No Way Back

For the first time this morning, the polls show a majority of voters in Scotland voting for independence and has Westminster politicians in panic mode - now apparently poised to offer a Constitutional Convention. 

But it was an article in yesterday’s paper which expressed things most clearly for me

The debate has intoxicated Scotland. Feeling involved in something BIG has intoxicated Scotland. People have seen the opportunity to seize power. It has become worthwhile to take an interest in political issues, achieve an understanding of them, discuss your own understanding with others, start formulating your own ideas…… The saddest thing is that what most Scots want – what I want – isn’t even on the ballot paper. I don’t want the UK to break up. It’s a unique institution in which four individual countries operate in concert, as a single state, in comradeship. It’s a beautiful thing. Or it should be.

But the democratic deficit across the UK is highly problematic, and likely to become more so. Supposedly apathetic voters often say during general election campaigns that “however you vote, you always get the government”. It didn’t occur to Westminster that this referendum could be the exception – that this vote might shatter the status quo

 It was the British Prime Minister apparently who removed a third option (“DevoMax”) from the ballot paper and who created the stark choice Scottish voters have faced during this 2 year campaign. At the moment he did that, the polls showed – as they had consistently for years – that only one third of voters actively wanted independence……..a referendum was therefore conceded in full confidence that the independence option would be rejected……

But the question on the ballot paper asks simply whether people “agree that Scotland should be an independent country”. That was what we Scots call a “No brainer” – who in his right mind would vote for “dependence”?? And no one has ever denied that Scotland is a country or, indeed, nation. Everyone considers themselves “independent”   

Hardly surprising that, during a conversation which has lasted at least 2 years (more like 4 – since the last General Election), a slow shift in opinion has taken place. Indeed what is surprising is that it is only now that “Yes” voters seem to have reached the majority.

 

But – and it is a very big but….. the Leader of the Scottish National Party has made it clear he wants to leave only one of the six unions Scotland apparently belongs to. He has been widely mocked for actually not wanting independence at all – but for wanting something the papers have called “independence-lite”

Things are now going to get very confusing….…..if this strongly-touted, last-minute concession of a constitutional convention is announced, the distance between the British and Scottish Governments will become very small…It will be the “Yes “ voters who may well be left behind.
If Salmond, the Scottish Leader, had argued for a clearer break – no pound, no European Union, no “social union” (whatever that meant) – then things would have been very clear. But he has fudged the issue very cleverly – way back in 2011 he talked about “fiscal autonomy within the UK” as his preferred option – what others have called “Devo-Max”. But this was ruled out. It is not on the ballot paper – although it has been the consistent line of Salmond’s talk during this campaign when his line has been that there would be no difficulties in keeping the pound and membership of the European Union. Big questions were raised about this – but in a manner I commented in February which would not satisfy the voter

My inclination this past year has been to vote yes - like the vast majority of Scots, I simply feel the political class in London is a different ideological race. And the tactics these past few weeks of the Westminster (and Brussels) "so-genannten" leaders certainly make me feel a bit “stroppy”. The suggestions of cretins such as the EC President (Barroso) and the UK Finance Minister that there could be no currency link between England and an independent Scotland ; or easy negotiation to EU membership  is pure shock tactics…..and so counterproductive.
These idiots don’t know my countrymen – who will simply come off the fence – and vote yes. The only reason the “No” vote (which a few months ago was so strong) is collapsing is because the UK is now ruled by neo-liberal feudalists who, for Scots, are aliens at 2 removes. 

Yesterday’s Guardian article continued

Yet something strange, even sinister, has come to light during the referendum debate. It’s that pro-unionist politicians are the ones who seem least willing to change the union in order to preserve it. They scoff at the idea of a shared currency, of a single market, of a shared membership of the EU. They say that they won’t co-operate with any of that. They want only the union they’ve got, not the union they have the opportunity to create, one held together by what they have in common, yet one in which members are able to go their own way, if and when they wish to.These people cling to this clapped-out, 300-year-old union, even though it’s clear that reform is long overdue.

Weird anomalies abound. Embarrassing anomalies. Only in the UK and Iran do religious prelates automatically take a seat in the legislature, with the established church, the Church of England, by default in effect the church of the UK. 

As for the downright perverse situation, in which Scottish MPs have the right to take part in votes that shape the future of England but are irrelevant to their own constituents, under devolution, what’s the plan on this glaring example of democratic deficit – to let it drift for ever? Scotland has become impatient. It wants the UK to start taking democracy seriously. If it won’t, then Scotland is perfectly capable of doing that for itself, alone.

England’s electorate is starting to see that a referendum it doesn’t have a vote in could change England for ever. This, it is generally considered, is not very fair. But the unfairness doesn’t emanate from Scotland. It emanates from a Westminster that assumes the political passivity of the UK and everyone in it. David Cameron wasn’t too bothered about giving Scotland a vote on the future of the UK. It was easy to ignore the fact that the rest of the UK was being excluded, simply because he didn’t think it was going to come to anything.

