text:
Work as if you live in the early days of a
Better Nation
Holyrood 2011
« Scottish Labour needs to remember its own history
Donations to the referendum campaigns »
The new Scottish political craze – Fighting for what you don't believe in
Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 111 Comments
I have noticed an interesting theme develop over the past few weeks which has involved non-Nationalists complain about the look an independent Scotland would have under the SNP's referendum plans.Â
The objection goes that Salmond is claiming to offer choice with one hand but only offering a Scotland that keeps the monarchy, keeps the pound and keeps EU membership with the other.
For me, this is a bit like a Rangers fan complaining about the Celtic lineup before an Old Firm match.
If it's clear which side of this argument's line one is on, then why busy oneself with the free choice of what the other side is pushing for?
Further, how precisely would Scots get to decide on the monarchy, on the EU, on NATO, not to mention whether we should be independent or not, via one single question?Â
It is difficult to tell if complainants are merely posturing or genuinely can't tell the difference between a referendum that decides once and for all on the nation's monarchy, currency and the extent of European involvement and a referendum, as this one in 2014 shall be, on whether we as a nation should decide on these issues for ourselves rather than merely as one small part of a larger country.Â
One example was a fine argument had with David Torrance in the pub, unquotable only because I can't trust my memory one minute to the next let alone two days after, but another example was a robust Twitter exchange with Labour's mightily impressive Michael Marra. Examples of Michael's position include:
"in order to be credible you have to argue for independence"
"no fiscal Indy, no monetary Indy, no military Indy, no head of state Indy. No Indy."
"either have the balls to argue for real Indy or we talk about things that really matter"
It's not for the SNP to dictate what an independent Scotland's currency or EU membership should be, as I'm sure most in the party would freely accept. Even the current pressure on Alex Salmond to outline what our Defence force would look like is unwarranted.Â
Salmond is the First Minister of a devolved Scotland, we don't know who the first Prime Minister of an independent Scotland will be, if that day comes to pass. These issues would be for he or she to decide after fresh elections and after a negotiated breakaway from the UK.Â
Of course the SNP is trying to push as wide a view of independence as it possibly can in order to fit as many Yes votes into its big tent, broad church politics as possible. What, in short, is wrong with this approach? Why is it for the SNP to dot every i and cross every t of how Scotland will be post 2014 and for decades to come? After all, the SNP might not even exist once its mission is accomplished.
Labour, or any party, pushing for Salmond to flesh out this detail are inadvertently weakening their own position by making it appear that they do not have a policy that they would wish to push for. To cede the position is to cede the argument.
For me, the best way to advance this referendum debate is for each side to pick their own position on any related issue and advance it as best they can. Salmond is wryly trying to advance nameless persons' Devo Max argument on their behalf while trying to unscrupulously gain from doing so and, as pointed out, non-Nats are trying to paint what actual Nats should be arguing for.Â
Maybe proponents of independence and members of the SNP are angry that abolishing the monarchy and shunning the EU are not on the agenda in the near future but it is not the business of unionists to stir that particular pot. Nats are free to raise this issue with the party they are a part of and/or join or create a different party in order to champion the views that they hold so dear.
Argue for what you believe in, make your case and we'll see what the result is, and where Scotland wants to go next, come 2014.Â
Everything else is just noise.
This entry was posted on January 22, 2012, 7:09 pm and is filed under Holyrood. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
#1 by James on January 22, 2012 - 7:14 pm
Jeff, if the argument is that the SNP should decide everything, fine – although an elite process like that will disempower the public, while an open pre-referendum convention could inspire them. However, even if we accept that it's both appropriate and sensible for the SNP to set the entire terms of the debate, it's surely legitimate to say "who writes the constitution of an independent Scotland, when do they do it, and who approves it?". That's the only crucial question here, one they're desperate to avoid. #futurepost
#2 by Jeff on January 22, 2012 - 7:43 pm
I'm not saying that the SNP 'should' decide everything, I'm saying that they can't decide everything, not within a one-question referendum at least. If Scotland votes Yes in 2014 then it'll be open season on how Scotland could and should look come then but starting from a status quo surely isn't unreasonable. A convention isn't a bad idea; though I don't think it's necessary or necessarily even desirable. The SNP doesn't need to set one up this side of a referendum and any party is free to take the idea to the public in any subsequent election. There certainly isn't a mandate for one here and now, while fully accepting that having one may nonetheless be a good idea. Again though, why is it for the SNP to kick it off unless you yourself are of the view that 'the SNP should decide everything'.
I also don't subscribe to the view that Scotland won't be able to exist without a constitution, at least in its formative years. The UK has done jolly well with an 'unwritten constitution' for ages.
#3 by Craig Gallagher on January 22, 2012 - 8:04 pm
I completely disagree that the SNP are running away from questions of a constitutional nature. They are doing the total opposite, bringing constitutional questions to the fore. Who else is setting out their vision of what they believe a post-independence Scotland should look like? Where, for example, is the Green contribution to the debate? Or that of Margo MacDonald? It would seem more likely that these pro-independence groups and individuals are the ones shunning the questions you put forward.
We've already heard mutterings that "civic Scotland" is about to make a substantive contribution to the debate. It's not at all "appropriate and sensible for the SNP to set the entire terms of the debate", and I firmly believe they will welcome the contribution of groups and individuals outwith their umbrella.
#4 by cynicalHighlander on January 22, 2012 - 8:08 pm
It took America over 10 years to draw up a written constitution after its independence and Iceland has individuals redrawing theirs up after kicking out their last government as it is up to the people to write it not politicians. That's democracy something we don't have at the moment.
#5 by Indy on January 23, 2012 - 6:48 am
It is not up to the SNP to set the entire terms of the debate – and we don't want to. We don't believe in Devo Max for example but we're willing to make room for those who do so accusations about an elite process with the SNP controlling everything are nonsense.
You have been banging on aboit a written constitution for ages now So – question – what have YOU done about it? What have YOU done about a pre-referendum convention. If you don't want the SNP to set it up surely it's up to others to get their arses in gear. So why not get on with it?
#6 by Nikostratos on January 22, 2012 - 7:58 pm
Err! vote 'YES' to Independence and worry about the(minor?) details afterwards well would you buy a house on those terms probaly not.
The snp with Alex as their lead man want the People to follow them down the road to Independence its only natural many would like to know what the road ahead may hold for them.
After all they may wish to stay on the road they have walked quite contently for the last 300+ years.
'Nats are free to raise this issue' But Unionists are not? well lucky for us what you would or would not like isn't likely to influence the outcome one jot.
As for stirring the pot ALex has been doing that for years and years only now its coming to the boil and what pops out aint going to be to his liking. Perhaps he brought it to the boil one Parliament to soon
Jeff, the entire time I was reading this very insightful article, I was thinking of work of Thomas Kuhn, who in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions argues that leaps in scientific deduction happen when people are capable of engaging with issues in a completely new paradigm, whereas those who oppose such innovations – such as the Roman Church did with Galileo Galilei – are unable to grasp that the paradigm has shifted to higher and more productive ground.
Historians have used that premise to argue for intellectual leaps that spawn political revolutions, suggesting that the American adoption of republicanism as a legitimate theory spurred them to an advantage over their monarchist British opponents, and that the Bolsheviks in Russia were able to conceive a world where everything was broken down in order to start afresh as their conservative Tsarist enemies could not.
While not suggesting that the SNP are of the same political importance as the American or Bolshevik revolutionaries, I think it is nonetheless true that what you are speaking about is a paradigm shift. In the American example, the British authorities could never grasp that offering concessions – such as American representation in Westminster under the King-in-Parliament arrangement – would no longer wash for intellectuals who had taken the crucial step towards legitimating republicanism as an idea.
In similar vein, the British establishment hasn't grasped that the argument has moved on, restricting them from offering what the Scottish people now regard as legitimate – devo max, indy lite, whatever it's called – and that the ground has shifted underneath them, leaving them forced to grapple with their opponents on unfamiliar terrain that the SNP know very well. I've been subtly aware of this since the argument broke out during the 2011 election campaign and am amazed to think about how far and how fast the argument has progressed this last year.
Now, the idea of a paradigm shift has a lot of critics and is not universally, or even always generally applicable, but in this case I think it's a useful way to conceive of the state of play as you've described it. Alex Salmond moved the goalposts this year with devo max and have removed the relevance of arguments for the status quo as many in the Labour and Conservative parties would like to make.
#8 by commenter on January 22, 2012 - 8:24 pm
"not fair – independence needs to be a wrenching and scary prospect otherwise the SNP are cheating".
This seems to be the curious argument of the people that you're spotlighting in this post.
I believe, even though they don't get to dictate the terms, it's crucial to the argument that the SNP describe a plausible independent Scotland to voters. If they want to have any chance of a yes vote.
#9 by Aidan on January 22, 2012 - 8:25 pm
It's surely ok to point out the contradiction in the SNP argument that everything will be better in an independent Scotland while remaining exactly the same.
Further, as discussed in the pub, having had an affirmative referendum that explicitly includes continuing with the monarchy, Sterling, the EU and NATO and the other aspects of the status quo that lends them considerable democratic legitimacy and quite probably means they're unassailable for decades to come.
As fair as I can tell the assumed process (assuming a Yes vote) will be: 2014 referendum, 2016-2018 commencement of independence and then letting that bed down for a decade or two. Who is arguing that following a yes vote we'll enter a referenda marathon?
#10 by Commenter on January 22, 2012 - 8:44 pm
Not sure you've fully captured all the nuance of SNP position there.
