Who Should Pay for Westminster?

One of the ways in which Scotland does not get as good a deal as the UK government’s GERS figures would suggest is that various infrastructure projects, almost entirely in England, are classified as being for the benefit of the whole of the UK. Examples include renovating London sewers and the HS2 rail line which will not come within a hundred miles of Scotland. Although very few such projects are in, or of any significant benefit to, Scotland, Scotland gets charged a per capita share of the costs in the GERS figures, and does not receive any Barnett consequential payments in connection with them. I want to look at a slightly less obvious version of this. (Once again, I will keep the discussion simpler by pretending that the UK comprises only Scotland and England.)
The Westminster Parliament is the Parliament for the whole of the UK, and therefore it might seem reasonable that Scotland should be charged a per capita share of its running costs, but I believe there are reasons why Scotland’s contribution should be somewhat less. I shall start with the less important reason.
The nature of the job requires Scottish MPs to spend much of their time in London, and so a significant part of their expenses and some their salaries will be spent there, to the economic benefit of England. A similar situation will apply with members of the House of Lords, with the additional complication that those members who are resident in Scotland may be less likely to attend the Lords regularly than those who live in or near London, and so will collect fewer £300 tax-free attendance allowances. Apart from the politicians, the Houses of Parliament employ numerous people to clean and maintain the building, to staff the numerous bars and dining rooms (all subsidised by taxpayers) and to provide assistance to the politicians. The economic benefit from the wages of all these people goes to England, not Scotland.

Where Scotland receives a disproportionately small percentage of the economic benefit from UK government expenditure, Scotlands share of that expenditure should be reduced to compensate for this. I assume that this was at least part of the reason why the original, pre-devolution version of the Barnett formula allocated slightly more money to Scotland than would have been expected if it had been strictly proportional to population.
The most important consideration is one which should be highlighted by talk of EVEL or ‘English Votes for English Laws’. As a result of of the introduction of devolution without any move towards some kind of federal system, the Westminster Parliament divides its time between being the UK Parliament and being a de facto English Parliament. (Before devolution, it also at times acted as a Scottish Parliament when debating laws that would apply only to Scotland – and there was nothing then to stop English MPs voting on such laws, no SVSL.) The cost of the Scottish Parliament is met from the Scottish budget, and so it is only fair that the cost of the Westminster Parliament, when it is dealing with matters which concern only England, should come out of the English budget.
If EVEL is introduced, it will be necessary to formally define when the Commons are dealing with UK business and when they are dealing with English business. It should therefore be possible to work out over the course of a year what percentage of the time that Parliament has acted as the English Parliament, and reduce the charge to Scotland accordingly. (One could assume that the percentages will be similar for the Lords.)
There has been talk of the need for a major renovation of the Palace of Westminster, with the cost being estimated at £3 billion, perhaps rising to as much as £10 billion (yes, £10,000,000,000) if it is necessary to move Parliament to alternative accommodation while the work is carried out; under the present system Scotland will be charged at least £250 million. Yet again, there will doubtless be very little economic benefit to Scotland from this work, even if any of the contracts are awarded to Scottish companies, but a great deal for London. Why should Scotland be paying to create jobs in England, when the reverse rarely happens? Why should Scotland pay a full share of the cost of renovating a building which for a significant part of the time accommodates an English Parliament?
I cannot help wondering whether, if the Palace of Westminster is really in such a poor condition, it would be cheaper to build a replacement elsewhere (not necessarily in London – other English cities could compete for the privilege). They could invite a foreign architect to design something a bit more up to date, preferably without bars to discourage legislating while under the influence. Then the present buildings could be converted into something like a hotel and conference centre, or, if they are as unsound as the estimated cost of renovation suggests, replaced with a nice new office block. If the reason for preferring to renovate the Palace of Westminster is to preserve a tourist attraction, then why should Scotland pay for that?

Who Sets the Rules?

Regrettably, I feel compelled to give what some might find a rather pessimistic assessment of the current situation with regards to Scottish independence.