Even if Scotland doesn’t vote yes, and merely comes close, it will still have called Westminster’s bluff. Many politicians ask sneeringly what Scotland would gain from the“independence lite” that Alex Salmond is suggesting – an independence that does not break up the UK. They miss the point for a simple, awful reason. They are unused to thinking too much about the electorate, other than at election time, so they cannot see that the revolutionary change would be in how people felt about government, how much greater a stake in government the individual would perceive herself as having.

Members of the establishment see voters as giving them a mandate. They are not interested in sharing the mandate with the people who have granted it. 

The Better Together campaign says: “Leave it to the big boys. It’s all too complicated for you lot to understand. Get on with your work. Look after your kids. We know best.” The Yes Scotland campaign says: “Think about how government impacts on your own life. Understand it. Reflect it back. Don’t be intimidated. Get involved. Get your workmates involved. Get your kids involved. We can work out what’s best together.”

One campaign says: “Be quiet.” The other campaign says: “Speak.” Is it any wonder that yes has gained converts, while no has not?Scotland got its referendum because it asked for it. Westminster’s been “asking for it” for a long time. It underestimated the Scots, and it underestimates the rest of the people of Britain too. Everyone in the UK can seize the initiative, as Scotland has. Start thinking about possibilities, instead of accepting stasis. Start seeking conversation, instead of putting up with pontification. Start talking. Start hoping.

 So far, so good. But the article’s final paragraph had me a bit confused……

Developed and sophisticated democracy can thrive in our four countries, replacing a tired old adversarial system, built for days gone by and resting on its withered laurels. Join Scotland, people of the UK, and liberate yourselves. For that, paradoxically, is the only thing that can keep us together.

 But that’s no longer on the table.

Time for some culture

For almost 25 years I lived directly across from the American nuclear submarine missile base which was established on the River Clyde in the 1960s. I could see it from my bedroom window. At weekends, on my way to a caravan I had bought at Loch Eck, I would pass the huge obscene structure floating on a small loch which was actually called the Holy Loch! Although the Americans dismantled it in the early 90s, the British nuclear submarine (Trident) system has simply moved a mile further east and is one of most powerful and visible points in the independence case……

Hardly surprising that, as a political activist in the 70s, I got into the habit of reciting radical verse at the anti-nuclear demonstrations - Adrian Mitchell was the favourite, particularly with his Tell me Lies 

Tom Leonard’s The Six o’clock News didn’t quite seem to fit the crowd’s requirements in those days – but I’m sure has been heard in recent gatherings…

Apparently one poem – Vote Scotland – has gone viral in the cybersphere – but was unknown to me until a couple of days ago. Its tone gives a very good sense of how a lot of Scottish people feel these days -
I can only give the first part - since the formatting f***s up a bit....... 

People of Scotland, vote with your heart.

Vote with your love for the Queen who nurtured you, cradle to grave,W

ho protects you and cares, her most darling subjects,

to whom you gavethe glens she adores to roam freely through, the stags her children so dearly enjoy killing.

First into battle, loyal and true.  The enemy’s scared of you. 

That’s why we send you over the top with your och-aye-the-noo Mactivish there’s been a murrrderrr

jings! Crivvens! Deepfriedfuckinmarsbar wee wee dram of whisky hoots mon there’s a moose loose aboot this smackaddict

Vote, Jock.  Vote, Sweaty Sock.  Talk properly.

Vote with those notes we scrutinise in our shops.(might be legal tender but looks dodgy to me)

Vote for the Highland Clearances. Baaaaaaaaaa.

Vote for nuclear submarines in your water.

Vote for the Olympic Games you didn’t vote for(but you’ll pay for it, you’ll pay for it).

Vote Conservative. Vote Lib Dem. Vote Libservative. Vote Condabour.

Vote with the chip on your shoulder.

Vote Labour.  New Labour. Old Labour. Scottish Labour.

(Get back in line, Scottish Labour, HQ in Solihull will issue their commands shortly,

Just keep the vote coming in from up there thanks goodbye,

Subsidy junkie).

The Sirens

I think I can now empathise with Ulysses’ problem, all these centuries ago, with the Sirens. Drip by drip, names I respect – Tariq Ali, George Monbiot, Joseph Stiglitz for example have come out (from their non-Scottish redoubts) in favour of Scottish independence. 

The latest name to give his endorsement is someone my radical friends really do need to be careful of…..  (Sir) Simon Jenkins has now kissed the ring.  For those who specialise in discourse analysis, this is a classic - which I have to let speak for itself - in full... 

I sit overlooking Cardiff Bay as seven warships, including the destroyer HMS Duncan, manoeuvre gingerly into position. They join an army of 10,000 assorted police and guards to lock down the city so that Nato can eat a banquet in Cardiff castle. ..From the castle walls, statesmen hurl empty threats at Russia and Islamic State, who are currently dismembering Ukraine and Iraq, two nations the west claimed only recently to have “liberated”.