According to your argument, every GE reaffirms the monarchy's democratic legitimacy, because it isn't raised as an issue. The indyref doesn't constitute a vote in favour of everything that it doesn't alter.
#11 by Jeff on January 22, 2012 - 8:58 pm
"It's surely ok to point out the contradiction in the SNP argument that everything will be better in an independent Scotland while remaining exactly the same."
I find that a pretty tiresomely disingenuous point to be making to be honest Aidan. A yes/no referendum on anything will, by definition, offer two separate options so an independent Scotland will be anything but "exactly the same". Ok, Scotland will be the same insofar as it having a Royal Family figurehead, being a part of the EU (indulge me in ignoring Spain's supposed veto please) and having planes and soliders to defend the borders but is that all there is to a country? You know fine well that it is not and the opportunity to take full control of the economy, of taxes, of social welfare, of oil revenues and so on brings about the real change that can really matter, one way or the other. The simple fact that an independent Scotland wouldn't have Conservatives in its Government is evidence enough that things wouldn't be "exactly the same".
As for your second point, I simply don't agree that a Yes vote legitimises Sterling, EU, Nato etc etc. As I said before, it's open season once that Yes vote comes in as Scotland would be starting from as blank canvas. I don't know where you're getting the 'assumed process' from.
I'm not saying there would be a referendums marathon; I'm saying we'll have fresh elections and Labour, Lib Dems, Tories, SNP (if it exists), Greens can all campaign on EU involvement, monarchy or not, defence policy and deliver their mandates accordingly – all the things that all other countries do out there without any fuss. I find that an exciting prospect and am surprised that so many have such a difficult time with the idea.
#12 by Ken on January 22, 2012 - 10:39 pm
A wee bit unfair. It's well known Madrid didn't look kindly on separatists with the Socialists in power, and now the PP is in power, they'll be even more hardline.
Madrid even blocked the further recognition of 'minority languages' at an EU level during their recent presidency. (Despite Catalan alone is spoke by over 10 million people).
It's certainly feasible that without severe lobbying against the 5 EU member states that currently don't recognise Kosovo, vetos / objections will happen. To think otherwise would be naive.
#13 by Indy on January 23, 2012 - 10:40 am
What is more inconceivable is that a country that is fully integrated into the EU could overnight be thrown out. Think about it. Kosovo is not currently part of the EU. Scotland is, with all that implies. It would be extraordinarily difficult to de-integrate us. It would take years.
And if worry about "separatists" is what would make Spain use its veto I wonder why Spain didn't veto the EU overseeing Montenegro's independence referendum? That referendum was in fact overseen by the EU's Foreign Minister Javier Solano who, as the name implies, is Spanish.
#14 by Ken on January 23, 2012 - 2:08 pm
Scotland is not a country in the EU – and it's a important distinction in EU politics. There are only 27 members or countries – Scotland is not one of them yet I'm sorry to say. Others, like Scotland, Bavaria, Galicia, all have offices there but as regions / devolved administrative missions, not as countries or members.
Because from the Spanish perspective, Montenegro has a strong history of it's own as a distinct and recognised legal Republic within several Federal systems, where Scotland or other separatist regions like Catalonia don't? And on Solana, just to note he oversaw referendum from an EU position – not from a Spanish Government position, which is all irrelevant anyway as Madrid didn't look on Montenegro's case as 'separatism' in the same sense as Kosovo. [To be clear, I'm not using 'separatism' with any negative connotation.]
Anyway… this was just in response to a post earlier that doesn't appear to be here anymore. I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm only saying it will take an awful lot of lobbying, arm twisting and concessions to get a right wing Government on board for this and I would hope it's well under way.
#15 by Indy on January 23, 2012 - 4:36 pm
Scotland is a country in the EU complete with the full panapoly of law – the acquis communitaire or whatever the correct spelling is.
If we suppose that an independent Scotland – the day after independence – found itself outwith the EU then that means that every rule, every regulation, every law that originated with the EU no longer applies. Think what that would mean. None of the rules of the free market would apply to us any more but we would be right in the middle of it. Talk about having a cuckoo in the nest! In those circumstances the UK Govt would be jumping up and down saying not fair!
We're all used to the overhyped claims that the EU makes 80 per cent of our laws etc but iot's not a total exaggeration – it is such a huge body of law that it generally requires quite significant transitional periods before new member states needed to implement thit in full and before they and their citizens acquired full rights under the acquis. It already is implemented in full in Scotland however.
"Scotland is a country in the EU " – Ok, agree to disagree then.
"every rule, every regulation, every law that originated with the EU no longer applies. "
Eh? Laws do not work that way. It's still a law under Scottish or UK Law because they have been incorporated into that legal system and approved as law. Leaving the EU doesn't mean that all laws adopted in a country no longer apply. The new independent country can of course go about stripping those laws if it feels, but it has to actively do so – it doesn't just 'happen' automatically.
"We're all used to the overhyped claims that the EU makes 80 per cent of our laws etc but iot's not a total exaggeration " Could you source that figure please?
[Not entirely sure why this is now about EU law but ok]
#17 by Indy on January 24, 2012 - 7:35 am
It is about EU law because the adoption of the aquis is basically what EU membership is about, it's what it means in practical terms.
Adoption and implementation of the acquis are the basis of accession negotiations to the EU.
But the acquis are already adopted and implemented in Scotland.
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/glossary/terms/acquis_en.htm
So you see when people talk about the length of time that it takes for a country to become a full member of the EU that is because new entrants have to go through a process whereby they adopt all the legislation, the content of treaties, the instruments, the rules, the regulations etc,
Those who argue that an independent Scotland would be thrown out of the EU and have to re-apply and that it would take years are arguing therefore that we would have to de-adopt all the legislation that is already in place, de-sign all the treaties, revoke all the instruments, the rules and regulations – and then sign back up to exactly the same things all over again!
That is simply a preposterous argument. There is no way that the EU is as stupid as that.
#18 by GMcM on January 24, 2012 - 11:25 am
Indy, just in case I've missed it somewhere, can you point out where someone on here has said Scotland wouldn't become a part of the EU or that it would take the same length of time as other accession states?
I'm not saying no-one on here has said that but can I ask, if they have not said what you imply, that you refrain from accusing people of saying things they haven't?
I promise I'll try and do the same 🙂
In addition to comments by UK ministers there are also comments such as Jim Murphy's on his blog just a few weeks ago "Add to this list of uncertainties how Scotland would get back into the EU."
Why would Scotland need to "get back" into the EU if it wasn't put out in the first place?
Or another example – Willie Bain today on Left Foot Forward:
"So leaving the UK would mean a separate Scotland loses that opt-out and would have to commit itself in its application for re-accession to eventual Eurozone membership, just as Croatia has done in its recent accession treaty prior to joining the EU next year. "
What he is saying there is that Scotland would have to go through some kind of "re-accession" process. But the accession process revolves around the ability of the new applicant state to take on the obligations of membership – crucially the acquis. Scotland has already done that. How could we re-do that?
In playing around with terms in this way to make it sound more authoratitve Willie Bain has just ended up saying something that is literally nonsense.
#21 by GMcM on January 24, 2012 - 9:48 am
Indy, no-one is saying that Scotland wouldn't become a member of the EU. Again this is an example of the nationalists actively misrepresenting the views of those who disagree with them and its getting rather tiresome. You can't just chuck mud at people and hope enough of it sticks.. Rather than taking the points, made by those who oppose your view, and seek to defeat those arguments with your own, the nationalists would prefer to misrepresent those views.
Lets take the UK Governements legal advice on an independent Scotlands position in the EU. It says that Scotland would have to apply for membership and it would get it. Also, for some of the reasons you state above, we would be integrated in a fast-track process.
The argument is not about this though and the nationalists know it. That is why we keep hearing that is absurd to think Scotland wouldn't be a member of the EU considering our natural resources. That implies that those who oppose independence don't think Scotland is big enough, smart enough or rich enough to be in the EU. No-one is saying that except the SNP.
The argument here is whether or not Scotland would have to follow the rules of new member states (Euro, Schengen etc) whether fast-tracked or not. It is an issue the SNP are clearly trying to side-step. The UK Government made their legal advice public, to give credence to their arguments – why don't the SNP publish their advice on the matter so we can see whose advice is more realistsic?
Excuse me but some people are saying just that – where do you think the suggestion that Spain might veto Scotland's membership comes from? The SNP? The usual senior (but un-named) UK minister was quoted as saying "They might wish to join the EU, but we fully expect Spain to block it, fearing it might encourage the separatist spirit on their doorstep." We now know that the Spanish Government has denied the story.
And you must know that it is not just Tory/Lib Dem politicians who play this game.
Catherine Stihler regularly plays similar games.
Incidentally I don't think the UK Government has made its legal advice public. I am sure that would have received some press coverage if they had. And it would be surprising if they had changed their position after they replied to an FOI request from the SNP saying "In accordance with section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (information subject to legal professional privilege), I am unable to confirm or deny whether this department holds any information relating to legal advice on this subject. Such advice would be advice in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings, and is therefore exempt under section 42 of the Act.
Section 42 is not an absolute exemption; it is subject to the public interest test in the Act. There is a strong in-built public interest in withholding information to which legal professional privilege applies. The Courts have recognised that where a request is received under the Act and reliance is placed on section 42, there is a strong inherent public interest in maintaining legal professional privilege. In order to overcome that public interest there would need to be a countervailing public interest factor of at least equal significance that favoured disclosure. This reflects the role of legal professional privilege as a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole rests and the importance for the Government being able to obtain free and frank legal advice so that decisions taken are properly informed and legally sound.
