Realistic expectations

I do not doubt the SNP administration's commitment to creating a welfare system fit for a modern civilised nation. I know that the determination to guide us away from the corrosive austerity of British politics and back to being a humane society is absolutely genuine. I know also that there is some cool-headed calculation involved in the plan to remove the stigma from benefits and put the 'security' back into 'social security'. The potential advantages that flow from this are evident to all but the most unthinking adherents to neo-liberal orthodoxy.

What I doubt is the extent to which any of this can be achieved within the constraints being imposed by the UK Government. Because, while it suits the British parties to talk up the shiny 'new powers' being so ungraciously granted to the Scottish Parliament, the reality is that the latest round of constitutional tinkering is no less about withholding real and necessary powers from the Scottish Parliament than any of its failed predecessors.

Lesley Riddoch takes an optimistic view of the situation. She chooses to suppose that John Swinney will be able to contrive ways to work around the fiscal traps embedded in the new Scotland Bill so as to make the 'new powers' work in ways that the British government certainly didn't intend.

Let there be no mistake about this! The intent of the latest Scotland Bill is malicious. It's purpose is to force the SNP administration into doing things that will make it unpopular with voters. Devolution was never about addressing the aspirations and priorities of Scotland's people. It was always about securing the structures of power, privilege and patronage which define the British state. But the latest legislation goes beyond this. It seeks to turn devolution into a political weapon against a party seen as representing a threat to the established order. A weapon wielded with absolutely no regard for any 'collateral damage' that might be done to Scotland's economy and democratic institutions.

To hope, as Lesley Riddoch appears to do, that this sword might be beaten into a ploughshare by the Scottish Government may well represent and unjustified raising of expectations.

Ms Riddoch's motives are not in question. But we must be mindful that others will similarly seek to raise expectations whose motives are very far from benign. British Labour in Scotland has already started to demand that the SNP work all manner of miracles with these 'new powers'. In an alliance with the Tories which is only marginally less formal than Better Together, British Labour in Scotland will continue to insist that the Scottish Government is choosing not to use powers that it actually doesn't have. Or poweers whose use would have implications that Kezia's Kiddies choose to pretend don't exist. We need to be aware that British Labour and the Tories are working hand-in-hand to harrass the Scottish Government and force it into the various fiscal and political traps that have been laid.

We need to be aware that everything the British parties say and do has but one objective - the return of Scotland to British control and the eradication of Scotland's distinctive political culture.

Like most people in Scotland, I trust Nicola Sturgeon and her team. I have confidence in them. But I do not underestimate the forces that ranged against them. If they are to succeed in turning the 'new powers' to our advantage, they will need our support. And our understanding of just how difficult this will be.

The simple election

Do you get the sense that there is something different about the coming election? You may not be one of those politics anoraks to be found constantly sniffing the air trying to pick up the scent of a trend. Or the kind who spends their days peering into a metaphorical microscope at the denizens of the political pond trying to discern patterns and purpose in their obscure activities. You may not be able to quite put your finger on what it is. But you may yet be troubled by the feeling that the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections are extraordinary in some way.

And you'd be right. The circumstances in which we find ourselves conspire to create a context for this election which sets it apart from the carefully crafted norm of the British political system, with its stultifying obsession with economics; its mechanistic resort to well-tried propaganda techniques; its artifice and insincerity and triviality; its concerns and priorities contrived as distractions from uncomfortably real issues; its faux rivalries between and among cliques barely discernible in terms of ideology and policy; its reliance on disaffection and apathy... its awful Britishness.

Those special circumstances include, but are not necessarily limited to, the aftermath of the first referendum campaign; the looming EU referendum; and the issues surrounding the British establishment's efforts to foist upon Scotland yet another round of constitutional tinkering - this one distinguished only by having added malice to ineptitude in its formulation.

To this list we might add the efforts of large parts of the political left in Scotland to persuade voters that, by some never quite explained process, we might have now that which we hope to achieve as an independent nation. The pernicious notion that devolution might, after all, be enough. An echo of the unionist rhetoric about "using the powers we have (or soon will have)".

All of these things come together to create a quite distinctive context for this election.

