The Playgroup

I got into a minor on-line debate recently concerning an article in the National by Andrew Wilson, author of the Sustainable Growth Commission Report (‘Winning over rUK voters is key to indy ref 2 success’). In the article Wilson noted that 53% of native Scots voted Yes in 2014, while 72% of English incomers voted No, to which I made the following comment:

As an Englishman I’ve always found it deeply troubling that 53% of Scots voted Yes in 2014 while 72% of English voted No. English residents in Scotland will generally fall into either or both of two categories. They will be either economic migrants or moved here as a lifestyle choice and for the environment. For those who are economic migrants I ask, ‘do you see your long term future in Scotland, or do you anticipate eventually moving back to England’ If it’s the latter, I can’t see how in all conscience, these people can vote No in a future Scottish independence referendum, against the wishes of the majority of the indigenous community. The only honourable option is, in my view, to abstain. Those who came for lifestyle/environmental reasons and who voted No in 2014 should bear in mind that it’s those Scots whose families have lived here for generations who created the conditions, even the ‘natural’environment that they so value. So once again a No vote flies in the face of what is morally just.

My comment received a number of responses, some from Scots thanking me for pointing out the perversity of incomers denying the wishes of native Scots for self-determination.  Others were more critical, pointing out for instance that we live in a democracy and that incomers also pay taxes and contribute towards the Scottish economy. I absolutely agree and the last thing I would want to do is to deny the vote to anyone who lives in Scotland and is eligible to vote. My objection is a moral one, that to vote against the wishes of the indigenous majority if you don’t see your long term future in Scotland is morally unjust, as you are unlikely to bear the consequences of your vote.

Another criticism my comment provoked was that as Scotland has been part of the Union for over 300 years, it’s the UK that has created the ‘environment’ that many incomers to Scotland find attractive. This is a risible and ignorant proposition. As I’ve posted in a previous article ‘Wha’s Like Us’, I see a culture in Scotland that’s quite distinct from that in England. If the Scottish culture was a result of our Britishness then I would expect little difference North and South of the Border. That there are differences; Scotland is more politically left leaning and in my view is more egalitarian and less egotistic, is due to a number of historical factors, not least the Clan tradition of the Highlands, different education system (no state-run grammar schools and public education provision long before anything similar in England)  and a different Religious doctrine (the Presbyterian tradition which separates church and state rather than the much more hierarchical Anglican tradition which binds itself to the state).

My reference to the environment is borne of first hand experience. Before we moved to Scotland, we lived for about 10 years in the English Lake District. At the time I was an active environmentalist and member of the Friends of the Earth. Our main area of concern was the nuclear power stations which had recently been developed at Windscale (Sellafield) and Heysham in North Lancashire. However we were also critical of some hill farming practices. Recently I read ‘A Shepherds Life’ by James Rebanks, a wonderful account of a year in the life of a Cumbrian hill farmer. A particular grievance of Rebanks was those incomers who, having moved to the Lake District because of the beauty of the area and the lifestyle , then set about trying to re-shape it to fit their own values. So, people like me. It was a salutary lesson to find myself caught in the cross-hairs. My excuse is I was young (well, younger) and foolish then.

I see the same phenomena happening in Scotland as incomers move here for lifestyle reasons, then by accident or design, seek to change it into something that’s more recognisable to the culture they’ve come from. For example there’s a couple of B&Bs near where I live. One is  called ‘La Maison de Mer’ and the other ‘Tam o’ Shanter’, neither of which names have much  connection with the local Highland culture. I plead guilty as charged on this count also. In the 1980s we moved to a cottage in the countryside of Central Scotland called Glengyle North. No sooner had we moved in we renamed it ‘Taransay’ after the island off the west coast of Harris. Why did we do that? Clearly we wanted to stamp our own personality on our new home. In doing so however, we arrogantly dismissed the personality that already existed, through the Scots who built, named and lived in it for generations before we arrived.

Of course Scotland in particular has a gigantic precedent in this regard, in the many Highland sporting estates (half the private land in Scotland being owned by less than 500 people), each of which have in their own way, sought to turn back time and create some mythical Highland Brig o’ Doonesque environment. While these landowners have certainly shaped the Scottish environment, it’s the ruins of the many crofting communities (often the result of decisions taken by the land owners to suit their own interests rather than those of the indigenous community), half-submerged dry stone and earth dykes and of course the ubiquitous lazy beds stripes on the hillside that speak most powerfully of the impact of the Scottish people on the environment. To those people who moved to Scotland for lifestyle reasons therefore, I appeal to you not to make the mistakes I made, to value what’s there, how it got to be like it is, who created it and not to and try to reshape it in your own image.