Whilst we recognise there is a public interest in seeing what legal advice (if any) has been provided to the UK Government on the implications for EU membership if Scotland were to achieve independence, we have concluded that this is outweighed by the strong public interest in the Government being able to seek free and frank legal advice on such matters."
#23 by Gregor on January 23, 2012 - 5:04 pm
Because from the Spanish perspective, Montenegro has a strong history of it's own as a distinct and recognised legal Republic within several Federal systems, where Scotland or other separatist regions like Catalonia don't?
Are you saying Scotland doesn't have a strong history of it's [sic] own as a distinct and recognised legal status within another state?
As for Scottish membership of the EU, the EU is pragmatic, and cares about its reputation. It's not going to want the publicity of 5.2million of its citizens upping sticks and being removed. It's too much hassle. It's easier for them to have a quick vote to see what the members think.
Scotland is not a memberstate, but it is a country within the EU. And I mean that legally. Scots Law is entirely compatable with the acquis communautaire and the like. It would be silly for both parties involved if the process was to stick to the timescales of new member states.
"Are you saying Scotland doesn't have a strong history of it's [sic] own as a distinct and recognised legal status within another state?
I'm really not belittling devolution – I'm simply ranking a Federal (and earlier Socialist) Republic with its powers a little higher in legal status than a Devolved Government with its powers. Internationally, I think that's generally the norm.
"Scotland is not a memberstate, but it is a country within the EU" – Ok, I use 'country' to mean equal standing with 'Member State'. I just would have thought that leads to confusion, like Bavaria being an EU country too.
#25 by Doug Daniel on January 23, 2012 - 9:07 pm
Yes, because Bavaria has a national football team and its own legal system, doesn't it?
Sorry, but you completely belittle your own arguments with this tenuous argument that Scotland is not a country. Ask anyone in the world if Scotland is a country, and they'll say yes. Out of all the separatist/independence movements in the world, I would imagine Scotland is the only area that would be unanimously described as being a country, rather than a region.
"Yes, because Bavaria has a national football team and its own legal system, doesn't it? "
Oh for God's sake. Hong Kong and Macau have their own football teams and own legal systems and they're not countries either.
"Sorry, but you completely belittle your own arguments with this tenuous argument that Scotland is not a country. Ask anyone in the world if Scotland is a country, and they'll say yes. Out of all the separatist/independence movements in the world, I would imagine Scotland is the only area that would be unanimously described as being a country, rather than a region."
My post 70: "Scotland is not a country in the EU ". The last 3 words I said, that you seem to have missed – "in the EU" – are the crux of the point regarding Scotland's relations with the EU (and indeed my posts). You might not like it that Scotland is not recognised as a country in it's own right and that's too bad but…. I thought that was what the whole point of the independence movement? That Scotland IS recognised as a country?
There are 27 countries in the EU (28 now with Croatia), this can be seen here: http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm
You don't agree? Write to the European Commission, highlighting that since Scotland has a football team it should be classified as a country at the EU level. Your beef should be with them.
#27 by Indy on January 24, 2012 - 12:20 pm
I think you are talking at cross purposes here. There is no debate that Scotland is a country but it is not yet a member state of the EU. The argument is made that if Scotland becomes independent it would not automatically be a member of the EU and it would not be guaranteed membership. That is a political argument – there is no basis for believing that from the behaviour of the EU itself.
The EU has for many years now been pursuing a course of enlargement. That is its policy. As each "new" state is absorbed it has to go through a long process of institutional and political integration into the EU. That is necessary in order to become a member state. There would however be no requirement for Scotland to go through this process because it is already fully integrated into the EU.
Now, despite repeated questions from Catherine Stihler among others the European Commission has always refused to comment on the process when and if Scotland becomes independent. But taking everything else into consideration it is almost certain that it would regard Scottish independence in the light of an internal enlargement of the UK. So, yes, you would have two member states where before there was one – but both would already be fully integrated. So Scotland would not be a "new" state and would not require to go through the same accession process as countries like Croatia etc.
The idea that the EU, with this long standing commitment to enlargement, would baulk at Scotland's membership just doesn't bear any kind of scrutiny. Comparisons with Kosovo are wide of the mark. Scotland is not going to declare UDI. It will be a negotiated process which will be recognised by the UK and the international community.
Stop thinking of the EU as a homogenous entity. For accession, it needs consensus from all 27 national governments. You don't convince 1, you convince 27.
I was simply pointing out a few potential political stumbling blocks that can arise if action isn't taken – not just from Spain. Macedonia's accession ground to a halt for a long time. Why? Because Greece didn't like their name. Turkey's accession continues to drag. Primary reason? The Greeks and Cypriots won't budge until Northern Cyprus is resolved. Who knows why a country might drag Scotland's entry into the slow lane? Spain is the most obvious, but it's not the only one that might slow down the political (not the legal) process.
Scotland is well liked in Europe yes, but I wouldn't dare to simply assume that it's plain sailing and not bother considering the potential disruptions along the way. That was all I was saying.
"the European Commission has always refused to comment on the process when and if Scotland becomes independent."
Of course it does that. The job of commenting on a political decision is not the Commission's. You'd be asking the wrong institution! It's the Council that is key here. The Commission is just the bureaucracy, and they give the standard fudge legislative answer on a whole range of political issues, including Scotland. Much like any other civil service their 'political opinion' is simply reflecting Council policy at that moment in time.
"For accession, it needs consensus from all 27 national governments. You don't convince 1, you convince 27."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iajSMJN37uamGND6TquhcLqsJTkQ?docId=CNG.d5034f37cebe7fb3262d88d351279af2.161
"But lawyers for the EU said an independent Scotland could be treated as one of two successor states, and that a separate seat for Edinburgh would require only a majority vote among member states."
27 countries? Try 14 (well, 15 by 2014).
The UK will not want Scotland out of the EU, for the same reason Gideon Osborne gave for bailing out Ireland – trade. Same goes for Ireland (although I suspect they would vote for us anyway). So there's two votes right away.
Finland, Denmark and Sweden? Can't think what objection they'd have with Scotland being in the EU.
Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Estonia, Slovenia? Most of them have citizens living in Scotland that would have to leave if Scotland stopped being in the EU, and besides which, most of those countries will still remember what it's like trying to gain independence from a bigger entity, so I'm not sure why they'd stop us. Croatia are hardly likely to start trying to block others from being in the EU when they've only just joined themselves.
Spain are saying it's purely an internal UK matter, so it sounds like we could count on their vote. Would Germany and France, so keen as they are on EU enlargement, block Scotland's membership? Pretty doubtful. Austria? Netherlands? Malta? Luxembourg? Portugal? Italy? None of these countries have any reason to deny Scotland membership of the EU. And we're not Macedonia or Turkey, so Cyprus and Greece won't be a problem.
Who are we left with? Well, I suppose Belgium could try to block us in fear of the impending split between Wallonia and Flanders, although they may even have split in two themselves by that point.
The chances of Scotland being booted out of the EU are ridiculously slim. It goes completely against everything the EU stands for, not to mention the fact we'd be one of the richest countries in it. It's worth acknowledging that there is something there to sort out, yes; but the type of stories we're hearing at the moment are completely over-the-top. Having to get other countries to step in and tell us that the UK government is lying about things those countries have said is hardly conducive to having a constructive debate.
"But lawyers for the EU said an independent Scotland could be treated as one of two successor states, and that a separate seat for Edinburgh would require only a majority vote among member states."
A: 'Could'. Scotland could be treated as a successor case – it also could not.
B: If you could provide any further info on this change to QMV for accession I'd be much obliged, as to my knowledge all EU Treaties outline accession to still be based on unanimity. What is the Article that changes this?
As for the rest, one would have to be very naive to think politics is ever that simple and easy. I would plan for the worst, and hope for the best but it appears you've waved away the worst problems with a "ah sure, it'll be fine". So best of luck with that.
That argument kind of reminds me of all the debate a few months ago about whether the referendum would be legally competent when people were saying the SNP must plan for the worst possible scenario and do this, that and the next thing to prevent it ending up in court and saying the SNP was far too blase thinking it could be resolved politically. But it has been resolved politically.
Nobody thinks that politics is ever simple or easy – but if we spent all our time planning for the worst and focusing on the potential barriers to independence the SNP would probably never have been formed in the first place! And we certainly wouldn't have won any elections.
#32 by Doug Daniel on January 25, 2012 - 10:38 am
It's not a case of waving away the worst problems. But what is happening with the EU question is that the worst possible scenario has been promoted by some corners as the reality, which is just completely non-constructive. Fair enough if it can be backed with reasonable logic, but even without the words of an EU lawyer and the Spanish foreign minister issuing a categorical denial that Spain would stand in Scotland's way, it just flies completely in the face of common sense.
The chances of Scotland not being allowed to continue membership of the EU simply do not warrant the amount of airtime given to this particular strand of the anti-independence debate. It's more likely that countries like Greece start getting ejected from the EU.
Stop thinking in terms of accession. Scotland does not need to go through the accession process – we have already been through it. We are fully integrated already.
If you were basing your idea that Spain would object to Scotland's continued membership of the EU on recent press stories then you must now be aware that the Spanish government has denied them.
To have a point, you would need to demonstrate some logical reason why any country would want to effectively expel Scotland from the EU. Because that is what you are really suggesting. Other than Spain who do you think is likely to do that?
