The Year of the Union Jack Mug

One of the things that struck me when I took my seat at my first City of Edinburgh Council meeting in 2019 was the display of Union Jack mugs on the Labour benches. Two senior Labour Councillors had  Union Jack mugs to the fore Cllr Cammy Day the Labour Group leader and sometime vice-convener of something Cllr Lezley Marion Cameron.  It seemed odd and might more readily have been expected on the Tory benches. The SNP councillors did not turn up with Saltire mugs. Since I'd left the council in 2012 the Independence referendum had happened and Labour had been an enthusiastic member of 'Better Together'.

Wrapping yourself in any flag - Union Jack or Saltire was not something I was familiar with in the City Chambers over my time there. Until 2019.

Labour were at that time in coalition with the SNP and had been since 2012. By 2019 they were the junior party. The SNP were the lead party in the coalition by dint of getting more councillors elected. Between 2012 and 2019 there had, of course, been the Independence Referendum. During the referendum period Scottish Labour had effectively silenced any of their members who showed sympathies to the independence cause. By 2019 the tensions between the SNP and the Labour groups that were almost wholly based on the constitution. 

After the 2022 elections when again the SNP elected the most councillors there was some speculation that a coalition could be formed again with Labour though because of numbers it might include the Greens as well. Meanwhile away from the council chambers the Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar was giving interviews where he kept saying that Labour would not enter coalitions with any party. He meant primarily the SNP. The Edinburgh Labour group went along with that and despite having a group of only 13 councillors emerged as the party running the council. How did that happen when the breakdown was 19 SNP, 13 Labour, 9 Conservative, 12 LibDem, 10 Green and Labour did not enter any formal coalition? Simple if you are Labour do a background deal with the Conservatives and the LibDems that sees those parties gain convenor and vice-convenorships (some specially created). Of course Labour protested their innocence saying they'd done no deals. The Conservatives and the LibDems mumbled and looked the other way and hey presto Labour became the party in power. The Union Jack mugs had triumphed and for the first time Edinburgh has an administration based on the constitutional question and not on good governance of the city.

There were two newly elected Labour councillors who refused to back the deal and were promptly suspended from the group with one eventually leaving to sit as an independent. Other strange things happened with the new Transport Convenor saying he would only be in post until October when he'd be replaced by someone better placed to take that remit forward. He's still there. Who his mystery replacement was I guess we'll never know. 

There was some speculation that Labour's tenure would be short but the numbers remain in their favour generally though from time to time they lose out.

The Budget would be the big test and that is exactly what it turned out to be. Labour seemed to have crafted a motion that would allow some asks of the the other groups, particularly the Conservatives and LibDems, to be incorporated to get their budget passed. It didn't turn out that way. Labour's motion was voted down thanks to some tactical voting by some Green councillors and the erstwhile Labour councillor (who resigned from the Labour party during the meeting). Labour had a choice and chose to support the LibDem budget voting it through along with the Conservatives. The progressive and visionary SNP/Green budget was cast aside. There was a problem for Labour though - the LibDem budget that they'd voted for contained causes to end compulsory redundancies and seek to outsource council services starting with waste services. What did Labour have to say about that? Their Leader, the Council Leader, Cammy Day said he'd not read the LibDem budget motion! All would be well though they just wouldn't do those things. Labour had officially lost a member during the budget meeting and now had the same number of councillors as the LibDems whose budget had just passed and who were expected to easily win a by-election in Corstorphine Murrayfield putting them one ahead of Labour. Would the LibDems try to take over? They'd doubled the size of their group at the 2022 Council elections and were expected to gain a new councillor in a few weeks so why not pounce and take control of their budget and the council? They looked the other way again. Perhaps the new 'Better Together' arrangement is too fraught and distrustful for a switch to happen at least for now? 

Time will tell but from the outside it looks like this coalition which insists it is not a coalition will trundle on Union Jack mugs held high. There could be a couple more by-elections that could cause problems for Labour especially if they lost them to the SNP or Greens. There's always the possibility of a defection too as socialist Labour members become increasingly disenchanted with Keir Starmer's Labour. As I wrote this news broke that former Labour councillor Nick Gardner had joined the Greens. I don't know how fresh those Union Jack mugs are but they could be looking mighty tired by this time next year. 

