Referendummed Out

I haven't used this space for discussion of the referendum much, as I was keen to engage in the debate with others rather than just pontificate from a blog without listening to those of varied opinion.  I've decided at this stage to note some thoughts here by way of a full stop. These are my two pence on the campaign, the arguments, and the ultimate result. It's a few weeks to go now, I think most people know which way they are going to vote, and I have found myself coming closer to anger and frustration with the debate than I would like to - accordingly, with this sign off, 'I'm out'.  Que sera sera.

Voting and Vitriol

I came to this debate leaning towards 'No' but (as honestly as I could) remaining open to persuasion.  I will vote No, but that is not to say I don't understand why people are voting Yes. I am not one of those who says that all 'Yessers' are daft Braveheart types - far from it. Several of the people whom I most love and respect are tending towards voting for independence.  But, like grown ups, we can agree to disagree and still have a great many other things in common.  Sadly, that isn't the case for many across the public side of this debate.

I've heard people suggesting that 'the eyes of the world are on us' and that we are a shining example of a nation awakening, unshackling ourselves from an imperial oppressor by peaceful democratic resistance.  If the eyes of the world are truly on us at this moment, then I am ashamed to be associated with what they are seeing.  A nation divided by petty hostility, shallow tribalism and misdirected patriotism. On both sides, be it noted.

The fact is that the public face of this process has shown us to be largely incapable of restraint or listening to the other. Of course, that isn't true of the many 'over a coffee' chats between friends which have developed our thinking, but the visible debate - online, on press, on telly - has been hopelessly shallow.  I have been (directly or by categorisation as a 'No' inclined voter) called a traitor, a quisling and a Tory. I, apparently, don't care about the poor, don't care about democracy, and I don't care about the elderly.

That might be acceptable if we were simply talking about the 'extremes of social media' where anyone can mouth off without fear of being taken to task. But it isn't just that. It's the campaign itself. Salmond repeatedly asserting that Darling is 'in bed with the Tories' when he knows Darling's politics are far removed from David Cameron. Even subtly saying 'it's our pound, as well as yours' sets Darling up to be one of 'the English' rather than a Scot with an equally valid but opposite view as to how to progress the nation.  I have found it to be a very negative debate - on both sides - particularly as it has approached its conclusion.

Pos/Neg

Negativity has infected both sides, but 'the No camp have nothing positive to say' is an assertion that I feel needs a rebuttal.  The fact is that the referendum asks a yes / no question. If you want people to vote 'no' then you are giving them reasons not to vote 'yes'. At a purely linguistic level, that is an unavoidably negative proposition.

But it goes deeper than that. Yes Scotland are arguing for a huge change to the fundamental nature of the Scottish state. The question is 'should we go through that change, or not?'  There are very good reasons why change of that magnitude should be very carefully considered and the risks assessed, and as such Better Together are doing exactly what we need them to do by pointing out the risks.

This reflects on another comment I hear bandied around: 'why is there no grass roots campaign for the union?'  The answer is obvious: grassroots campaigns start with a desire for change.  Grassroots 'Yes' campaigns begin with people who want to change the constitution.  Nobody joins a campaign to 'keep things as they are'.  Rather, 'No' inclined voters are just as involved in grassroots campaigns, but for issues that actually matter to them within the union. To put it another way, everyone wants change, but 'No' voters suggest that there are bigger and more important changes to make within the union, rather than leaving the union.  The union is not the goal, but the context within which we want to reach our goals.  For Yes Scotland, independence is an aim in and of itself.

Of course, Yes Scotland have now shown themselves to be entirely hypocritical in accusing anyone of negativity given that their latest tactic is to hustle and harass the poorest and most vulnerable in our society by threatening that a No vote means an end to the NHS and an end to their benefits. I even saw one Yes poster with a picture of a nuclear mushroom cloud over Faslane.  Vote Yes, or you'll have no money and no healthcare. And you'll die in a nuclear holocaust.  Positivity is great, huh.