In the 2014 referendum, nobody knew that a majority of Scots would vote Yes. So a No vote from incomers was less contentious. Now we know that a majority of Scots support independence and I believe that the 53% figure should be broadcast loudly so that incomers inclined to vote No, will be in no doubt that such a vote helps to deny the right of Scots to self-determination. So if you’re an incomer who can’t bring yourself to vote Yes to support the wishes of most Scots, I respectfully ask that you abstain.

Unionists are ramping up the rhetoric by suggesting that negotiations post Scottish independence could be as fraught as those for Brexit. Speaking on the first edition of the new BBC Scotland’s ‘Debate Night’, Monica Lennon, invoked this trope, saying, ‘…if it’s this difficult leaving the EU, think how difficult it will be to separate from a union of over 300 years’

Specifically, unionists cite the Scotland-England border being potentially as problematic as the Irish border. However, comparing the two borders is like comparing apples with potatoes (apples and oranges would be too close a match). The Scottish border in its present form has existed since 1472 and according to Wikipedia is ‘one of the oldest extant borders in the world’. The border separates two countries, is uncontroversial and citizens on both sides are generally content with their status . By contrast, the Irish border has existed only since 1921 and is a border of partition. It was imposed as a temporary measure to ease tensions in the newly created Irish Free State. The Irish border separated the people of a hitherto single country, according to their political and religious affiliations. In this case separating the Catholic majority in the south and the Protestant, Unionist supporting minority in the north. In doing so it created an enclave in Northern Ireland in which a significant minority of Catholic nationalists were effectively disenfranchised. Cue ‘The Troubles’, IRA, UVF et al.

To illustrate the differences and to get a flavour of how a border of partition could impact Scotland, imagine that there’s been a second independence referendum which has been won by the Yes side. As in 2014, those regions closest to the Scotland-England border voted No. As part of the independence negotiations it was agreed that the Scotland-England border should be re-drawn further north and these Border regions would become part of a Greater England.

In this scenario it’s possible to see immediately the tensions this would create as a considerable minority of Yes voters would be consigned to a state that they didn’t support. I suspect even a substantial percentage of No voters in the region would baulk at the idea of being re-designated as English. Perhaps a way round this latter problem would be to create a separate province akin to Northern Ireland – let’s call it South Scotia.  This might satisfy the Unionists, who retain a foot in both camps and would allow Scottish border rugby teams such as Melrose and Kelso to continue playing their rugby in Scotland. For Yes voters however, the sense of dislocation and associated ramifications would be profound.

Don’t get me wrong, moving the border isn’t a serious suggestion, I’m simply trying to illustrate the major difference between a border of partition compared to uncontested historical borders. Other notable problematic examples of borders of partition include that between India and Pakistan and Israel-Palestine, both of which have been contested since their creation in the 1940s. There are other differences of course; the Irish border is over 300 miles long and according to the Belfast Telegraph, has 208 crossing points, more than in the rest of the EU combined. The Irish border runs along the length of 11 roads, some of which cross and recross the border in the space of a few miles, divides farms and in at least one case, runs  through a house. The Scottish border, at less than 100 miles long, has only 25 road crossing points, of which only 5 are on trunk routes and has none of the infrastructure difficulties noted on the Irish border.

Unionists like to point out the potential hindrance to trade of a hard Scotland-England border and associated customs checks. Any border arrangement will, of course, depend on the future status of England and Scotland after Brexit and independence. Should England remain in the EU or leave with a deal that includes a customs union and Scotland post independence rejoins the EU or becomes an EEA member, then no hard border need exist. Assuming the rUK does actually leave the EU, it will want some form of trade agreement with the EU, so again, Scotland as an EU/EEA member would be part of that arrangement, which might or might not involve some tariffs and border checks. The important point is that, unlike the protracted and complex Brexit negotiations, no new trade negotiations would be required between Scotland and the rUK.

As I’ve mentioned in a previous article, a hard border, while potentially increasing some costs between England and Scotland, would according to Robin McAlpine in his book ‘How to start a new Country’ offer some benefits. Apparently official annual customs duty fraud in the UK is estimated at £36 billion but could be as high as £120 billion (partly because UK Customs are increasingly tied up with managing immigration). So a hardish land border with England would allow for much greater customs control which would, he argues, more than justify the expense.  And, unlike the Dover-Calais border pinch point, where huge amounts of traffic converge, there is no equivalent on a potential Scotland-England hard border where volumes of traffic would be significantly less and spread across several trunk routes.