#34 by An Duine Gruamach on January 23, 2012 - 11:34 am
This is relevant: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/01/anti-scottish-propaganda/
#35 by Benjamin on January 23, 2012 - 12:22 pm
I think it has to be remembered that that the UK government fully accepts that Scotland has the right to vote for independence in a referendum. The first state to recognise an independent Scotland will surely be the rUK.
The Spanish government is not going to refuse to recognise an independent Scotland that has been recognised by the British government. It's not their business to comment on whether or not the UK wants to stay together if the respective governments in the UK accept the validity of the process. I think the examples of Montenegro and Kosovo are relevant here. In the case of Montenegro, the Serbian government fully recognised the process, which Spain had no problem accepting. In the case of Kosovo, it was effectively a UDI, which Serbia has not yet accepted.
#36 by Angus McLellan on January 24, 2012 - 1:48 am
Stephen Noon has a post up on this. And unlike him you don't have to rely on the Catalan papers because Google News in Spanish has the story too: "España niega que haya mostrado su malestar al Ejecutivo británico por el referendo escocés" is EFE's headline. La Gaceta says "El Gobierno dice que es "falso" que esté molesto por el referéndum de independencia escocés". My Spanish doesn't reach the dizzy heights of not-very-good but "España niega" I got, and "falso" is easy too.
That's Hague told, no?
In an independent Scotland all of these types of issues would become part of normal day to day politics as they would come within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. That might sound like an obvious point to make but I think people are so used to those sorts of things being decided at Westminster that they haven't really thought about the fact that the Scottish Government would assume control of them with independence and therefore political parties would have to think about where they stood, they would develop policies and positions and it would just become part of normal debate, like policiing or the health service.
#38 by Angus McLellan on January 22, 2012 - 9:26 pm
Seems like there would have to be a few referendums and "national conversations".
EU membership seems to be perfect referendum fodder. Whatever you believe the situation is as regards membership, somebody needs to sign the papers. So we can surely have a vote before putting pen to paper. Same goes for the Euro, if anyone ever thinks that particular question is worth asking. And even NATO. Spain had a referendum on that after all.
In contrast the constitution seems like conversation material. So too is defence. One party can't really take all the decisions. A referendum isn't possible as their are endless choices. If we get things wrong after everyone has stuck their oar in, that's too bad, but at least nobody can say that they didn't get the chance to contribute. Getting listened to, that's something else again.
#39 by Doug Daniel on January 22, 2012 - 10:25 pm
"having had an affirmative referendum that explicitly includes continuing with the monarchy, Sterling, the EU and NATO and the other aspects of the status quo that lends them considerable democratic legitimacy and quite probably means they're unassailable for decades to come."
This is just nonsense, even by your standards Aidan. When I vote yes, I will most certainly not be giving my assumed consent to these structures. I want rid of the monarchy, but there's no way that is happening while we're in the UK. So once Scotland becomes independent, I'll be directing my energies into republicanism. The referendum is not explicitly including the continuation of these things (or implicitly, even) – it's explicitly excluding them from the debate, leaving them for another day.
#40 by Aidan on January 22, 2012 - 8:27 pm
Oh, and asking how the nascent nation would defend itself is also surely fair game? Else what does independence actually mean?
Or is the question ultimately "do you like Alex Salmond"?
#41 by Craig Gallagher on January 22, 2012 - 8:35 pm
You're distorting Aiden. People are asking, the SNP are answering, and people are ridiculing their answers and asking again.
The idea that people don't understand what independence means is offensive, coming from a group of politicians in London who are trying to claw back something of the sort from the EU. People recognise we live in an interconnected world in which international obligations sometimes exceed national ones. That's why Scotland has traditionally been more pro-EU than England and why devolution made sense to Scots at the time. The way that questions are being asked about how an independent Scotland will "defend itself" all assume it will adopt the Westminster model of large defence deterrent (because of all the enemies). Salmond's answers on the matter have been clear, and are in line with what is normal and indeed affordable for small nations operating a model based on co-operation in peacekeeping instead of belligerent foreign interventionism.
Well… no. Our defense needs are inextricably tied up with our membership of NATO. If we cannot rely on a common security guarantee with allies we will need a much bigger military.
Similarly, the choice of currency is inextricably tied up with our arrangements for a central bank and in particular it's role as lender of last resort.
Well, you'll excuse me for not being too concerned with the possibility of Scotland coming under amphibious assault by Russia from the North, I'm sure.
And obviously our choice of currency has that implication, but again, you are distorting. We won't be any less independent than Germany, France, the Czech Republic and the other 24 Eurozone countries. In fact, in negotiating any terms regarding a common currency with the rump UK we may even be able to avoid the mistakes of the eurozone and have a more centrally controlled fiscal policy without sacrificing our ability to raise revenue and pursue our own political priorities as we do now.
Ireland, Finland and Sweden seem to manage pretty well without membership of NATO. Their massive active personnel are around 10,500, 22,000 and 13,000 respectively.
This is the problem with all the "unanswered" questions unionists come up with – it's always very simple to find examples of countries who somehow manage to struggle along quite happily in the same boat. Are we really so insular that we can't look past the white cliffs of Dover? (Or, in many cases, just across the Irish Sea…)
#45 by Daniel J on January 22, 2012 - 10:28 pm
I'm with Craig and Douglas on this.
I would think of myself more as a 'realist' when it comes to international relations, I'm surprisingly not an 'airy fairy' liberal. I would be very intrigued to hear of scenarios whereby Scotland's territory is existentially threatened and that of rUK is not? Shetland?
Assume that the world does revert to cold-war style international relations, can rUK allow us to be invaded?
No, sure they have no legal responsibility but there are pretty damn good strategic reasons for rUK defence planners having to worry about us, we would still remain on the same island.
#46 by Craig Gallagher on January 22, 2012 - 10:44 pm
It's actually a pretty subversive point, now that I think about it, because closing off the Scottish border to threatened Jacobite landings, backed by French money and arms, was one of William of Orange's original motivations for pushing for an Treaty of Union in 1702. Added to the additional manpower that would be provided by bringing Scottish soldiers under English auspices, it's very much the case that military considerations were at the forefront of England's overtures regarding the Union between 1702 and 1707.
Of course, perhaps we should remind them of 1715 and the '45, when the parchment Union was no impediment to such landings and the devastation they wrought across lowland Scotland and northern England as far as Derby.
Your response to any future situation regarding our nation's defence is that the rUK will sort it out? What kind of independent Scotland is that?
I thought nationalists wanted us to 'stand on our own two feet'?
#48 by Jeff on January 23, 2012 - 10:08 am
You're being unfair there Gerard. I think Daniel's point is that, far from rUK coming to save us, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where Scotland would be required to fight in a War or beat back aggressors without rUK/England (at the very least) standing side by side with us, and vice versa (Iraq arguably to one side). Many countries of Scotland's size do not have a military force to be reckoned with but do not need one as they enjoy friendly relations within out outwith Europe. Scotland would be in just such a position.
Perhaps over-egging the pudding so to speak, but the point is valid.
None of us can see into the future, so we cannot say that we will never be under threat from outside forces. Yes at present it seems unlikely but the defence of any nation is one of the foundations of that country. You must prepare for the worst possible scenario.
Yes we would work alongside our partners across these islands, but look at Ireland's position during the Second World War. We could take a different view to rUK on any event and that could lead to an undermining of the position of England and therefore threaten us. This would mean it would always be in our interests to side with rUK – what then is the point in having separate defence?
If the argument for future defence needs is that we share the same island and therefore security is based dealt with on a unified basis what is the difference to the situation now?
In relation to Iraq, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Libya, Afghanistan etc we have a duty as a member of the UN to provide security for those who have none, those who are being attacked by their own governments and having their human rights violated. Are we saying in an independent Scotland we would shirk these responsibilities? That it's not our problem so we shouldn't get involved? If we do want to play our part in protecting those who have no defence then we must have a strong army, air force and navy – not a defence force.
sorry: 'best dealt with' oops!
#51 by Jeff on January 23, 2012 - 12:13 pm
Well, for me the point in having a separate Scottish force is that we can spend less money on our forces and still remain just as safe as we were through being a part of the EU and the UN. I wrote a blog post a while back that showed that if Scotland spent the same level on Defence as Scandinavian countries then we'd save a massive £2bn a year.
I hope you're not suggesting that Sweden is at a greater risk of unassisted attack than the UK or Scotland currently is?
There are savings to be made on guns and bombs that could go into schools and hospitals if we're brave enough to go look for them.
What relevance does Ireland's position during WW2 have?
You are quite correct that we share the same island and therefore will have to cooperate on defence. And the SNP has made clear that we are in favour of that – e.g. allowing RAF and other military to continue training exercises in Scotland.
What difference would independence make? 1. It would almost certainly result in the withdrawal of nuclear weapons unless a party was elected that wanted to retain them. Unlikely I suggest. 2. It would almost certainly result in any military involvement having to be authorised by the UN and, internally, by the Scottish Parliament. Again, I cannot say with certainty that this will happen but it is overwhelmingly likely.
Looking beyond that I would like to see an independent Scotland playing a much bigger role in the world, not a smaller role as you suggest. But I think most people would like to see that involvement focus on conflict resolution, not illegal imvasions.
#53 by John Ruddy on January 25, 2012 - 7:05 pm
Indy,
The Irish situation in WW2 is very relevant. Irelands neutrality did not stop it getting bombed, and it would have been invaded and occupied under some ofthe plans the Germans had. And the status of the Treaty ports probably didnt help the Atlantic supply situation.
That's patently not what Daniel is saying.
