Scotland & NATO: The real debate III

Scotland and NATO - SNP policy

In a previous article (Scotland & NATO: The real debate II) I dismissed the rather quaint notion that the process of determining SNP policy should opened up to people and groups outwith the party. I also sought to emphasise the distinction between SNP policy and the position of the nation of Scotland after independence. It is essential that people make this distinction. A vote for independence in 2014 is not a vote for any particular policy on any given issue. It is solely and exclusively a vote to determine the will of the people of Scotland regarding the constitutional status of Scotland. This is sufficiently important that the anti-independence parties and their friends in the media put a lot of effort into blurring the distinction. They seek to conflate the SNP and the cause of independence simply because it is easier to attack politicians and policies than it is to denigrate a perfectly natural and entirely worthy aspiration.

Scotland & NATO: The real debate II

Scotland and NATO - Moving on

Back in April I wrote an article about Scotland and NATO which was prompted by a spate of almost entirely vexatious and mischievous media speculation concerning a review of SNP policy on NATO membership. My point then was that, should there be such a review, it could only sensibly be discussed on the basis of what was actually proposed by way of change rather than what it suited the anti-independence/anti-SNP media to portray as the party leadership's intentions. Intentions that we have only recently been made aware of with the publication of Angus Robertson's proposal that will be put to the SNP Annual Conference in October.

Cracks in the unionist façade?

Labour for Independence

Surely one of the more significant recent developments in Scotland's independence referendum campaign has been the rise to prominence of the Labour for Independence group founded by Allan Grogan. A measure of just how significant is the shrill vehemence of "Scottish" Labour's insistence that the group is of no significance at all. But we have to suspect that this dismissal has more to do with blinkered wishful thinking than any reasoned assessment of the potential implications of this rejection of the party line. Such dissent is the seed from which revolutions grow. And the Labour Party has historically proved to be fertile ground for a rich crop of factionalism. At least until it was struck by the devastating blight of the New Labour project.

Observers of the Scottish political scene have long been aware that support for independence crossed party lines. It must be so because such fundamental constitutional issues transcend party politics. Neither position on the question of independence is inherently incompatible with the contrasting world-views which inform the left-right political spectrum. So it should not be too surprising to find support for independence among Labour or even Conservative voters. Independence offers no necessary impediment to the pursuit of any political agenda. No core principles or values of any mainstream ideology need be abandoned in order to embrace Scotland's civic nationalism. Support for, or opposition to independence is a choice which can be made irrespective of where an individual's political compass points. It is a choice which certainly should not be constrained by mere partisan tribalism.

Petty in pink

Petty in pink

Mighty has been the Twitterage over the last twenty-four hours on the subject of the Scottish Government's efforts to bring our marriage laws into the age of enlightenment. Mighty and, for the most part, angry. All because there was a "delay" in announcing the results of the cabinet's deliberations. Not really a delay, of course. Because the eagerly anticipated announcement was promised by the end of July. But it seems that some people simply can't wait a few days for what, if the Scottish Government do as expected, will be a historic moment for Scotland as another anachronistic social division is swept away.

There was the entirely predictable, and patently contrived anger of the SNP's opponents. The Labour/Tory/LibDem coalition approach to any issue is first and foremost to find some way of turning into a stick with which to beat Alex Salmond. They will perform the most amazing contortions of logic and semantics in the process and are not above simply lying when this suits their purposes. The issue itself, whether it be employment, the economy or equal marriage, is always subordinate to political point-scoring - even when, as with equal marriage rights, there is almost complete agreement with the SNP. The consequence of this is that less and less attention is paid to the rantings of the old parties and their tame hacks in the Scottish media.

A tale of two referendums

More questions than answers

A leader article in The Scotsman today portentously declares in its headline that a UK vote on leaving EU could scupper SNP plans. Which is a bit odd given that the SNP doesn't get much more than a passing mention in the final paragraph. Perhaps not so strange, however, when one takes account of the fact that the rabidly British nationalist Scotsman sees portents of calamity for the independence cause in the early blooming of snowdrops and the shapes of clouds. So should we be taking this seriously? Jeremiads concerning the imminent demise of Scotland's national party are as much part of The Scotsman's schtick as the trade-mark "Salmond accused...!" headline.

What does no really mean?

There is, as might be expected, much talk of what a YES vote in the coming independence referendum would mean for Scotland. But we hear very little discussion of what might be the implications of a NO vote. There are, I would suggest, two reasons for this. Firstly, the SNP and the pro-independence campaign have assiduously sought to present an entirely positive case - rightly eschewing the grindingly negative smear attempts and scare-stories that have thus far characterised the largest part of the anti-independence effort. Dwelling on the potential deleterious consequences of a NO vote simply doesn't fit with the tenor of the independence campaign.

Secondly, the unionist campaign simply doesn't have an alternative vision for Scotland. Discounting a handful of eccentrics - including David Cameron's benighted deputy in Scotland, Ruth Davidson - there is all but universal agreement that the constitutional status quo is totally untenable. But there is no meaningful effort to spell out what voting to remain in the UK would entail.

Salmond's second question strategy

Alex Salmond knows his opponents

Here's a little thing I learned a while ago.

If outcomes conflict with your expectations, first question your expectations.

The default human reaction tends to be to question the outcome and/or the process leading to it. People are naturally disinclined to query their own assumptions and preconceptions. It takes a conscious effort. That effort is an essential component of analytical thinking. And there's not a lot of that around. To illustrate the point we might do worse than look at reactions to Alex Salmond's position regarding a "second question" on the independence referendum ballot.