But beyond those extremes (which have only been wheeled out at the death as Yes tries to close the gap) it seems to me that a vote for independence is fundamentally pessimistic.  You only have to delve beneath the surface of the 'Scotland can do it' rhetoric and you find an altogether more cynical underlying conviction that 'Britain can't'.  What if, together, we can?  What if, instead of cutting ourselves off, we engaged across the whole country and started building towards a better, fairer, more compassionate society across the whole UK?

Gimme Gimme

Both sides have approached this debate on the predictable but sad basis that 'what's in it for me?' is the ultimate decider. Accordingly, Yes and No have argued to the death over whether we'd have more money or less money.  What neither campaign seems able to admit is that the truth is we don't know - Scotland could end up wealthier, or poorer, than it is currently. It depends on a multiplicity of interconnected factors (such as the hotly contested estimates of just how much oil is sitting under the sea to the West of Shetland).

The question I would pose is: does it matter?  Isn't it a far cry from the principles of solidarity and sharing that (apparently) are the foundation of liberal, left wing Scotland to boil it down to a calculation that 'if we don't share it with the English, we can spend it on ourselves'? Isn't that selfish?  Or do we care so deeply about our own poverty that we will deplete the reserves available to help our neighbours?  Is a poor Glasgow family more worthy of help than a poor London family?

Better Together have, unfortunately, walked right into that argument - accepting as a basic premise that we want to be better off. What if we don't?  What if there are bigger principles at stake than having our cake and eating it, having our oil and spending it?  The union for me is about partnering for good, pooling resources for the benefit of all.  It is about being completely happy to see some of our oil surplus be spent in the South, knowing that when the oil dries up (and indeed before the oil was struck) some of the wealth of the buoyant South East economy flows North.  Good times and bad, for better for worse... Hardly a mature marriage if it is based entirely on economics.  'Honey (not Darling....) thanks for the last few years, but I've got a better offer elsewhere. And I'm keeping the engagement ring.'

Politics or power

The debate should not be about money, and also not about policy.  The reason why, as Angus Robertson narrated at length in a debate a few weeks ago 'the No parties don't even have a plan A' is because that is exactly what they are: parties plural. Yes Scotland was described by Greens leader Patrick Harvie as pretty much an SNP vehicle.  That's why they can make policy announcements about independence meaning greater childcare an oil fund and lower corporation tax. Of course 'independence' doesn't mean a jot for childcare.  But a government policy does.  It is therefore misleading to say 'independence means we will have this, this and this...' Because that entirely depends what the elected government of Scotland does!!

So where is the 'Better Together' vision?  There isn't one.  There can't be.  It is contributed to by three or four parties who generally disagree. They have different visions for Scotland. In the next election they will ask you to vote for their vision. Right now, the only issue is whether Scotland should remain a part of the UK, and these parties agree that for all of their varying and divergent visions of the future, the best way is to do it together.  Rather than mocking Darling for being 'in bed with the Tories' shouldn't we be commending politicians from warring factions for setting aside their differences to work collaboratively?  Isn't that what we want to see more of in politics?  Less 'punch and judy' and more mature co-operation in the national interest?

Democratic deficits

One of the more intriguing arguments going around is the 'democratic argument'.  Salmond passionately told us that for half of his life he has been ruled by a government he didn't vote for.  My friends, that is democracy!!  That means that for the OTHER half of his life, he did get the government he voted for!! I have never voted SNP in my life... Yet they govern me on devolved issues just now.  If you consistently vote for minor parties, for example the Christian Party, you will likely NEVER get the government you want.  That is democracy.

Now, the argument runs that because Scotland makes up less than 10% of the UK population, Scotland can't guarantee that it gets the government it votes for.  That argument is deeply flawed.