You have to look realistically at what future miitary threats might exist and wholescale invasion is unlikely in the foreseeeable future. If we ever end up in that kind of apocalyptic scenario it would indicate some kind of catastrophic collapse across Western Europe. In that event natutally the UK as a whole would make preparations together and I imagine would also include the Republic of Ireland.
But the idea that Scotland – in isolation – could be threatened with invasion while the rest of the British Isles was not belongs in cloud cuckoo land.
Defend itself from what?
If the North Koreans ever got this far they'd have to have beaten China and Russia. I'd recommend surrender in those circumstances. If the Iranians get here they'll have beaten France and Germany and the rUK. Same advice. And what if the rUK invaded? Let's not go there.
Labour's view of defence seems to stop at aircraft carriers and Trident, neither of which are remotely relevant to Scotland. (They're pretty debatable for the UK, but that's another story.) On any objective analysis of risks Scotland is at much more risk from things that aircraft carriers and Trident offer no defence from and which Westminster does not prioritise.
Donaldson's report on the Braer said that emergency towing vessels were required to prevent a future disaster. The MCA offered an exhaustive statistical analysis to back this up recently. So where are they? The French and the Norwegian and the Spanish military forces, among many others, provide this sort of mundane defence for their people. Scotland could do the same. Westminster doesn't.
As for terrorism, the bogeyman of choice, that should treated as a law and order issue IMO. Yes, Clive Fairweather writing in the Scotsman thinks Scotland would need an Scottish SAS, but that's as unsurprising as George Robertson bigging up NATO. It wasn't the French army that stormed Air France flight 8969 at Marseilles airport and it wasn't the German army that stormed Lufthansa flight 181 at Mogadishu. But what could we possibly learn from foreigners?
It's Westminster that needs to be answering questions about defence, not the SNP. But almost nobody – and especially not Labour – wants to ask any.
#56 by Nikostratos on January 22, 2012 - 10:00 pm
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/adv8yeahk9/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-results-20-220112.pdf
Imagining now that the Falkland Islands were
invaded, would you support military action by
the British Government to defend them, or
would you oppose military action in this
situation?
Scotland 52% say yes
Perhaps the Scottish peoples notions of defense are different than those of the snp
#57 by Robert Blake on January 22, 2012 - 11:35 pm
Trident is a weapon of revenge, a second strike weapon
Aircraft carriers are not platforms for defence, they are for force projection
While they might suit UK requirements it is hard to see the situation where they would suit Scotland. Something closer to Ireland would be more suitable
"But what could we possibly learn from foreigners?"
This is exactly the problem so many British nationalists have. The only comparisons that can ever possibly be made are between the UK as it is now and Scotland as it might be – the rest of the world from Norway to New Zealand doesn't seem to merit consideration.
#59 by Observer on January 22, 2012 - 9:25 pm
The SNP cannot answer a lot of questions about what an independent Scotland would look like in detail because they can't make the assumption that they will be running it.
The minute they did make that assumption the unionist parties would be all over them like a rash accusing them of intending to set up a one party state etc.
You know the only way that there could be a debate over the EU, the Monarchy, the currency is if all the parties published a manifesto now on what they would do in the event of independence.
I think that would be far too confusing. All that the SNP can do is paint broad outlines of what they would do, but if you vote for independence then you are making a leap of faith because we won't know exactly what it looks like until we get there.
The sovereign Scottish Parliament, if one is born, will make decisions on membership of NATO, the currency, membership of the EU & so forth. That is the point of independence.
All the SNP have to map out now is the transition.
You can also reverse the question:
Tories – what is your defence policy for Scotland within the UK? Does it involve closing more air bases and keeping those weapons of mass destruction? How do you envisage our future vis-a-vis Europe?
Labour – what is your policy on the monarchy for Scotland as part of the UK? Will you carry on with this pseudo-medieval charade of privilege and Anglican supremacy?
Liberals – what are you going to do so that no more Scots are killed in another US-led illegal war?
I suspect there are a few questions they'd rather not answer.
#61 by ianbeag on January 22, 2012 - 10:03 pm
The whole emphasis is on demanding that the SNP explains precisely what benefits independence would deliver. Surely it is also incumbent on the Unionists to argue the detailed case for preserving the status quo
Not really. I think we can all see what would happen if there was a No vote – its what we've got at the moment (whether you like it or not).
It is up to those who wish to change the current situation to lay out what would happen.
You want to convince us to vote yes – you need to tell us WHY we should change what we have now.
#63 by andrewgraemesmith on January 22, 2012 - 10:17 pm
The strange thing about the process is that all 4 main parties (no offence to the Greens, this is more because the media freeze them out) have policies that want a one question referendum, which should mean that this is the format of the vote. However, every time the question of devo max is brought up it's by the SNP arguing that their opponsents should be supporting it, which makes utterly no sense…
There are serious questions about devo max being on the ballot paper, but it looks a lot like the SNP are consistenlt arguing for it to be there simply because they want a safety net if they lose their main prize.
I really think the "safety net" idea is missing the target by some way. Think about it, while Civic Scotland is debating which powers they want to be included in "Devo Max", they're getting into the frame of mind that Scotland will have more powers. Come the referendum, and the lack of political backing (and possibly even a single defined idea of what devo max actually is) means the SNP say "well, we tried, but we'll just have to give you a single question referendum". So, do these people who have gotten used to the idea of Scotland having more power go for the option that offers no change, or do they go for the option that offers all that they wanted, but a bit more?
True to a point, although the worst thing that could happen to the SNPs chances of winning an independence vote would be the inclusion of a second option.
What's quite interesting though is that there is no consensus defenition of what the middle option should be, more powers and FFA are two totally seperate concepts.
The point i'm making is outwith party political advantage there is no logic for the SNP to be the ones arguing for a second question, even though their own policy and official preference is for only only one.
Even if Devo Max makes it onto the referendum and gets picked, it won't happen. Westminster won't allow it. Which will just make the SNP's position even stronger.
It's very difficult to see Scotland being anything other than independent in a few years, whether we vote "yes" in this referendum or not.
We are not arguing FOR a second question. We are leaving the door open for those who support it We are not going to turn round to bodies like the STUC, SCVO etc and say sorry we don't want to hear what you have to say. It's their referendum too and they have as much of a right to have their preferred option considered as anyone else. If Devo Max is just written out of the equation without even being considered and examined that won't benefit anyone. It won't benefit the pro-independence supporters – and it won't benefit the anti-indepedence side either, however much they may think it does.
#68 by Cato on January 22, 2012 - 10:31 pm
That's all very nice, but while some things could be left until independence, others-currency, EU membership, transitional arrangements with the UK-would need to be in place on day one, following negotiations involving the Scottish Ministers. And where will the SNP ministers claim a mandate for their negotiating position? Presumably, by reminding us that they had set out their position prior to the referendum.
So excuse me for taking the view that a certain number of the SNP's proposals are fair game.
Independence is unlikely to be immediate though. I would imagine the negotiations would be an ENORMOUS part of the Scottish Parliament elections in 2016. Winner gets a mandate. Simples.
But you know what the SNP position is on all of those things. The pound will be retained. EU membership will be continued, we will inherit the infrastructure of the state as it is, whether that be defence, tax/benefits or anything else. So what are the answers you are seeking?
#71 by Gaz on January 22, 2012 - 10:41 pm
Excellent piece and very timely.
It is no surprise that the Unionists are calling for detail. They know their only hope is to bog the debate down in policy issues and play one interest off against the other.
Although the ballot paper will have some variation of the question 'Do you agree Scotland should become an Independent nation? Y/N' the real debate is around the question 'Do you think Social Democrat politicians in Edinburgh can serve Scotland better than Tory politicians in London? Y/N'
Is it any wonder the Unionist side want to avoid that debate? The SNP has to resist the temptation to cave in and provide the detail, in most cases undefinable detail this side of dissolution negotiations, that Unionists have failed to get right for the last 40 years in a UK context.
This is about whether we choose to build a nation together or remain an irrelevant province in an increasingly irrelevant state.
#72 by GMcM on January 23, 2012 - 3:44 pm
'An irrelevamt province in an increasingly irrelevant state'.
Wow. Talk about talking Scotland down!
Why do nationalists feel the need to flick past the massive involvement Scotland has played in the UK. It must be an effort as we're not talking about a couple of pages, but a few chapters.
We've been involved in the good, bad and ugly sides of the UK and previously the Empire. You can't wipe that from history.
The problem nationalists have with our role in the UK, both in the past and present, is that if they acknowledge the significance of it they feel it takes away from their argument that we're not 'standing on our own two feet' and acting 'like a proper nation'.
The nationalists need to decide:
1. Scotland does well in the UK but could do better out of it
2. Scotland is an oppressed nation that England has underfoot
3. Scotland is an irrelevant province that will only be relevant to anyone once we lose the rUK.
You can't choose all three. Pick one and then come up with arguments to support your position. Don't try and be all things to all people – look at the SNP and what they tried to do in 2007 with their unbelievably naive manifesto (I'm being generous here as I believe it was a calculated tactic).
Also, if you think all these decisions are to be made after independence has been decided in principal, keep your thoughts on that subject to a relevant post. If we're talking about the idea of independence and not the substance – don't talk about substance at all.
If you think people should be allowed to have their questions answered then please do so, that way people can make an informed decision. In that case don't hide behind the excuse that it has to be decided after the referendum as that is a cop-out that just shows you have lost that particular argument.
Nobody wants to wipe out history. The question is whether the Union serves us well now or whether it is past its sell-by date and we need to negotiate a new and more equal partnership with the rest of the UK.