Postscript: Full Council on 4 May marked a year since the last elections and the SNP attempted to remove the Labour leader and the Convenors/Vice-Convenors. It failed because the Union Jack coalition held - great thing giving senior roles to parties you 'are not in coalition' with isn't it? 

 Rob Munn was SNP Councillor for the Leith Walk ward 2019-2022

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. 

Losing an Election is not as simple as A,B,C

 In May I stood for re-election to the City of Edinburgh Council. I didn't make the cut for the fourth seat in the multi-member Leith Walk ward. These are my thoughts on that result and how it came about.

Elections are complex events with none more so than Scottish Council elections using single transferable vote to elect 3 or 4 councillors per ward.

As a recent unsuccessful candidate, I perhaps have more to complain about. I ran in a 4 member ward as one of two SNP candidates. It was a ward where the SNP had successfully achieved the goal of electing two councillors at the previous elections in 2017. There is strong SNP support in the ward that would indicate that two SNP candidates could be elected. We also had two active and responsive incumbent councillors standing for re-election. It should have been a forgone conclusion, but it wasn’t.

I missed out at the final stage when a wave of transfers from the unsuccessful Conservative candidate swept the LibDem candidate to success, winning the fourth seat.

What were the reasons for my loss? The easy answer would be to just blame the alphabet. I’ve featured in two newspaper articles that have followed that line. The second article included quotes from me which backed up the hypothesis that the alphabet was to blame. Taking that line makes me sound a bitter loser and downgrades the quality of my running mate Amy McNeese-Mechan who thoroughly deserves her seat on the Council based on the work she has done for the Leith Walk ward since her election in 2017. I did outline to the journalist the other factors that came into play but his starting point was the alphabet and I guess the other significant factors were seen as peripheral and therefore unimportant. 

So what were the other factors that affected the outcome?

The SNP have recently taken the highest share of first preference votes in the Leith Walk ward with the Greens not too far behind making those two parties the dominant players in the ward elections. They are most likely to get their candidates successfully elected. The Greens got their candidate Susan Rae elected comfortably at the first stage and I benefitted from transfers. Amy McNeese-Mechan was also elected at the first stage and again I benefitted from transfers. These transfers put me back into play pushing me into fourth place. I remained there until the wave of Conservative transfers secured the fourth seat for the LibDem candidate.

While any comparison of the 2022 result with the 2017 result does show that the alphabet bias was more pronounced this time around the reasons are likely to be a complex mix of factors.

If it wasn’t entirely down to the alphabet, then what were the other factors? The messaging of the campaign is important – did our campaign get the ‘how to vote for an SNP team’ message out clearly to our supporters and those inclined to vote SNP? How strong was the appeal for second preferences? Did we have right mix of leaflets and letters to communicate that message effectively? Did we get the ward split wrong for this election? A different ratio or split may have worked better. Did our vote share hold up? There was a drop of 5.37% in the SNP share in Leith Walk this time which could be as a result of the quality of our campaign, weariness of voters especially with a major infrastructure project Edinburgh Trams running through the heart of the ward, even the number of candidates standing - there were 12 the second highest in the city. The drop in vote share will have deflated the votes for both of our candidates and is significant as the lower the overall vote share the less likely getting two candidates elected becomes. The drop in vote share may well have been the key factor as had the SNP vote share maintained 2017 levels it is possible that my first preference total may have been above the LibDem candidate  and my running mate would have had more transfers to share with me. Could the sequence of candidates being elected or excluded have changed to result? Maybe, certainly the Conservative transfers to LibDem proved decisive.  A higher turnout may (there was a 3.1% drop in turnout in the ward in 2022)  have given more helpful transfers from Green and SNP voters that would have pushed me across the line. In the end STV multi-member elections come down to percentages and shares of percentages. You can follow the result here (thanks to Indylive and Democracy Club).

In the end I was just not successful in my bid to be re-elected. There is risk in every election, and it is a risk every candidate must bear. I accept the outcome. I wish all of the successfully elected councillors for Leith Walk the very best for the next five years representing a varied and busy ward.