First, it assumes that Scots are a homogenous bunch of left leaning labour voters.  Hence, if a right-of-centre party is in power, it is the opposite of what Scotland wanted.  That is nonsense.  Until the 1950s Scots could just as easily vote right-of-centre as left, with the conservatives often winning more seats than labour.  Even today, whilst the first-past-the-post system of the UK general election works on a 'winner takes it all' basis, which affords the First Minister his line about the pandas out numbering Scottish Tory MPs, the truth is that 412,855 Scots voted Tory in 2010.  Not seem that much?  Well 491,386 voted SNP, and 465,471 voted LibDem.  My point is that you can't say that Scots all think the same, and Tory support in Scotland, whilst low compared to the South East, is not rock bottom.

Secondly, and even less understandable, the argument assumes that 'the English' all vote Tory!  Therefore no matter what wee Scotland does, those true blue English cousins of ours will vote us down with their Tory votes.  Come on.  Do you remember the two last prime ministers of the country?  Both Labour.  Edinburgh educated Tony Blair and awbdy's favourite Fifer Gordon Brown.  We Scots are not completely different from our family and friends in the rest of the UK in our voting patterns - Glasgow has as much (the West coaster in me says more!) in common with Manchester as it does with Edinburgh.

Thirdly, the democratic argument for Yes takes umbrage at the fact that we enlightened 9% can't tell the 91% what to do!  That is how democracy works!!  It means that if you want change, you need to engage in a debate across a broad range of people - like the Labour movement did historically.  The same can immediately be said of areas in Scotland who tend not to vote for the ruling party - the obvious example being Lib Dem stronghold Shetland.  Do they suffer a democratic deficit because the SNP are in power?

The local-er the better

It follows then, say Yes, that we should go it our own way.  Because (altogether now) nobody will do a better job of governing Scotland than those who live and work there.  An excellent line that begs an affirmative answer.  But is it a good point?  Is it true that the closer the local connection to power, the better?  Is there a reason we ever moved on from medieval city-states to form nations, and nations to form unions?  If it is true, why stop at Scotland?  You won't find a Glaswegian that thinks people from Edinburgh are cut from the same cloth - maybe we should go for an east-west split?  But those city types don't understand rural concerns.  We should divide it north-south as well - the republic of the Highlands and Islands.  But wait - islands?  Can't get more separate than that.  An independent Shetland. Wouldn't that be local?  Of course, since most of the new oil is found in their waters, Shetland should definitely go it alone.  Never mind what that would do economically to mainland Scotland. Why worry - they're different from us.

Is it true? Or is there value in togetherness? Across regions, towns, cities and villages.  Transcending class, profession, race and religion.  Is it not the case that we are (to get on the bandwagon) actually better together, as a family of nations, learning from each other, growing together and progressing together?  Is there literally zero truth in the arguments made by Better Together about having the backing of broader shoulders?  Spreading the impact of volatile oil prices and unforeseen costs across a wider population?  It seems to me just to make sense.

Perhaps you saw the news that there is a movement to divide California into 6 states. The stated reason? Localising democracy! The (alleged) undercurrent? Let's keep our wealth in our own region and not share it with the poorer parts. That is not the kind of ambition which I want driving my country.

Short memories

But it's not just about making government more local, say Yes, it's about freeing us from the tyranny of Westminster - look at all they've done!!  The chief campaign tactic of Yes has been to list unpopular policies of the UK government and say 'that's the union for you'.  But the fact is, those are the policies of particular governments at particular times.  When I hear those kinds of comments, it reminds me of a certain Monty Python sketch.  If you will indulge me:

'I mean, what has the union ever done for us?  Yeah well, apart from giving us a place of influence at the table of the international community - what has the union ever done for us?  No, apart from the benefit of barrier-free trade with one of the worlds biggest economies - I mean what has Westminster done for us?  Yeah, ok, I guess there's the minimum wage, a balanced trade union system, and the human rights act... But apart from all of that, what has Westminster ever done for us?  No, no, forget about creating the welfare state, practically inventing peaceful modern democracy, increasing social mobility to the point that one in two people go to uni and many of those who don't, choose not to... Apart from all that.... I mean recently. What has this Con-Dem government of austerity wielding doom done for ME?  Well, apart from raising my personal allowance so that more of what I earn I keep, and apart from...'

