The Sound of Inevitability

First, a disclaimer: I've had a rotten cold all week, and I'm writing after a long day of work, childcare, and driving through the grim rush-hour traffic of Cambridge. So this post will be grumpier than usual, which in my case is saying something. All the same, I couldn't resist writing about the prospect of a second Scottish independence referendum.

It's not entirely certain if or when a referendum will be held. Theresa May has rejected Nicola Sturgeon's demand for a vote in 2018, before the Brexit deal is finalised, but has been careful not to rule one out altogether. My best guess is that they may compromise on a vote in autumn 2019, after Brexit but before the next general election.

Regardless of the exact decision on a vote, the unofficial campaign has already begun. Sturgeon has marched her troops to the top of the hill, and they won't come down again without a fight.

My overwhelming mood is one of weary resignation. This referendum appears with all the unwelcome inevitability of a January credit card statement.

Scotland and Brexit

This week, Nicola Sturgeon published a draft bill to authorise a second Scottish independence referendum. That's a long way from committing to holding the referendum itself, but it's a big step along the way.

In the face of Brexit, Sturgeon and the SNP see an opportunity. It is more than fair for them to revisit independence under these circumstances. Scotland voted 62% to 38% in favour of staying in the EU. It didn't want the costly upheaval of Brexit.

This is not just a matter of money, but of identity. At the core of the Brexit argument lies the notion that our fellow Europeans are just too alien to work with constructively. I don't believe that, and neither does Scotland. It sees itself as a European nation, in a way that England clearly does not.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons

The Calculus of Patriotism

Last week was a significant one for Scotland. Thursday 24 March was the prospective date for Scottish independence, if the 2014 referendum had gone the other way; the Scotland Act became law, devolving additional powers to Holyrood; and the annual Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) report was published by the Scottish Government.

With the fall in oil price and ensuing collapse in North Sea oil revenues, Scotland's deficit has drastically worsened. The deficit of the UK as a whole is 4.9% of GDP; that of Scotland is 9.7%. This would have presented a serious problem for the government of a newly independent Scotland.

Apotheosis

The SNP has just released a party political broadcast which may be the ultimate example of its kind. It is entitled "A Tale of Two Cities" -- evidently London and Edinburgh, although the latter isn't mentioned by name. Here are some of the chilling and baffling highlights:

Acts of Cowardice: SNP and GMOs

Last week, the SNP government in Edinburgh announced it would ban genetically modified crops in Scotland. The European Union already has strict rules for safety of genetically modified organisms; the SNP is seeking to opt out from these rules and ban GMOs altogether. The government's reasoning was expressed by Agriculture Secretary Richard Lochhead:

[Lochhead] said that Scotland was known around the world for its "beautiful natural environment" and banning the growing of genetically modified crops would protect and further enhance its "clean, green status". 

Mr Lochhead added: "There is no evidence of significant demand for GM products by Scottish consumers and I am concerned that allowing GM crops to be grown in Scotland would damage our clean and green brand, thereby gambling with the future of our £14bn food and drink sector. 

"Scottish food and drink is valued at home and abroad for its natural, high quality which often attracts a premium price, and I have heard directly from food and drink producers in other countries that are ditching GM because of a consumer backlash."

This is a remarkable act of cowardice. Lochhead isn't even attempting to engage with the science behind GM crops. He is not saying he has any concerns about safety. If he did, at least there would be scope for rational debate about risks and benefits.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." – Philip K. Dick

What exactly are the risks of growing GM crops? The scientific consensus is that they are minimal, and well covered by existing regulation.

Conversely, the anti-GM lobby is not very specific. Instead of evaluating each proposed intervention on its own merits, the likes of Greenpeace declare that all types of genetic modification are universally bad, and endanger our precious bodily fluids harmony with nature. Some anti-GM campaigners may be more responsible and nuanced, but Lochhead is not concerned with them. He is afraid of people who will shun Scotland and its produce, if so much as a single field is planted with GM crops.

The beautiful but artificial landscape of the Scottish Highlands. It was once covered
by primordial forest, but long ago cleared by humans for grazing sheep.

Why can't you be happy: Follow-up

Reflecting on yesterday's post, the interests of the English left and Scottish nationalists are in conflict at a very basic level.

By definition, the English left wants to reform the British state.

Short of the breakup of England into independent statelets (not a likely or widely desired prospect) or a violent revolution (likewise), they are stuck within existing structures. Any change must come from incremental reform of those structures. Historically speaking, Scotland and Wales have made a strong contribution to progressive reform of the UK. English leftists hope this will continue in the future.

By definition, Scottish nationalists want to leave the British state.