2022 full results https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/15127/ward-12-leith-walk-2022-election-results

Ballot Box Scotland published their breakdown here https://ballotbox.scot/le22/edinburgh#ward12

Lessons for the SNP - a response

This post is in response to an article in the Daily Record by Gerry Hassan. I've always found Gerry provocative and he was certainly that in his article. I felt there were some holes in his analysis and seek to address his points in this post. Helpfully the original article was structured as 11 points and a summary - I've used his original text as the template for my responses.

1. A week ago, Sturgeon said the election gave her “a clear and unequivocal mandate”. That’s not accurate and sets the wrong tone when the public have just elected a minority SNP administration.

The SNP are the clear winners of the election - in terms of seats won, constituencies won, votes won. The result may be a minority government as the SNP is two seats short of a majority but that may not be what the electorate wished for rather the result that the system of proportional representation produced.
 

2. There is now an established pattern emerging of SNP over-reach seen in the three peaks of the referendum, the 2015 general election and this year’s elections.

The SNP don’t seem to know how to deal with huge success (last year), slight reverses (this year) and major reverses (referendum). That’s a worrying pattern.

I don't think this evidences a pattern other that differing results to different questions or choices at elections and a referendum. I wouldn't say that's a pattern. Over-reach is not explained - is over-reach something the SNP created and what is it or is it the expectation of a majority which was predicted by pollsters and commentators but never taken for granted by the SNP?

3. The SNP vote rose compared to 2011 in constituencies and fell in regional list percentage-wise. They made great play of winning one million votes – up 156,982 on 2011 – but down from “Peak SNP” last year, from 49.97 per cent to 46.5 per cent with 394,539 less votes.

Last year's Westminster election had a higher turnout, different boundaries, fewer parties and was first-past-the-post. The Scottish Parliament elections were held against the backdrop of that astonishing success for the SNP and relentless opinion polls suggesting another ground breaking performance from the SNP with no close challenger. Despite the 'no-contest' nature of the election and the further collapse of Labour and the LibDems (outside of the LibDems carefully targeted constituency wins) the SNP advanced in terms of constituency seats won and total vote. It is worth noting that fewer parties contested the constituencies which helped the SNP while the regional list contest was more crowded and competitive which worked against the SNP.

 

4. The SNP won 25.9 per cent of the electorate’s votes, nearly the same share with which David Cameron won in 2015, 24.5 per cent, that led to cries of “Tory dictatorship” from some on the left.
The SNP has been smeared by opponents of turning Scotland into a 'one party state' is this what the 'Tory dictatorship' label alludes to? Also, while I can understand the point Gerry is trying to make about share of the electorate I am unclear what point he is making unless it is to point out the ludicrousness of the 'one-party' gibe. 
 

5. The response of many Nationalists is that share of the electorate doesn’t matter. Turnout affects legitimacy and strength of mandate. A landslide on 55 per cent compared to 75 per cent is very different. Just as a Scotland of indyref participation levels is different from Scottish Parliament turnouts.
Turnouts for the Scottish parliament elections have always been lower than Westminster - why would this Scottish government be any more or less legitimate than any previous one? Turnout was up on 2011.
 

6. Scotland’s democratic revolution is diminishing. The referendum had an 85 per cent turnout, last year 71 per cent and now 55.6 per cent – 5.2 per cent up on 2011.

That small increase from five years ago is an echo from the referendum explosion, with participation down 1.344million from September 2014 and 631,312 from last year.
This is a moot point. The referendum was a one off in a way - many people voted in that election who haven't habitually voted in elections at any level. The tribal nature of party electoral politics and scientific methods of targeted campaigning may have both turned off and not reached voters. Also the relentlessly strong position of the SNP in opinion polls will have driven down turnout - 'why bother voting, they're going to win anyway'. 
 

