Independence and Building a Nation

 This article was prompted by trying to process the announcement from Nicola Sturgeon that she was standing down as First Minister of Scotland and SNP Leader. It doesn't have the answers and is a personal view based on my experience as an SNP member, organiser and veteran of the 2012-2014 Independence referendum campaign.  

The problem for the SNP and the independence movement is not necessarily the intransigence of Westminster over consent for a section 30 order and a new independence referendum but actually in continually seeking of a referendum when the answer is always no. As Labour leader Keir Starmer has also backed the no section 30 order mantra the road to independence via a referendum appears narrowed to the point of being unpassable. Increasingly shrill elements of the independence movement attack the SNP, its government and increasingly the First Minister for this impasse. The target should be the Tories and Labours denial of democracy.

The campaign for independence has become the campaign to get a referendum with the hope and vision of an independence prospectus playing second fiddle. Even when that independence vision was talked about it seemed to obsess on things like the currency and independent Scotland would use or split on whether to re-join the EU or apply to EFTA (the latter option is a minority view but a vocal one). By focussing on these issues divisions are created rather than consensus. There is a lack of a forum to create that consensus as the Scottish Independence Convention seemed to go mute after staging a huge meeting in the Edinburgh Usher Hall which should have resulted in the establishment of a means to progress the wider independence campaign. That didn’t happen despite a multiplicity of groups and organisations advocating for an independent Scotland some of which were set up to try and fill that vacuum.

Maybe now is time to put aside obsession with getting a referendum and focus on better governance for Scotland and importantly the furtherance of Scottish interests. That can be seen widely as the Scotland that independence can build but can also be seen in the Scotland that home-rule can build. We’ve seen some of that with the creation of Social Security Scotland and changing the narrative around benefits; it is also evident in the changes to the tax system to redistribute wealth in Scotland. Both come from recently accrued powers from Westminster. Other areas where creating a different Scotland could be realised are in the area of Social Care where though work has started there are contentious issues that need to be resolved and if they can be worked through Scotland can again show that solutions made here in our nation can make Scotland better. Other bold areas could include reform of local government – our councils need autonomy starting with the way they are funded. Empowering local government and trusting them to make good decisions should be the sign of a confident national government. Decentralising decision making should be the watchword and one that could go further within local government itself.

This process of nation building is something that can build confidence towards independence as electors see positive changes that affect their lives. If a good governance can produce tangibly good outcomes with a devolved Parliament then confidence can be built in the ability of an independent Scotland can do even better.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s and into the early terms of the Scottish Parliament the fault line in the SNP was one of gradualist vs fundamentalist. Put simply the gradualist method believe building support and powers in the Scottish Parliament could see all but independence achieved while the fundamentalist line was complete independence achieved in an instant. The misguided 1992 General Election slogan ‘Free by 93’ was fundamentalist hubris and while it raised aspirations at least for those in the SNP it failed miserably at the polls. Instant-ism is not a great political philosophy. The SNP independence strategy in the 1990s (and before) was to win a majority of Westminster seats and then negotiate independence. That changed with the coming of the Scottish Parliament and the SNP adopted a formal policy of holding a referendum on independence following an election victory. That strategy was one of gradualism. Voters could vote for the SNP in an election without committing to supporting independence. As a political strategy it worked - SNP support rose to the point where after winning the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections the UK Government recognised the legitimacy of the call for a referendum and permission was granted. If there was a flaw in the SNP policy it was that there was no right for the Scottish Parliament to call a referendum again without asking for permission from the UK Government. More recently an independence referendum has been seen almost as an article of faith for the independence movement. The IndyRef2 syndrome that needed a date before serious campaigning could start. At times it felt like a referendum was needed even if the outcome was rejection.

There is a real danger that if another independence referendum is lost the independence project will be derailed indefinitely. You only need to look at present day Quebec to see a becalmed independence movement. The Quebec sovereigntist feeling still exists – indeed three of the parties elected to the National Assembly would call themselves sovereigntists and currently they are in the majority but talk of a fresh referendum on Quebec independence is muted. In the most recent parliamentary by-election the Quebec Liberals attacked Quebec Solidaire for having members who support a fresh referendum. The latter won the by-election but there is so far no re-ignition of the sovereignty debate.

We are in an uncertain time for our own independence movement. We are dealing with a UK Tory government that practises a muscular unionism to interfere in Scotland. They have made it clear that a referendum will not be permitted and Labour as putative government in waiting echo that.