The inclusive, civic, mildly socialist strain of Scottish nationalism is admirable in its way; but it deliberately contrasts itself with the rotten condition of Westminster. These nationalists believe attempting to reform the UK is not worth the effort. Instead, they want to set up a shiny new state of their own.

Maybe their analysis is correct about what is best for Scotland. There are certainly rational arguments to support it. However it carries an implicit message to English reformers: We are not committed to helping you. Our priority is to get out. We wish you well, but in the end, any aspirations you may have for England are not our concern.

When you put it like that, it is hardly surprising the English left regards Scottish nationalism with distrust and hostility.

If you ask the English left to support Scottish independence, you are asking them to sacrifice tangible interests for a point of principle -- specifically, the natural justice of an independent Scotland -- with which most of them do not agree in the first place. No matter how you spin that, it's a tall order.

Why can't you be happy for us: Scottish independence and the English left

A friend recently posed this question:

Why is it that the English left is so comfortable with the independence of everywhere from Australia to Zimbabwe, but so bitterly and viscerally opposed to Scottish independence?

The Scottish independence movement has explicitly postitioned itself to the left of the Labour party. (The policies of the SNP in government are not exactly hardline socialism, but that's a topic for another post.) In the referendum campaign, the Yes side did not rely on narrow, reactionary appeals to blood and soil. Instead it adopted a progressive civic nationalism, arguing independence offered a better chance to build social justice in Scotland.

The nationalists firmly believe in the rightness of their cause. In theory, their fellow leftists in England should be natural allies. Yet in practice, the reaction has ranged from indifference to hostility. Why could this be?

I'm taking a broad definition of the "English left", including but not limited to the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. It has the following reasons to oppose Scottish independence:

1. Electoral self-interest: Labour and the LibDems want Scottish (and Welsh) MPs to counterbalance the Conservatives. Obviously it didn't work so well this time, but historically it hasn't been a bad strategy.
2. Shared interests across the UK: They see themselves as part of a UK-wide movement which transcends divisions between England, Scotland and Wales. The latter two provide leadership and ideas as well as raw votes. Four of the last five Labour leaders were Scottish or Welsh (including Blair, born and raised in Edinburgh), as were four of the last six Liberal leaders.
3. Federalism: They support devolution, and may want to extend it to some form of home rule or federalism; but they don't see anything inherently oppressive about Scotland remaining within the UK. As previously noted, Scotland elects MPs to the UK Parliament, which Australia, Zimbabwe et al. never did, so anti-colonial arguments do not apply. (If anyone will get a raw deal under the Conservatives it's the north of England, who don't have a devolved government to protect their interests.)

Scottish nationalists may think any or all of these reasons are mistaken. But I think a large proportion of the English left believe them or something similar, so that's what they have to engage with.

There are exceptions, of course. George Monbiot and Billy Bragg have argued Scottish independence is just the shot in the arm the English left needs. In addition, it will be interesting to see how the left in England responds to the rise of the SNP in Scotland. Both Labour and the Lib Dems are still in shock from the general election, and I think it will take them at least a few years to come to terms with the defenestration of their Scottish MPs.

That said, I think the reasons I have listed above are strongly held and will prove difficult to shift -- if it is even desirable to do so.

On Charles Kennedy and Alex Salmond

Charles Kennedy, former leader of the Liberal Democrats, passed away on Monday. He was an exceptionally decent, principled and humane politician. My sympathy goes out to his family, friends and colleagues.

Charles Kennedy.

I will remember Kennedy for one thing above all else. In 2003, Tony Blair was marching the country to war in Iraq, with the enthusiastic support of Iain Duncan Smith's Conservatives. Kennedy was one of the very few senior politicians who stood up to say it was a dreadful mistake. He was a voice of sanity in an insane time. Like Robin Cook, another principled opponent of the war, he has left us far too young.

It is unfortunate that the mourning for Kennedy has been overshadowed by Alex Salmond's ill-judged remark:

In terms of the independence referendum, I don’t think his heart was in the ‘Better Together’ campaign.

Salmond later clarified:

I have made no claim whatsoever that Charles Kennedy was either a Yes or an SNP supporter. He was not. He was a committed federalist all of his political career.

Very well. Let us take Salmond at his word. If he doesn't mean Kennedy was a supporter of Scottish independence, what on earth does he mean?

Services to Democracy

Political parties like to pretend they own votes, but they don't. The SNP proved that on election night.

The first-past-the-post electoral system used to elect the UK government is archaic and unfair. I've said so myself, as have many others. In our fully justified railing against the system, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that we still have a vote. The UK is a democracy, however dysfunctional.

Parties say past elections and opinion polls determine the future. They make claims like "only we can beat That Other Party in this seat". They openly ask for tactical votes, from anyone who dislikes them less than their opponents. The example below was put through my letterbox in Cambridge, and it's far from the worst I've seen.