It is noticeable that most of the advantages of the Union are presented in historical terms – WW2, the NHS etc – or in terms of having a shared culture. But independence would not change the cultural and social links that exist within the British Isles. And if you are going to argue that the Union provides political advantages for Scotland you need to make that case in terms of the present and the future, not the past.
Indy this is exactly the point – you want to take the past out of the debate completely. It is actually very important as it shows where we have been and helps point us to where we wish to go (learn from mistakes etc). If we didn't look to the past and push for a better future we would never have devolution.
You must look to the past and use the positives and negatives of it to chart a positive path for the future. Nationalists seem to think by leaving the UK we would 'become' equals. I find this derogatory because history shows that Scotland has done well in the UK and at present we continue to do well, thanks in large part to devolution. Devolution that has only just started. Nationalists are so sure that they are right and everyone else is wrong that they won't give devolution a real go. If devolution fails then maybe you would have a point but devolution is working well in its infancy and if we work constructively we can make it even better. That is the future I believe Scotland wants. Not ripping up our history as an irrelevance, but building upon it together to build a better future for all the people of these islands.
What's wrong with that?
Salmond has stated on many occassions that post-independence we would work with the rUK on areas where there is a common concern – devolution provides that opportunity now. Why doesn't he put into practice what he preaches for tomorrow, today.
Does anyone else on here Scotland as an "irrelavent province"?
#76 by mav on January 22, 2012 - 10:54 pm
As I understand it, one of the questions being proposed for the first neverendum is along the lines of * 'do you agree that the Scottish Government should commence negotiations to create an independent Scotland'. Now as the SNP are the Scottish Government, is it unreasonable to ask what negotiating positions they will take? Of course not, just as it is not unreasonable for the UK government to set out the positions they would take in this negotiations. Its not unsurprising that the SNP position is 'we'll take oil based on a favourable drawing of the ocean shelf, debt based on per head, and nothing historical', just as it is entirely reasonable for the Uk govt to set out the opposite. Its up to anyone interested to try and work out who'd be closest to the truth. Why no journalist has been smart enough to point this out yet….oh yes, smart enough, of course.
*precise wording and number of questions subject to vetting by independent organisation to ensure question(s) are not leading and will clarity of outcome.
Mav the boundary between the Scottish sector of the UK continental shelf and the rest is already a matter of law. It has to be because Scots law applies there, whereas English law applies below that line. The SNP did not create the boundary or choose what point it would be drawn at. They did not decide whether to make it favourable or unfavourable. Westminster did.
Michael Marra's statements are rather curious if he thinks it's not "real indy" if it includes keeping the Queen on as head of state. Does that mean Australia, Canada and the likes are not "real" independent countries? I realise Scottish Labour politicians are not averse to making derogatory comments about other countries in the name of making the positive case for the union (Ireland, Iceland and Montenegro to name but three), but surely no one would suggest Canada is not an independent country?
We all know why they bring these things up, it's just to cloud the issue. How can you fight for what you believe in when you no longer believe in anything? All unionists are concerned about is wrecking the independence campaign, and they don't care how they do it. That's why we had Ken Macintosh on the Sunday Politics Scotland show today arguing that England might not let Scotland keep Sterling, even though his own deputy leader as much as admitted that this was nonsense on the very same show last week! Does it matter that he's still arguing something that has been rubbished by his own side? Nah, just as long as he's keeping the negative messages out there, that's all that matters.
This referendum is not about changing Scotland completely in one go – it's about giving ourselves the power to make those changes however we see fit.
#79 by Iain Menzies on January 23, 2012 - 11:11 am
On the point of who would be head of state, YOU are clouding the issue here when you bring in Canada/Australia.
There is a case to be made that the queen is purely a de jure head of state for those countries, as they both have Governor Generals, that are in effect de facto heads of state.
This is where the SNP saying that we would retain the monarchy is pure politics and zero principle.
In the Canada/Australia case, you might not has the actual head of state in country, but if Stephen Harper needs to a higher authority as it were he doesnt have to make an international phone call. The situation that the SNP suggest would mean that wee eck would have to make such a phone call (unless the queen is on holiday at Balmoral) unless its Canadian style monarchy thats being suggested. Or would we just Take Harry and give the English William?
The SNP's call to retain the Monarchy is nothing more than a reflection of their belief that to say an independent scotland would be a republic would make it even less likely that the referendum would split the UK.
The Queen doesn't really have any real political role in Scotland you know. She opens the parliament, assents to legislation and hosts a couple of garden parties. That's it basically and that would not change with independence. The only political authority higher than the FM in an independent Scotland would be the Scottish Parliament itself.
#81 by James on January 23, 2012 - 2:06 pm
That's what Gough Whitlam thought.
Erm, how could that situation be replicated in Scotland?
#83 by Allan on January 23, 2012 - 7:04 pm
Really? So we aren't subjects of the Monarchy then? Our political representitives don't swear an oath to the Monarchy then (which was always the bug bear of SSP MSP's)?
No you are really not a subject Allan. When has the Queen ever forced you to do anything? She is a figurehead, that is all. If people want to replace a figurehead Queen (or King) with an elected head of state then that's fine by me. But it would make hee haw difference to your life or my life in practical terms, whereas independence would make quite a significant difference.
The point is Scotland doesn't need to be a republic to be independent. None of the three Scandinavian countries are republics, neither is the Netherlands or Belgium. So why would you lump that in with a question about independence? It's a different issue. Why force people who believe in independence but are not republican to choose between independence and the monarchy? Regardless of who is head of state, it's still the Scottish Government who will be in charge of taxation and spending if we become independent.
The only reason to include it would be if you purposefully want to narrow the field. Clearly, it would be stupid of the SNP to do that. I'm a republican, but I know I'm not going to get an independent republic in one leap. It's one before the other, and as it's unlikely the UK will become a republic any time soon, I'd rather get independence for Scotland first.
#86 by Observer on January 22, 2012 - 11:37 pm
I think the SNP *have* to make the continual offer of having devo max on the ballot paper, because the general understanding now is that is the position that most Scots want.
However it is not the SNP position & they will neither define it or campaign for it. So if it isn't there then that will be a clear failure of the unionist parties – despite bodies like the STUC saying they are in.
In a sense that will be kettling people who want change into the independence view. They either accept the unionist position (& it is a pan-unionist position with clear evidence of co-operation between the Tories, Labour, & the Liberals) or they go for independence.
But it won't have been the SNP who kettled them.
#87 by Jeff on January 23, 2012 - 9:52 am
I'm not convinced Observer. I genuinely believe that the SNP is being disingenuous when it says that it is keeping the door open to a second question because there is a lot of support out there for it. All of the other main parties have rejected this offer and the SNP itself states that a single question is its preference.
One of the real reasons that Salmond is continuing to push this line is because it makes the Unionists look bad for seemingly denying Scots an increase in powers via this referendum. That is not Salmond's business to get involved in though as it is basically rabble rousing. It is, as I say, another example of fighting for what you don't believe in and it should stop.
Jeff the consultation on the referendum bill has not even been launched yet. It will be launched on Wednesday. It is really inconceivable that the SNP would say to bodies like the STUC or SCVO we are not interested in what you have to say. There are more people in trade unions than there are in the all the Scottiss political parties put together. There are more people involved in the voluntary sector than there are in all the Scottish political parties put together. It may well be the case – it is quite likely to be the case in my opinion – that it would be too difficult to work out the details of a Devo Max arrangement that could fit into the existing UK constitutional set-up. However we don't know that for an absolute certainty and if a significant swathe of opinion wants to look at that theoption there is no justification for ruling it out as [art of the consultation. A consultation which did not look at all the options that were being suggested would be a bit of a sham don't you think?
I guess I see the referendum as a strictly political construct and it is for political parties to add or remove questions using whatever democratic legitimacy they believe they carry (and believe they can get away with basically).
I would be suspicious of a Trade Union body or a voluntary sector getting too heavily involved in the wording of the referendum or the number of questions it carries, though I do very much like the idea of a separate consultation being carried out that they not only get involved in but actually lead.
It's the legitimacy of a non-political party/body adding a second question to this referendum that I would have issue with and if that legitimacy doesn't exist, and all parties are in agreement with the one single question, I don't see why this Devo Max thing is still a talking point.
I am not suggesting that trade unions would word the referendum or indeed have the final say on whether it was included. But there is a body of opinion out there of people saying we are not persuaded of the case for full independence but equally we think the Scottish Parliament needs to have more powers, going far beyond Calman. It's actually a failure of the political process in Scotland that those people don't have political representation. Maybe if the Lib Dems weren't in coalition with the Tories down south they might be willing to run with it, maybe if Labour hadn't been so damaged by the 2011 election result they might have looked at it seriously. But just because no political party has picked up that ball doesn't mean it is not in play. Because if it is ruled out at the onset of the debate then you would just have a lot of people saying hold on a minute, why are we only being given two options because there is another option in the middle and we want it to be considered.
That body of opinion may well exist but it is not necessarily for this referendum to square that particular circle, particularly when, as you say, there are no political parties representing their views. The correct democratic process would be for that body of opinion to create a party, stand for election, win a mandate and legitimately deliver it.
It's not for Alex Salmond to take advantage of this lack of representation, mischievously crack his independence referendum ajar in order to put his opponents in an awkward spot.
You can look at it in that way if you choose but the way I see it, and the way most in the SNP see it, is that this is a decision for the whole community not just some.
Jeff is that the head of the nail being struck?