Often sold as a buy-one-get-one-free offer,  in addition to the border ‘problems’ Unionists like to point out that Scotland does four times more trade with the UK than with the EU, with the unspoken yet implied threat that England might cease trading with an independent Scotland (what they never do of course is point out that England does more trade with Scotland than vice-versa). However, an independent Scotland in the EU/EEA would be in a similar position to that of Ireland in the Brexit negotiations and Scotland could expect the full heft of the EU’s support in any dispute. Finally of course it’s worth pointing out (Robin McAlpine again), that much of this trade between Scotland and England is related to energy and supermarket transfers which are hardly likely to change irrespective of future arrangements.

 

2 #DaysToSaveScotland

Why are you all so upset about BBCQT? What were you expecting?

They are just doing their job. It’s another country’s “political” entertainment show complete with a cast of good-guys, villains, foreigners and weirdos. It’s “wrestling” for pseudo intellectuals. “Oooh look. They’ve got the Scot in a headlock – how’s she gonna get out of that?”

Having propaganda piped into your homes is a social compact, a deal, a natural consequence of remaining part of the union.

There’s only one solution available to us and our political leadership seem reluctant to embrace it, preferring instead to complain that we don’t get ‘fair’ coverage on a foreign realm’s propaganda channel. Preferring instead to wait for some mythical gifted opportunity to achieve independence for Scotland without making the hard choices, without facing the harsh reality of our increasingly precarious position.

I love that we’ve reached out to the world but I’m saddened by the thought that they will all collectively say “Oh dear, that’s a shame.” when we are inevitably ground to nothingness under the boot heel of the new United Kingdom.

Every time I’m “prompted” to be annoyed at the BBC’s output I’m reminded instead to be increasingly disappointed by Scotland’s political representatives.

The SNP. Your silence is deafening.

The membership is restless. Use us or lose us.

#BrexitIsACoup #DissolveTheUnion

“A new order has been made… to enable Reservists to be called… in support of the HMG… for a no deal EU exit scenario… from the beginning of 10 February 2019… ” –
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-01-17/HCWS1254/

As we commemorate the 100th anniversary of the end of the First World War, we’re being bombarded with stories of the horrors and heroism of that war. While I feel huge sadness at the loss of life, my predominant emotion is one of anger, at the futility of it all and how war is glorified. The core theme of the remembrance commemorations is ‘lest we forget’; a worthy objective, but forget what? It seems we mustn’t forget the sacrifice of those who died. However, the causes of the First World War seem all too readily forgotten. As Kenny MacAskill wrote (‘I will not glorify a pointless and shameful war’ iNewspaper, 8.11.18) ‘But as four years have rolled by since the centenary of its outbreak, there has been little critical analysis – or it is remarkably well camouflaged by the glorification of the dead, with no consideration of the pointlessness of it all. Why did we go to war, for what and who benefitted?’ 

Though we’re often told that WW1 was to safeguard democracy, Britain’s involvement in WW1 seems to have been largely to protect its Imperial interests. A German victory would have imperilled the Empire, through the Turks in the Middle East, which would also have threatened Egypt (under British mandate) and the Suez Canal, thus choking off Britain’s route to India, that most lucrative of possessions. Meanwhile the Germans would have taken possession of French colonies on the African continent, including countries immediately across from the Straits of Gibraltar and those close to South Africa.

Britain was also concerned about the increasing dominance of German industrial output which was beginning to outstrip that of the UK. Germany’s further expansion was restricted by their lack of access to raw materials, much of which was tied up in British and French colonial possessions. A quick war with Germany was therefore seen by a number of influential British politicians (including Churchill) as a means of re-establishing the status-quo.

Diplomacy and cooperation might well have headed off armed conflict with Germany, by finding solutions that would have been in the interests of all parties. Instead, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Serbia seems to have been used as a pretext for provoking Germany into conflict. Instead of constructive diplomacy, jingoistic rhetoric and sabre rattling became the norm, boxing Germany into a situation where they were virtually encircled by a hostile Russia and France. Meanwhile Britain took the role of a somewhat untrustworthy broker in between (Perfidious Albion).

It is this bellicose grandstanding that I believe is the real lesson that we should remember from WW1 but which, time after time, seems to be forgotten. In Afghanistan, US President George W Bush’s ‘crusade’ was a notably provocative term. In Iraq, where Saddam, who was at one time the West’s favourite dictator during his war against Iran, suddenly became a despot with WMD that could strike Europe in 45 minutes. George W Bush once again used bully-boy tactics, demanding support from other Western powers by his challenge ‘you’re either with us or against us’. In Libya, David Cameron assured us that surgical air strikes could quickly resolve the situation in favour of the rebels with little ‘collateral damage’. Civil war continues to rage in Libya as a result of this intervention, with little prospect of peace. Collateral damage is in my view the most deplorable euphemism in the rhetoric of modern warfare given how it attempts to airbrush civilian casualties out of the picture.  This is the most egregious consequence of modern warfare, for whom there are currently no memorials or commemorations and which now far outweigh military deaths.