No one notices that their host, the UK, also faces dismemberment. Nato’s response to a global revolt against over-centralised and insensitive states is to quaff champagne and gobble canapés.Whatever comes of Scotland’s impending independence referendum, Britain owes that country a vote of thanks.

For six months (note – it has actually been 2 years - Jenkins hasn't been paying attention!!) it has staged a festival of democracy, an Edinburgh tattoo of argument. Not a politician, not an airwave, not a town hall, not a wall, tree or road sign is free of the debate. If, as predicted, turnout tops 80%, that is a triumph in itself. Political participation is not dead when it matters. 

How would I vote? As a British citizen residing in London, I would vote no. I would be shocked at how England’s rulers have incurred the loathing and distrust first of most of Ireland and then of half of Scotland. This incompetence reached its climax in the no campaign itself, the jeering, patronising, money-obsessed “project fear” designed to warn the Scots to stay close to nurse. The assumption that independence is all about cash is bad enough. Worse have been the expatriate celebrity endorsements – why have they all left home? – and scares that Scotland will lose its monarch, its missiles, its brains and the BBC, getting only poverty and terrorists in return………………….The shock of the past year might warn the English establishment to embrace constitutional reform. It might put stuffing into David Cameron’s empty localism and avert the humiliation of a collapsed union. 

But as a Londoner I have no such vote. I have to go to Edinburgh and imagine myself a Scot. In that case there is no argument. I would vote yes.I am sure the outcome of the referendum, whichever way it goes, will be nothing like the alarms or promises made by both sides.

Pick apart the no vote’s “devo-max” and the yes vote’s “independence-lite”, and the practical differences are not great. Both will deliver a distinctive Scotland yet one still close to England. Whatever deal follows whatever vote, there will be joint citizens, open borders, a common currency, joint banking, arrangements on welfare, security, tax-gathering and broadcasting. Scotland may set its taxes differently, but the scope for drastic change will be limited. It can already raise or lower its income tax but has not dared to do so. 

As for money, the issues are fiercely contested and wildly out of line. But the consensus appears to be that the £10.5bn net transfer to Scotland could be roughly balanced by Scotland’s notional oil revenue. An independent Scotland would lose a billion a year in windfarm subsidies from English energy consumers and might have to carry over £100bn of debt. It would certainly be tough, but that is what independence is about. Poll evidence suggests that Scottish voters are unmoved by the no campaign’s economic alarmism, leaving money as a matter for politicians to sort out. 

I would vote yes because the no campaign has offered merely stasis. Its leader Alistair Darling’s vision is of union as sole guarantor of prosperity. Yet this paternalism has trapped Scotland in dependency and lack of enterprise for half a century. Nor is it clear what his offer of devo max really means. If Scotland were able to raise more of its own taxes, the risk is that the Treasury would offset them with cuts in the subvention. Scotland might see a more adventurous future, but it would remain in political shackles. 

Alex Salmond’s vision is equally flawed. His socialist heaven of tax and spend, floating on a lake of oil, must be rubbish. He offers voters an extra £1,000 a head after independence, when the reality must be public sector belt tightening. Scotland’s budget would lose Treasury underpinning. Its borrowing would be at risk. Its ministers would be on their mettle. Financial crisis would lead to Greek-style austerity, whereupon voters would chuck Salmond out. The Tories might even revive as the party of discipline and offshore capitalism. 

I would vote yes because, though I disbelieve both Darling and Salmond,Salmond’s lies would precipitate a crisis that would have to lead to a leaner, meaner Scotland, one bolstered by the well-known advantages of newborn states and more intimate governments. Scotland’s whingeing and blaming of London would stop. It would be driven towards true self-sufficiency, capable of resembling Denmark, Norway, Ireland or Slovakia as a haven for fleet-footed entrepreneurs. 

I have lost count of the referendum debates I have attended. They are dominated by expatriate Scots who have no intention of returning home but who enjoy telling Scotland its business from the fleshpots of London. They see union much as their grandparents saw empire, as a historical inevitability to be defended against all argument. Many are blind to the hypocrisy of deploring Britain’s subservience to Brussels yet insisting on Scotland’s subservience to London. 

The United Kingdom really ended with the departure of Ireland in 1922. In the past half-century the drift to self-determination has been remorseless. In the 1970s, 40% of Scots saw themselves as “British”; now only 23% do. To them, arguments about currencies, subsidies and oil are not the issue. They have been debating the essence of democracy – by whom should they be ruled? They are arguing constitutions, not spreadsheets. 

Most Scots know that independence could only be partial, but half-wish to negotiate it as between sovereign peoples. This craving for ever greater regional autonomy is rampant across Europe, from Spain to the Russian border. It slides into partition only when, as in Yugoslavia, central government is deaf to its demands. Whether or not Scotland votes for independence, it will have made its own decision in its own way. To that extent, it is a sovereign state in embryo.

Methinks the man has a point!!

Separating

I had a colleague who could always be relied upon to calm a crisis – “we are where we are” he would say philosophically. It reminded me of a favourite phrase of mine - “man ist was man isst” – apparently “we are what we are” but the Germans are actually saying “we are what we eat”.

What is it about “ists”….? Feminists, individualists, socialists, atheists, royalists….fascists… You can literally hear the spit of disapproval if not outright abuse….The words are insults – hurled at people who are seen to be ….extrem…ists…advocating an extreme position.

When the referendum campaign about Scottish independence began – all of 2 years ago – the discourse was civilised – the terms “separatist” and “unionist” were avoided. A “unionist” for us in Scotland was a “royalist” – someone who saluted the flag…living out the last of his years in a bungalow in the south of England or in Northern Ireland.

About 6 months ago, on one of the rare occasions when I joined a discussion thread, I was roundly ticked off for using the term “separatist”. The rebuke was well deserved…..the millions of Scots who have in the past few decades become so disillusioned with the behaviour of British Governments are not extremists. Rather they have been given a rare opportunity by the referendum to take part in the sort of “Conversation” (and search for a new public philosophy) recommended in the tantalising conclusion of David Marquand’s recent book “Mammon’s Kingdom – an Essay on Britain, Now . And they are taking full advantage of that opportunity…..

Having said that, let us not be caught up in political correctness. What Scotland faces is “separation”. There’s nothing unusual about such a process – it happens to millions of people and quite a few countries. It’s usually painful – but many who have undergone the process of separation will testify that they feel so much better…..So why beat about the bush? 

I find myself engaging in this semantic musing simply because I’m now trying to give a title to the little E-book I’m producing from my 40 odd blogposts on the Scottish debate. At first I thought of “The Scottish Debate – home thoughts from abroad” but, as I drafted the “Preface”, I found myself writing this sentence 

“The booklet is simply a record of the reverbations of the debate which has reached someone who loves Scotland but who has been absent for 24 years.At the best of times, we hear what we want to hear; and, in my case, I am hearing the debate via the internet….with echoes from the memory chamber of the 1970s and 1980s”.

So I tried out “Reverbations” as a title – but it doesn’t make much sense.

But, as I was  waking up this morning, the word “Separating” came to me….Not a noun – an adjective. Not a term of abuse but a description of a fact….

So sorry, I think we’ve reached the stage we need to call a spade a spade…..

   

I googled the phrase and came across a couple of other essays on the issue – what is separatism? and in praise of separatism 

Also a discussion between two Scots 

How Late it Was, How Late.....

“Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully”. This famous quotation of Samuel Johnson has been traced, interestingly, to September 19th (albeit 1777)

As the clock ticks relentlessly toward 18 September, the quality of the writing on the internet  reaches impressive heights and I suspect that I will have many sleepless nights in the 2 weeks to come…

AdamTomkins’ blog (from Glasgow) is a “must-read” for any serious person – but yesterday’s blogposts also quoted from two other quite excellent blogs which had escaped me - Malcolm Henry (in the remoteness of Skye) and Jim Fairlie (in the fatlands ofCrieff, Tayside)

An hour later I found a piece entitled The day of the torn souls may be appearing from the inestimable Scottish Review who looked at the issue I mentioned in an aside yesterday – that the Scottish cultural elite has gone heavily for independence -

the media – particularly the media outside of Scotland – have turned to non-politicians to find ways of interesting their audiences in the independence issue. On Saturday 19 July, having invited contributions from 10 Scottish writers, the Guardian devoted several pages to the topic of Scottish independence. Inevitably the most striking thing about this exercise was that only one of the 10 – Allan Massie – seemed at all likely to vote No. Concerned about balance and fair-mindedness, the paper's editors will surely have tried to come up with a more even line-up. But they were never in with a chance…….

Friends at home and abroad often ask me to explain this degree of unanimity among the Scottish literati. From now on I shall point them to the July article by the actor Bill Paterson in the Scottish Review which reveals brilliantly all the pressures that make it so difficult for a Scottish artist/celebrity to come out in favour of the No side in the campaign. In the future, when the dust has settled and the referendum has become the subject of scholarly analysis, this article I'm sure will gain classic status in this particular context.

Another piece in the same journal is written by a previous adviser to the First Minister asserting that private polls in the nationalist camp suggest that the actual Yes vote on 18 September will be 55% - comparing with a consistent deficit of 3% in the public polls.

A lot of column inches are wasted on the great unknowns – how the newly enfranchised (16-18 year olds) or the undecided will actually vote. I’m surprised that more commentators don’t focus on the psychology of actually making the cross on the ballot paper.