7. The SNP are the most national party of Scotland, much more so than Labour or the Tories at their peak. Yet, slowly the SNP are becoming more West of Scotland, with all but one of the party’s 11 constituency gains being in the west.
To some extent I can't argue with this other than to say that the SNP won more in the West of Scotland because Labour had held on there in 2011 and collapsed there in 2015. The SNP does have lessons to learn from the constituency losses in Edinburgh Western, North East Fife, and Aberdeenshire West and the closeness of the vote in places such as Ayr and Edinburgh South and Edinburgh Central. Success in just two of these seats would have won that majority (though an SNP victory in Ayr may have cost the SNP a list seat in the South of Scotland regional vote).
 

8. The SNP are still the dominant party in their old areas but while they look impregnable in the west, they are still not as popular as Labour were at their peak – the highest SNP Glasgow vote being Nicola Sturgeon’s 61 per cent, whereas in 1997 Labour won 73 per cent and 71 per cent in Shettleston and Springburn.
Comparing Scottish Parliament results with Westminster again which is not a good thing. Besides is it a 'good' thing to emulate Labour by winning votes shares of 71-73% of the vote in a multi-party democracy?
 

9. After nine years, where do new ideas come from and how do the party avoid policy exhaustion? One problem is the lack of an SNP-orientated, independence-supporting think tank. If the SNP can renew in office and win a future referendum,they have to be open to fresh thinking.
Absolutely, there is a lack of an SNP inclined think tank. That has been the case for decades but is it a bad thing? Is one needed and given its size and depth of experience in its ranks and amongst its supporters is there a way of creating policy forums? The SNP does have its underused National Assembly which until devolution used to discuss and formulate policy on broad issues often calling in experts from outside. Perhaps a combination of internal policy forums around the existing structure of the National Assembly allied with consultative outward facing initiatives could harness fresh policy ideas without the need for a 'think-tank' as such which often comes with its own baggage and agenda.
 
 

10. Pluralism. The SNP have a self-discipline that aided them on the way up. They now have to relax a bit, let go a little and allow a culture of debate and dissent, particularly in the party and independence community.
Agree. The SNP conference debates on NATO membership, fracking and land reform show that the SNP can have these debates with its members and through these engage and respond to campaigns outwith the party.
 

11. Independence is the subject of a forthcoming campaign but where is the work on a new independence package? Where even is the party’s post-mortem on losing the 2014 vote?

There can be no second referendum without a completely revised offer on the currency, Bank of England and Treasury, economics and public spending, along with Europe. What are the party waiting for?
As the SNP is playing a longer game there should be room to consider the views of those who reluctantly voted 'no'. It would be too easy to say the party fully understands all the reasons - it needs to listen. Nicola Sturgeon has made it clear that is a central part of this summers independence campaign. She sees it as important to reach out to those who had enough doubt to vote 'no' in 2014. One could ask where the wider Yes post-mortem is and what its conclusions were. My view is that any post-mortem by the Yes campaign has been limited to the remaining local groups and did not go beyond the self congratulatory and in some cases demonisation of those who voted 'no'. Yes Scotland shut up shop immediately the campaign was over. Possibly an astute move in that it avoided splits and recriminations but on the other hand it may have also avoided rational analysis of the reasons the 'No' campaign won.
 

The SNP have been at the helm of three great waves of political success – the referendum (despite losing), the 2015 election and the 2016 Scottish elections.

They have much to be proud of in each. Yet, there has also been in each, post-vote, an unwillingness to confront home truths.

The worst of these was the referendum aftermath – with Alex Salmond, in particular, coming over as a poor loser who felt his rightful triumph was snatched from him.
This analysis does not ring true to me. My feeling way that Alex handled it well and that his resignation was the right response, was not bitter (it could have been) and allowed the SNP to regroup under Nicola Sturgeon. That has proven extremely successful. Contrast that, if you will, with the collapse of the Quebecois movement after their last referendum where they came much closer to winning that the Yes campaign did. In Quebec the aftermath was divided and bitter whereas the aftermath in Scotland was positive and saw the growth of the independence supporting parties.
 

In 2015, there was too much loose talk that the SNP’s 56 MPs spoke for Scotland.
The SNP did win the vast majority of seats - no other party has ever won as many and as such could be said to be speaking for Scotland. The SNP MPs have certainly made much more of an impact on Westminster politics that Labour's 50 MPs did after 1987. The SNP MPs have provided consistent and credible opposition to the UK Tory government.
 