I believe, and many in the Labour Party also believe, that there is a strong body of opinion out there that says the Scottish Parliament should have more powers. It is the reason why Henry McLeish et al keep going on about Devo-max (although I think he should be doing so constructively within the party as shouting from the sidelines doesn't achieve anything).
The problem I have is that this referendum is not the place for a devo-max option. It would in essence be a referendum with three boxes to tick but only two options (Devolution, Devolution and Independence).
Once the vote comes through as 'no' I will be campaigning, through the Labour Party, to get the devolution settlement reviewed. It is important to people who believe in devolution that it works, not just for Scots but for all the people of the UK.
"I believe, and many in the Labour Party also believe, that there is a strong body of opinion out there that says the Scottish Parliament should have more powers."
Shame none of them are anywhere near the head of the Labour Party in Scotland, though. Those who want independence or significantly increased powers for Holyrood outnumber those who don't by around 2:1. Yet when have they been asked to vote for a party that offers such a thing? Only the SNP offers a radical change fro the status quo.
It took the SNP gaining power for Labour to get together with the Tories and Lib Dems to set up the Calman commission, and what is the result? A Scotland Bill that offers nothing like the powers that people want Holyrood to have. People want Holyrood to be in full control of its revenue raising and spending.
That's why people like the sound of "devo max". They're saying "stop tinkering and get on with it – become a proper parliament". You say once the vote comes through as "no" (not if?), you'll be campaigning to get the devolution settlement reviewed. Sorry, but that's not good enough. We can't risk Labour saying "yeah, vote no and we'll totally increase Holyrood's powers, honest", and then fobbing us off with another bill that gives with one hand and takes with the other.
If the SNP has to answer questions about a post-independence Scotland, then Labour and co need to answer questions about what they'll do if people don't vote for independence. It would be completely irresponsible to ask people to throw away this chance on the hope that Labour and co won't go "aha! This was a rejection of increased powers!" afterwards.
If Labour think the Scottish Parliament should have more powers why doesn't it say so?
And how do you propose to achieve them?
Are you relying on Labour winning power at the next UK general election?
If you don't win that election then what makes you think you can deliver increased powers without any kind of mandate to do that?
And don't you understand that the purpose of a referendum is to provide a very clear mandate for negotiating the next phase of Scotland's progress – whether that be to increase the powers devolved to Scotland or to full independence?
A referendum is not simply about establishing beyond doubt what the Scottish people want to happen, it is also about being able to demonstrate that – being able to say to David Cameron and Nick Clegg look X million people voted for this so I think you have to accept that this is the will of the people of Scotland. WIthout that, all you can do is promise that you will campaign for more devolution and hopefully the Labour Party will agree and hopefully they will be re-elected in Westminster so it can happen.
DD, you may wish to believe that no-one near the top of the Labour Party wants more powers for Holyrood but that is not the case at all. All three leadership contenders supported more powers for Holyrood during the campaign recently.
This referendum is NOT the forum for increased powers for Holyrood but for independence; they are separate things. One is not a stepping stone to the other and therefore the referendum is NOT about what level of independence do you want.
The SNP want to paint the other parties as being opposed to further powers and any halfwit can see that isn't true. Go right ahead with your 'positive' campaigning though.
Also, people can trust Labour on the constitution as we are the only party who have delivered in that regard. We delivered a referendum on a Scottish Parliament; we delivered that Parliament; we have set in train a Bill that will increase the responsibility of the Parliament and we will continue to champion Holyrood and push for the powers that will make it work more effectively in the interests of all Scots and in the interests of all the people of the UK. You may not realise it but devolution wasn't just about making Scotland, Wales and NI fairer but making the UK fairer.
You say people can't trust Labour to deliver on constitutional reform when we are the only party who have delivered. The SNP, whose sole purpose is to achieve independence, have never brought forward a referendum; now that they finally look like delivering one of their promises they are fudging the issue. The SNP are afraid to bring forward a yes/no right now because of what the result could mean for them politically. Labour didn't wait around when we were elected in 1997. If you really believe in something you stand by it regardless: Labour did and people know they can trust us to deliver on this issue – the SNP haven't and time will tell if people will trust them to deliver on the constitution if they don't act with conviction.
It's a talking point because the parties do not at present represent the favoured choice of what the polls indicate is a very large number of people. Come on Jeff, you saw the turnout figures last May like the rest of us – you know that there are many, many people who for whatever reason do not feel that the options available for them to vote for represent them.
Civil society has to reach those people, and in its various incarnations, has the capacity to do so.
It's a tendency I have certainly noticed and commented on. Indeed I find it highly amusing to be lectured by anti-independence parties about not really believing in independence.
But, in fairness, the SNP has been thinking about independence for a long time. We've considered what we think is important and what we don't think is really important. Others are of course free to disagree – if people think, for example, that you can't really be independent without having your own currency then they are entitled to their opinion. But that's not what we think.
Tne reality of course is that no country in the world can be completely independent. So people who set that as a standard against which the SNP's vision ought to be measured are missing the point. What we are arguing for is independence where we think it matters and the capacity to take decisions (in the same way that every other country does) about what we think is best for Scotland in the future. So that may, for example, be to have our own currency – or it may not. But we would like the power to decide.
Indy if you are arguing for independence 'where it matters' does that mean it doesn't include fiscal autonomy?
This is why we argue the point with nationalists. The defence seems to be, for now, that it's not for the nationalists (of any hue) to state what an independent Scotland would look like, that independence is the goal and that is that, we can worry about the rest later.
Well if that's the case then I will continue to remind nationalists of that when they mutter on about defence, monarchy, etc etc in an independent Scotland. Anything you propose is just an individual wishlist and therefore contributes nothing to this debate. If you try to win the referendum with that argument you will surely lose.
How can people vote for something they don't know about? It is incumbant on the party/parties who support independence to define how it would look, at least in in the early years (first 2 decades).
#100 by Indy on January 23, 2012 - 11:28 am
Nationalists don't mutter on about defence, monarchy etc in an independent Scotland. Assuming the Queen is still with us, she will be the Monarch. We will inherit the defence capacity and infrastructure that currently exists. We will ask the UK Government to remove Trident but everything else will stay as is unless and until a future Scottish Government makes different decisions.
You ask how can people vote for something that they don't know about. But we do that all the time. You don't know who is going to win the next UK election for example, yet all Labour's arguments are predicated on Labour being elected again and being in a position to enhance devolution for Scotland (though you refuse to set out any specifics). None of us knew that David Cameron was going to throw a strop at the EU until it happened – and by doing do fundamentally change the position of the UK within Europe. Nobody had a clue that Tony Blair when he was Prime Minister would bond with George Bush and sign up quite so fully to the neocon doctrine and be able to talk the rest of the UK Govt into going along with it. Neither did we know that capitalism would collapse in on itself on 2008 sparking off a massive financial and economic crisis.
Stuff happens and the world is inherently unpredictable. In the next 20 years we may make contact with an alien civilisation or the world could be gripped by famine. No-one knows. What you need to make a judgement about is who you want taking decisions and exercising power on your behalf.
#101 by Craig on January 23, 2012 - 11:51 am
This approach only really works if you think everyone believes in independence for the sake of independence.
As that poll showed a while ago, plenty of people are more interested in whether they will be better off or worse off post-independence (something like £500 up being the tipping point for many). More so in the current economic climate when for many they will be more concerned about the state of the economy and so on.
So while "independence – whatever will be, will be" might work for nationalists, it won't be enough to convince those who aren't already nationalists. For the same reason, the latter can't rely on the nationalists to ask these questions for them. So the unionists can't really not ask them either as Jeff calls for.
The other issue is that some of these matters are absolutely crucial – for example, the question of currency where the economic effects are more negative than positive, whichever road you go down. It's not enough to say the "pound will be retained" because the nature of the pound will change dramatically with independence.
The last thing an independent Scotland needs is for independence to have been missold.
#102 by Barbarian on January 23, 2012 - 12:34 pm
I have to disagree with you Jeff.
Salmond is asking the people of Scotland to make a fundamental change to the country. Trying to win people over with promises of an economic utopia, a green environment and oddles of oil might sound good, but presenting the arguments that way if both patronising and untruthful. An issue which may be unimportant to one person could be critical to another.
Too many nationalists want independence at any cost, without understanding that this approach is doomed to failure.
There is a lot of debate about how the SNP has clearly stated about currency, EU membership and defence. But these are assumption as is the splitting of assets from the UK. How do they know this before negotiations have even started?
Too many people are writing off the unionist argument, yet the real debate about nationalist policies has not even started. How will they react to criticism? By calling criticis "anti-Scottish"?
Some of the comments above show how the future debates are going to get very, very heated. The biggest issue with nationalist and unionist fundamentalists (sorry, but this adjective is pefect!) is that they will simply not listen. But these people represent a minority of views, something the politicans tend to forget when presenting their arguments.
We need a mature and reasoned debate, something I doubt we will get, given the antics by two politcians recently.
#103 by Indy on January 23, 2012 - 1:38 pm
Yes they are assumptions. And on the anti-independence side they are assumptions as well. You have to make your own judgement about whose assumptions you think are most likely to be correct.
If you take the EU issue for example. The SNP assumes that Scotland's membership will be continuous, that the terms of membership can be re-negotiated while Scotland remains part of the EU. You have to consider how likely that is. You also have to consider how likely it is that an independent Scotland – a country which is fully integrated into the EU, which has the biggest oil resource in the EU, which has 25 per cent of Europe's marine energy potential, which has major fishing grounds to which the EU currently has access via the CFP and so on – would be thrown out of the EU and have to re-apply. Meaning that Scots living within the EU (including the many who work in the Commission itself as well as in the Parliament and other EU institutions) would, overnight, lose their residency rights and have to be deported – with EU nationals in Scotland INCLUDING THE ENGLISH also being in the same position. You have to consider just how likely that is to happen.