Strictly speaking, and with all due respect to Julian Huppert, this is not true. There is no such thing as a marginal seat, or a safe one. There are only parliamentary seats.

I've never stood for election myself; but I have gone hitchhiking, and I imagine some similarity. You make yourself visible, stick out your thumb, and hope for the best.

My Election Night on Twitter

For your edification and amusement, some of my Twitter activity from the long dark night of the election is below the fold. Shockingly enough, it contains NSFW language.

Election wishes and early reaction

I'm writing this around midnight on election night, as the results begin to come in and we digest that shocking exit poll:

State of the parties, according to #GE2015 exit poll http://t.co/jsd8Jb1lYA pic.twitter.com/VNQYwE0akg

— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) May 7, 2015

I've said what I want in Cambridge: Re-election of Julian Huppert, our excellent Liberal Democrat MP. What about the UK as a whole?

Government

In the classic choice between a rock and hard place, I would prefer the next government to be led by Labour, not the Conservatives.

I don't trust Labour to govern on their own. Ed Miliband has grown into his job somewhat, but he and his party are still deeply uninspiring. For Loki's sake, they thought putting "Controlling Immigration" on a coffee mug was a good way of getting votes. That said, I greatly prefer Labour to the Conservatives as a party of government.

My preferred outcome would be a Labour/LibDem coalition. (A LibDem majority would be nice, but let's keep this at least somewhat grounded in reality.)

This is less likely than a minority Labour government trying to pass legislation on a vote-by-vote basis. I'd be pretty satisfied with that too.

That said, if this exit poll is accurate, we will almost certainly see a minority Conservative government supported by some combination of LibDems, DUP and UKIP. That's very close to my nightmare scenario. Cameron can get Tory policies through, but only by appeasing the most reactionary elements of Parliament. We would also be subjected to two years or so of an EU referendum campaign, possibly followed by a British exit. It's a depressing prospect.

SNP surge

The BBC exit poll predicts the SNP to win every single seat in mainland Scotland, with only Orkney & Shetland being retained by the Liberal Democrats.

I supported a No vote to Scottish independence, but this isn't a repeat of the referendum. It's about electing representatives to govern the UK, including Scotland. I've recently argued the SNP are a responsible, moderate, social democratic party and should be treated as such.

If the SNP aren't devils, they aren't angels either. I am deeply skeptical of their claims to skip past thorny practical difficulties with nothing but the power of good intentions. Like all politicians, they are prone to duplicitous behaviour and convincing themselves that what's good for their careers is good for the country. If there is one thing we should have learned from Tony Blair and New Labour, it is to be cautious around leaders who say they are "whiter than white."

It's hard to remember after the Iraq War and financial crash, but there was a period from about 1995-2002 when Blair and New Labour were enormously, genuinely popular. The SNP has borrowed heavily from the Blairite "things can only get better" playbook. Neither Blair nor Sturgeon would appreciate the comparison, but it has substance.

In its day, New Labour was a formidable election-winning machine, and so it is with the SNP. They have done well in government at Holyrood, and in the general election have run a smarter and more principled campaign than Tories or Labour. They deserve to reap the benefits.

I am a little concerned about the prospect of a wipe-out for other parties. The SNP are competing in a four-party system, and could take a clean sweep of seats on, say, 48% of the popular vote. It would be a very impressive achievement, but the other 52% would still deserve representation. The system would be letting them down in a big way.

On the UK stage, my optimistic hope was that the SNP, for all its faults, would be a progressive influence on a minority Labour government. If we see the extreme scenario of big wins for Conservatives and SNP, the SNP will have very little influence on UK government policy, and both parties will actively exacerbate divisions between Scotland and England. I don't believe that would help either nation.

Still, we should be patient and wait for the full results to come in.

Bringers of Chaos 3: We have met the enemy and he is us

In Part 1 and Part 2, I looked at reasons not to panic over the rise of the SNP. The UK political classes seem determined to panic anyway.

Both Labour and Conservatives talk as if the SNP are a new Jacobite rebellion, marching south to seize power at the point of a claymore. They have indulged in hysteria for the sake of short-term partisan advantage. The consequences could be profound.

The SNP's method of taking power. Note the absence of guns, bombs and bayonets.
Source: Daily Telegraph

Bringers of Chaos 2: Keep calm and look at Canada

(Part 1 of this series looked at reactions to the SNP's likely victory in the general election, and reasons why it will not be as cataclysmic as many believe.)

The rise of the SNP may be unprecedented in the UK; but as luck would have it, there is a recent parallel from across the Atlantic. We have seen what happens in a British-style parliamentary democracy, when a left-wing nationalist party wins a large proportion of seats.