Some in the party will say what does this matter? We are the winners. However, the SNP don’t speak for most Scots. They have to understand this if they want to govern effectively, remain popular – and win a future referendum.
If the SNP does not speak for Scotland then who does? An argument can always be made with electoral systems in a multi party set up that more people voted for you than voted against. The fact is, though, that the SNP have in the Westminster election won the vast majority of constituency seats and likewise they won the vast majority of of constituency seats in the Scottish Parliament elections. 
In terms of the next independence referendum the SNP leadership know that they need to win it so are playing a long game, seeking to fully understand the concerns of those who did not put their cross in the Yes box on 18th September 2014. Through that understanding and that examination they will be seeking to build a platform for independence that achieves the winning position and one that learns from both the success and the failures of the past referendum. 

I'd like to thank Gerry for provoking me to respond to his article and think about the points he raised. I'd also like to thank Simon Barrow for challenging me to provide my response following my 'more holes than a moth eaten jumper' post on Facebook. The jumper may be slightly less moth eaten than when I made the comment!

Rob Munn
Rob has been an active SNP member since 1986 and is a long time local organiser in Leith and North Edinburgh. He was part of the grassroots Yes Edinburgh North & Leith group.  

End of the Party Line: Political Parties after Independence

In December Yes campaign strategist Stephen Noon put forward his own view of Scottish Politics post Independence. The host newspaper for Stephen's thoughtful essay 'Scotland on Sunday' ran a companion piece headlined 'SNP could disband after Independence' that distorted his article and to quote Mr Noon probably had people 'spluttering into their porridge'. I include myself as a member of the spluttering classes. That was, though, before I read his words.
Stephen was using his essay to explore was the possibilities available for political realignment post a Yes vote in 2014. Using personal illustration he painted a picture of his ability to vote for other parties - he'd done this as a democrat living in England.
I expect Stephen has been asked what becomes of the SNP if there is a Yes vote in 2014. I've certainly been asked that by a whole range of people over the years since the SNP first formed the Scottish Government in 2007. Sure the SNP will change following the creation of an Independent Scotland. It's changed a lot in the years since I joined in 1986. For a start it's become electable right across the country. It's become credible and competent in government. It is also has the biggest membership of any Scottish party in recent times. For these reasons I would be extremely surprised if the SNP were to depart from the Scottish political scene. As a proven party of government if successful in winning the Yes vote it would seem inconceivable that the SNP wouldn't be returned as the government of a newly independent Scotland. Perhaps in coalition, perhaps not.
It's the other major parties that face the biggest challenge following a Yes vote. They and their leaders will have come off on the losing side in the referendum into which they'll have thrown their all in defence of the Union. They will be discredited their leaders vanquished. Their reinvention will need to be quick and ruthless. Politics is often the art of survival and reinvention plays a large part in that so it is a possibility that one or more of the established UK parties could reform as an attractive alternative government of an independent Scotland. All three of the 'British' parties have long and strong Scottish roots and history so the scope for the imaginative among them to rethink their party for a new Scottish  politics is theirs to form.
Obviously on the radical wing of current Scottish politics the Scottish Greens have both a Parliamentary and Council presence that should position them well in a post independence Scotland. The SSP is still there and may revive. Both may gain from the growth of the Radical Independence Conference  coalitions. In fact some green/socialist group of parties could play a progressive and significant role in an Independent Scotland. The Radical Independence Conference has potential to provide a forum for a broad left green platform around which this type of coalition could germinate.
It is what happens in the centre of the Scottish political field which will be equally interesting. Will the Tories take the Murdo Fraser line and disband to reform with a new name and new centre right mission? Will the Liberals drop the 'Democrats' addendum and bounce back as the mainstream party of localism? Will Labour in Scotland finally find its way again or will it succumb to factionalism and navel gazing for a generation? Will new parties form - two new centre or centre right parties already exist in the Scottish Democratic Alliance and the Scottish Progressives - to take advantage of the climate of change following the referendum?
Finally will the referendum campaign throw up new talent, new voices, new leadership and new ideas for an newly independent Scotland?  All of these are possibilities. First though there's a referendum campaign to be fought.
 

