Why blocking indyref2 is doubly undemocratic

The UK is a strange thing. A UK-wide vote has decided to take us out of the European Union, a process known as Brexit

But there are many parliaments within the UK, reflecting its historical construct as a union of formerly independent countries.

As well as being subject to the UK parliament, Scotland also has its own parliament. This parliament doesn’t like Brexit, reflecting the fact that 62% of Scots voted against leaving the European Union. The Scottish Parliament is thus calling for a new independence referendum which, if won, will allow them to reverse the Brexit decision; that is, Scotland will leave the UK in order to remain in the EU.

There is a spanner in the works. The UK Tory government wants to wait a few years after the UK has left the EU before granting Scotland a new independence referendum. This is ostensibly to allow a long-enough time for us all to judge the effect Brexit has on the Scottish economy. Then, the Tories claim, Scotland can have its vote.

There are two problems with this. 

The first is that it is the Tory government that is deciding this, not the UK parliament. For Scotland’s first independence referendum, both the House of Commons and the House of Lords had to pass the Section 30 order that allowed the Scottish Government to run the 2014 referendum. Both Houses voted through the legislation (e.g. see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21039886). Precedent has been set: another Order of Council agreement should be put before the UK parliament and voted on. It is illegitimate for the UK government to decide this by itself.

The second is that the Tories, by claiming that Scotland must wait a few years after Brexit to see the effect Brexit has on its economy before Scotland can have a new independence referendum, are admitting that they will allow Scotland to have a second EU referendum. Why should only Scotland have this privilege when Brexit was a UK-wide vote? Previously, the Tories have stated that there will not be any second EU referendum. So there is a contradiction here. If they are implicitly admitting that they will allow Scotland a second EU referendum, then they should allow all of the UK a second EU referendum. The rest of the UK has as much right as Scotland to revisit the Brexit decision if it proves to have been a decision that inflicts economic woe upon us all.

It is clear from these two points alone that the Tory government is acting undemocratically. When the Scottish Parliament votes for the new independence referendum, it should then be put to the UK parliament to vote on. Given that it is the will of the Scottish people, then both Houses should pass it as they did before. And given it is in reality at heart a second vote on EU membership, they can no longer deny the rest of the UK their second EU referendum either.

If this doesn’t happen, it will confirm just how strange a thing the UK is – which will, in itself and regardless of the EU issue, rightly lead to calls for another Scottish independence referendum.

Why 4 years between indyrefs is normal

General elections (GEs) for the UK have varied from

8 months to 5 years apart – but were often 4 years apart.

GEs for Scotland are 4 years apart.

Time between IndyRef1 and IndyRef2: at least 4 years.

How do GEs and Refs compare?

A GE is a vote on a basket of refs you’d vote Yes to.

A Ref is thus just a GE with one ref in the basket.

So what's the problem?                                    

4 years between one-ref GEs is perfectly normal!

Why political division is necessary for a country to prosper

Nicola Sturgeon has today announced she will seek permission from Westminster to hold a new Scottish independence referendum between Autumn 2018 and Spring 2019. But both the Tory and Labour parties have stated that the last thing they want is more division.

But just what is division and should we fear it?

Division is just another word for competition. This is most closely associated with the private sector. Should all those doing business unite into one company? Or should they remain divided into separate companies? Competition is seen as the creator of innovation and innovation the driving force behind growing the economy. So a workforce divided into separate companies is essential to the economic wellbeing of our country.

The alternative is a socialist state where there is only the state and the public look to the leader of the state to be the sole source of innovation. This is why such states fail – we need as many people as possible to be innovators, not just the one person. And that is why division of the workforce into many separate businesses is crucial to the economy.

Why should politics be any different?

Competition is a necessary and pre-requisite condition for any open democracy to thrive. Just as the commercial sector needs competition – i.e. division – to drive innovation, so too does the political world. If we had just one party standing in elections, then there’d be no challenging of ideas. And it’s the challenging of ideas that leads to the innovation that is so crucial to the economic and political successes of our country.

Without division, society stagnates. We end up simply implementing the same old tired ideas. Standing up and challenging the status quo makes us all think long and hard about our current problems and the received solutions to those problems. In the commercial sector, such challenging brings down the unit cost of produced items as new, cheaper ways are found of manufacturing them. In politics, the challenging produces new ways of running our country and better conditions for our citizens.

For both the Conservatives, the self-called champions of competition, and Labour, who in the past successfully challenged such assumptions as only managers not workers should have rights or that homosexuality was abhorrent, to call for less division within politics is not just astonishing but counter to their own principles.

To be frank, if they both wanted less division within politics then they could have followed their own advice years ago and combined their two parties into one. The fact that they stubbornly remain separate parties shows that neither believes the messages they are delivering to the Scottish public; they both know division and debate are crucial elements in any democracy that wishes to be successful.