It is likely that Cameron signed the Edinburgh Agreement for two reasons. Firstly, he and his Westminster cronies were confident that Scotland would vote against independence by a comfortable margin, as was predicted by the opinion polls at that time. Secondly, they expected that losing the referendum would be a major setback for the independence movement in general, and the SNP in particular, as was the case in 1979 following the first devolution referendum. Events proved them very wrong. The referendum result was much closer than they originally expected, and might well have been Yes had they not ignored the purdah rules by shifting the goalposts at the last minute, before promptly shifting them back almost to their original position. They must have been horrified at the resulting surge in membership, and support as shown by opinion polls, for the pro-independence parties.

Opinion polls since the referendum indicate that if another referendum were to be held now, the result would probably be Yes. There is little chance that the Westminster mob will agree to another referendum, as long as they are likely to lose it, perhaps not even when a ‘political generation’ has gone by. There will almost certainly be no Edinburgh Agreement Mark II. The Scottish Government could try to hold a referendum, but it is probable that it would be ruled outside their competence to spend public money on it, since constitutional matters are amongst the many powers still reserved to Westminster. Even if a referendum were to be held, Westminster would be free to treat it as no more than a glorified opinion poll.

Another option is to turn an election into a plebiscite, whereby the SNP might make independence the most important part of their election manifesto, declaring in advance that a majority vote for the SNP would be taken as a mandate for independence. This would be a gamble, because while it might gain them some votes from independence supporters who would not otherwise vote for the SNP, it would also cost them votes amongst people who support many of the SNP’s policies but are wary of independence. Again, the real problem is that Westminster could, and almost certainly would, refuse to accept such a result as a valid mandate or to enter into negotiations with the Scottish Government over independence.

Another hope is that Scotland will return mostly SNP MPs at the next General Election, who, in the event of a hung parliament, might hold the balance of power at Westminster. However, it would be folly for the SNP to form any kind of an alliance with the Tories, as they would probably lose much of their support, just as the LibDems have done. On previous form, Labour would consider a deal with the SNP as too high a price to pay for forming a government; after the last election they preferred being in opposition to trying to form a rainbow coalition which would have included the SNP. Perhaps there would have to be a minority government, and the SNP contingent could try to make enough of a nuisance of themselves that English MPs would decide to get rid of them by agreeing to Scottish independence. This would be a risky tactic, and the response to it might all too easily be a Tory/Labour alliance. After all, there is very little ideological difference between the Tories and Labour.

There was one good opportunity for an amicable re-negotiation of the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK, and that has gone. It is difficult to see any easy route to independence in the present political climate. The UK Government is becoming steadily more authoritarian, introducing new laws and widespread surveillance, supposedly aimed at preventing terrorism, which could easily be turned against any dissent. The electorate in England is apparently becoming more right-wing and xenophobic, judging by the rise of UKIP, and some of this xenophobia manifests itself as antagonism towards Scotland. The UK economy is being catastrophically mismanaged, and might suffer a major collapse, especially if the UK decides to leave the EU.

It is my opinion that the stage may well be reached, within the next few years, when a unilateral declaration of independence, with all its risks and disadvantages, will be the least bad option for Scotland, especially if the UK votes to leave the EU but Scotland does not. Even the possibility of a UDI, which could be damaging to the rest of the UK, might just be what is needed for Westminster to agree to negotiate on Scottish independence. What this means is that we cannot meekly agree to play by Westminster’s rules if we are to have any real hope of gaining our independence. One of those rules will be that Scotland can only become independent with Westminster’s permission – which is is unlikely to be granted willingly. (Westminster tends to have two sets of rules, lax for themselves and strict for others. If Alex Salmond had announced something comparable to the ‘Vow’ just before the referendum, I have little doubt that he would have been in serious trouble for breaking the purdah rules.)

Recently some SNP councillors made the valid point that the Smith Commission report is deeply unsatisfactory. (It would have been unsatisfactory even if the supposedly independent commission had not had some of its recommendations vetoed by Westminster before the report was produced.) They set fire to one copy of the report, and disposed of the remains safely and tidily in a litter bin, thereby actually managing to get their protest reported. The Unionists reacted to this with manufactured outrage, as though it had been a copy of the Bible that had been sacrilegiously destroyed, or a Union Jack hat had been burned, rather than a report. Nicola Sturgeon reacted by condemning the councillors’ actions and suspending them from the SNP. I believe this to be a mistake; she has let the Unionists set the rules. If one gives in to a bully, the bully will be encouraged to persist with his bullying. Now SNP activists may feel the need to be overly cautious about all they say and do, lest the Unionists find some justification for pretending to be offended.