I can never forget that I campaigned strongly in 1979 against a Scottish Parliament. I shared a platform with people like Tam Dalyell (coiner of the famous West Lothian question) who warned about the slippery slope to independence. Despite this, when it came to the privacy of the voting booth and I had the ballot paper in my hands, I actually voted “Yes” to the Parliament.

My suspicion is that there will be quite a few people who will tempted to change their intentions in 2 weeks – positive about independence because it is so difficult to withstand the peer pressure which has built up but paying attention to a warning inner voice…..

Most of my left-wing friends in Scotland have also gone for independence – alienated by the way New Labour betrayed its ideals, many of them started in 2007 reluctantly to cast their vote for the party which still attached its colours to the social democratic banner – the SNP. In 2011 that switch in support gave the “National” party the opportunity to seek a referendum it never imagined it could win. 

The combination of the referendum and the disenchantment with Labour has created a heartening recrudescence of left-wing thought in Scotland – evidenced in such sites as -

- Thoughtland– big ideas from a Small Nation 
- National Collective (artists for a creative Scotland)

- Common Weal

- Scottish Left Review

- The Red Paper Collective 

Although Class, Nation and Socialism – the red paper on Scotland 2014 is on my bookshelves, I have to confess that I have not so far read it. This is quite reprehensible as it does appear to be the one book which matches my sympathies – leftist but sceptical…..

Nor, to my shame, have I even bought the two books written from a left-wing perspective which support independence – Jim Sillars’ In Place of Fear II – a socialist programme for an independent Scotland or Yes – the radical case for Scottish Independence

However, as I speak, both books are winging their way to me (as well as a few Histories). I will, in the meantime, read the 2014 Red Paper very closely.

But first let me share a couple of reviews of Yes – the Radical Case for Scotland – the first from LSE blogs

In the final chapter, “Scotland vs the Twenty-first Century”, they give an outline for the type of policies they want an independent Scotland to adopt: nationalisation of infrastructure and North Sea oil, a Scottish currency, more progressive taxation, a maximum working week, more open immigration, extended trade union rights, and so on. But nowhere do Foley and Ramand put across a convincing argument for why a Yes vote in September will make any of these reforms more likely to happen; the best they seem to manage is that independence ‘throws the status quo into doubt’ and ‘opens opportunities’ (pp.2-3).Indeed their introduction has a passage that could easily be lifted from a book entitled No rather than Yes:By itself, voting Yes offers no guarantees of a better, more progressive future, never mind a radical redistribution of wealth and power. Scotland would face creating a new state under hostile circumstances… If Scottish rulers, politicians and managers conform to consensus assumptions about national welfare, and if Scotland’s people do not resist them, we could reproduce many of Britain’s current problems. With minimal rights, and low wages, we could enter a ‘race to the bottom’ with peripheral European economies. (pp.2-3)
Such honesty from independence campaigners is welcome. Unfortunately, the book fails to address the challenge the authors set themselves.

The second review strikes a similar note -

The unresolved problem becomes acute in the final chapter, ‘Scotland vs. the 21st century: towards a radical-needs agenda’ (pp.90-117). The authors present an attractive range of policies for post-independence economic, social, and political reform. They would be resisted by the banks, the corporations, and the neoliberal political elite. The attempt to implement them would therefore require the mobilisation of mass forces to confront and defeat these vested interests. And this, if successful, would in turn pose the question of power in society and thus, potentially, generate a revolutionary crisis.Or so it seems to me. For I do not believe that there is a Keynesian/left-reformist solution to the crisis of neoliberal capitalism. I doubt the authors do either, yet they make reference to other, more successful, ‘small-nation’ capitalist economies like Sweden, and to anti-neoliberal regimes which have rejected market models and implemented social-reform programmes in Latin America.Is the radical-needs agenda a left-Keynesian programme for turning Scotland into a niche ‘Celtic Tiger’ economy with strong public services and social protection? Or is it a set of ‘transitional demands’ capable of mobilising the mass of ordinary Scots in a struggle for change that will culminate in the overthrow of finance capital?This question is not posed, let alone answered.....this is what we get instead - "What Scots can unite upon is the unsustainable direction of British capitalism. If we vote no, we all but guarantee more decades of austerity, privatisation, and warfare.
We will miss our chance to contribute a working model of environmental sustainability. We will assume, with utmost complacency, that Labour governments are capable of reforming Westminster, despite all evidence to the contrary. Let us not repeat our mistakes of 1979, and resign ourselves to more Thatcher decades. Our vote counts. By our actions we can restore hope, assert co-operation and tolerance, and deliver a message: that Scotland will never again submit to the administration of mindless cruelty"pp.123-4).

The problem here is that voting yes will not end ‘austerity, privatisation, and warfare’, nor will it deliver ‘environmental sustainability’. These things are not achievable in the context of a capitalist Scotland. Yes: the radical case for Scottish independence provides an excellent critique of the British nation-state and a compelling case for voting yes to break it up. It also offers an inspiring list of social reforms that would, if implemented, transform Scotland. What it fails to do is to spell out clearly what would be involved in making that second transition – from independence to socialism.