The SNP are therefore right to challenge the status quo. Already, it has produced fundamental changes to our society. We now have a Scottish parliament and the growing belief in Westminster that further devolution – such as City Deals and elected Mayors – is the way forward for society. Even UK Labour are now seriously discussing the need for a federal system of government within the UK.

So let’s not stifle creativity by heeding the voices of the Tory and Labour parties who contradict their own principles in calling for the SNP to stop generating innovation by dropping their call for a new debate on Scottish independence.

As we all know, it is the challengers that spark the innovative changes that a country needs.

Back to blogging

After a considerable absence - mainly due to work committments - I am returning to blogging about Scottish politics.

Stay tuned...

Why Corbynmania is an independence killer

I and some NO-voter friends gathered to watch live the Labour leadership result. What struck me most was the sudden wave of joy that convulsed one of my NO-voter friends. He explained:

"All during the independence referendum, there was this whole atmosphere of joy and optimism but I couldn't get involved in that because I saw myself as British. Now I've got something I can join in, something happy that I can be a part of!"

He then thumped the air, waving his beer about (yes, it was early but any excuse to hold a party - and it was a Saturday), a look of such happy excitement on his face it was as if he'd just ate a bucket of magic mushrooms and was now out-happying the YES movement at its referendum height.

And this is the biggest danger Corbyn represents to the SNP - he offers a message of hope to those who see themselves as British but hate the Tories. If they just hold on, Corbyn will become Prime Minister and fix all that's wrong with Britain.

If we were hoping that five more years of Tory rule would be enough to convince NO voters to back independence, that hope has gone. Even if Trident is not being debated at the Labour party conference, even if some of his policies are being modified, the wave of hope he's generated is not going away.

I like to tell my NO-voting friends that they voted for the Westminster system and that, since that system includes periods of Tory rule, then their NO vote was a vote for periods of Tory rule. They get rather angry when I point that out to them.

Now, it has less impact. Corbyn is going to save them, thus justifying their NO vote. Unless Corbyn gets defeated - either by party coup or at a general election - we'll have little chance of moving NO voters to the YES side.

Sadly, Corbynmania is an independence killer.

Why a vote for the Union is a vote for the Tories

There are some strangely-informed NO voters that claim they did not vote for the Tories to be in power. Of course, they couldn't be more wrong.

During the referendum, we were asked to choose between two systems: the new Scottish independence system or the existing Union system. We weren't asked to pick and choose from the various components that make up each system. Even if there were bits of the system you didn't like, you still only had the option of choosing one system or the other.

That is, a vote for the system is a vote for each component of the system.

For me, I'd have preferred independence to mean Scotland would have its own currency and an elected head of state. But I didn't have the option of choosing what components went into the system - all I could do was choose the entire system, warts and all.

So too for the Unionists. Some Unionists might hate the Tories but the Union system is that Westminster alternates between periods of Tory and Labour rule and has done so since 1924. If you voted NO, then you voted for every single part of the Union system to continue. That is, you voted for the Union, warts and all.

For many, the Tories are the warts of the Union. But for the NO-voting Unionists, they must have come to the conclusion that even Tory rule within the Union was better than becoming bankrupt under independence.

By voting for the Union system, you voted for all of the system. That is, you voted for periods of Tory rule at Westminster.

If you voted NO, you really did vote for the Tories.

Why is the BBC manufacturing computers?

I pay my licence fee and I expect to get broadcast television - that is what the licence fee is for. It's a bit like going to a cafe and paying for a bacon roll & coffee and receiving exactly that.

But the BBC is not like a cafe. Ask for a breakfast and they'd likely come back with a breakfast plus a doctor to give you free nutritional advice then manufacture their own vegan sausages.

This may sound daft but that is, in essence, what the BBC does. As part of the BBC's Make It Digital initiative for all of 2015, every Year 7 schoolchild in the UK is to receive a free Micro Bit computer. That is, about one million 11- and 12-year olds will get this programmable kit (which can be connected to a PC and programmed to operate its LED lights or magnetometer, for example).

Although the BBC's aim is laudable, and they are doing it in conjunction with a large number of partners so are not bearing the full cost by themselves, I do have concerns.

I pay my taxes so that the government, whether at Westminster or Holyrood, can use the money to pay for vital public services like the NHS and education. If we need to encourage children to take up computer programming, that should be done via the respective Education Departments. That's what I pay my taxes for.

I don't expect that when I pay to receive broadcast TV that I am now also funding school education. With the recent announcement that the BBC will now fund the cost of providing over-75s with a free TV licence, the BBC is now also part of the respective Welfare Departments.

So I welcome UK Culture Secretary John Whittingdale's announcement of a 'root and branch' review of what the BBC is for.

I'm pretty clear about why I pay my TV licence and why I pay my tax. I don't pay my TV licence to top-up the welfare and education budgets. How many great programs are never going to get made because of these decisions?

And that's me only scratching the surface. Just what else is the BBC doing that has got absolutely nothing to do with satisfying the reason I pay my TV licence?