We have terribly short memories. As both sides have reminded the other (usually to win a very narrow point), independence is forever, not for Christmas.  As we emerge from a recession, it's hardly fair to accuse the current regime of being less generous than their predecessors.... That was the whole point!  And now as employment figures start to recover and the economy starts to grow - just as things might start to get better - we want to leave?  Did we want to leave when the economy was booming, spending was at its peak, and the cabinet was half Scottish (not actually much of an overstatement!) with a Scottish educated PM and a Fife-born Chancellor?  It is completely short-termist to say 'vote Yes to end austerity and get free from Osbourne's cuts'.

Never mind complexity

Ah yes, they cry, but look at the bigger issues - illegal wars, nuclear missiles... Long term policies that Scotland is consistently dragged into against its will.  It is at this point that sound bites and one liners do not serve us well.

On illegal wars. Firstly, as easy as it is to throw it around, no Court or tribunal has determined that the UK invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal, and clear published (and publicly available) advice from the Attorney General stated it was lawful.  But that aside, clearly Iraq remains a hot issue - not least because of the appalling barbarism we see taking place there in these past few months.  Salmond is on record as saying an independent Scotland would not have undertaken a pursuit such as the Iraq war.  Is it really so simple?

War is never good, but is it sometimes the best response to a bad situation?  Most if us still agree WW2 was 'the right thing to do'.  Most think the same on Kosovo, where Blair was the liberating hero.  Same for Sierra Leone.  In Iraq we removed a dictator but left a legacy of chaos.  In Afghanistan we deposed the Taliban but again left things looking pretty shaky.  In Syria, and arguably in relation to the current plight of the Iraqis, we do nothing, haunted by 2003.  What is more moral?  To enter into the fray, to avert disaster, amidst accusations about 'trying to play the world police' or to sit back in the face of unspeakable human rights abuses and do nothing because it ain't our problem?  I say that not to argue that every decision made by the government has been right, but simply to acknowledge that things are more complex, more nuanced than the standard lines about illegal wars, America's lapdog and world police.

The same goes for nuclear arms.  And, in fact, for balancing the need to 'make work pay' with the need to protect the vulnerable and the jobless from poverty.  Complex questions, difficult answers - and most importantly, divided opinion.  To break the issues down to sound bites about Westminster and their implicit desire to wreak havoc with bombs and benefits, is to patronise us, mislead us, or worse.  These are complicated issues that Holyrood will have every chance of 'getting it wrong' in the eyes of many people, just as Westminster has. Such is democracy.

What if the problem is people?

When we leave, if we leave, what are we walking into?  A socialist utopia?  A land of milk and honey?  Oil money paving the streets, renewable energy lighting up the world?  Do we really think that the answers to poverty, addiction, alcoholism, domestic abuse and recidivist offending and all of the other ills which afflict us as a nation are just sitting there under the surface, waiting to be found by an independent Scotland, set free from a UK regime which seeks to keep us (and themselves) under the cosh of these and other social problems?

That does a huge disservice to the thousands of organisations - state and charitable - working across the UK to relieve those issues.  Independence is an easy answer, and like most easy answers it isn't an answer at all.

What if our struggles with poverty in the midst of the eternal right-left political tension, our disillusionment with politics and politicians, and our addiction to debt is not a UK problem, but a people problem?  I don't find the Scottish Parliament a country mile more compassionate, realistic, honest or sensible than the UK parliament.  I think (bless my cotton socks) that politicians of every political hue, by and large, actually go into it with some ideas and desires to make the country better.  Whether they succeed or not we can debate, but the point is that this narrative of Westminster, the bankers and the Tories all being one homogenous blob of gluttony that sucks us dry, is a dangerous one.  My fear is that we will walk blindly into independence and discover that we still have all the same issues, we disagree with each other just as much, we mistrust our politicians the same as we did before, and public information is as much spin and distraction as it is now.  Why assume it will be different?