Finally we have Syria in which the Saddam playbook has once again been deployed. Originally hailed as a moderating influence in the the Middle East, Assad is now apparently a tyrant who cruelly slaughters (and gases) hundreds of thousands of his citizens. The solution was to equip and support the numerous Islamist guerilla groups fighting against Assad, including ISIS and Al Qaeda, with the desired outcome of regime change, whatever that means in a Middle East that has been destabilised largely as a result of Western interference.

In all these conflicts, the BBC has been complicit. Nothing illustrates the BBC’s role as the State Broadcaster better than their promotion of the poppy appeal. The BBC is currently awash with red poppies, never a white  poppy. To be seen without a poppy in a BBC studio is as rare as hens’ teeth. We are consistently reminded of the generosity of the British public; however, there’s rarely any reference in the media as to why the poppy and other appeals are necessary. The grim truth is that Government cuts are making charitable giving ever more necessary to keep basic services running. This is David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ writ large, however we weren’t made aware of the terms and conditions of the big society which has enabled successive Tory Governments to embark on a low tax, low spend ideology, including tax cuts for the already well off, the worst pensions in the EU and the only EU country to reduce spending on social security as a percentage of GDP (Eurostat 2016).

The Royal British Legion, who run the annual Poppy appeal have for years been lobbying the Government to bring the Military Covenant, whose purpose is to care for ex-servicemen and women and their families, onto a statutory footing. It seems that successive Governments have refused to do so in order to avoid legal action where disability payments to ex-service personnel are less generous than their civilian counterparts. This stance was summed up eloquently by Neil McEvoy, a Plaid Cymru AM in the Welsh Assembly, in a recent tweet:  ‘It is shameful that 27 AMs voted down my ‘No Soldier Left Behind Act’ to guarantee in law rights in health and housing for all military personnel who have seen active service’ 

There was a feature on the BBC today (9.11.18) speculating how World War One might be remembered by future generations. I would hope that they will heed Kenny MacAskil’s call and seek a more honest, less myopic appraisal of the causes and lessons to be learned from that and the many other wars that Britain has chosen to enter. Meanwhile, the sabre rattling continues, currently with Russia and ‘axis of evil’ Iran in the spotlight, while we continue to support and fail to speak out about the depredations by Saudi Arabia in Yemen and the continued aggression towards Palestinians by Israel.

 

 

I found this book by Robin McAlpine and published by Common Print (part of Common Weal) inspiring, annoying and deeply troubling. Inspiring in that it illustrated some of the many possibilities of independence; annoying in that we don’t appear to have done much, if any, pre-planning and deeply troubling that we probably won’t be able to prepare for independence in the way outlined but instead be forced to act in haste in order to extricate ourselves from what looks like being a Brexit bourach.

The main strategy the book outlines is that of a clean-break, taking on minimal moveable assets and not buying into existing UK systems as temporary solutions.  As well as getting to a truly independent Scotland more quickly, this would also, according to  McAlpine,  provide the rUK with much less bargaining leverage during separation negotiations – the less we want, the less opportunity HMG have to be difficult. Such a strategy also provides the maximum opportunity to implement ‘Scottish solutions’  He therefore proposes a 3 year transition period between referendum and independence day. The 2014 referendum assumed a handover period of 18 months, however this involved sharing a number of existing arrangements with the rUK, notably currency and central Bank. As we know the proposal was vetoed by George Osborne, making the pro-independence campaign a hostage to fortune.

As part of the clean-break strategy McAlpine argues for instance that we shouldn’t take a share of Royal Navy vessels which would be a poor fit for a Scottish Navy whose priorities would be very different from those of the Royal Navy. Instead he proposes we build our own naval vessels.  Such a strategy would have the added benefit of providing a boost to jobs and the Scottish shipbuilding industry.

Speaking of jobs, McAlpine calculates that an independent Scotland would require an extra 20,000 Civil Servants to run the new Ministries (Home Office, Treasury, Foreign Office, Social Security, DVLA and so on).  To provide an illustration of the potential of these additional Civil Servant jobs, imagine all these new (mostly well paid) civil servants moving to a new town in Scotland with their partners and families. This new town will require housing, roads, schools, shops, restaurants, garages, heat, light, water and sanitation plus the staff to service this new infrastructure. The size of the new town very quickly approaches 100,000 people. That’s one massive economic stimulus, worth according to McAlpine about £3 billion per year.

