (Irish pound in English, Punt Éireannach in Irish).

Were Scotland to opt for a separate currency it would probably be called the Scottish Pound (in English), or Pund Scots (in Scots). So if Osborne gets his way, that means there would be a Scottish pound. (It's only if he doesn't that there wouldn't).

2. Even if the headline means Pound Sterling, it is still wrong. Scotland could use Sterling without formal currency union, all that would mean is that the Bank of England would not be the lender of last resort, and there would be no financial or fiscal regulation by the central bank.

3. What Osborne is actually saying is that he will veto formal currency union, effectively he will not let Scotland use the Bank of England as a lender of last resort.

4. Several commentators (including former Scottish Labour leader Henry McLeish) don't believe him anyway: there are good reasons he would reverse that post Yes. The SNP certainly says it thinks he will change his mind if there is a Yes vote.

From that BBC link:

Labour's former Scottish First Minister Henry McLeish criticised the intervention by the three pro-union parties, and said Scots "shouldn't be fooled" by the suggestion that a currency union could not be worked out.

He told BBC Scotland: "This is entirely political and of course consistent with the unionist campaign. This is negative, it is about spreading fears and scare stories.

"What we require from the unionist parties is a bit of statesmanship and quite frankly their behaviour so far falls well short of that."

Iain Macwhirter, in the Herald, says that the Bank of England "doesn't want a separate currency in Scotland undermining the UK balance of payments". The Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney, made it quite clear he would make currency union work if that's what both parties wanted.


So, BBC, please aim for more accuracy in your headlines and reporting.

UPDATE: the headline has now been changed to the more accurate "Yes vote 'means no money union'". Good. Missed the morning rush, though.

Reviewed: Jim Sillars' In Place of Fear II

By choosing the title In Place of Fear II, Sillars is deliberately positioning himself on the Bevanite left, which will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Sillars’ history. In the book he specifically says that his programme is designed to be to the left of anything the Labour Party has done in government. He says this to place distance between himself and those former Bevanites who later led Labour Governments.

As a personal statement it may make sense, but as a public statement it’s puzzling as to why Sillars has chosen this language. I doubt that many people still read In Place of Fear, and yet many of the terms Sillars uses depend upon the reader being familiar with the 1952 original.

Sillars writes that his intention is to “replace the weakness and latent insecurity of labour by controlling capital in the interests of the general community” (p21). To that end, he proposes a mixed economy with nationalisation where strategically necessary (for example, in the unlikely event that whisky manufacturers were to walk away), or where necessary as a tool for redistribution, but resurrects Bevan’s notion of state control of the “commanding heights” of the economy rather than a full-scale policy of nationalisation. He acknowledges that the economy today differs from that of Bevan’s day, but suggests that there are still “important heights” to be conquered in the “workers’ interests”. In a Bevanite turn of phrase, he says “[...] audacity in the face of orthodoxy can make a difference in the power equation between capital and labour.”(p23).

As an example of this control of the commanding heights, arguing that the oil take needs to be greater than what comes from taxes alone, Sillars proposes a Scottish National Oil Corporation, with the right to a stake of 10% in the production and profit from each company operating under licences “up to and including the 27th Round. Thereafter, in any future Round, the stake will be 25%”. (p58). He says that the “idea that when challenged via taxation or regulatory policies or laws to protect workers, all global companies will up stakes and depart for elsewhere, is infantile.” (pp18/19).

Sillars’ language is rooted in the era of Bevan. He doesn’t talk about neoliberalism, but refers always to capitalism. He writes: “When workers withdraw their labour, there is a great stramash with warnings of the economic cost to the national GDP. A ‘strike’ of capital is hardly remarked upon”. (p20). For Sillars, the lesson of the October 2013 INEOS ‘closure’ at Grangemouth is that “the socialist ethic of public good above all must again be embraced”.

His goal is to analyse where power lies, and how in an independent Scotland workers can take power into their own hands. In this, like Bevin, he aims to be “realistic” and to make sure that his proposals are “achievable”. The answers he comes to are not always the ones I’d come to. But his stanch condemnation of global capitalism is refreshing to read. He remains that rare bread, a conviction politician. Time and again he refers to the moral purpose of socialism, and to the principles of redistribution of both wealth and control.