Above all, if the SNP leadership are not willing to defy the the Unionists, and defend their own supporters, over such a minor matter, it does not augur well for their willingness to defy the Unionists on more important matters. On the contrary, it will encourage the Unionists to continue denying Scotland the autonomy the the majority of her people want, whether that be through devo-max or independence.

Could EVEL be Evil?

(In this post, for the sake of simplicity, I am going to ignore Wales and Northern Ireland, and pretend that the UK consists of just Scotland and England.)

I am not disappointed by the Smith Commission’s report, simply because I never expected anything significantly better. The already limited additional powers it proposes will probably be cut back as the legislation makes its way through Westminster, as happened with the Calman Commission’s proposals; more generous proposals would just have been cut back even more. Indeed, there is no guarantee yet that the necessary legislation will be passed at all. If the next UK government were to be a Tory/UKIP coalition, UKIP might well manage to block it, probably with significant support from both Tory and Labour back-bench MPs.

In the meantime, as some kind of quid pro quo for the ‘extensive’ new powers the Scottish Parliament is supposed to be getting, Cameron has his sights set on gaining some advantage over Labour with English Votes for English Laws (EVEL), with the claim that this is necessary to end the possibility of Scottish MPs voting on legislation which applies only to England. No doubt he will wish to push this through Parliament before the next election, if he possibly can, as a hedge against the Tories losing.

Ironically, the justification for EVEL may mostly disappear after the election, if some recent opinion polls are a good guide to how the Scottish electorate will vote next May, since the SNP have a policy of not voting on matters which do not affect Scotland. It is Labour who have been guilty of imposing legislation on England with the help of their Scottish MPs.

I have read pro-independence blogs which accept the need for EVEL to end the unfairness encapsulated in the infamous West Lothian Question, but I am not convinced that EVEL is the right solution to the problem. This could turn out to be a case where the cure is worse than the disease, from a Scottish point of view. Much will depend on the eventual details of EVEL.

One version of EVEL that was proposed some time ago was that English bills should receive a fourth reading after which only English MPs would be allowed to vote. This would only be a partial solution, as presumably Scottish MPs might be able to kill a bill at an earlier stage by voting against it, if only a small majority of English MPs were in favour of it. Also, this would require additional Parliamentary time.

A more realistic version would be that Scottish MPs would be barred from voting at any stage on English bills. This might seem reasonably innocuous, but the danger is that, given the asymmetric nature of the UK, purely English legislation will often have significant, albeit indirect, consequences for Scotland. Also, a bill might deal with matters which are partially devolved to the Scottish Parliament, particularly finance (although this could perhaps be avoided by splitting it into two separate bills, one for the UK and one for England). Could this result in Scottish MPs being barred from voting on legislation which mostly affects England but contains some provisions which apply to Scotland?

If EVEL is implemented, it is only going to make much difference, from an English point of view, when there is a Labour government, or a coalition led by Labour, which does not have a majority of English seats. A situation where the opposition has a majority for a significant part of the business of the Commons should be interesting, to say the least.

It could easily be argued that if Scottish MPs are not allowed to vote on an English bill, then they should not be permitted to participate in debates on that bill. If that were to be the case, then Scottish MPs would truly be reduced to a second class status at Westminster. How could MPs be appointed as government ministers if they are not allowed to participate in some debates relevant to their ministerial responsibilities? Of course, this is not a problem for departments such as defence which deal with matters reserved to Westminster, or with others which deal with matters such as health which are mostly devolved. In the first case there could be no objection to a Scottish MP being appointed, while in the second a Scottish MP would presumably not be appropriate even without EVEL. The problem is with, for example, finance which is partly devolved. In this more extreme version of EVEL, some cabinet positions, such as that of Chancellor of the Exchequer, might only be open to English MPs. The crucial point is that it could make it impossible for a Scottish MP ever to be Prime Minister, or even leader of any party which might win a general election.