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. 

Borgen: a template for collegiate, consensual politics?

The latest issue of Total Politics has a couple of articles on television political dramas. The first covers the usual and very entertaining mix of 'The Thick of It', 'A Very British Coup' State of Play' Yes Minister' 'House of Cards' are mentioned and are of course very British examples of the genre. The second article is about the hit Danish political drama 'Borgen' that certainly had me tuning in regularly for its depiction of the challenges facing the newly elected Statsminister Birgitte Nyborg.
Oddly the article by Caroline Crampton suggests the reason for Borgen's success with British audiences was because it couldn't happen here. Crampton posits that it portrays a politics that is 'collegiate, consensual, egalitarian yet still passionate' and appeals because it is unusual to us. Maybe in England it is but in the asymmetrically devolved UK parliaments and assemblies with their proportional representation, coalitions  power sharing and plurality of parties perhaps the narrative of Borgen is not such a distant concept.
Scotland has been governed since 1999 by two coalitions, one minority government and now a majority government. Its pr system has produced one rainbow parliament and the representation of women has been light years ahead of Westminster and currently both the Labour Party and the Tories are led by women with both parties now on to their second woman leader. Nicola Sturgeon the SNP's Deputy Leader and Deputy First Minister is surely in pole position to take on the top job when First Minister Alex Salmond steps down from the leadership of the SNP.
During the period that the SNP governed as a minority John Swinney's deft handling of the budget process and the managerial diplomacy of Bruce Crawford showed that a collegiate, consensual politics was achievable even if the main opposition party rarely wanted to play ball. Scotland also has pr in local government which has seen most councils run as coalitions again leading to negotiation over policies and pragmatic consensus emerging along with decision making structures to accommodate that.
In the other devolved nations we have seen coalitions in Wales and finally in Plaid Cymru's Leanne Wood a leader that could just be the Birgitte Nyborg of the piece (she'll love me for that I'm sure!).
If there is one devolved legislature which is probably most deserving of a tv drama it would have to be the Northern Ireland Assembly. A power sharing agreement between Nationalist Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party must provide fascinating material for drama with the history of the struggles and the IRA background of many Sinn Fein MLAs. The sensitivities of negotiation and agreement in the NI Assembly is surely a different politics which must have some degree of the collegiate and consensual in its pragmatism.   Though women play a less prominent role in NI politics there is a template from the Irish Republic with former Presidents Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese.
Viewed from the London centric village of Westminster Borgen may well seem like an alien version of politics but perhaps what the fiction of Borgen portrayed is not that far removed from the newer and evolving politics of the devolved nations of these isles. Whether it is or not Borgen is must watch TV and I can't wait for the next series.

Update #1: Leanne Wood Leader of Plaid Cymru the Party of Wales launches a crowdsourcing initiative to build the next Plaid manifesto. Ms Wood said, “We need to open the 'source code' of the policy development process - because politicians do not have a monopoly on good ideas. The glass panes of the Senedd should not just be there to improve transparency - they should also allow ideas from outside in.

“I want the Party of Wales to lead by example and create the world's first wiki-manifesto, a manifesto created collaboratively by the people of Wales, for the people of Wales.

“This proposal will enable everyone to propose ideas, to debate and discuss. Those ideas will culminate in a special conference of party members and policy advocates where the product of our national creativity will be ratified as Plaid Cymru’s programme for the 2016 elections.”

This initiative again shows a creative collegiate approach to politics coming from a radical leader of a radical party. Perhaps it is Westminster that is over? 

Update #2: News today (22/11/12) of the formation of a pro-independence Green/Independent grouping in the Scottish Parliament is perhaps an early indication of a collegiate realignment of Scottish Politics. This grouping will give its members a seat on the Parliamentary Bureau and therefore a say in the business of the parliament. Cynics will no doubt dismiss this move as self serving. However it is important as an indicator of what may become more common - alliances based on common cause that work to enhance influence. In the future there will be a realignment of Scottish Politics and this move could be one of the first pointers of how new alliances will be formed. 