Rather than cutting away and doing it ourselves, why not try and bring cultural change across the whole political spectrum?  Do we really believe that just by dint of being Scottish we are better people?  As someone involved in the justice system seeing the worst - and occasionally the best - of this society, I simply don't take that view.  I have hope - people, systems and societies can change - but that hope rests on a broad movement across society, rather than simply creating our own little society and assuming it will be different.

Legalities

Before I finish with a little bit of a more positive note, as a lawyer I can't help but be drawn on a couple of technicalities. Notwithstanding my aversion to sound bite and simplification, I will keep this brief!

On currency, as Salmond well knows, the point is not 'can we keep the pound' but whether we can use it in the context of a formal currency union. That is the unknown.  It is not something he can guarantee, and nor is it something that any mandate of the Scottish people can demand.  After all, it will by that stage be demanding that a foreign country underwrite our economy. If the rest of the UK says no, they say no.

But assets and liabilities go hand in hand, he says.  No pound, no payments on the debt. Thank you and goodnight, says Yes.  But actually stop and think about what they are saying.  'The pound' is not an asset, it is a measurement of the value of assets.  Salmond says 'the asset of the bank of England' is what he means.  That is just not a tenable position.  He might as well say that the Houses of Parliament are assets so we should continue to use those!  A political arrangement such as a currency union is not an asset, and an agreement to be supported by the Bank of England as the lender of last resort is not an asset.  The individual pounds in the Bank of England are cash assets - but there aren't any!  The 'assets' we are dividing up, in cash terms, are negative equity: debt.

Of course, if we take the asset question too far one could ask why there is no suggestion that oil is a shared asset, to be divided equally... Because that's ours and we're keeping it, right?  Even though it is UK government money which has been ploughed into development, regulation and support of the offshore industry, and plans for decommissioning installations.  I think there is an argument that oil reserves should be split more evenly.  After all, in a divorce, everything is up for grabs.

This is all setting aside the horrific irresponsibility of threatening to default on £100billion worth of debt.  That would set Scotland up as about as appealing an investment as the former Rangers FC.  The nation's economy crushed in one single senseless promise.

Will Scotland continue in the EU just as we are?  The honest answer is 'maybe'. It's a risk.  The UK is in the EU subject to certain caveats and opt-outs, which new acceding states are not entitled to.  That means that the EU could insist that Scotland joins the Euro, signs up to Schengen (which would raise the border control issue with rUK), and loses the rebate (a cash payment the UK takes back from the EU to account for various factors - very unpopular with the rest of the member states, and so almost certain to not be applied to Scotland).

As with currency, the answer is not in Scotland's power: it depends on the agreement of the other member states.  As has been well documented, certain of those states have their own separatist movements which they would be disinclined to offer encouragement to by treating the new Scotland favourably.  That may be churlish of them, but the fact is that for most of the factors listed above, we need unanimous agreement and we may not get it for those reasons.

One thing that is completely barmy is Yes Scotland's insistence that we will continue to charge English students fees, but nobody else.  Aside from being discriminatory and unfair (which it is at the moment, let's be honest) it will become illegal for an independent Scotland to do it.  It won't happen.  It can't happen.  It would be like charging Spanish or French students: we don't, because we can't.  No question, absolute certainty, we will not be able to do it.  When the Scottish Government says it will... It is either bring wilfully ignorant of the law, or it is being dishonest.

For the future - Fair and Federal

Enough on the minutiae.  What of the future?  Better Together are hamstrung by policy differences from offering a single unified vision for the future.  I am not.

Better Together are hamstrung from criticising the UK government (just as Yes Scotland don't criticise the SNP administration).  I am not.

I want to make it clear that in voting 'No' I am not issuing a vote in support of the current UK government (though nor do I think 'Tory' is a dirty word: the truth is always in the tension).  I am not saying I don't want change.  I am not saying that this nation of ours is perfect.