If Scottish MPs were reduced to a second class status at Westminster, formally prohibited from participating in some of the business of the House of Commons and effectively blocked from holding certain offices in the Government (including that of Prime Minister), would that be acceptable to the people of Scotland? Would it even be compatible with the Treaty of Union?

I would argue that no version of EVEL will do anything to rectify a fundamental problem with the Westminster Parliament, which is that some of the time it is acting as the UK Parliament and at other times it is, in effect, the English Parliament; there may even be times when the two roles are not clearly separated. There is only one solution to that problem, short of Scottish independence, and that is some kind of federal system which includes a new English Parliament. The UK Parliament would then have a reduced workload; its MPs could be reduced in number and the anachronistic, undemocratic House of Lords abolished to free up accommodation for the English Parliament.

Two final thoughts. Firstly, if some form of EVEL is implemented, it would make sense for it to apply to the House of Lords as well. Why should Scottish peers be allowed to vote on English laws, if Scottish MPs are not? Of course, it is easy to define a Scottish MP as someone elected in a Scottish constituency, regardless of where they were born, but it would be trickier to define a Scottish peer, and so I guess that EVEL will be confined to the Commons.

Secondly, since the Westminster Parliament acts as the English Parliament for some of the time, and the Scottish Parliament is paid for out of the Scottish budget, Scotland should not also have to pay a full per capita share of the running costs of the Houses of Parliament – a particularly relevant point when there is talk of £3 billion refurbishment being needed.

Do We Need Scottish Labour?

On the LiberalOrange website (liberalorange.net/2014/11/04/slab-vs-the-network/), dmthomson1 says “SLAB is the only opposition in town for the majority in Scots politics. If we can’t have a half-decent opposition, then the SNP (unchallenged) will be a poorer government for it.” In the comment which I posted, I included the statement “Once Scotland is independent, then a strong opposition party will indeed be necessary.”

Having reconsidered this, I am not convinced that a strong opposition is really essential in a properly functioning democracy. If a government has a large majority because it has received a majority of votes cast at the most recent election, and it implements policies which are, as far as possible, in line with its election manifesto, then it is implementing the will of the people. Of course, a government with a large majority may be tempted to abuse their strength by amending the constitution to suit itself, packing the judiciary with its own supporters and so on, as is currently happening in Hungary. In such cases, it is probably more important to have media which are truly independent, and which will alert the electorate to what is happening, so that they can vote accordingly at the next election.

If the opposition is to make a positive contribution to the governance of a country, it is not enough for it to be strong; it must be good. Its criticism of the government must be constructive, and it must be willing to agree with, and support, the government where appropriate. If the main concern of the opposition is winning the next election, and if it relentlessly seeks every opportunity to discredit the government, by fair means or foul, then a strong opposition could do more harm than good.

I would therefore say that in any democracy, an honest opposition is highly desirable. What does this mean for Scotland in the present situation?

Above all, Scotland needs a strong party (or alliance of parties) to stand up for Scotland. What most people in Scotland want is for the Scottish Parliament to have substantially more powers than it currently has, whether that is through devo-max or independence. What Westminster wants is something as close to the status quo as they can get away with. With somewhat differing views prevailing in Scotland and the rest of the UK on many issues, such as Trident, EU membership, immigration and welfare, there is plenty of scope for disagreement between Holyrood and Westminster.

Arguably, as long as Scotland is part of the UK, the Scottish Government is part of the opposition to the Westminster government. This is particularly significant because there is a lack of real opposition within Westminster; although the two main parties will squabble over who should form the next government (and have access to ministerial salaries and perks), they differ only slightly when it comes to policies, and have been quite happy to co-operate on a number of matters.

In spite of some of the slurs that have been uttered by some Unionist politicians, the SNP government is not some kind of dictatorship. Even if the SNP were to win the Sottish election in 2016 with a spectacular majority, it could still not abuse this in a dictatorial way while its powers are controlled by Westminster. In the present situation, it is not necessary for there to be a strong opposition within the Scottish Parliament; it may not even be desirable, as a strong, and inevitably Unionist, Scottish opposition party simply allows Westminster to use a ‘divide and rule’ strategy.