As well as the Bevanite programme, Sillars believes that Salmond’s policy of a Sterling Zone currency union is an own goal. He points out that businesses in Scotland will trade via Sterling if they want to, currency union or not. He argues for Scottish membership of EFTA rather than the EU (he has revised his “Independence in Europe” view, which he says fitted conditions in the 80s but not now). He argues for renationalisation of the railways, endorsing Kevin Lindsay in the Red Paper on Scotland 2014: “simply wait until the TOC franchise runs out, and take it into public ownership at no cost” (p80).

He does not, however, argue for all public utilities to be taken back into public control, not, it seems, because he is averse to the principle, but because “these companies obtained their positions legitimately in law” and that there is no “prospect on cost grounds alone for wholesale nationalisation”. Instead there will be “commanding heights” stakes of 15% in electricity and gas companies and a new Act to change company law. This is a taste of the measures Sillars suggests. I won’t enumerate them all here.

This little book is a manifesto, but it is a manifesto with a difference: there is no party proposing it as a programme. It differs a great deal from the SNP white paper, although Sillars remains an SNP member. And yet here is the intriguing part: the book mentions Sillars’ old SLP several times, and he thanks former SLP comrades, although not his old SLP side-kick, Alex Neil, now very much part of the Salmond project. Sillars specifically says that a Yes vote is not necessarily an endorsement of the SNP and a vote for “change but no change”.

Sillars is putting forward an old school democratic socialist programme, the type of programme that many once looked to the Labour Party to implement (and which, as Sillars points out, they always failed in power to achieve). But who is he hoping will carry it into being? I think he is staking out the ground for a split in the SNP post “Yes”. His mention of old SLP comrades is telling: he is saying to the socialists of the SNP: “ditch the Salmond project once a Yes vote has been delivered. Here is a direction we can take instead”.

Reading:

Jim Sillars, (2014), IN PLACE OF FEAR II, Glasgow: Vagabond Voices.

Drucker, H. M.,(1978), Breakaway: The Scottish Labour Party, Edinburgh: EUSPB.

“Scotland's Smoking Gun” BBC2

I had the misfortune of watching a programme last night called “Scotland's Smoking Gun”. It was billed as a “documentary series focused on the upcoming Scottish referendum. This first programme looks at some of the worldwide events that have contributed to the need for a referendum”.

The first thing that jarred about it was the title; it didn’t make sense. It was like they knew “Road to Referendum” had already been taken, but after several boozy lunches had reached their deadline without thinking of anything better.

A smoking gun is something which provides conclusive evidence, usually of a crime. And yet that was not the sense in which the programme makers were using the phrase. Rather, they seemed to think it meant something like a catalyst or impetus. Perhaps the phrase they had in mind was “starting pistol”?

However, that doesn’t quite work, either. “Scotland’s starting pistol”? Wouldn’t that be about the beginnings of Scotland – Gaels, Picts, Angles and Brythonic Celts, and all that? This, though, was a programme about the independence referendum, and what set it in motion. So shouldn’t it have been the “Referendum Starting Pistol”?

The next thing that jarred was that having chosen this bizarre phrase as a title, it had to be crow-barred into the script from time to time. Was Elvis “Scotland’s Smoking Gun”, we were asked? Well, no, he wasn’t, because that doesn’t even make sense.

We are by now quite used to the format of being shown newsreels while pop music of the day plays in the background. It was pioneered by the BBC in their “Rock ‘n’ Roll Years” series, and it’s a good way of creating a nostalgic sense of the era. So, yes, play us some Elvis, but don’t ask us to imagine that Elvis was part of the motivation for the referendum. He wasn’t. Nor was he “Scotland’s Smoking Gun”, whatever that might mean.

This crow-barring of the weird phrase into the script was taken to its most crass extreme when we were asked to ponder whether 9/11 was “Scotland’s Smoking Gun”.

The next jarring element was the very odd decision occasionally to pluck a phrase one of the talking heads had uttered and have it floating as text next to their heads. “This phrase”, the programme makers seemed to be saying, “is something you might want to consider more fully. We’ll put it on display for you, so that you can remember it while our interviewee is uttering the next sentence”. Except, the phrases thus illustrated were generally insignificant and banal, and seemingly chosen completely at random. It was surreal, and often very funny. Had something of Vic and Bob’s sitcom seeped from the next slot into this?

The overall effect was of being patronised by a confused child.

I wasn’t expecting anything of any great depth. And we did get to hear Clare Grogan narrate, which is always a good thing. (Though she must have asked many times, “Are you sure you really want me to say this?”). And I’m quite happy with newsreel and rock music programmes, but this came across as something quickly and badly cobbled together.