Tuesday 14 April 2015
Message To The Messengers: What Do We Do After Yes?, Gerry Hassan, Scottish Left Project / Open Democracy, ~9 December 2014
The independence campaign has transformed Scottish politics. But we must be wary of mythologising the campaign, and with it Scottish nationalism.
Yes campaigners should stop believing their own spin, and engage with the realities of a Scotland which voted no.
Message To The Messengers: What Do We Do After Yes?, Gerry Hassan, Scottish Left Project / Open Democracy, ~9 December 2014
http://thepeopledemand.org/?p=557
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/gerry-hassan/message-to-messengers-what-do-we-do-after-yes
The result of the Scottish independence referendum and the future of British politics - Paul Cairney, Politics & Public Policy, November 28, 2014
[…]
Yet, this promise of further devolution proved to be insufficient and, during
the referendum period, each party produced separate
plans to extend
devolution further. The parties then came together, in the lead up to the
referendum to make what is now called ‘The Vow’ of ‘extensive new powers’ for
a devolved Scotland. The Smith
Commission was
set up to take this agenda forward. It reported on the 27th November 2014, and
its recommendations include to:
▪ make the Scottish Parliament
‘permanent’.
▪ devolve some fiscal powers,
including the power to: set income tax rates and bands (higher earnings are
taxed at a higher rate) but not the ‘personal allowance’ (the amount to be
earned before income tax applies); set air passenger duty; and to receive a
share of sales tax (VAT).
▪ increase the Scottish
Government’s borrowing powers.
▪ devolve some aspects of social
security, including those which relate to disability, personal care, housing
and ‘council tax’ benefits (council tax is a property tax charged by local
authorities to home owners/ renters and based on the value of homes).
▪ devolve policies designed to
encourage a return to employment.
▪ devolve the ability to license
onshore oil and gas extraction (which includes hydraulic fracturing,
‘fracking’, for shale gas).
▪ control the contract to run the
Scottish rail network.
▪ encourage greater
intergovernmental relations and a more formal Scottish Government role in
aspects of UK policymaking.
The
UK Government now aims to produce draft legislation to take these plans
forward, although the bill will not be passed before the general election in
May 2015.
To
a large extent, the proposals reflect the plans of the three main British
parties, rather than the SNP (which requested ‘devo max’), although they go further
than those parties would have proposed in the absence of the referendum
agenda. Again, they are designed to represent a devolved ‘settlement’,
reinforced by the knowledge that 55% voted against Scottish independence in
2014 (the
turnout was 84.6%).
Yet,
this sense of a ‘settled will’ is not yet apparent. Indeed, it seems just as
likely that the proposals will merely postpone a second referendum, for
these reasons:
1. The new plan may represent the
largest amount of devolution that is possible if Scotland is to remain in the
UK. However, it does not address all of the charges associated with the
‘democratic deficit’.
The
‘spectre of Thatcherism’ is still used by proponents of independence, and a
period of Conservative-led government has been used to identify the
potential for the ‘top down imposition’ of ‘neoliberal’ policies to continue in
some areas, and for economic policy to remain focused on the south-east. It is
still used to suggest that only independence could secure a Scottish consensus
democracy. This narrative has only been addressed to some extent with the
devolution of symbolically important responsibilities – including the ability
to remove the so-called ‘bedroom
tax’ (an
unpopular policy associated strongly with Conservative-led welfare reform),
reform local taxes (associated first with the ‘poll tax’, then the difficulty
of the SNP to abolish the ‘council tax’ in favour of a local income tax), and
administer benefits related to personal social care (associated with a
longstanding dispute between the Scottish and UK Governments on ‘attendance allowance’).
2. The SNP remains remarkably
popular. Its membership has risen dramatically since the referendum, from
25,000 to over
92,000 and it is
now the third biggest party in the whole of the UK despite Scotland having only
8% of the UK population. Its leader, new First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, is one
of the few to maintain a positive
popularity rating in opinion polls. Current polls also suggest that the SNP will
gain ground in the UK election in 2015 and maintain a strong position in the
Scottish Parliament in 2016.
4. A second
referendum
would have a clearer sense of what people are voting for. In 2014, the ‘Vow’
allowed people to vote No and expect further devolution. In the future, the
debate would be more simply about Yes or No to independence (albeit an
independence that does not
mean what it used to mean).
We
could also discuss how Scottish politics relates to debates in the rest of the
UK, including:
▪ Is the Scottish
further-devolution agenda tied closely to the wider UK debate on its
constitutional future? Before the referendum, there was some prospect of a UK constitutional
convention.
Now, our short term focus has returned to Prime Minister David Cameron’s
promise to address the idea of ‘English
Votes for English Laws’ (EVEL) to address the so-called ‘West
Lothian question’.
▪ What has been the reaction in
the rest of the UK to the Scottish debate? One suggestion, in some of
the media coverage, is that there would be an English ‘backlash’ prompting UK politicians
to ‘get
tough’ in any negotiations with the Scottish Government. Yet, the
evidence for this assertion is not clear.
▪ What
is the effect of Scottish devolution on Wales and Northern Ireland?
The result of the Scottish independence referendum and the future of British politics
Paul Cairney, Politics & Public Policy, November 28, 2014
http://paulcairney.wordpress.com/2014/11/28/the-result-of-the-scottish-independence-referendum-and-the-future-of-british-politics/
The Smith Commission on accountability: I don’t think it means what they think it means, Paul Cairney, Politics & Public Policy, November 27, 2014
Other
blog posts argue that the Smith proposals fall far
short of ‘devo max’ or ‘federalism’ and will disappoint people looking for
the extensive devolution
of welfare powers. So, I will focus on its statement on accountability:
“A more accountable and responsible Parliament. Complementing the expansion of
its powers will be a corresponding increase in the Parliament’s accountability
and responsibility for the effects of its decisions and their resulting
benefits or costs”.
This
is very misleading for the following step-by-step reasons:
1. The Scottish Parliament will
ostensibly become responsible for more powers, but Scotland inherited a
Westminster-style system of democratic accountability. The Scottish Parliament
delegates almost all policymaking responsibility to ministers, who are
accountable to the public via Parliament. So, in practice, Scottish ministers
are receiving greater responsibilities.
2. The Scottish Government balances
the Westminster idea of democratic accountability with others, such as
institutional accountability (e.g. the chief executives of agencies take
responsibility for delivery) and shared ownership (e.g. through community
planning partnerships).
3. The Scottish Parliament
struggles to hold ministers to account at the best of times. When the Scottish
Government devolves powers to the wider public sector, the Scottish Parliament
struggles a bit more. The devolution experience is one of limited parliamentary
influence.
4. The Scottish Parliament will not
grow in tandem with growing devolution. Instead, the same number of people will
oversee a growing set of Scottish Government responsibilities.
5. So, all other things being
equal, greater ministerial responsibility will DECREASE
democratic accountability.
In
fact, the Smith Commission recognises this point and recommends a response:
“The
addition of new responsibilities over taxes, welfare and borrowing means that
the Parliament’s oversight of Government will need to be strengthened. I
recommend that the Scottish Parliament’s Presiding Officer continues to build
on her work on parliamentary reform by undertaking an inclusive review which
will produce recommendations to run alongside the timetable for the transfer of
powers”.
This need to
pass the buck is understandable, given the limits to Smith’s remit (the
Commission also makes good noises about the need for public engagement, to help
people understand what the Scottish Parliament does). What is less
understandable is why the commission presents these measures as good for
accountability. What it means is that the ‘Scottish Parliament’ will become
more responsible for raising some of the money it spends – but, as long as it
can only control one small part of a mix of taxes, that argument is misleading
too. Overall, we have a vague and misleading statement, using the language of
greater accountability, but it’s not greater democratic accountability. It’s
the other kind of accountability. The kind where democratic accountability is
further reduced.
The Smith Commission on accountability: I don’t think it means what they think it means
Paul Cairney, Politics & Public Policy, November 27, 2014
Jacobites and Jacobins: the problem with Yes fundamentalism, Promised Joy, Posted: November 29, 2014
I voted Yes. I was sure it was the right thing to do.
It was an article of faith on the Yes side that lots of citizens had journeyed from No to Yes, but no one ever headed in the opposite direction.
Well, more than two months after September 18th, I look around me at what the Yes movement has become. And I think I want out.
[…]
It all seemed so positive at the time. But I’m increasingly concerned that the Scottish public sphere faces a serious threat from authoritarian, sanctimonious Yes fundamentalists.
And that’s the very opposite of what I thought I was voting for.
[…]
[On the SNP]
• identification with the nation, alongside heavy hints that other parties are not identified with the nation;
• the attempt to crowd out other parties as unnecessary to the business of governing Scotland since they know what needs to be done;
• hostility to the neighbouring government, and the attempt to base their own governing legitimacy in their opposition to it;
• mass rallies;
• a romantic air of dewy-eyed defiance.
[…]
[On RIC]
More annoying is the combination of leftist vanguardism and Scottish manifest destiny that has infected supposedly radical conversations since the referendum.
To explain, there is a conviction (that word again) among fundamenalist Yessers that “the 45″ possess a privileged understanding of the direction of history, and that independence is inevitable. Therefore, people who voted against independence are barriers to progress. This is the classic false consciousness trope – those people were wrong and don’t understand what’s good for them.
This sense of being the vanguard of a better future society shaped most of the Radical Independence workshops, and particularly the keynote speeches (with the notable exception of Patrick Harvie, who has retained his objectivity throughout).
The sentimental “we shall overcome” tone is new – no one really spoke like that before the Yes campaign lost. Everyone was at pains to stress how un-nationalist they were. And they were! But suddenly there’s something magical about Scotland that will guide her to independence.
[…]
But far, far worse than any of that was the People’s Vow.
The event climaxed, in what sounds like an all too organismic sense, with the reading of a National Covenant de nos jours.
Where do you start with this? The People’s Vow is a classic piece of vanguard rhetoric. It doesn’t matter if we lost the referendum, it argues – we know better than the voters “who weren’t quite ready this time”. That’s the 2 million voters who weren’t quite ready. That’s a lot of voters. And, ready or not, the People’s Vow dictates terms on equality, land reform and other matters.
Who are these “People”, exactly? Are the people making the vow, or is it made on their behalf? And by whom? And is it also made on behalf of “the 55%” who weren’t quite advanced enough to understand their historical responsibilities?’
[…]
[On the National]
the Herald’s publishers knew that Yes voters would fetishise a Yes paper as “theirs” and mobilise behind it in the post-referendum culture wars.
[…]
And no one on the Yes side sees any contradiction between bemoaning partiality in news coverage, and then launching a Yes propaganda sheet?
[…]
Yes fundamentalists are no longer able to hold political ideas up to objective scrutiny either way. Everything is reduced to the binary independent/ not independent, and Bad Things are blamed on being not independent. Scotland’s nationhood status is, frankly, an insufficient explanation for all political phenomena.
[…]
The Radical Independence conference was in many ways the high water mark of Yes anti-politics in this respect – the “Westminster” parties were routinely booed and the system seen as rigged, while vague programmes of political decentralism were advocated.
[…]
The weeks since the referendum have not been good to the Yes campaign.
Feeling like the bullied, Yes fundamentalists have become the bullies.
Perceiving media bias against them, they have taken solace in media biased in their favour.
Certain that Westminster is undemocratic, they crave unopposed SNP government.
Furious at September’s show of strength by the UK state, they glory in mass rallies and projections of power.
And convinced of their moral authority, they seek to silence any dissenters on social media. […]
Jacobites and Jacobins: the problem with Yes fundamentalism, Promised Joy, Posted: November 29, 2014
https://faintdamnation.wordpress.com/2014/11/29/jacobites-and-jacobins-the-problem-with-yes-fundamentalism/
Scotland, Class and Nation, Alistair Davidson, posted by bellacaledonia on December 7, 2014
Classism is hardly unique to Scotland, but it has a particular national
character, where rejection of Scottish culture and language is often an elite
trait. To Scotland’s reactionaries, the very Scottishness of the working class
is one of the things that marks it as uneducated and unfit to rule, which only
makes the recent upsurge all the more terrifying to them. Of late, Kenneth Roy
is railing against “mobs” one week and
complaining about the SNP “populism” of allowing
anti-social behaviour on trains the next.
David Leask of the Herald described the BBC Bias demonstrations as “fascistic”, on account of
all the flags being waved. One widely-shared article worried that
the SNP is “Jacobin”, and that
RIC’s People’s Vow risks a rerun of the National Covenant. Journalists on
Twitter regularly speculate that Nicola Sturgeon’s biggest challenge is
reigning in the 65,000 new SNP members, the 45ers, who are assumed to be
impatient fundamentalists.
The fear that mass participation will inevitably end in events akin to
the Terror of the French Revolution, perpetrated by the Jacobins, is the
foundation stone of modern conservatism. It was most famously articulated
by Edmund Burke: “some popular
general … shall draw the eyes of all men upon himself … The moment in which
that event shall happen, the person who commands the army is master of your
whole republic.” In one sense Burke was right, in that Napoleon rose to become
Emperor – but he was also wrong, in that the French Republic remains radically
more democratic and decentralised than Britain to this day.
It is this Burkean impulse that explains why even as Scottish democracy
engages people on a massive scale, some activists are panicking about the danger
of one-party rule. It is the curious relationship between nation and class in
Scotland that explains why waving a Saltire creeping fascism to one person and
a clear expression of popular sovereignty to another.