The title of this post is taken from the title of one of Scottish writer James Kelman's most famous novels. The New Yorker magazine (of all journals) had a great article about him last week. 

Rare sense

I decided to make a list of the background reading for the 24 or so posts I’ve done in the past year about the Scottish referendum. Twelve titles soon appeared on my list – which I wanted then to check (via the internet) against a more comprehensive bibliography. Imagine my surprise to identify only one - a list of 60 academic books only two of which have a direct bearing on the referendum!!

But my surfing was not in vain – it did unearth four important E-books only one of which I had so far been aware – that is 250 pages of Enlightening the Constitutional Debate

Also released only in the last month is a 90 page assessment of the key issues by various of academics and published by 3 Foundations - Scotland’s Decision – 16 questions to think about

For the real masochist there are 132 pages on The economic consequences of Scottish independence from Hamburg University which

“brings together a number of papers from distinguished academic economists that consider: taxation and government spending, pensions, banking, debt and interest rates, trade borders and currency issues, business perspectives, energy policy, inequality, migration and labour markets”

I suspect that most of us would probably find a title such as The Wee Blue Book more enticing - particularly when it has only 37 pages (including graphs)

I will whack through them to try to identify the highlights. Needless to say they have attracted very little attention in the blogosphere where, however, I did notice this thoughtful post 

Much of what is being touted as consequences of independence – reversing the UK’s austerity programme, removing nuclear weapons, re-nationalising strategic industries, taxing the rich, and other things numerous and varied – are no more than aspirations.There are no guarantees that any of this will actually happen in an independent Scotland, but there is widespread belief among Yes campaigners that these things will be more likely in an independent Scotland because a Scottish government will be more responsive to the collective will of the Scottish people than the UK government in Westminster.

 ……….Central governments, formed by tiny elites, will continue to exercise almost absolute power over us. And these governments will continue to be put in place by small minorities of the electorate by way of a flimsy approximation of democratic process.

Our democratic systems are not the only ones that are malfunctioning. The banking crisis of 2007/08 and subsequent recession have exposed systemic flaws in the financial mechanisms on which we rely to keep our economy working.During the independence campaign there has been a great deal of heat generated by the arguments over who’s going to be wealthier or poorer after independence, and what currency Scotland will be able to use. Lots of heat casting not a glimmer of light on the dark heart of our debt-raddled economy.

Nowhere in the mainstream campaign has anyone from Yes or No acknowledged that our financial and fiscal systems are fatally flawed. No plans have been proposed to tackle the creation and destruction of money as interest paying debt, a system that cannot be sustained for much longer before it buries us all under a mountain of credit that’s impossible to service. None of the good things that enthusiasts for independence want to happen are likely to happen or be sustained until we make structural reforms to our dysfunctional systems of democracy and finance. The same goes for the “strength in unity” arguments of those who seek to preserve the union by voting No.

Separate or united, we are weak and vulnerable because the frameworks within which our society operates make us so, and nothing that’s being proposed by either side of the independence debate will change this. 

The possibility of reforming the structures of democracy does indeed seem more likely in a small country with a less entrenched sense of class and hierarchy than dreary old England, the dominant partner within the UK. There is much pre-independence talk about a Scottish constitution and reform of our ridiculously over-sized “local” government areas. It will be much harder for an elite in Holyrood to withstand a popular movement for democratic reform than it is for its counterpart in Westminster.

For structural reform of how we do politics, the balance lies firmly in favour of independence.But what about money and taxation? Imagine, in post-independence Scotland, an awakening to the lunacy of creating and destroying money as debt which prompts the development of the the most elegant and effective financial system that the world has ever seen. Even supposing we could pull off this trick in the shadow of the mighty economy across the border, when sterling collapses under the burden of its own debt (as it surely will) Scotland’s biggest trading partner will descend into chaos, taking Scotland’s economy down with it. 

Could we reform Scotland’s financial and fiscal systems first and then export the example to the remainder of the UK before the whole thing implodes? Possible, but unlikely. The sterling economy is of an order of magnitude bigger than that of Scotland’s, and the two are so intimately entwined that any radical changes in the way that money works north of the border would be undermined by those with vested interest in maintaining the sterling status quo, which works very well indeed for those who control it. 

Effective reform of our financial and fiscal systems is the key to transforming our society for the better, and these reforms are more likely to endure if they’re applied to sterling, which means doing the work of reform from within the UK.

It is, however, a fine balance of argument in favour of voting No. A balance that’s tipped more by gut feeling than intellectual certainty. 