What is certainly not desirable is an opposition whose principal aim is to take back the power that they believe is rightfully theirs, and whose main strategy is to attack the SNP and all of its policies, regardless of their merits or the interests of the people of Scotland. Yet this is more or less the kind of opposition which has been provided over the last few years by Scottish Labour, and it is the kind of opposition which they will presumably continue to provide as long as they take their orders from Labour HQ in London.

I expect that sooner or later Scotland will become independent, and then an effective opposition will become desirable. It is highly probable that one will emerge in the political shakeup which will inevitably follow independence, once voters no longer choose how to vote wholly or in part on the basis of their views on independence. I would not like to predict which parties will thrive after independence, and which will wither. Perhaps Scottish Labour will cut their ties to London, renounce Unionism and move back to the left? Perhaps. I would prefer to see a new party, possibly based on Labour for Independence, free from the likes of Jim Murphy, or for an existing party, such as the Greens, gain support. In the meantime, I sincerely hope that Scottish Labour join the LibDems on their way to humiliating defeats in in both 2015 and 2016.

Back to 1984?

The Wikipedia article entitled “Conspiracy Theory” includes the following :-

“Originally a neutral term, since the mid-1960s, in the aftermath of the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy, it has acquired a derogatory meaning, implying a paranoid tendency to see the influence of some malign covert agency in events. The term is often used to dismiss claims that the critic deems ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational. A conspiracy theory that is proven to be correct, such as the notion that United States President Richard Nixon and his aides conspired to cover up Watergate, is usually referred to as something else, such as investigative journalism or historical analysis. ”

It has been suggested that the emergence of this derogatory meaning was encouraged by the CIA, who were keen to quash the idea that Kennedy was not killed just by Lee Harvey Oswald, acting entirely on his own, but by a group of people with close links to the CIA. The discrediting of the very notion of conspiracies has been continued by the use of the term ‘conspiracy theory’ to include ideas which would more accurately be described as wild fantasies, such as David Icke’s assertion that the Queen and other prominent public figures are really shape-shifting alien reptiles.

The negative connotations of ‘conspiracy theory’ seem to have led to a reluctance to acknowledge the reality of historical conspiracies. Over the years, I had read various accounts of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, but it was not until I read a biography of Lincoln that I learned that his assassin, John Wilkes Booth, was the leader of a group whose aim was to kill President Lincoln, Vice President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William Seward on the same evening. None of the accounts I had read previously had mentioned the near-fatal attack on Seward, or that the intended assassin of the Vice President lost his nerve and did nothing – which did not save him from being hanged.

There are some people who are predisposed to believe almost any ‘conspiracy theory’, and others whose knee-jerk reaction to anything which can be labelled as a ‘conspiracy theory’ is to dismiss it out of hand. I believe both these extreme viewpoints are misguided. Any possible conspiracy should be assessed on the basis of its plausibility and, above all, the evidence for and against it. Conspiracies have happened throughout history – one particularly famous one being commemorated each Fifth of November – but we should still be very wary of the crazier ideas.

I believe there is an alternative explanation for some of the conspiracies that are claimed to exist. As I do not know a better term, I will call this a pseudo-conspiracy. If there is a group of people who are in positions of power, and these people have broadly similar agendas, then they will naturally tend to work towards a common goal, without necessarily having come to any agreement to do so. There need be no overall organisation, no clandestine meetings, no coded messages, no secret agreements. The results could be well-nigh indistinguishable from those of a genuine conspiracy . There is one major advantage of a pseudo-conspiracy for those who benefit from it – there is no risk of being exposed as conspirators, since there is not really any conspiracy. However, some of the participants in a large-scale pseudo-conspiracy may well be involved in real, but more limited, conspiracies.

The biggest conspiracy in the world today, if it existed, would be the New World Order, which supposedly aims to impose an authoritarian worldwide government, and to destroy the sovereignty of nation states. There are a number of conflicting versions of this. Right-wing believers argue that the aim is to impose a communist dictatorship, left-wing believers say that the result will be corporate fascism, where power will lie with multinational corporations and their billionaire owners, while others bring an occult element or extra-terrestrials into the mix. As someone with left of centre views, who does not believe in the supernatural or alien visitors, I have no qualms about rejecting some of these ideas. However, the idea of a conspiracy to impose corporate fascism is much more plausible than the others. There are clear signs that we are currently heading towards a corporate fascist future, with America leading the way and Britain following on behind.