He also notes the need for many more MSPs to cope with the expanding responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. Here I feel Robin McAlpine misses a trick (or possibly he was channelling his inner socialist centralising tendencies), as he merely pointed out that the current Holyrood Parliament wouldn’t be big enough to accommodate such an influx and a new building would be required. However, there may be an opportunity to move to a Federal system of Government. Holyrood would then become less of a focal point as more of the day-to-day business of the Federal Government is conducted in the Regions while Government departmental business (Home Office, Foreign Office, Work and Pensions etc.) could be conducted in a new purpose built campus of Ministries, ideally somewhere other than Edinburgh.

A Federal Government offers possibilities for further devolution at a local level. The current monolithic Highland Council might become a federal government region within which there could be a number of local Councils (such as Skye and Lochalsh) which would have revenue earning capacity and the ability to act autonomously. There’ve been calls to create a Skye National Park in order to better manage the creaking infrastructure to cope with the influx of tourists. However, a National Park would still need to liaise with Highland Council as they would continue to hold the purse strings. A Skye & Lochalsh Council on the other hand could act more decisively.

Much of the above could be agreed through Robin McAlpine’s proposal for a further plebicite (pre-independence day) on a new constitution. He suggests that at that time the electorate could also be asked to vote on matters such as the monarchy and EU membership (McAlpine himself seems keen on EFTA, at least as an interim as this offers more flexibility and is less contentious than full EU membership). So federalism might be added to the list of questions to put to the electorate. The author proposes that a National Commission should be set up to manage the entire transition process, reporting to the Scottish Government who otherwise will continue with their existing duties. He also points out that this should be in place, at least in embryo, before a further Independence vote!

On the question of an England – Scotland border the author suggests a hardish border would be no bad thing as that would give Scotland much greater control over customs duties. He points out that the official annual customs duty fraud in the UK is estimated at £36 billion but that figure is regarded as conservative by numerous observers who believe the figure to be nearer £120 billion (partly because Customs are increasingly tied up with managing immigration). So a hardish land border with England would allow for much greater customs control which would, he argues, more than justify the expense. The Scottish Navy would also play an important role in deterring smuggling (hence the need for appropriate vessels rather than ex-RN frigates/destroyers). The hardish border could apparently allow private traffic to cross unhindered, with number plate recognition CCTV used to capture individual border crossings. Meanwhile commercial vehicles could have their customs checks well away from the border, for instance on the quayside for fish catches bound for export, thus allaying fears of rotting catches in lorries delayed by customs checks at the border.

On the much touted UK single market,  in which we’re told, Scotland does considerably more trade than with the EU and which the UK Government, using the Project Fear playbook, suggest might be imperilled by Scottish independence, Robin McAlpine points out that electricity accounts for about 1/3 of all exports from Scotland to England via the national grid, so it’s highly unlikely the UK would want to jeopardise this, while a good deal of the rest is cross border movement of supermarket goods. He points out that supermarkets really like frictionless borders so any difficulties caused by the UK Government would meet stiff resistance from Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons.

Robin McAlpine concludes by stating that the book doesn’t set out to make the case for independence. However he goes on to say, ‘…it is hard to miss just how big an opportunity this is. To create a fit-for-purpose tax system, to have a defence system which efficiently focuses on defence rather than power projection, the chance to fundamentally fix public IT, the impact of having a proper Customs and Excise system, the chance to build a humane system of social security, the enormous injection of investment into the Scottish economy that would result, the thousands upon thousands of jobs it would create, the expertise it would bring to Scotland, the way it would effect how we see ourselves…In so many ways it is possible to see in this technical attempt to understand a transition to independence the very reasons so many people want that independence in the first place.’  Amen to that.

Whatever you think of Robin McAlpine’s views, he and Common Weal deserve credit for conducting a rigorous analysis of the planning required for Scottish independence, unlike another recent ongoing constitutional issue, the plans for which were simply written on the side of a bus.

 

Given the querulous response of most British historians to the prospect of Scottish independence, I think the collective pronoun for a group of historians must be a ‘querul’. David Starkey, Niall Ferguson, Dan Snow, Neil Oliver and Simon Scharma all seem to become apoplectic about the prospect of an independent Scotland. As far as I know only Tom Devine is pro-independence.

This thought occured to me as a result of reading yet another diatribe against Scottish independence in the Times newspaper, this time from Max Hastings, the war historian (and one of 200 ‘public figures’ who signed an anti-independence declaration prior to the 2014 referendum), has waded in with an article titled ‘Dressing down to enjoy my Highland fling’. In the article, Hastings posits the idea of dressing in jeans and tee shirts rather than in 19th century toffs’clothing (tweeds and breeches). He suggests that this mode of dress along with the ostentatious flaunting of wealth does little to endear the hunting, shooting and fishing fraternity to the average Scot. In this he’s probably correct and it’s about the only thing in his otherwise ignorant, arrogant article which I agreed with.