But then we have the problem of distraction.If we vote Yes it will signal the start of a process of disentangling institutions of state from the UK and establishing new ones in Scotland. This will be messy, tedious and protracted. Even if the civil servants can remain civil the politicians will not. A triumphant Scottish government will be out to flex its independent muscles while a wounded Westminster, with the Daily Mail baying at its heels, will be in no mood to make things easy for the departing Scots. The division of assets and liabilities will descend into the mother of all arguments that will take a long time to resolve. 

I am deeply skeptical of the 18 month transition period between the referendum and independence day that’s being advertised by the official Yes campaign. Witness the Scottish Parliament building which took seven years and more than ten times the original budget to complete. That was a tiny, straightforward project compared to negotiating separation from the UK and setting up the machinery required to run an entire nation. The prospects for a swift and efficient winding up of Scotland’s affairs within the UK do not look good. 

I fear that much of the positive energy that’s been generated by the independence debate will dissolve into habitual cynicism and apathy as the house-keeping tasks drag on, year after year, soaking up time, money, and the will to live. Much as I am attracted to the idea of breaking the establishment mould and creating new systems in an independent Scotland

I have to conclude that the best chance of getting all the good things that my independence-minded friends are aiming for is to campaign for structural reform from within the UK, starting with money and taxation. This will no doubt baffle those who are convinced that independence offers the only hope of change, but the more I think about it the more sense it makes.

Our problems are structural, not geographic. It seems to me that the best way to change the status quo is to get down to the hard work of changing it. Moving it north in the hope that the job will be easier feels like a diversion. The truth is that I don’t much care where the various bits of our government sit. I care about how they work and what they’re able to do to make our lives secure, comfortable, and sustainable.

And I know that in order for government to work properly we need financial and fiscal systems that are designed to help us, not hinder us. The political establishment of the UK is crumbling. Membership of political parties has shrunk to a fraction of what they were when I was a boy, and the power of the mainstream media is being eroded at a tremendous rate by the internet. Disaffection with the way the UK does business runs wide and deep through the British Isles and I get the sense that people have an appetite for change, if only they could see something tasty to sink their teeth into. Making money work properly for everyone is a project that could bring people together. With sterling, we have an opportunity to create a financial system that’s more effective and sustainable than anything we could achieve in an independent Scotland. 

For this reason alone I’m voting No in the referendum.But that doesn’t mean that I’m certain I’m right. As the song says, “you pay your money, you take your choice.”

Money.... Money....Money

Time for all open-minded people to try to pull the various strands of the Scottish argument together – and make a decision. To that end, I have copied the 21 posts I have made this year about the subject with a view to create an edited version for an E-book - which I will post later this week on my website.

But I still have to catch up with my reading on the matter.

The library on the subject I have been building up this year has a small pamphlet Scottish Independence; Yes or No which I got round to reading yesterday. The first 100 pages (by George Kerevan) consists of an elegant argument for independence (complete with footnotes) – the last 50 pages of a sloppy and emotional argument against (with n’er a footnote) - by Alan Cochrane. Both writers are journalists. So far, so bad.

Stephen Maxwell was one of the Scottish Nationalist intellectuals and produced in 2012 a balanced and sensitive argument – Arguing for Independence – evidence, risk and the wicked issues . It’s essential reading and groups the analysis of the case for independence into separate chapters on “the democratic case”, the economic, the social, the international, the cultural and the environmental, ending with a set of questions and answers to which he gives the lovely title “Aye, but”……Interestingly he gives a strong assessment of the economic case but is much more dubious of the “social” case – pointing out that the English can’t be blamed for the much higher levels of poverty and ill-health in Scottish society than south of the border.   

There are a lot of books about this issue – most trying to be balanced and objective. Sadly this makes for boring reading. There is a saying that “the devil has the best tunes” – by which, I must immediately say, I do not mean to malign those arguing for independence. I am, however, a natural sceptic (a quality which itself tends to be maligned) who has to admit that those arguing for independence do tend to have the better arguments…..

And, by the way, I do need to emphasise that – despite the terminology - this is not an argument about “nationalism”. The party in power in the Scottish Government is called the “Scottish National” party – not nationalist. In April, I spelled out that the argument is actually an ideological one – it is “neo-liberalism” that the Scottish voter rejects…not the English.....And the majority of educated Scots are at one on this. Its cultural elite (however defined) supports independence. Only its (discredited) political and commercial classes defend the Union.

But the question for me is how an independent Scotland could beat the markets and/or protect itself from the austerity which has become the prevailing policy in European countries. The central issues have become, for me, those related to the currency and to the Scottish budget - which are difficult for most people to get their head around.   

Adam Tomkins is one of the clearest voices in the debate – which is surprising for a constitutional lawyer. One of his most recent contributions could not be clearer

A core component of the case for Scottish independence is that the Nationalists wish to pursue fiscal policies significantly different from those adopted south of the border: much of the argument for independence has been framed as an argument against austerity. Yet, were an independent Scotland to enter a currency union with the rUK it would be unable to extricate itself from London’s fiscal policies.