Governments negotiate secretive deals, such as the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between America and the EU. This will significantly increase the power of corporations at the expense of elected governments if it goes ahead; for example, it would allow companies to sue governments for ‘loss of profits’ caused by new rules or laws imposed to protect the public or the environment, and it would make any form of re-nationalisation impracticable. One can imagine that in the future there will be many instances where public demand for some policy will be met by the government with the response “We cannot do this, as our hands are tied by such and such an international treaty” – which will be true, but they will have tied their own hands.

Politicians are virtually up for sale, with campaign donations, contributions to party funds, directorships, lucrative consultancies and after-dinner speaking engagements, but only the corporations and the wealthy can afford them. Regular meetings with David Cameron at dinners and other social events can be bought for £50,000 per year.

Democratic forms of government are rendered ineffective by the lack of any real choice – Tory or Labour, Republican or Democrat, there is little difference. When voters in the UK become disillusioned with the main parties, they may turn to UKIP, a seemingly populist party. However, UKIP is largely bankrolled by people who were previously major donors to the Tories, and leading figures within it are clearly members of the Establishment. As a party opposed to the EU, they could be expected to make a great deal of political capital out of the role of the EU in negotiating the TTIP; instead, they keep very quiet about it because they are happy to see the UK surrender some of its sovereignty, as long as it is to multinational corporations rather than the EU. UKIP are basically a fraud; they exist to attract disaffected voters who otherwise turn to some party which might not act in the interests of the Establishment. The Tea Party, funded by billionaires, has served much the same role in the USA.

Too many politicians are dishonest. They cheat on their expenses, employ their partners or children at the taxpayers’ expense, or take cash for questions. They promise one thing to get elected, and then do the opposite. They are allowed to take part in debates and to vote on matters in which they have a direct financial interest. Such dishonesty undermines what is left of democracy, as people become so disillusioned with politicians and politics that they do not bother to vote.

The media are mostly owned and controlled by the mega-rich; television, the new opiate of the masses, keeps many people’s attention away from serious matters with soap operas, misnamed ‘reality TV’, shows with ‘celebrities’, sport and so on. They happily assist with the Establishment’s strategy of ‘divide and conquer’, which uses the poor and immigrants as scapegoats for the country’s economic problems. During the referendum campaign, we saw how the supposedly trustworthy ‘public service’ BBC acts now as the state broadcaster, to such an extent that sometimes a Russian broadcaster provides more accurate reporting of events in this country.

The other side of corporate fascism will be its authoritarian nature. When people realise that voting no longer provides even an illusion of democracy, they may protest. To anticipate protests, and nip them in the bud, the population will be subjected to ever more comprehensive surveillance. Edward Snowden’s revelations show how far this has already gone. The East German Stasi filled a building with filing cabinets, but the amount of information they had on file was truly minuscule compared with what the NSA and GCHQ can collect, process and exchange with each other. People will be tracked everywhere they go by their mobile phones and by GPS systems in their cars; some phones may well have back-doors which allow the security services to turn on their microphone or camera even when the phone is switched off.

People who do take to the streets to protest in London risk being ‘kettled’ as a punishment for daring to challenge the Establishment; in future, they may be blasted with water cannons. Groups organising environmental protests have been infiltrated by undercover police, who allegedly tried to persuade them to commit criminal acts so that they could be arrested and jailed.

Police forces will all have military grade weapons and equipment, as many in America already do – I read recently of an American school police force which owns a mine-resistant armoured vehicle. Corporations will have their own police forces, or employ private security companies to spy on anyone who might threaten their interests. All of this will be justified by the supposed need to protect the public from terrorists, which has spawned a huge industry in the USA providing ‘security theatre’ at places such as airports, to remind the public that they have to let themselves to be scanned and groped to keep them safe from terrorists. Meanwhile, undercover FBI agents persuade foolish Muslims to join them in terrorist plots which can then be ‘foiled’ with great publicity, to keep the public frightened and submissive.