Parti Quebecois heading for minority government? Polls,predictions and social media in the Quebec Provincial Election 2012

 Is the Quebec sovereignty question about to be reignited with a Parti Quebecois victory in Quebec's provincial elections? The answer is not clear at present. PQ Leader Pauline Marois made a plea at the weekend for an outright victory, saying a minority government would not allow the policies she stands for to be fully implemented. Code for a referendum on Quebec's future.

The polls are tight showing Marois's PQ ahead in the latest poll on 33% but with Coalition Avenir Quebec (CAQ) rising to 28% (from 12% at the start of the campaign) and the incumbent Liberals sliding to 27%. So it's nip and tuck at the top and all to play for as the contest enters its final week.

It would appear that the final result is the PQ's to lose though most pollsters and commentators seems to think the PQ will emerge the biggest party and form a minority government perhaps with support from the sovereigntist and leftist Quebec Solidaire.  

The PQ and the Liberals are the big beasts of Quebec elections with power switching between them regularly over the past few decades. The Liberals are in trouble with the taint of corruption over government contracts surrounding them. Their leader Jean Charest seems set to lose his riding (constituency). He’s a mercurial character who as a Federal Tory withstood the meltdown of Kim Campbell’s Progressive Conservatives in 1993. Ironically that political abyss for the Conservatives came about in the wake of the failure of former PM Brian Mulroney’s Meech Lake agreement that saw a huge rise in nationalist support in Quebec with the Bloc Quebecois being formed to contest Federal Elections (indeed they did so well they formed the official opposition in Ottawa) and the return of Parti Quebecois to power in Quebec’s National Parliament and the subsequent sovereignty referendum of 1995.

Marois has declared that the PQ would seek a fresh referendum if successful on September 4^th. That’s why she doesn’t want a minority government as it would weaken the mandate.

However given the circumstances of the election – the Liberals corruption allegations and the growth in support for Coalition Avenir Quebec who, though led by former PQ minister Francois Legault, have distanced themselves from the sovereignty question it may be that minority government is what Quebec faces come September 5th.

While a majority is what the PQ say they are looking for a period in minority may actually be the best option. Marois  may do worse that share a conversation with Alex Salmond Scotland’s First Minister who lead the ScottishNational Party (SNP) to minority government in 2007 shelving a referendum on Scottish Independence on the way only to win an outright victory in 2011 embarking on a referendum campaign.

It could be that steady as she goes could be the best strategy for the PQ and they play the longer game gaining support of Quebecers whether Francophone, Anglophone or Allophone with competent government first then winning a majority to pursue an independent Quebec. 

Social Media in the #Quebecelection

Everyone says social media is an important tool in elections these days and I've had a quick glance at the followers of the parties contesting the Quebec election.

Perhaps unsurprisingly the PQ top both the Facebook and Twitter counts with 62766 and 19093 respectively and surprisingly the Liberals on only 6253 FB and 10033 on twitter. CAQ come in on 8105 FB and 10998 twitter with the left/green/feminist Quebec Solidaire on an impressive 17343 FB and 19122 twitter.

The fledgling sovereigntist Option Nationale sit on 23454 FB and 11435 twitter with the Parti Vert du Quebec (Greens) on 1648 FB and 1979 twitter.

So perhaps no surprise PQ are solid front runners. The Liberals are out of favour so maybe that is reflected in their poor showing. The surprise is that CAQ are doing so poorly on social media despite the surge in support evident in the polls. Both Quebec Solidaire and Option Nationale have impressive totals though neither seem to be on the verge of any real breakthough electorally according to the polls. Their social media presence could be down to the wave of student unrest in Quebec at present - something to do with student finance and tuition fees - that has not been handled well by either Charest, Legault or Marois. 

Other coverage of the Quebec elections:
http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/international/canada-provincial-victory-set-to-resurrect-quebec-independence-movement-1-2493422

http://news.nationalpost.com/tag/quebec-election-2012/

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/quebecvotes/index.html

http://leithnotes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/does-victory-for-pq-signal-return-of.html