I am referring to the Bloc Québecois, from the French-speaking province of Québec in Canada.

Flags of Québec and Canada.

Bringers of Chaos 1: Reality Check

The UK political classes claim an SNP victory in the general election would have cataclysmic results.

There are not many points of agreement between the left-wing Scottish nationalist Craig Murray, and the Conservative politician Boris Johnson. However they share a fondness for lurid rhetoric, and a belief in the awesome power of the SNP:

Murray:

A sweeping SNP victory on May 7 is considered enough of a threat to the United Kingdom for the security services to use up some assets. [...] The still bigger worry is that, as the security services get increasingly desperate as polling day approaches, they will manufacture a false flag incident in which people deliberately get hurt.

Johnson:

You wouldn’t get Herod to run a baby farm, would you? [...] [The SNP] want to end Britain, to decapitate Britannia, to cause a constitutional upheaval that would gravely weaken this country, a rupture that has provoked horror in Britain’s friends around the world – and a silent chuckle among those who do not wish us quite so well.

(Incidentally, what the hell is a baby farm? Does Johnson not know where babies come from?)

Newly elected SNP representatives arriving at Westminster.

Spray Paint in Aberdeen

Earlier this month, someone vandalised the Conservative and Labour party offices in Aberdeen. I assumed it was the work of a random bampot with nothing better to do on a Friday night, but Craig Murray has a more outré theory.

Graffiti on the Conservative Party office. Source: BBC News

Make Her Deny It: The French Ambassador Memo

The Daily Telegraph has published a leaked civil service memo; it recounts a conversation between SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon and the French ambassador to the UK, in which which Sturgeon allegedly said she would prefer David Cameron to Ed Miliband as Prime Minister. When you sum it up like this, it sounds like something from primary school: Simon says that Sylvie says Nicola fancies David and thinks Ed is a dweeb, but Nicola says that's rubbish.

Nicola Sturgeon at an anti-Trident rally in Glasgow. Source: Guardian

It also reminds me of an apocryphal story about US President Lyndon B Johnson.

No deals, Mr Cameron

This week, Alex Salmond announced the SNP would vote against a minority Conservative government, if David Cameron attempts to form one after the general election. If the polls continue to hold steady, this makes it highly likely we will have a minority Labour government after 7 May, with Labour all but wiped out in Scotland but making significant gains in England.

No deal with the SNP to keep Cameron in Number 10 Downing Street.
Source: Daily Telegraph

Source: Electoral Calculus, 27 March 2015. There are 650 seats in the
House of Commons, so 326 are required for a majority.

Nut Meets Sledgehammer: Follow-up

My recent post Nut Meets Sledgehammer looked at the case of Ross Loraine, a resident of Sunderland who was cautioned by police for an offensive tweet about a tragic accident in Glasgow. A subsequent article in the New York Times shows that in some ways, Loraine got off lightly.

Aftermath of the lorry crash in Glasgow.

The Shallow Talent Pool of Scottish Labour

The Scottish Labour Party is in deep trouble. Many of the reasons are obvious, but I will explore a less obvious one.

The facts are well known: Since October 2014, the SNP has held roughly a 20 point lead over Labour in voting intentions for Westminster in Scotland. This basically reverses the situation in the 2010 general election, and would hand about 30 of Labour's Scottish seats to the SNP. It is usual to credit the energy, optimism, and unity of the SNP, galvanized by its efforts in last year's referendum campaign; contrasted with the internal conflicts of Scottish Labour, the uninspiring leadership of Ed Miliband, and Labour's dismal efforts to chase swing voters in middle England to the exclusion of all else. All these things are true, but I think there is another underlying factor.

The Scottish Parliament building.

Nut Meets Sledgehammer

Last month, a 19-year-old resident of Sunderland was cautioned by the police for making an offensive remark on Twitter. How can this possibly be an intelligent use of government power?

On 22 December, a bin lorry crashed into a crowd of shoppers in Glasgow, tragically killing six people. Ross Loraine allegedly tweeted:

So a bin lorry has crashed into 100 people in Glasgow eh, probably the most trash its ever picked up in one day that.

This was a cruel, stupid, juvenile statement. Twitter being what it is, I'm sure Loraine received a deluge of replies telling him as much.

However, it doesn't rise (or sink) to the level of hate speech or incitement to violence. His tweet will not motivate anyone to commit acts of violence against Glaswegians.

The BBC thought the content of the tweet was too shocking to reveal to the delicate eyes of its readers. The Glasgow-based Herald newspaper was more robust, and reproduced the tweet in full. The latter is absolutely the right decision; it allows us to see how pathetic Loraine is, and mock him for it as we see fit.

Scene of the crash in Glasgow. Source: BBC News