We have an electorate that is more aware and engaged than is usual. We have the prospect of an EU referendum which serves to push the constitution to the forefront rather more than the British establishment is comfortable with. Piling in on top of that we have the Scotland Bill/Financial Framework, which makes it doubly difficult to bury the constitutional issue under a tsunami of economic and performance statistics.

And we have the radical left unconvincingly setting aside their customary factionalism in the hope of extracting some electoral advantage from all of this by peddling a magical formula that will supposedly bring about a more diverse parliament and much else without the inconvenience of having to go through the process of restoring Scotland's independence.

But what does it all mean for voters? Well, the good news is that it makes things simpler.

Simpler because we cannot choose the things that the radical left tempts us with. We are not yet at the point where we are choosing between conventional and radical policies. We are at the point where we are required to defend our potential to have such choices in the future.

Simpler because, in this election, there is a single overriding imperative which is so crucial that it relegates all policy considerations to a distant second place.

Simpler because the choice is not between the principled, if often irritatingly cautious, pragmatism of the SNP and something bigger, bolder and brighter. The choice is between a party which, at the very minimum, has accommodated the opening of Scotland's political space to the progressive; and political forces which absolutely exclude the progressive and would see it crushed out of existence.

I realise that this is hard for some to accept. I know that I will be accused of "defeatism" by those whose hunger for change leads them to misread our current situation. I expect to be assailed with taunts about "blind allegiance" to the SNP. I'll shrug this off. Because I know that none of those reacting to my remarks with that kind of vehemence would be able to explain what progressive objective, on any reasonable time-scale, is not entirely dependent on returning a majority SNP government in May.

Which means #BothVotesSNP. It really is that simple.

This article first appeared in The Grist #6

Dropping jaws and sinking hearts

Legend has it that the heavens trembled in fear the day Jim Murphy was appointed branch office manager for British Labour in Scotland. In reality, that noise wasn't thunder. It was the sound of thousands of Yes supporters' jaws hitting the floor simultaneously. For most of us, only one thing could explain such monumental crassness - from within the British Labour bubble, the real world is invisible.

This same explanation works for them opting to commit so wholeheartedly to partnership with the Tories. Although this move was less surprising to those of us who had long recognised that British Labour was just another face of the British establishment, it was nonetheless striking just how oblivious they were to the implications of brazenly acknowledging the faux rivalry at the core of the British political system.

But arguably the most striking revelation to come from this leaked research is the fact that nobody knows who made the decision to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Tories. The immediate reaction among many will, I suspect, be to scoff and assume that it's just a case of nobody wanting to admit responsibility. And this would be a very natural reaction, given what we know about British Labour in Scotland. But what if this isn't merely an example of passing the buck until it gets lost? What if, in fact, nobody did make the decision?

Is it not shockingly easy to imagine the pretendy wee party so devoid of effective leadership that it could simply drift into a situation that was almost certainly going to be fatal to its electoral fortunes? Is it not disturbingly plausible that, rather than the then nominal leader (Whichever unmemorable cipher that was!) calling a meeting and thrashing out a strategy, there was just a press statement from one of the London-based 'big beasts', and everybody then went along with it because nobody knew how to do anything else?

Nothing has changed. For all the theatrical hand-wringing and pompous rhetoric about 'listening and changing', British Labour in Scotland remains the same pathetic entity it was when it tripped over one of its egos and fell into the Tories' lap.

It is the same scabrous coalescence of arrogant, unthinking entitlement it was when, in a fit of prideful pique, British Labour shoved Jim Murphy in the faces of the people of Scotland.
We know it occupies that same reality-obscuring bubble because it continues to behave in ways that defy any explanation other than that it hasn't a f****** clue what it is doing. Or what is happening all around it.

We know it hasn't changed because only last year it allowed itself to be manoeuvred into siding with the Tories as the British establishment parties yet again joined forces in an effort to stem the tide of democratic dissent rising in Scotland. The Tories took the line that an SNP/Labour alliance was unthinkable. British Labour in Scotland not only endorsed this propaganda but sought to outdo their Tory allies in ludicrously portraying the SNP as the spawn of Satan.


We know that British Labour in Scotland is no more conscious of the political realities in Scotland now because they persist with the strategy that has come to be referred to simply as #SNPBAD despite all the indications that it is having precisely the opposite effect to that intended. We watch their antics over tax, to give just one example, and we recognise immediately that no thinking whatever has gone into the proposal beyond the potential for further sniping at the SNP administration in that infantile manner that has become so depressingly familiar.