The real threat to the public is that of being classified as terrorists if they dare to protest, as is already happening in America to non-violent protesters. (In some states it is a criminal offense to expose mistreatment of animals on farms and livestock facilities, and anyone who breaks these ‘ag-gag’ laws is likely to be labelled as an animal rights terrorist.) If someone is accused of being a terrorist, they may be subjected to draconian restrictions, an even be denied the right to a fair trial, or even to know what the evidence against them is.

Now there is a proposal to take the UK out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, even though the vast majority of cases which are submitted to it are rejected without a hearing. Freedom of speech is also under attack; it is proposed that people with ‘extremist’ views could be prohibited from speaking in public or posting anything on the internet with prior approval, and it would be the Home Secretary, not a court, who would decide who is an ‘extremist’.

There is probably no New World Order conspiracy, but that does not mean that a dystopian future, similar to that of Orwell’s ‘1984’, is not on the way. Rich people and multinational corporations tend to have similar interests; they do not need some grand conspiracy to pull in much the same direction, which is strongly to the right. As power shifts from elected governments to corporations and their owners, and as wealth becomes even more concentrated in the hands of a very small number of very rich people, it does not really matter whether the drift towards corporate fascism is the result of an organised conspiracy or of a pseudo-conspiracy; the end result will be much the same, although a pseudo-conspiracy may take a little bit longer to reach it.

One of the tragedies of the No vote in the referendum is that it denies Scotland the opportunity to push back against the erosion of democracy by the advancing tide of greedy corporate power. Perhaps Scotland would have had little more success than King Canute is supposed to have had, but at least we could have tried. Within the UK, where a corrupt, backward looking Establishment is so firmly entrenched, I fear it is hopeless, which is why we must keep trying to break free.

A Crazy Thought?

One of my thoughts, when I read that membership of the SNP had overtaken that of the LibDems, was that it will now be more difficult for the unionists to exclude the SNP from any televised debates involving party leaders in the run-up to the next general election. Then I thought, maybe they will try the argument that the SNP is merely a regional party and therefore does not rank alongside the UK parties.

This led on to another idea – could the SNP take a lesson from the Robert the Bruce’s fight for Scottish independence, when he raided deep into the North of England, not to seize and hold territory but to keep up the pressure on Edward II? What if the SNP were to make a statement similar to the following one?

The three main UK parties all pledged substantial additional powers for the Scottish Parliament, but it may be difficult to deliver such powers in a satisfactory way, unless there are substantial constitutional changes for the whole of the UK, such as the introduction of a federal system or of something similar – hence the recent proposal for a constitutional convention. There is therefore a possibility that a consequence of the recent referendum may be a major overhaul of the relationships between all the constituent parts of the UK.

There are many people in the North of England who have long been unhappy with the London-centric nature of UK politics, and believe that their part of the country has been unfairly treated in comparison with London and the South of England. At present, they do not have a party to represent their interests at Westminster, in the way that Scotland has the SNP and Wales has Plaid Cymru; all their MPs belong to parties which have pursued London-centric policies. Now, when possible further devolution across the UK, or even federalism, may be seriously considered in the near future, the lack of such a party may make itself felt.

There is now little more than seven months left until the general election, which leaves little time for any new party to form, become organised, select candidates and contest the election.  The SNP therefore proposes to invite people to put themselves forward for selection as SNP candidates for constituencies in the North of England. All selected candidates will be asked to pledge that, should they be elected, they will immediately form a new party; the SNP will then ask all its members who have addresses in England if they wish to transfer their membership to the new party.

Apart from anything else, there must surely be many voters in the North of England who would welcome the chance to vote for a centre-left party, now that Labour has moved so far to the right, or even just register a protest vote without having to vote for UKIP.

United We Stand….

My political views have always tended to be fairly left-wing, but I have long been wary of the more radical left-wing parties. It is not that I necessarily disagree with their aims; it is their effectiveness that I doubt. I have never been a member of any political party other than the SNP; my view of the more radical parties is that of an outsider.