#104 by Doug Daniel on January 23, 2012 - 3:47 pm
Which is exactly why the referendum needs to be in 2014, rather than as soon as humanly possible as some people would have us do!
Sorry, but for those that are now bringing Kosovo into the equation, I suggest a read of Craig Murray's blog first.
And those posts can be read below me, for some reason…
#107 by Benjamin on January 23, 2012 - 8:58 pm
I'm still struggling to understand why a Spanish government would want to snub Britain by refusing to recognise what would be Britain's internally agreed settlement. Because that is effectively what they would be doing if they refused to recognise an independent Scotland. It would make them look ridiculous, and would likely annoy the rUK government almost as much as the Scottish government. They couldn't even claim to be showing solidarily with the UK government against a unilaterally declared separatist state, as the UK government would by this point have fully accepted Scottish independence.
#108 by Indy on January 24, 2012 - 8:26 am
And on the subject of Spain potentially vetoing Scotland's membership – we would have to assume firstly that the Spanish Government was stupid enough to try and impose its will on the other member states on the basis of domestic political concerns and secondly that they are also stupid enough not to realise what a massive boost that would provide to the Catalan independence movement.
GMcM:
The SNP want to paint the other parties as being opposed to further powers and any halfwit can see that isn't true. Go right ahead with your 'positive' campaigning though.
Also, people can trust Labour on the constitution as we are the only party who have delivered in that regard. We delivered a referendum on a Scottish Parliament; we delivered that Parliament; we have set in train a Bill that will increase the responsibility of the Parliament and we will continue to champion Holyrood and push for the powers that will make it work more effectively in the interests of all Scots and in the interests of all the people of the UK. You may not realise it but devolution wasn't just about making Scotland, Wales and NI fairer but making the UK fairer.
You say people can't trust Labour to deliver on constitutional reform when we are the only party who have delivered. The SNP, whose sole purpose is to achieve independence, have never brought forward a referendum; now that they finally look like delivering one of their promises they are fudging the issue. The SNP are afraid to bring forward a yes/no right now because of what the result could mean for them politically. Labour didn't wait around when we were elected in 1997. If you really believe in something you stand by it regardless: Labour did and people know they can trust us to deliver on this issue – the SNP haven't and time will tell if people will trust them to deliver on the constitution if they don't act with conviction.
If it's not the case that none of them want increased powers, then why have we not been told which powers Labour think should be transferred to Holyrood? Where are the statements from Johann Lamont or anyone in her shadow cabinet saying "we believe Scotland should be in control of all tax and spending, and we are going to campaign for that to happen"?
Most of the noise from Labour about increased powers comes from bloggers and commentators. The only politicians within Labour in Scotland with any credibility over increased powers are Malcolm Chisholm (who is basically an outcast), Eric Joyce (who is just a back bencher), and Henry McLeish (who isn't even an MSP any more). These are the only guys who have come out and said "we should be campaigning for increased powers" and come anywhere close to specifying which ones. The rest – whether it's Johann Lamont, Anas Sarwar, Margaret Curran, Douglas Alexander or Jim Murphy – have not named one power they would like to see devolved to Holyrood, never mind saying when. If Labour want Scots to believe they are serious about devolving more power to Holyrood, they need to start outlining which powers and in what time frame.
Labour may have delivered devolution, but they've stopped there, whereas the people want to go further, and quicker. They set up the Calman Commission with the other unionists in a cynical attempt to trump the SNP – where was the talk of looking to increase the powers when they were still in charge at Holyrood? Even if you don't accept that the Scotland Bill will actually do more harm than good to Scotland, its limitations merely highlight the fact that Labour are way behind public opinion. Changing SVR from 3p to an arbitrary 10p? That's just a fudge. If people were actually satisfied with that level of change, the SNP wouldn't have a majority just now.
Besides, we all know why Labour really set up devolution – Lord Robertson of Port Ellen himself told us. For the same reason they started the Calman commission. It's nothing to do with wanting to give Scotland more power – it's about trying to trump the SNP and conserve the union, at any cost. So far, it's not worked out too well…
And it's a bit rich accusing the SNP of being afraid to hold their referendum when every man and his dog knows the only reason Labour and other unionists suddenly want it ASAP is because of fears that holding it in 2014 will increase the chances of a "yes" vote.
#110 by GMcM on January 24, 2012 - 3:22 pm
So rather than looking at the powers that are best suited to create a fair Scotland and a fair UK and then work constructively to deliver on the transferring of those powers you want Labour to just pick some powers out of the air so you know what powers we think should come to Scotland?
I liked one of the proposals that was mooted during the leadership campaign that a permanent inter-governmental body would be set up to review devolution and tailor it to the needs of the nations in a more fluid fashion. It would prevent the stop-start nature of devolution and make more of a living breathing being that could grow more effectively.
#111 by Doug Daniel on January 25, 2012 - 10:12 am
I don't want them to just pick them out of the air, I would expect them to do a bit of research into which ones would serve Scotland best. But I certainly do want them to tell us which ones. Otherwise, how can we hold them to account?
But I'll tell you what, if Labour get into power – north or south of the border – after a "no" result in the referendum and they actually set that body up, then perhaps people can start believing that they really are "devolutionists" rather than just straight-forward "unionists".
Now on Facebook
We had an open signup box here, but it's apparently a spammer's delight. If you are a regular and we don't tend to delete your comments, please do drop us a tweet about registering. If you're already signed up, you can log in here. Please note: registering doesn't mean magic pixies deliver Better Nation to your bedside, it just means we don't moderate your comments any more. If you want magic pixies try adding our RSS feed. And please don't email us with commercial guest posts or linkbait. We'll just ignore those.
Amidst Brexit chaos, a Holyrood poll
I've got more Facebook friends
Tactical standing
A category mistake
The past is always better. Search Better Nation here:
A Burdz Eye View
A Man's A Man
Alan Trench: Devolution Matters
Alex Massie
Andrew Burns
Andy Wightman
Another side of Lesley Riddoch
Barbarian Politics
Bellegrove Belle
Blether with Brian
Bright Green Scotland
Caron's Musings
Cllr Debra Storr
Cllr Maggie Chapman
Craig Kelly
Cybernats
Dorky Mum
Douglas McLellan
Edinburgh Eye
Eric Joyce MP
Ewan Aitken
Fay Young
Hearts And Mines (Ian Baxter)
Ideas of Civilisation
Joan McAlpine – Go Lassie Go
Labour Hame
Lallands Peat Worrier
Legal Knowledge Scotland
Mental Political Parent
National Collective
Newsnet Scotland
Niall O'Gallagher
Patrick Harvie MSP
Paul Cairney
Planet Politics
Scot Goes Pop!
Scotland Votes
Scots and Independent
Scottish Referendum Experience
Set In Darkness
SNmr
Suitably Despairing
The Green Benches
The Will Patterson Notebook
Thinking Unpopular Thoughts (Malc!)
Thoughtland
Wits News
Aldos Rendos
Slugger O'Toole
Stephen's Liberal Journal
Boulton & Co
Caroline Lucas MP
Climate Sock
Cornish Republican
Enemies of Reason
Green Politics: Sustainable Futures
Nick Robinson's Newslog
Party Lines Blog
Peter Cranie
Political Dynamite
Political Scrapbook
Severin Carrell (Guardian)
Telegraph Blogs
The Daily (Maybe)
Total Politics Party Lines
Unite Society
Constitution (183)
Defence (18)
Elections (146)
Holyrood (378)
Housekeeping (19)
Ideology (34)
Local government (17)
Parties (170)
Polling (11)
Westminster (105)
Please do not contact us if you have some product you want me to promote unless it's an electric car and you've got a free sample. Arclite theme on WordPress
Entries RSS and Comments RSS


Use our online Rainbow Flag gay business directory and magazine to explore some great places in Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, South Australia, Northern Territory & The ACT. Our Rainbow guide gay directory is one of the most user friendly gay websites in Australia.
Find gay friendly businesses in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart, Darwin and Canberra. Our gay owned & gay friendly providers around Australia in our gay friendly business directory & rest assured they won't discriminate & are not prejudice.
Whether your looking to buy a new car, build a home or a new pair shoes. The Rainbow Flag directory is your gay friendly directory and solution for members of the LGBTI community in Australia.


This is a 2-hour workshop intended for clinical teachers and preceptors from any and all specialties. It is the second of a series of interprofessional Clinical Teaching Workshops being offered exclusively to MGH employees through the IHP Office of Continuing and Professional Development.
Compare and contrast effective and ineffective feedback techniques.
Apply the principles of advocacy-inquiry as a method to enhance feedback discussions.
Practice activities that reframe feedback as an alliance between teacher and learner.


text:
you are screwed vs. I screwed-up
P told A this morning that he was 'screwed'. C told P not to use such foul language and N said that Obama had said that he "screwed up". Well, my first point was that even the smartest and best educated people sometimes lost their temper and used foul language. And, second, that there was a difference between saying that "I screwed up" and that "you are screwed". The latter being more offensive language because it was directed at someone else - while the former was directed at oneself. Not sure if I believe this, though ;-). It does seem like one is given more leeway when being self-critical than when criticizing others. Right?
Labour Costs in Phoenix
My priorities are more important than yours...

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl