Herald letter: Ballots and UDI.

YOUR correspondent Alistair Galloway (Letters, May 11) suggests that the SNP should seek a mandate for UDI in future manifestos. Your readers might like to consider the following example of what happens when you take people’s votes away, as he suggests.

When the National Union of Mineworkers was set up following the post-war Labour Government’s nationalisation of the coal industry, it was decided that never again would the miners go into national strike divided. To prevent this, it was decided that there would be popular vote in form of a mandatory pithead ballot on any proposal for a national coal strike. This process resulted in the successful strikes of the early 1970s under Joe Gormley.

However, when Mr Gormley’s successor Arthur Scargill proposed national strikes to the membership, he was defeated. His response was to change the NUM constitution so that a national strike could be called by a delegate conference, and in due course he secured the strike that he wanted through such a conference. As a result, the union was divided, the miners’ strike of 1984-85 did not hold and was defeated, pit closures accelerated and deep mining is now extinct as a major industry. Possibly worst of all, many mining communities were bitterly divided and remain so in the memories of all concerned.

Scotland has been bitterly divided too, by the 2014 referendum and its continuing aftermath, in which the First Minister and her Government perversely fail to represent the two million Scots who voted to stay in the UK. It is not hard to imagine the outcome if those two million were to be betrayed and led into UDI, having cast their ballots in good faith that their vote in 2014 was decisive and would settle the issue of independence for a generation.

Mr Galloway has made it clear on many occasions that he supports independence at any price. For most people, however, I hope that it is more important to put Scotland back together again in honouring the outcome of 2014 than in promoting further – and potentially catastrophic – division and bitterness.

Peter A Russell

Advertisements

Herald letter: Nationalists Re-writing history (still).

YOUR correspondents (Letters, April 11 & 12) cannot be allowed to get away with rewriting history.

It is simply not the case that “once in a generation” was a throw-away comment by Alex Salmond. It was stated in the Scottish Government’s White Paper and in the information booklet issued to every household by the Electoral Commission.

Likewise, the Vow of 2014 comprised the following pledges: more powers for Holyrood, protection of Barnett, and the permanent status in statute of the Scottish Parliament. All of these have been delivered.

However, in the latter case, I agree the best way of achieving greater safeguarding of Holyrood would be a formal written constitution. As an ancient Charter 88 signatory, I would welcome this, especially as the necessary counterweight to permanent legal protection to devolution would be permanent legal protection for the Union.

Herald letter: the SNP’s word is worthless.

THE acreage of replies (Letters, April 7 & 9) to my simple request for pragmatic compromise (Letters, April 6) makes further comment on the subject of devolution feel a bit like intruding on the private grief of the SNP. However, it must be pointed out that the timing of any further independence referendum is not – as your headline (April 9) says – solely in hands of the Scottish Parliament, as it would be subject to the agreement of Scotland’s UK Parliament, into whose hands the task of defending the democratic decision voted for by two million Scots has fallen.

Moreover, the SNP Scottish Government, when it concluded the Edinburgh Agreement, agreed that the 2014 referendum would be decisive (and subsequently defined that as meaning “once in a generation” on several occasions), but has continued to agitate for a further referendum since the day after the last one. Likewise, the same Agreement included a commitment “to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom”. How the divisive and destructive antics of the SNP are designed to meet this commitment is anyone’s guess.

In short, the SNP has shown in breaking the Edinburgh Agreement on multiple occasions that its word is worthless. It is hard to see why Scotland’s UK government should ever trust it again. And if there is no agreement, there will be no referendum.

Peter A Russell

Herald letter: Compromise Is Best Solution.

YOUR correspondent Peter Curran (Letters, April 5) rightly points out that the Tory Party opposed devolution for many years, but curiously omits to mention that the SNP held the exactly the same view until an 11th-hour conversion between the 1997 General Election and the 1998 referendum. Maybe this is because he wishes to disguise the fact that many of those who were present at the demonstration he describes are Scottish Nationalists who get up every day with the intention of destroying devolution by replacing it with independence.

In contrast, some of us see devolution not as a second-best, or as a stepping-stone to independence (and ruin) but as a practical way of keeping the best of the both worlds – Scottish governance of Scottish issues, backed by the shared resources of the UK. In doing so, there is considerable merit in taking time to determine the allocation of powers repatriated from Brussels and to take decisions on what is likely to work best.