An alternative to Burke’s view is offered by famed American community
organiser Saul Alinsky. In opposition
to both conservatives and leftists who “lay claim to the precious quality of
impartiality, of cold objectivity” he argued that a true radical is someone
who is a “partisan of the people”, who will “identify themselves with the
people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest
and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests.”
Surely, this is the progressive position to take in the new Scotland. I have watched
in amazement as the majority of the community campaign leaders I have met down
the years, often working class mothers who became involved in politics through
local anti-cuts fights, have flocked to first the Yes campaign and now the SNP.
These are intelligent people and often experienced campaigners. On Facebook,
every day, I see people of all backgrounds engaging in policy, economic and
strategy debates, sharing analysis articles and petitions and encouraging each
other to take action. The democracy movement is no-one’s fool.
The much-derided 45 are not “zoomers” as some journalists would have it,
rather they understand something much supposedly informed comment misses – that
nation and class are intertwined, that the nationalist struggle is about much
more than flags, that the Scottish working class will always be held as
inferior and excluded in the British system. They can see that their nation and
their centre-left government are now locked in an existential fight with the
British State.
Mass politics has become such a rarity that it is unnerving for the
elite, who are used to politics as a polite gentleman’s club. In
Scotland, mass politics waves the Saltire, because repression of Scottish
identity and language is a central feature of class rule in Scotland. Mass
politics is raucous, noisy, and angry. It plays by different rules to elite
politics. These features allow it to reach beyond the ideological limits of
neoliberalism. The return of mass politics warts and all should be welcomed by
all progressives, as there is no real democracy without it.
Scotland, Class and Nation, Alistair Davidson, posted by bellacaledonia on December 7, 2014
'Social democracy not separatism', Neil Findlay and Tommy Kane; 'Challenges the left can respond to', John Foster - Scottish Left Review, Issue 83, October 2014
'Social democracy not separatism', Neil Findlay and Tommy Kane
[…] Another campaign feature
was the abandonment by the pro-independence left of its capacity to critically analysis
the SNP, its record in government and its ‘independence’ offer. Strangely, the SNP
gained a reputation for being good at government but this has taken a hit recently
[…]
'Challenges the left can respond to', John Foster
[…] The SNP ran a very
sophisticated campaign. Its White Paper terms for independence were essentially
neo-liberal: EU, sterling, cuts in business taxes, NATO membership and no guarantees
on the removal of anti-trade union laws. Not just that. Its timetable for independence
provided full reassurance for big (and small) business on delivery. All the key
institutions required for neo-liberal continuity would be in place before formal
independence. […]
Scottish Left Review, Issue 83, October 2014
'The Next Step For The RIC', Conor Cheyne, Bellacaledonia, 4 November 2014
[…] When I talk of the
Nat Trap I refer to those being caught up in the Nationalistic mood. It is fantastic
to see so many people still willing to fight for what they believe in and that so
many haven’t been disillusioned with the result but for RIC as a group, we must
be wary of such Nationalism. RIC was founded on the basis of gaining independence
as a means to an end rather than independence as an ends in itself. We want to see
an independent Scotland for democratic reasons and because we see socialism achievable
in Scotland while almost impossible in Britain. However, since the referendum there
has been such a concentration on the independence issue that it seems the real reasons
the group started might be falling by the wayside. As Socialists and others on the
Left we cannot forget that while independence is what we want, we are still living
under the control of right-wing Westminster, facing Austerity along with inequality
and all the other wonderful bonus’ we get for being part of Great Britain. We must
remember that these things too must be fought against. There has been much talk
of devo-max and continuing the fight for independence and while RIC will always
argue for independence, I propose that we now concentrate on other matters. The
SNP have large numbers and will make the argument for Indy/Devo-Max but who is arguing
against Austerity, who is arguing for left-wing politics etc? It must be RIC.
On the face of it the
Radical Independence Campaign are a ragtag grouping of lefties who can only see
Scottish independence as a route to Socialism. But, in reality RIC was arguably
the second biggest group in the Yes movement and possibly the most effective at
gaining votes. What is most astounding about the movement is what it has achieved.
The desired goal was independence as a means to Socialism and even though the referendum
was lost, it still achieved something remarkable. […]
Though it will not be
popular, I believe the Radical Independence Campaign must change its name along
with its form. For one, having independence in the name narrows the perimeters of
debate whether us within RIC like it or not as those we debate with will always
refer to it negatively. Also, the campaign itself is over and we find ourselves
at another stage all together. Campaign also gives connotations of short-term while
RIC has to be the opposite if it is to make a real difference in Scotland. For a
new challenge we must have a new name. […]
'The Next Step For The RIC', Conor Cheyne, Bellacaledonia, 4 November 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)