Some argue that there is a glimmer of hope in Gordon Brown's 'Commission on the UK's Future' and it's talk of strengthening Scotland's economic powers though it is all couched in terms of co-operation and mutual benefit so may not offer the autonomy Scotland needs over various matters such as increased control of welfare or immigration to name two. If Labour do win the next UK General Election the SNP should hold them to deliver on the recommendations as they affect Scotland and push for further devolution. The question for Labour is how much they are willing to give. The other side of that may be based on whether they make any inroads in terms of winning seats from the SNP in Scotland. Though even if they do win more seats there is no evidence that a Devo-Max Labour exists anymore. 

That is why it is important to have strong and cohesive SNP group of MPs at Westminster and it will be as important if not even more so if and when Labour takes over from the Conservatives. It is therefore important that we do not lose what we've built and work now to empower a new case for independence. The responsibility for getting that out to the public will be with the grassroots of the party - no more waiting for the starting gun to be fired or a date to be set. The case for the powerful government that independence can deliver needs to be communicated door to door. It is those conversations that will identify both the appetite for independence and the issues that actually concern voters so that they can be addressed. If as a party the SNP can make progress on that surely the wider independence movement will shake off the cobwebs and get out there with their vision of an independent Scotland as well. There were many strands in the 2014 independence campaign and there is a need to energise that multiplicity again.  

The new SNP leader will have to grapple with these issues and chart a way forward that builds on what autonomy Scotland has, seeks to further that autonomy, stands up for Scotland's interests and watches the political weather for the opportunity to get to independence. 

Stifled? 'A Happy New Year for Democracy'

A Labour party member recently told me that the Scottish Labour Party has never had an internal debate or discussion on the independence question. The line - anti-independence - had merely been established by the leadership and imposed locally. It is assumed all members will support the ‘Better Together’ campaign and pitch up to leaflet when they are told. Local discussion on the matter in branches is frowned upon if not entirely extinguished.

You could say ‘what do they expect?’ however like many on the left but not in the Labour party some Labour members might actually prefer independence to the union. Like many on the left they may feel that breaking the mould of ‘British’ politics is not just the way to build the progressive society they want in Scotland but also a means to awaken radical democratic change in England too.

Machine politics has stifled this home rule thread of Scottish Labour thought. Much has been made of people like Charles Gray, Alex Mosson and John Mulvey joining the YES campaign. All former local government leadership figures now retired and pointing the way to independence. Where are the current Labour politicians espousing independence and a YES vote? In the main they are cowed and careful. Some no doubt quietly threatened with deselection keep the head down. The exception was former Labour Councillor Alex Lunn in Edinburgh but he found he couldn’t campaign for independence from the Labour benches and jumped ship to the SNP.

You could say this is all conspiracy and Labour is a democratic organisation that lauds free-speech. Maybe it is but it doesn’t look like that from the outside and from testimony isn’t like that internally particularly when it comes to Scottish Independence.

So it was a brave man in Dave Pickering erstwhile reporter with the North Edinburgh News a community newspaper serving Granton Pilton Muirhouse & Drylaw when he posted an article on their website on the 12 January ‘A Happy New Year for Democracy’ where he articulated his reasons for supporting a YES vote. The article is brave and honest and reflected what a lot of Labour and ex-Labour voters have to say about their party, parliamentary politics and the opportunities of independence. The article promptly disappeared later that day and it seems along with it the North Edinburgh News twitter account - searching for @northednews_NEN brings an internal server message. Tweets to the author and the Chair of the board of the North Edinburgh News, Martin Hinds (also Chair of Edinburgh Labour's Campaign Forum) have so far gone unanswered. The article has been found cached here. 

The sad thing is that I know Dave Pickering from my time as a Councillor and he always seemed like a fair guy a Labour stalwart sure but nothing wrong with that. Maybe he had second thoughts, maybe he was asked to think again. Whatever the story is and I sincerely hope we find out what it is the article is testament to generations of Labour members and indeed Scots who see in the independence referendum a route to a new Scotland. A Scotland that chimes with the ideals they hold close.

Update: since the post above was published Dave Pickering's article has been republished on www.wingsoverscotland.com Really glad the article has appeared again.

A rebirth of Scottish Radicalism?

On the 24th November 2012 the inaugural 'Radical Independence Conference' was held in the Radisson Blu Hotel in Glasgow. It brought together various strands of radicalism from across Scotland with 800 people booking tickets for the event.

The campaign for Scottish Independence has been more or less the domain of the Scottish National Party. True the Scottish Socialist Party and the Scottish Greens have occupied that territory too along with others like independent MSP Margo MacDonald. But by and large the monopoly on the independence franchise has been held securely by the SNP.