One of my fears about a Yes vote is that so many are saying Yes to 'change', but as Salmond has made clear in the last few days, he intends to interpret your Yes vote as a vote of personal confidence in him and his white paper - a mandate.  Therefore a Yes vote is not simply a vote for change, it is a vote for a very specific government paper.

My point is this: you ask people if they want 'change', people look around and think this isn't perfect, so yeah of course I want change.  'Vote Yes in that case!' they say.  But the millionaires want a different change to the poor.  The old want a different change to the young.  You might vote Yes because you're sick of the red tape of UK regulation and taxation, and you want to get your business to increase in profitability in a low-tax business friendly state.  Or, you might vote Yes because you're sick of seeing people in poverty and you want to see a reformed welfare state with higher taxes and higher spending.  Two Yes votes, but when it comes to the crunch, one (or both) of those points of view are going to be disappointed.

An independent Scotland is a beautiful blank canvas - but there are a million competing interests and designs for what should go on that canvas, and there is every chance it would be a painting just as compromised and unappealing as UK politics can seem at times.

My argument is that it is better to stay and be a part of the change, than to leave.  Voting Yes is a statement of surrender: it is turning our back on the country and saying 'this cannot improve'.  I say no.  Over the last 500 years this nation has transformed and reinvented itself time and again.  One of the only nations to become democratic without shedding royal blood in the process.  Through the extension of the franchise, women's votes, removing the legislative powers of the House of Lords and removing hereditary peers from the chamber, cementing a foreign aid commitment in the budget and building the NHS and the welfare state, and even through devolution itself (which is only 15-odd years old remember!) this is a nation which has demonstrated that it can be flexible and changeable when the will of the people demands it.

So change it, don't leave it.

What changes would I like to see?  Well, I'll leave out specifics, because frankly I'm not sure what the best way to tackle poverty, addiction and abuse is.  But let me paint a broad picture of how I think it should work politically.

Constitutionally, I think the only logical solution for the UK is federalism.  This grants Scotland greater autonomy, as well as fulfilling the growing desires south of the border for more localised government.  Whether that means 4 parliaments and one UK senate, or England breaking into different regions for the purposes of devolved government, I think that is the only answer.

Imagine devolved government to the same extent in every region of the UK, with one overarching parliament dealing with reserved issues (defence, foreign policy etc). If people really don't like the House of Lords, we could use their chamber as the UK Federal Senate.

We could embed principles in a new constitution whereby each region is responsible for raising the majority of its own revenue, subject to a duty to spread wealth to poorer areas (so we can't keep all the oil money, and London can't keep all the financial services money).

In that context, I would like to see a transition away from sound bite populist politics, to locally involved government, being honest about the big questions (rather than pretending they have all the answers) and in return being treated with respect by the electorate.

I would like to see a political system where rather than cutting down our opponents, we seek to work collaboratively, cooperatively and consensually towards solutions to our problems, and those of the world around us.

As a Christian, this is summarised in one overused but rarely understood word: love.  I hate 'tolerance' - it is such a watered down version of love.  What if we considered those who disagree with us, even those who oppose us, as colleagues and not opponents?  What if, instead of undermining and attacking, we actually held each other up in genuine affection, even amidst our disagreements?

Those are changes which might seem a pipe dream.  Maybe.  But it is a dream that is not, in my view, furthered by independence and separation.  It is a dream which depends on collaboration and, to bring it home, union.

If it doesn't sound too much like I'm trying to rip off MLK: I have a dream.  And I'm voting No because I want to pursue that dream rather than give up on it.  I want to fix the problems rather than walk away from them.  And I want to keep it together rather than break it apart.

You may disagree, and that's ok.  Whether we're staying or leaving after September, I hope we can work together towards a better future - and not just for Scotland, but for everyone.

Wow.

Glad I got that off my chest.

Mikey