Hastings has apparently spent many summers enjoying ‘sporting’ activities in Scotland since his early 20’s, mostly in Sutherland and Caithness, which he claims to ‘know so well’  That’s a bit like a Scot averring to know Lancashire well having spent many summer holidays in Blackpool. Except that the Scot in Blackpool would probably meet a wider cross section of Lancashire society than Hastings does on his annual jaunts to the Highlands. There he will mostly interact with estate workers who are probably somewhat guarded in their opinions due to the client relationship, while sharing his sporting activities mostly with other English ‘toffs’ and foreigners. So while he may be familiar with the topography of the Northern Highlands I very much doubt the degree to which he’s in tune with the views, values and culture of the average Highlander. Hastings himself acknowledges that there is justifiable pain caused to Scottish sensibilities by visitors who meet no local people but only stalkers and ghillies.

Hastings goes on to rail against the ‘Nats’, asserting ‘that the spring tide of Nicola Sturgeon has ebbed after experience of her flawed Government’. Such evidence free assertions from a supposedly reputable historian are truly breathtaking. His big beef however, seems to be the Scottish Government’s proposals for land reform. He argues that there is a strong economic case in favour of private shooting estates and their sporting visitors, that they have a ‘cash value unmatched by any other activity, actual or prospective’ Tell that to the people of Eigg,  Gigha and Assynt all of whom have bought out the previous private owners and are in the process of diversifying and transforming their economies. Hastings goes on to say that ‘In Sutherland and Caithness… we glimpse pathetically few non-sporting English tourists because there are no theme parks to lure them and no sane person would build such facilities at the extremity of Britain’ Apart from the fact that there are more economic possibilities for the vast spaces of the Highlands than simply tourism (Space port anyone?), he obviously isn’t aware of the transformative effect on tourism of the North Coast 500, created without needing to construct anything but simply by advertising what was already there!

To counter the accusation that Highland estate owners are exploiting the Scottish people Hastings cites a cluster of estates around Tomatin, whose accounts demonstrated that the owners make annual net contributions in the order of £100,000 each.  What Hastings fails to mention are the many wheezes that estate owners use to mitigate their tax liabilities, such as being registered offshore or placing the estate into family or charitable trusts and of course the rates relief and grants available to Highland estates as a result of being registered as both sporting and agricultural entities.

Then there is the resale value of Highland estates, which according to the Financial Times (‘Why Scottish Highlands and Islands are still in buyers sights’) remain sound investments despite Brexit and the prospect of land reform. Their enduring value is apparently due to their attraction as the playthings of rich men. While some of the mega rich buy super-yachts, others buy Highland estates. Anders Holch Povlsen, the Danish fashion empire billionaire, currently owns 218,000 acres spread over 11 Highland estates. His aim is to ‘re-wild’ the landscape, to take it back to it’s ‘former wilderness state’ No mention is made of repopulating the land, which was a more recent aspect of the Highlands.

Which leads me to Hasting’s most egregious assertion. Quoting from an observation by Michael Fry, he states that there is no rational justification for the volume of grievance about the Highland clearances. ‘Ugly though they were, Scotland did not suffer remotely the scale of English injustice and persecution that fell upon Ireland’  That’s a bit like saying that the Armenians should shut up and stop complaining about the Turkish genocide of Armenia because it was less catastrophic than the Jewish holocaust of World War Two.

Hastings ends his piece by writing, ‘I once told a friend that playing a salmon and shooting grouse in the Highlands have provided me with some of the most euphoric experiences I have ever known’ Like many other British Nationalists who profess undying love of Scotland,  Hastings clearly has a wistful and wholly mythical sense of all things Scottish, from the landscape to the skirl of the pipes. Of the people, not so much.  The Times article is useful in that it offers us yet another window into the minds of the English ruling class, that even a supposedly forensic historian is unable to get to the heart of what drives the quest for Scottish independence and instead takes a purely sentimental view. He is clearly unable to engage with the real argument for independence, that of self-determination and is therefore blind to the economic possibilities, particularly in his beloved Highlands. Why is it for instance, that the more extensive wild land in Norway can be economically viable, able not only to retain but to increase its population, while Scotland apparently must depend on and be grateful for the largesse of mostly foreign estate owners?

 

 

I read the Times most Saturdays to keep up to date with the preoccupations of the ruling class. Which reminds me of the old saw about who reads which newspapers. The Times is read by those who run the country, The Daily Telegraph is read by those who used to run the country, The Daily Mail is read by those who would like to run the country, while Sun readers don’t care who runs the country, so long as she’s well built (I’ve edited that last phrase for more sensitive readers). I think the Guardian also featured but I can’t recall what their position was. Perhaps it was that it was read by those who think the metropolitan intelligentsia should run the country?