For example, no-one would want a situation where Welsh hill farmers could undercut Scottish sheepmeat prices, or where Northern Irish chicken farmers could undercut Scottish eggs due to unfair subsidies from their own Assemblies. The question is whether a mechanism of devolved administrations plus the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can be devised, or whether regulation should be retained at Westminster, where it would be accountable to MPs of all parts of the UK.

The current devolution settlement is a monument to pragmatism and compromise: it would be wholly within that spirit to take time and to bring a bit of give and take to the current argument. Instead of “Holyrood Good (although we opposed it most of our lives), Westminster Bad,” it would be reasonable to come to a rational compromise for the mutual benefit of all.

Peter A Russell

Blog: Imagine – a new counterfactual.

Imagine there’s no countries…

Well that is going a bit far, but imagine that there was once a proposal that one country should split back into at least two of its constituent parts after a union of over 300 years. Those making the proposal had been duly elected with mandate to hold a referendum to that effect, and were give free rein to do so, including choosing the question, the timing and the electorate. That referendum was held and despite the idealistic Yes campaign making the most noise, the sceptical No campaign won the day.

(There is of course no imagination at all required in this case: it is recorded history that the largest ever vote for anything ever in the history of Scotland was recorded for the No side in September 2014. But what comes next does require imagination.)

But imagine that following the declaration, the First Minister responsible announced his resignation but made two statements. The first was that as the proposal for independence had been defeated, it was incumbent on his successor to consider whether it was in the best interests of the country to continue to try to pursue it as an objective. Secondly, he reminded his successor (whoever that might be) that in the event of a Yes vote, he had intended to bring together all parties to seek united and creative ways forward. He suggested that the same process should take place to rebuild unity and harmony which had been disrupted by a bitter and divisive referendum campaign.

The governing party duly elected a new leader, but only after a lot of soul-searching amongst its two candidates and their respective factions.

On the one side were the realists (or ‘Realos’) who acknowledged defeat and pointed out that their party had signed up to the referendum being decisive and that they would work for the best future whatever the outcome. On the other side were the fundamentalists (‘Fundis’) who insisted that the referendum had only been the first step in a longer campaign and that it had been won by No due to a mixture of scaremongering, chicanery and electoral fraud on the part of the No campaign.

When the governing party met for the announcement of its new leader, the outcome was still uncertain, and it was clear that the whoever won would have a hard job uniting the members, now hardened into its Realo and Fundi camps. Debate was passionate but knowledgeable, and boiled down to two opposing propositions: was it the job of the party to serve the country as a whole (as the Realos contended)? Or was it to defy the voters and instead to carry on pursuing independence indefinitely?

The independent scrutineer announced the result of the leadership ballot – the Realo candidate had won by 55% to 45% – the same as the outcome of the failed referendum. This provided her with the perfect opening to her acceptance speech:

Friends, colleagues, fellow Nationalists. Thank you for electing me. But I am aware that there will be many who do not welcome this outcome. I sympathise with you and feel your pain – we were all part of that 45% that suffered deeper disappointment.

But look, we are still here: defeated in a cause in which we have invested so much: our time, our hearts, our lives. But since we lost the referendum, I have learnt a profound and powerful lesson which I hope I can pass on to you.

I have looked at our country and seen what the referendum did to it: the divisions between friends and neighbours, the families split, the growth of a new sectarianism, where the question is no longer “which school did you go to?” but “were you Yes or No?” I have also seen that while there is uncertainty caused by the threat of a further independence bid, investment is falling in our economy, with effects on productivity and in turn on employment.

Therefore I am going to take the following steps.

First, I will convene the all-party group promised by predecessor. Its specific remit will be to unite the country behind the outcome of the referendum.

Secondly, I will make the first item on the agenda of the group a proposal for a Government of National Unity, proving that goodwill is not the monopoly of any faction or party in this country. And as a token of our goodwill, I will accept the invitation of the leader of the opposition to develop a bipartisan policy on National Health Service, taking it out of the political realm so real solutions for the long term can be developed.

Finally, and I know this will hurt some, I will suspend Article 2a of our constitution for a period of 25 years. This of course commits us to independence. The 25 years of course refers to our own definition of the referendum- [emphasis] OUR OWN definition – as Once In A Generation which we repeated so frequently in our campaign. But please note also that I am not proposing deletion of that clause.

In the meantime, I will be setting up a working group under my deputy’s leadership to set out a fully timetabled and costed strategy to prepare a case for independence for the next generation.