The more radical parties, being towards an end of the political spectrum, are inevitably smaller than the more centrist parties. It seems likely that they will attract people with very strong views on various matters, and strong views may lead to a clash of opinions. This often leads to these parties splitting, as satirised in ‘Monty Python’s Life of Brian’. There is a Communist Party of Britain, a Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee), a Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist), and a Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist–Leninist). My impression is that this tendency affects far right-wing parties as well (British National Party, National Front, Britain First, English Defence League).

Another issue which affects radical left-wing parties is that of idealism. Of course idealism is good; it is essential for any left-leaning party. The problem arises when idealism becomes a quasi-religious zeal which leaves little room for pragmatism. Religious zealots sometimes become obsessed with details of religious rituals and obscure points of theology, and bitter disputes have arisen over differences which seem trivial to outsiders.

Apart from causing fissiparous tendencies, excessive idealism can leave little room for pragmatism, creating a mindset where no compromise is acceptable. The goals of the movement must all be achieved, and they must be reached in an ideologically pure way; otherwise, it is better for the struggle to continue forever. It is this mindset which leads to the assertion by some on the left that Scotland should show ‘solidarity’ with English people by continuing to suffer with them under Westminster governments which they have chosen.

In my view, a political movement should blend idealism with pragmatism. On the right, pragmatism outweighs idealism, leaving a moral vacuum which selfish creeds like Thatcherism to thrive. On the left, it is too often the case that pragmatism is in short supply, making left-wing parties worthy but ineffective.

This is why I am delighted that Tommy Sheridan has shown that he can combine pragmatism with his undoubted idealism by asking his supporters to vote for the SNP in the meantime. [1] He does not agree with many SNP policies, of course, but he recognises that independence would move Scotland closer to being the kind of society which he passionately advocates, and believes that achieving it must be given a very high priority.

Tommy Sheppard, former assistant general secretary of the Scottish Labour Party, has joined the SNP and has written an article on Bella Caledonia about reasons for doing so. [2] Both Tommies campaigned for a Yes vote, and are determined to continue the struggle for independence. One will be within the SNP, the other will be alongside it.

Remembering how the SNP faltered after the unsuccessful 1979 devolution referendum, the unionists probably hoped that a No vote, however it was obtained, would damage the SNP and rob the independence movement of its momentum and its passion. It is imperative that we prove them wrong, and keep up the pressure. In my view, the message to Westminster should be “Give us the powers that people were led to expect after a No vote, or give us another referendum – and whichever it is, deliver it soon.”

If Westminster does actually deliver significant, useable new powers to the Scottish Parliament, over and above those which have come out of the Calman Commission, then the referendum will have achieved something. Every power transferred from Westminster to Holyrood is a step in the right direction.

However, even if the UK Government is willing to deliver extra powers – something which is doubtful, to say the least – it may well be politically impossible to do so, because of opposition from a significant part of the English electorate, both to the very idea of more devolution and to the constitutional changes needed to make it work properly. Failure to deliver because of opposition from within the rest of the UK would not be an excuse; if the leaders of the unionist parties were unaware of the potential problems when they made their ‘pledge’, then they must be too politically incompetent to be fit to run a country.

The bargain offered at the last minute was extensive new powers, in return for a referendum outcome which would rule out independence for perhaps a couple of decades. If the unionists renege on their side of the bargain, they should not expect us to be bound by it. Already there are No voters who are realising that they have been misled by unionist ‘pledges’ that are unlikely to be met. They are angry, and that anger should be channelled in the right direction.

There are some people who are understandably weary and emotionally drained by the intensity of the referendum campaign and the disappointment of the outcome; they believe that the independence movement should drop any talk of a further referendum for the time being, and concentrate instead on arguing the case for further powers. However, Andrew Neil, himself a unionist, said some time ago that the only reason there was any talk from the unionist side of possible further devolution was the possibility of independence.

If the SNP and others who support independence were to rule out the possibility of another attempt at independence for a ‘political lifetime’, we would not be settling for the extra powers promised, but for nothing, or maybe even less than nothing, because we will have given away the only real bargaining counter we have. In the worst case scenario, this will be perceived as weakness and encourage the unionists to change the UK constitution to deny Scotland any right to self-determination, as has been proposed by Jack Straw.

[1] http://munguinsrepublic.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/a-personal-view.html

[2] http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/24/beyond-the-45/