Anyway, this Saturday there were two interesting articles in the Times relating to Scotland. The first that caught my eye was a book review ‘Scots and Catalans – Union and disunion’ by J.H. Elliot. The reviewer was scathing of both Catalan and Scottish independence movements, declaring that they are both driven by passion (often in the guise of grievance) at the expense of reason. The title of the review says much about the reviewers own view ‘It’s all bagpipes, flags and fake history’ He goes on to assert, Scottish independence is ‘… all about the Gay Gordons, Irn Bru, that statue of Wellington with the traffic cone on its head and singing Flower of Scotland after six cans of McEwans’ So no passion there from the reviewer then, all clear common-sense.

Elsewhere the Parliamentary sketch writer Patrick Kidd offered his end of term report on the coming and goings in Westminster by offering various awards, such as the ‘Prize for summing up’and ‘Best Intervention’. Under the heading ‘Baby of the House’, Kidd wrote, ‘Not Mhairi Black, who is the youngest MP but someone with greater maturity, Zana Lewis, the 11 week old daughter of the Labour MP Clive Lewis, slept peacefully through a petulant strop by the SNP, who stormed out of the chamber en-masse while the speaker bellowed ‘order’ 28 times at them’ No insight was offered concerning the reason for the SNPs walk-out and no analysis of the impact, which shone a spotlight on the inequity of the EU Withdrawal Bill that the BBC had failed to highlight because viewers, apparently, weren’t interested! Or the boost to SNP membership which ensued from the walkout. So, once again, a perspective based on passion or reason?  You decide.

Finally, on today’s Andrew Marr Show, in an otherwise balanced and coherent analysis of Brexit, John Major couldn’t help himself when talking about the various political parties. Having name checked the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberals (sic), when it came to the SNP however, he used the more pejorative ‘Scottish Nats’.

When accusing nationalists of being motivated by grievance and passion therefore and being uninterested in a rational exploration of the ‘facts’, the opponents of Scottish independence really need to look in the mirror. While they persist in this view, they fail to engage with the many real arguments that drive the quest for independence. Arguments such as why a country with the natural and human resources of Scotland lags behind many of our European neighbours. The democratic deficit which is forcing Brexit and its dire economic consequences onto a Scotland that voted decisively to remain in the EU. Or being hamstrung by the lack of access to those economic levers that are reserved to Westminster.

The good news is that as a result of their obsession with portraying Scottish Nationalism as simply about grievance and flags, British Nationalists will be ill prepared come IndyRef2 to provide compelling arguments for staying within the Union. They are likely therefore to resort once again, to fear tactics and ‘promises’ which, next time round, are unlikely to gain anything like the traction they achieved in 2014.

Many of you will have already picked up on the Wings Over Scotland poll in which 53% of Scots said that they would be happy with a hard border between Scotland and England if that was the price of effectively remaining in the EU, against 26% who did not agree.

Before the 2014 referendum, Better Together used a hard border as one of their negatives against Scottish independence. They also claimed that the volume of trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK was so great that Scotland could not afford to lose it. That was, of course, before Brexit blew everything out of the water. We no longer see a hard border between Scotland and England as something to worry us.

An independent Scotland would continue to trade with the rUK. Why would Scotland and the rUK not do so? But what happens if this trade reduces and Scotland loses volumes of both imports and exports? This is exactly what is going to happen between the UK and the EU very very soon. The UK says that it will replace EU trade with markets further afield. This is costly, time-consuming, inefficient and uneconomic. Even if the rUK can deliver new trade deals they will be on the new markets’ terms – hello privatised NHS, privatised Scottish Water, no labour rights, lower health and safety standards, reduced pensions, etc.

Scotland, on the other hand, has a ready market for its exports and imports closer to hand – the EU. Not only will this take up the slack of any reduced trading with rUK, it is extremely likely that trade will increase. An independent Scotland, fully-controlling its own resources and economic policy, forging new trade routes to bypass rUK, has a bright future. As rUK haemorrhages manufacturing and financial services jobs, Scotland is also ideally placed to accommodate a good portion of them. 

Of course, had we voted “Yes” in 2014, this would have taken place by now, but it is never too late.

I re-read the Scottish Government’s white paper ‘Scotland’s Future’ while researching my previous article ‘W(h)ither Independence?’. At 650 pages it’s a hefty document and there probably aren’t many people who’ve read it cover to cover, which is in itself a criticism of the document. Mhairi Black said recently that she ‘hated’ it. I wouldn’t go that far, indeed I believe it serves a useful purpose, however I am critical of its format.