Colleagues, one of the things which I have realised in the wake of our defeat was this: our economic case was not strong enough, our currency plan was an Achilles Heel, and our opponents were right to call us out on the issues which most affect the most needy in society, notably spending on public services and pensions. We need a radical rethink, we need our own Once In A Generation transformation. We need to get real and never again to offer a proposition to our people which is based on wishful thinking and half-truths.

And I have learned more in that same self-reflection.

I have learned that those who opposed us in the referendum did so with just the same love of this country as we did: it is just they saw things in a different way. They want the same good society that we do, and the same freedoms and the same success for our nation, but they saw that they might be better achieved in a continuing union.

And crucially, it turns out, they knew our people better then we did. I know that it is hard to stomach, and I had some problem doing so. But it is a truth we must face.

What is more, I stand before you today having been a member of our party all my adult life. What I tell you is that if I can swallow this bitter medicine, so can you. Our country needs us far more as positive and engaged citizens than it does as a bitter remnant of past battles, forever crying into our our beer, wallowing in the indignation of defeat rather than addressing the challenges of the new reality we face.

This is of course all fantasy: in the event, Alex Salmond announced that “the dream would never die” and within days appeared on national television effectively firing the starting gun for the next referendum.

There was and is no Realo faction in the SNP, which comprises solely of fundamentalists, and its leadership was inherited by Nicola Sturgeon, who far from challenging her fanatical supporters indulged them with a 12,000-strong party rally where they waved giant foam hands and sang sentimental songs about ancient wars. She also rejected Johann Lamont’s proposal for a bipartisan approach to the Scottish NHS.

So what’s the point of all this?

To show that things didn’t have be this way and that the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon passed up the chance to reunite Scotland with a fresh start after the referendum. Instead of which they are to blame for persistent and increasingly bitter division, seemingly without end.

And the reason is the lack of leadership and the small vision of a better Scotland that grips the SNP and its leadership, which puts its own interest above that of Scotland and the UK, in contravention of its commitments in the Edinburgh Agreement, specifically set out in S.30 of its Memorandum of Understanding:
“ The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.”

This was the better way to go. But now we can only imagine.

(But I still hope I’m not the only one.)

Herald letter: Scottish Nationalism & Anti-England sentiment (continued)

THE replies (March 22) to Alex Gallagher’s letter of March 21 regarding anti-England sentiment as an ingredient of Scottish Nationalism are an education in themselves, notably a perfect example of “some of my best friends are…’”and, as a bonus, a quite chilling reprise of Winnie Ewing’s Thatcheresque “enemy within” rhetoric.

It is quite easy to imagine the aftermath if the Brexit referendum had turned out differently: those supporters of the SNP who support EU membership would have said “thank god for that, the EU is not perfect, but we have to live with it and seek to change it from within.”. In contrast, in the identical case of the status quo having been confirmed in the case of Scotland’s referendum in 2014, they never stop their peevish and contrived complaining and noisome agitation for a re-run.

Those of us who disagree with Scottish nationalism simply wish for the outcome of the democratic vote taken freely by Scots to be respected and accepted in the same way, and for a political environment which is focused on improving the lives of Scots and English, Welsh and Northern Irish people alike, where we work and debate together to build a better UK from within. Scottish Nationalists, however, insist on driving whatever wedge they can between us, forever putting their own narrow political interest above the greater good. Their attitude towards England is an integral part of the same divisive and debilitating whole, no matter how much they try to excuse it or explain it away.

Peter A Russell

Herald letter: The Nationalist Mask Slips.

BBC’s Question Time is not what it used to be in the time of Sir Robin Day, or even Peter Sissons, but it still has the ability to produce some illuminating insights. Good examples are the “muddle not a fiddle” assertion of the hapless Henry McLeish and the hilarious silence of one of the SNP’s top brains, Joanna Cherry MP, when asked the simple question “what currency would an independent Scotland use?” (We are of course still waiting for an answer to that question, from Ms Cherry or anyone else at all.)

The latest edition (March 15) provided another such moment. The wealthy expatriate actor Brian Cox was asked by an audience member why he was pleading for political unity across the EU when he was committed to destroying that same unity with the rest of the UK. His answer was: “leaving England is a different thing.” In other words, to Mr Cox, England is such an exceptionally bad place that it is a uniquely unsuitable partner for Scotland, unlike France, Bulgaria, Croatia, Malta or any other country he can think of.

SNP politicians like Nicola “My granny came from Sunderland” Sturgeon or English-born Michael Russell may claim it is not the case, but the mask has slipped. They can say “some of my best friends are…” as much as they like, but we can see exactly what drives the nationalism of the likes of Mr Cox.

Peter A Russell,