Only one question remains. How can this lot imagine themselves credible as a party of opposition, far less a party of government? It's bad enough waiting for the next moment of jaw-dropping ineptitude when it will cause problems only for the dutiful hacks who must try to spin it as an act of deft political genius and a 'major blow to the SNP'. As the campaign for May's election gathers pace, British Labour in Scotland are asking us to imagine them in government. For most of us, that is a prospect which doesn't only make the jaw drop, it makes the heart sink.

Rejoicing and resentment

While John Swinney deserves all the plaudits he's getting from those who appreciate his achievement in defending Scotland against the predatory efforts of the British Treasury, we should be a little cautious. There is no question that he did a superb job. We expect no less. To a possibly dangerous extent, we take for granted the fact that we have a government dedicated serving the interests of Scotland's people. And a team that does so with often remarkable tenacity and competence.

But it is possible to interpret the concessions screwed out of the British state in a less triumphalist way. We can see the climb-down as an indication of how absolutely determined the British establishment is that the latest round of constitutional tinkering should go ahead. And we'd have to be terminally naive to suppose that this is because they wish Scotland well and hope that this Scotland Bill will address the priorities and satisfy the aspirations of Scotland's people.

The UK Government is eager to implement this legislation solely because it is hoped that it will create untold fiscal problems for the Scottish Government, and devastating political problems for the SNP.

And not everybody is congratulating John Swinney on a job well done in defence of Scotland's interests. The endlessly bitter British nationalists certainly aren't. The mouthpieces of the British state in the nominally Scottish media responded to the news of Swinney's success with characteristically rancid sniping. And the same arrogant dishonesty that won them such deserved disdain in the course of first referendum campaign.

The caustic carping from such as Kenny Farquharson and Alex Massie merely confirms their well-established contempt for Scotland. "Oh dear. The Vow is being delivered. Awkward.", gloats one of them on Twitter - unable to pass up the opportunity to lie about what the Scotland Bill actually means. "The Whining Shall Never End", carps the other - actually capitalising the words as if he supposes he's delivering some portentous truth. It matters not at all which said what, because they are equally hateful.

The sulphurous glee of these two loyal servants of the British establishment at the prospect of significant harm to Scotland's economy, and their drooling anticipation of an easy opportunity to blame this on the SNP, is tempered only somewhat by their resentment of Swinney's success in preventing at least some of the more immediate damage.

It pleases the likes of Farquharson and Massie - and they are merely representative of a greater malignancy in our midst - to suppose themselves the elite arm of the British nationalist propaganda machine, carrying the battle against democratic dissent from the old order and the old ways to the heart of Scottish society by way of the unionist media. In reality, what they do is offer us a glimpse of the true and utterly repellent nature of a British nationalist ideology bent on preserving the structures of power, privilege and patronage which define the British state at any cost to the people of Scotland - or the rest of these islands.

Scotland's rightful constitutional status must be restored, not merely on account of the positive things that we aspire to for our nation and people, but because of the dismal fate we must save them from.

Dubious plotting

I think we have to be very cautious about this story of a new Yes organisation. On the surface, it looks very like Jim Sillars and Robin McAlpine trying to seize ownership of the Yes movement and bring it under the control of factions whose support for independence is conditional on a narrow policy agenda. But there is good reason to wonder precisely how real this effort is. In reports elsewhere it was claimed that Women for Independence (WfI) was involved in what Robin McAlpine referred to as "talks" about this new Yes campaign management structure. WfI subsequently denied this claim. So we should, perhaps, be wary about taking any of this too seriously.

But let us suppose for a moment that Messrs McAlpine and Sillars are seriously trying to appoint themselves leaders of a movement whose organically networked nature made the very concept leadership redundant. Suppose it was actually possible for the disparate groups that made up the Yes campaign to be corralled under the direction of some committee. Would Jim Sillars and Robin McAlpine be the people we'd choose to take a lead role in this management structure? I'm dubious.

I have always maintained that it would be useful if some organisation or group emerged as the entity around which the wider Yes movement could coalesce. But I never envisaged this as resulting in a top-down organisation. What I felt would be useful is a body able to represent the Yes movement at a national level. Something akin to what we had with the official Yes Scotland. It is important to understand that Yes Scotland had a very limited role in the first referendum campaign. It set broad strategy parameters, coordinated speakers, and dealt with the media at a national and international level. But it was merely the tip of a huge iceberg made up of hundreds of almost totally autonomous groups based on localities or special interests.

If I understand the ambitions of Robin McAlpine and Jim Sillars correctly, they are seeking something much more akin to a formal nationwide campaign organisation. And I don't think it will work.

I don't think it will work in part because the format is inappropriate to a mass popular movement. And in part because I think anybody who wants to control this movement is automatically disqualified from doing so.

While I have great respect for Jim Sillars and Robin McAlpine, I simply cannot see them as representing a unifying force for the independence movement. Quite the contrary. I regard them as regrettably divisive. I listen to Jim Sillars and what I hear is pointless sniping at the SNP. It is not clear what role he wants for the SNP. But he seems to be in denial of the fact that the independence movement needs an effective political force able to operate within the British political system. A force powerful enough to mount a serious challenge to the British establishment. And he appears desperately unwilling to admit that this force must be the SNP. For the simple reason that there is nobody else anywhere near being in a position to fulfil that role.

To the extent that the SNP did "dominate" the first referendum campaign this was only because the British media chose to sideline Yes Scotland. The SNP took a lead in setting up Yes Scotland precisely because it wanted to avoid being the focus of the campaign. Unfortunately, many in the wider Yes movement opted to play the British media's game by going along with the idea that it was "all about Alex Salmond/the SNP".

Until Jim Sillars gets over his "issues" with the SNP, he can never be a unifying influence in the independence movement. Because, however much he may resent it, the SNP is the de facto political arm of that movement.

And Robin McAlpine is almost as guilty of compounding the anti-SNP propaganda of the British establishment. He criticises the Scottish Government's White Paper on independence as if it represented a policy prescription for post-independence Scotland instead of the broad depiction of potential that it was intended to be. In other words, he adopts the anti-independence campaign's rhetoric.

He also embraces the unionist narrative of "unanswered questions" on things like currency, when he should be pointing out how badly the Scottish Government's position was misrepresented by the British media. And how the British media utterly failed to scrutinise the British establishment's threat to abolish the currency union in the event of a Yes vote.

Coming up to date, Robin McAlpine has opted for a needlessly antagonistic attitude to the SNP's stance on a second referendum. For whatever reason, he chooses to focus obsessively on talk of potential "triggers" and totally ignore Nicola Sturgeon's insistence that demand for a second referendum must be led by the people and not the politicians. One might have thought that this championing of people-power was something Robin McAlpine would welcome. But apparently not if it comes from the SNP.

I know Robin acknowledges the need for the SNP as part of the independence campaign. It would be good if this awareness informed his rhetoric. Nobody is saying that the SNP should be above criticism. But those who are making common cause with the SNP in the campaign to bring Scotland's government home surely have a responsibility to criticise responsibly.

Taken as a whole, this would seem to imply that we should be giving a big thumbs-down to this latest bit of plotting by those whose sole purpose seems to be to ride the independence bandwagon into Holyrood. It may well be that the Yes movement needs to come together as a "coherent whole". But that entity can only work if it has at its core a commitment to independence which is unconditionally founded on the principle of constitutional justice. Independence is about rectifying an ancient constitutional anomaly. It is not about parties or personalities - or post-independence policies.

Media wars

It's good to be reminded that sensationalising media spin is not reserved for anti-SNP propaganda. The habit of dishonest representation is deeply ingrained in the culture of the British media.

To say that I am no admirer of Margaret Thatcher, or the unsavoury gang of sycophantic puppets with which she surrounded herself, would be a planet-sized understatement. The woman was maliciously stupid on her best day and a borderline sociopath on her worst. But I am nonetheless struck by yet another gross mismatch between the headline and such facts as are presented in the story.

For pointing this out I will doubtless be vilified as an apologist for Thatcher. Regrettably, there are all too many who are open to having their buttons pressed by a media always keen to flex its manipulative muscle in even rather trivial ways. They do it because they can. So long as people let them, they will continue to spin and distort in order to provoke a reaction. The manipulative power of the traditional media is honed in all manner of throw-away pieces which desensitise the audience to dishonesty in order that this power might be more effectively deployed in important contexts - such as elections and constitutional referendums.

There was an example of this just yesterday evening. Somebody posted on Facebook a link to a story about a pay increase for MPs. The story was, of course, spun for sensational effect. And pretty much all of those responding duly obliged by launching themselves enthusiastically into an orgy of righteous indignation.

I commented that MP's did not set their own pay and that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) had instituted a system whereby increases were now tied to public sector pay. I further pointed out that there had been a great deal of misrepresentation on this issue and that the previous substantial increases laboured by the newspaper story were, in fact, parts of years-long process of reform by IPSA which had made MPs' remuneration package considerably less generous than it once was.

Cue a shit-storm of abuse. Almost exclusively from people who clearly hadn't read beyond the headline. The facts were irrelevant. Politicians are hate-figures and you better go along with the pack mentality or you become prey just as much as they are. The reality of the issue is of absolutely no consequence. Prejudice rules! No thinking required!

You get the picture.

Why do I mention this? Why is it important? Why do I not just dismiss my abusers for the credulous fools that they so evidently are?

Allow me to explain.

It is in the nature of things that most of those castigating me for contaminating their Two Minute Hate with factual material were pro-independence. I'm a 'Facebook-famous' member of the SNP and activist in the campaign to restore Scotland's rightful constitutional status; as well as a champion of what we may, for convenience, refer to as progressive politics. So most of my followers are people who are sympathetic to this agenda.

The media is, inevitably, a major battle-ground in the fight between established power and the forces of democratic dissent. And the lines are these days drawn, not between different sections of the mainstream media, but between a mainstream sector all but undifferentiated in terms of support for and obedient service to the British establishment, and a nascent, but rapidly developing, alternative media in the virtual realm.

In this battle, it is crucial that people learn to be active consumers of media messages. In particular, they must become consciously aware of the way the mainstream media operates. Only then can they hope to avoid the manipulative traps by which the media captures their minds and disables their critical faculties.

I find it deeply frustrating that there are still people who have learned no lessons from the first referendum campaign and the dishonesty of the British nationalist campaign to deny the sovereignty of Scotland's people. The media can still press their buttons with a headline about MPs' pay. Or about the Thatcher regime.

But there is more. I am firmly persuaded that it is not enough to win the media battle simply in terms of statistics for circulation versus unique visitors. The alternative media is clearly winning in that regard. Although there may be still some way to go. Just as important, however, is the effort to win the public's respect. Counter-intuitive as it may be when we see journalists held in such low esteem as to be ranked with bankers, the traditional media yet retains considerable authority.

If alternative media is to pose a meaningful challenge to established power then it must capture the authoritative status once associated with the 'quality' newspapers and the BBC.

It's all relative. There is no absolute measure of authority. All sources of reporting, analysis and comment are assessed relative to one another. Even as the status of the mainstream media declines, it is essential that the online media come to be regarded as the authoritative alternative. This means they must not emulate the habits and practices of the old media, but should offer something different.

As a very small cog in the machinery of the alternative media, I believe it is important that we should demonstrate a capacity for dispassionate critical scrutiny that is generalised, and not restricted to British establishment propaganda attacking the independence movement, or the SNP, or political progressives in general.

If the alternative media is to have credibility, it must stand ready to point out the facts and/or the reasoned arguments even where these relate to emotive trigger topics such as MPs' pay or the Thatcher regime.

If we want people to listen, we should seek to win their interest with the quality of our presentation and the force of our message, rather than try to grab their attention with lurid headlines and prurient content.

Facile assumptions, fallacies and falsehoods

The Green's failure to capitalise on STV's decision to include them in its pre-election debate line-up is far from an exceptional occurrence. They have form on this kind of thing. I well remember when, during the first referendum campaign, the Scottish Greens officially announced that they were joining Yes Scotland. This should have been an entirely upbeat moment focused on the aims of the independence campaign. Instead, Patrick Harvie found himself unable to resist some petty sniping at the SNP. He too readily succumbed to the very partisan politicking that the holier-than-thou Greens claim to eschew.

And yet Lesley Riddoch assumes that we must all "admire" the Greens. They are the eternal "good guys" of Scottish politics. Such is the myth.

Some might argue that these PR failures are trivial. That there are more important matters to deal with. Well, one can always make that claim. Whatever particular issue happens to be the focus of discussion, somebody can always resort to the diversionary tactic of insisting that we really should be talking about something else. And they will tend to do so whenever the discussion looks like it might get "interesting" in ways that make them uncomfortable.

The Greens aspire to play in the big leagues. They want to be taken seriously as a party of opposition and, potentially, as part of government. However much they might turn up their noses at the thought, presentation is a crucial part of politics. Always has been. If the Greens can't get their act together in this regard, maybe there is less cause to "admire" them than Ms Riddoch takes for granted.

The coming election is crucial in ways that I would sincerely hope Lesley Riddoch understands. It is certainly not an occasion to be making decisions on the basis of facile assumptions about the inherent worthiness of parties or politicians. The Greens and other pro-independence parties (OPIPs) have to prove themselves worthy of electoral support. They are not entitled to demand votes simply on the basis of being pro-independence - however tentatively, nominally or conditionally. They have to demonstrate that they will be effective as parliamentarians. Particularly in regard to taking forward the fight to restore Scotland's rightful constitutional status.

Dispassionate analysis - which seems to be lacking in much of what is being advanced by proponents of 'tactical voting' - strongly suggests that OPIP MSPs would add nothing to the pro-independence credentials of an SNP majority government. Indeed, such rational scrutiny suggests that they might diminish those credentials. For one thing, only the SNP is unconditionally committed to independence. The various OPIPs make their support for independence conditional on diverse and shifting policy agendas.

And, in purely practical terms, we can be sure that the British media would totally discount OPIP MSPs. They would be ignored. Just as Yes Scotland was sidelined in the first referendum campaign in favour of a simplified "all about the SNP/Alex Salmond" approach, so it would be with a handful of OPIP MSPs. They only time they'd get media attention would be when they were attacking the SNP and/or saying something that could be spun as problematic for independence. They would be more hindrance than help.

The facile assumption that more Green MSP must inevitably be a good thing needs to be challenged.

And if the decision in May is too important to be based on facile assumptions, it surely shouldn't be informed by fallacies and falsehoods. The fallacy that there is a simple way to game the electoral system in order to achieve an outcome of dubious value need to be knocked firmly on the head. Especially given the vital nature of what is being risked in the almost certainly futile hope of contriving parliamentary diversity by including people and parties not strictly qualified to be there.

Then there is the fallacy that the essential SNP majority is a foregone conclusion on the basis of the constituency vote alone. This is, of course, pernicious nonsense. Yet it is ever part of the rhetoric of those promoting the notion of a Magic Pick 'n' Mix Parliament.

Most foolish of all, perhaps, would be to vote on the basis of a blatant falsehood. We had enough of that with the false prospectus flogged by the anti-independence campaign in 2014. The assertion that a second independence referendum is "not part of the SNP’s Scottish Parliament manifesto" is such a falsehood. It just isn't true. But, again, it has been absorbed into the narrative of the Green/OPOIP effort to induce voters to put the crucial SNP majority in jeopardy.

It is, to say the least, disappointing to find Lesley Riddoch peddling this untruth. For the umpteenth time, let me remind her and all those who consider trying to mislead Scotland's voters what Nicola Sturgeon said on the matter. I mean what she ACTUALLY said!

"Our manifesto will set out what we consider are the circumstances and the timescale on which a second referendum might be appropriate, but we can only propose.

"It's then for people in Scotland, whether it is in this election or in future elections, to decide whether they want to vote for our manifesto and then if there is in the future another independence referendum, whether that's in five years or ten years or whenever, it will be down to the people of Scotland to decide whether they want to vote for independence or not.

"So at every single stage this is something that is driven by and decided by the people of Scotland, not by politicians."

It must be clearly understood that very particular circumstances prevail in the coming election. Circumstances which dictate that we must be especially assiduous in rejecting facile assumptions, simplistic fallacies and blatant falsehoods. Whatever our preferences and ideals, we must recognise the massively overriding importance of ensuring an SNP majority in the next parliament. Next to that, policy agendas and party loyalties are vanishingly inconsequential.

The only 'tactical voting' strategy that makes any sense in these circumstances is #BothVotesSNP.