Essentially ‘Scotland’s Future’ falls into two parts. One part deals with the nuts and bolts of extricating Scotland from the UK and covers things like the timetable of withdrawal, the role of the Civil Service, pensions and the division of assets. All of these matters will be the responsibility of the Scottish Government, hence it’s official status as a ‘white paper’

The other part is much more party political in nature and makes numerous proposals, for example on welfare and tax reform, increased child support and of course that we dump Trident.  Incidentally, on tax, Scotland’s Future suggests raising about £250 million extra in the first tax year, pretty much what the recent budget is expected to raise.

Many Unionists have poured scorn on Scotland’s Future, saying it is full of uncosted promises and vague assertions. Yet they never felt the need to produce their own counter proposal. I may have a solution to that anomaly. In retrospect I think it would have been better to have separated these two parts; the first part covering the mechanics of separation, quite rightly being produced by the Scottish Government as a white paper and part two as an SNP post independence declaration of what they would do if elected as the first Government of an independent Scotland.

The advantages of this approach are that it’s a lot simpler. Constitutional geeks can pore over the minutiae of Part one, while Part two could be produced as an easy to read manifesto for the general public. Doing this would also provide the opportunity for the SNP to challenge other political parties to produce their own manifestos – highlighting their proposals for an independent Scotland or for those of a Unionist persuasion, detailing their vision of Scotland within the Union.

Pete Wishart has generated a great deal of coverage in both the MSM and blogosphere by suggesting that the SNP should allow its current mandate for a second independence referendum to expire. He points out that after two close losses, the Quebec independence movement has now been in the wilderness for 20 years. I believe the comparison with Quebec is inappropriate. The Quebec independence referenda were culturally based. Quebecois felt alienated by the Anglocentric majority in Canada and wanted to express their French roots more fully. However, Canada has a federal system of Government and provinces enjoy a great deal of autonomy (including fiscal autonomy); by contrast, Scotland has nowhere near as much autonomy and is in many ways something of a vassal state.

So whilst celebrating their cultural heritage and how they see themselves is clearly important to many Quebecois, unlike Scotland’s place in the UK, being part of Canada doesn’t pose an existential threat. Scottish independence is driven by much more fundamental needs, to gain control of the fiscal mechanisms necessary for economic development and social policy. These needs will not go away after another No vote, indeed while we are tied to the UK post Brexit they will come ever more sharply into focus, exacerbated over time as nearby small, independent nations prosper whilst we are stuck in the slow lane, forever subordinate to Westminster’s priorities. So conditions for Scottish independence are unlikely to be diminished. The Quebecois on the other hand were more likely to ask whether the disruption was worth it, for something so ephemeral?

So my view is that of the old saying ‘a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush’ If the SNP uses its mandate and we lose, we’re unlikely to lose core support and the reason for Scottish independence won’t recede. Allowing the mandate to expire on the other hand is highly likely to lead to a loss of support for the SNP – in particular back to Labour. Pete Wishart states that nobody has told him they would stop voting SNP if they don’t exercise the mandate, however I would have thought that the vehemently hostile response to his comments might cause him to think otherwise.  As far as I’m aware, there’s nothing in the UK constitution that dictates how often we can hold an independence referendum, so as long as we keep electing Scottish Governments with a commitment to independence in their manifestos, we are still in the game.

The likely outcome of a loss of support however, is that come the next Holyrood elections, the SNP won’t be able to form a Government, opening the door for a Unionist coalition of some sort. That would make it a lot easier for a Tory administration in Westminster to impose new constitutional restrictions on the Scottish Parliament, making a further independence referendum virtually impossible.

Wishart says that Independence is the most hotly debated issue in Scottish politics. Again I disagree. Most debate is currently within the Independence and Unionist bubbles. The case for independence hasn’t really been presented to the electorate since 2014, when we started on 28% and finished on 45%. Next time we’d be starting in the mid forties and serious debate of the issues on TV would allow voters a much better comparison of the relative merits of the two choices than at present where Unionist tropes of Scottish ‘debt’, UK single market, low growth and currency go virtually unchallenged in the MSM. We will also be able to question the UK Government on its vision for Scotland in a highly uncertain post-Brexit future. In 2014 we started from a choice between the status-quo or what was presented as risky independence. The latter now looks a lot less risky, particularly if Scotland remains in the EU or EEA while the UK is outside. Meanwhile the status quo simply isn’t on offer.

Which leads me to the nature of the independence campaign. Much heat and not much light has been expended on whether to follow the Norway, Irish or New Zealand economic models. Interesting but irrelevant in my view. The goal is independence – self-determination. After independence is the time to debate such practicalities, when political parties can set out in their Manifestos their vision for Scotland; high tax, low tax, how to grow the economy etc. What I believe we need to do during the campaign is to highlight the many many small, prosperous, independent countries that surround us, the differing economic models they follow and to stress that we the electorate will choose how we are governed post independence.