It seems though that the Independence referendum and the broad based Yes Scotland campaign has opened the door to new interpretations of the independence sang. The Greens re-examined their support for independence at their recent conference before swinging four-square behind the Yes campaign. They rightly saw the huge opportunity for a new and radical future for Scotland that independence offers. Others have followed suit and many roads led to Glasgow and the Radical Independence Conference on Saturday.

I arrived at Edinburgh's Waverley station to travel through by train and met up with the SSP's Colin Fox and a couple of his friends. We boarded the train where we met  George Kerevan, Scotsman columnist and former International Marxist. George had written a pre-conference 'manifesto' which set out his stall with some radical suggestions for a future Scotland. It made for lively discussion on the way through on the economy, Scottish newspapers, Spanish politics and the Catalan elections. It set the scene for the day in a way. The only thing that was missing on the journey through was the youthfulness of many of the delegates that became apparent when we arrived.

Who was there? Well in some ways it was a case of who wasn't there. They ranged from veterans of the independence struggle to student campaigners through environmental campaigners, feminists, disability rights activists, housing campaigners, anti-racists, community activists, international socialists of all stripes and a cross section of the left green radical commentariat.  Also present was an impressive range of international guests from campaigns in France, Greece, Quebec, the Basque country and Palestine.

Where does it go? Links have been made, barriers broken down, alliances and coalitions have been formed. All of these people from a very wide spectrum of 'radical Scotland' came together, they discussed, they listened, they exchanged views, debated ideas and they want to continue the dialogue and match it with action. It was quite a feat to get such a wide section of the radical left together in one place and that they are rallied around the hope for radical change offered by the Independence Referendum.

It was, I believe, significant not least in having gathered together such a large attendance of people looking for change and the chance to build a new Scotland steering a course away from business as usual and towards a Scotland that is greener, fairer, more democratic and egalitarian. It is also significant that Alex Salmond sent a message of support and that former SNP MSP Jean Urquhart gently stressed that the referendum conference would not be happening at all if it were not for the success of the SNP and the First Minister in getting us this far.

There has already been much written on the event and its aftermath had you can read more via these commentators,

Pat Kane

George Kevevan

Robin McAlpine

Colin Fox

Gregor Gall

Lesley Riddoch

National Collective

Aidan Kerr

Plaid Wrecsam

James Maxwell

Let your 'Yes' be YES!

Now that the Scottish Government have made clear their preferred referendum question "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"  there have been cries of 'foul' from the no campaign 'Better Together'. 
Seemingly the use of the phrase 'do you agree' is a trick and voters will find it difficult to vote no in the referendum. I have to say I never knew it would be so easy to win the Independence Referendum! I am also surprised that people could fail to to understand such a straightforward question and accidentally vote 'Yes' when that is not their intention. According to head honcho of the 'Better Together' campaign Alastair Darling MP the SNP have rigged the referendum. Gosh are people that lacking in intelligence Alastair? Are people who don't want Scotland to be independent really going to vote 'Yes' when presented with the question "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?" 
Obviously I am campaigning for a 'Yes' vote and a 'Yes' victory so it could be levelled at me that I would support the question as it is wouldn't I? Yes I would because I put more faith in the voters basic intelligence to know whether they agree or disagree with the question. It is simple and easily digested.
In way of contrast here's what the good voters of Quebec were presented with at their two referendums on Quebec sovereignty or independence. 

1980 : "The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?"   

&

1995 : Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?.

These two questions are neither clear nor that easy to understand. Both require a background paper (I've provided a link to wikipedia for the bill and agreement from 1995). But it was the shorter of the two that came closest to winning. In 1980 the result was 59% No against 40% Yes and in 1995 Quebeckers ran the vote much closer 50.5% No to 49.4% Yes.

Whatever the final question is on Scottish Independence my 'Yes' will be 'Yes'. 

Note: The Electoral Commission's consultation on the referendum question closes on 30 November. Details here. 

Can the Scottish Independence Referendum refresh the parts other political campaigns can’t reach?

The long haul of campaigning has begun in the Scottish Independence referendum. The YES campaign will be holding street stalls throughout Scotland over the coming weekend asking people to sign the YES Declaration. Alasdair Darling ups the negative anti of the No campaign (ok,ok I know it’s not ‘called’ the No campaign but the allegedly cuddly Better Together) by criticising the SNP currency union position.

The question though that interests me is, putting aside the political personalities at the head of each campaign, how will the debate and campaign reach out to the wider public? Will it reach those parts of the electorate that generally do not participate in the regular electoral process? And if it does will it refresh the parts other political campaigns can't reach?

The SNP cite evidence from the Quebec referendum to show turnout (1995 94%, 1980 85%) for that plebiscite was considerably higher than what was normal for both Quebec provincial (56.5% in 2008 Provincial elections) or Canadian Federal elections (Quebec 73% in 1997 Federal General Election). That suggests that the referendum campaigns both for and against motivated Quebeckers not normally engaged in politics. As an aside it suggests that people can engage with a constitutional question more easily than with a choice based on policy options put forward by differing political parties.

What form will that campaign to engage, communicate and motivate the usually vote shy electorate take? The SNP successfully used their Activate voter identification system to win a historic majority in 2011 and the YES Campaign uses the appropriately named NationBuilder.com platform to build a database of supporters, volunteers and funders. Lessons have been learned from US political campaigns from Howard Dean to Barack Obama.  The No campaigners are to use another US developed online campaign platform - Blue State Digital - to build their campaign.

In this digital age with print media – newspapers – declining daily in their influence and reach online campaigning is the way to go particularly to engage with the mass of voters. However there are the digitally excluded and this is where it is likely to get interesting. With the YES campaign already embarking on a series of ‘street-stalls’ across our communities from Portsoy to Chesser (there were stalls at both the Leith Gala and the Meadows Festival) this essential face-to-face engagement has started. I’m sure that at these stalls people will pitch up sign the declaration and then tell campaigners that they have not voted before ever. They will be the tip of the iceberg. Behind them will be the 50% or so who habitually don’t vote and not necessarily for any political reason.  They just don’t vote. They may sign up as a supporter of the Yes or the No campaigns but will they actually vote when 14 October 2014 comes round? The answer to this is unknown and will to some extent rely on two things 1) The media campaign and how that penetrates the world view of those generally disengaged citizens 2) The quality of the engagement and communication that the campaigns extend to individual citizens and in particular hard to motivate citizens and communities.

Now political anoraks who are signed up to the ‘scientific’ campaign model will know that political parties maintain campaign databases that tell them not only voting intentions gleaned from door to door and telephone canvassing along with survey returns but also who has voted in particular elections (note: but not how they voted). Through use of all this data targeting of campaigning is developed and used often with success. One concern that I’ve always had, while understanding the power and efficacy of targeting messages and resources, is that habitual non-voters are often excluded from campaigns and therefore part of the political process. It then becomes an electoral and participative vicious circle. Apart from a mass leaflet (and sometimes they won’t even get them!) these electors are largely excluded from campaigns. They are unlikely to ever see a political canvasser or candidate at their door as they are seen as hard work to engage and motivate. Political parties focus more attention on voters and areas where citizens are more attentive to their ‘democratic duty’. 

While to some extent it is almost understandable that political parties act in such a manner when campaigning – they generally have limited finance for local campaigns (and there are limits on election spending which is a factor in campaign strategies) along with that they have only so many activists to get out there on the doors.

The kind of campaigning that could and should develop as we see the referendum campaign roll out has the opportunity to break out of the norms of electoral campaigning logic. As stated above the appearance of YES campaign ‘street stalls’ could be an early indication of that. Their purpose of recruiting supporters and opening dialogue with citizens on the issue is reminiscent of the Anti-Poll-Tax stalls I cut my political teeth on – while those had an aim in gathering signatures of those opposing the tax they also formed a bridge between the political activist and the citizen in opening a dialogue and from that engagement.  Similar activity and engagement occurred during the 1997 YES/YES campaign for a Scottish Parliament. However the turnout in that referendum was not high, suggesting that the political parties did not really move out of their usual campaigning modes.  I do remember as part of the local cross party Scotland Forward group a Labour activist declaring that they would struggle to work Granton and Pilton and could the SNP help out there. Needless to say Labour managed Trinity and Broughton. I have no criticism of Labour over this admission but it serves of an illustration of how some areas can become excluded. 

Another issue to be tackled by the campaigners will be pockets of residents not registered for the vote. There has been a growing trend in non-registration in recent years and it is unclear whether steps like individual registration will make any change in this trend – my view is that it won’t.  

What plans beyond ‘street stalls’ do campaigners have to reach out into communities dominated by the disengaged? Will these electors become engaged in this campaign? Will they cast their vote in 2014 one way or another? Will there be a surge in registration of voters?  These are challenges to the campaigns on both sides of the argument to show that on this issue, which both sides agree is important and will change Scotland forever, they have the will and ability to reach out, engage with and motivate this section of the public. There could be a bonus for the body politic if they do.

Rob Munn has been a political activist since 1986 (do the maths!), a candidate in Council and Parlaimentary campaigns, a campaign organiser and has been a Councillor for Leith 1996-2003 & 2007-2012.