The First Minister of the Scottish Government has made it very clear that a “Yes” vote means a currency Union with England (or remainder of the Union). The British government and all opposition parties say this will not happen (too much risk for their economy). 
Those who support independence say this is simply bluff but can’t really contemplate the remaining options – a new currency, the euro or a currency pegged to the pound. 

In the heat which surrounds this issue, few are looking at the implications for the Scottish budget of currency union – namely complete loss of fiscal sovereignty.

Anyone with any sympathies with the Scottish urge for what used to be called “self-rule” has to be prepared to wrestle with the significance of this issue. “Sovereignty” and “freedom” are words which people throw around too easily…..

I used to respect the campaigning (British) journalist George Monbiot but his latest, incendiary piece about Scottish independence shows a wilful ignorance of the real issues at stake. This is crass journalism at its worst - and the Guardian should be ashamed of printing it.

Postscript

Starting, just now, my editing of the 21 posts on the issue this year, I was reminded of the thoughtful website of someone who had been Deputy-Leader of the Scottish National Party. Like several others he has now parted with the Party – although he still favours independence.

His blog is therefore one of the most important for anyone with an open mind….A recent post

 rubbished the TV debate between the leaders of the 2 campaigns and made a startling reference to the “Fiscal Commission” which the Scottish Government had set up

This august body, with its two Nobel laureates has said a "currency union would be in the best interests of both Scotland and the rUK". The two massive caveats which accompanied that statement are NEVER quoted. They are, "in the immediate aftermath of independence" and "it will not give Scotland control of the economic levers". In other words, it is not independence.

One of the most important conditions was as follows, "a joint fiscal sustainability agreement is established to govern the level of borrowing and debt within the sterling zone". John Swinney, Finance Minister, is on record several times, as agreeing with the conditions laid out by the Fiscal Commission. None of this was brought up during the debate between Salmond and Darling.

One can see why Salmond would want to avoid making mention of any of that at all costs, but what was Darling thinking about?Instead of hammering Salmond with, "What is your plan B Alex?" he should have said, "The Fiscal Commission laid out the following conditions for a currency union to work, conditions which your Finance Minister has accepted,

* The Bank of England will set Scotland's interest rates and control monetary policy, as it does now.

* The Bank of England will set the level of borrowing in Scotland, as it does now

* The Bank of England will set  Scotland's debt management, as it does now

* The rUK Government, as a consequence of the above, will have indirect control of Scotland's fiscal policy, as it does now.

Can you now tell this audience Mr Salmond, how, under these conditions of control of the Scottish economy, Scotland can possibly be independent, how you can fulfill the promises for change you have made, when your Scottish government will not control its own economy? How does that possibly mean independence?"
Not even the Nobel laureates would be able to answer that question and neither would Salmond.

pps
Today's Guardian has this to say 

Telling it as it Is

I ought to be working on the global crisis and the Scottish referendum but, as usual, have been distracted – this time by two stunning autobiographies; by some thrillers and by a delightful take on contemporary Turkey. Such is the problem of having a library which is rapidly getting out of hand. Dennis Healey – whose 1989 autobiography I had so enjoyed on a second reading earlier in the year - bears part of the blame. Intrigued by his praise of Leonard Woolf’s autobiography (issued in the 1960s and still available) I bought 3 of its 5 volumes and was gripped from the beginning by their honesty and style. 

Leonard Woolf is nowadays perhaps better known as the husband of Virginia Woolf and member of the (in?)famous “Bloomsbury set” of more than a century ago – but he was an important “Fabian”, founder of the journal Political Quarterly and publishing firm and   

at nearly eighty, began to publish an autobiography that was immediately hailed by reviewers, won an important literary prize, and, in the almost half century since the first volume appeared, has seldom been out of print.

I’m “savouring” it at the moment – its prose is so exquisite and the volume describing his early experience as a young civil servant in the British Imperial civil service (in Ceylon) so vividly capturing (50 years on!) characters and incidents that I want to postpone the pleasure of the later volumes.

So, in the meantime, I take up Robert Hughes’ 2007 autobiography Things I Didn’t Know whose acerbic tone reminded so much of his compatriot Clive James who indeed wrote a powerful vignette of Hughes 

I first came across Hughes as the author of a book on Barcelona but he was apparently better known as one of the best art critics around and operated for almost as a decade as such with Time magazine. His autobiography is quite spell-binding and I’m amazed he wasn’t hit with a lot of libel suits!

Allan Massie is an underrated novelist with a strong set of European themes who has recently turned his hand to detective novels set in Bordeaux during the second world war. Three so far and well worth the read – and the format which Quintet books have used for the trilogy has done him proud.

Finally an engrossing read with Turkish Awakening – a personal discovery of modern Turkey  – part of a package of books on that country and on Istanbul which arrived recently.

Getting under the skin of a country is, for me, an underrated skill and Alev Scott seems to have achieved it with remarkable facility

It’s a bit like reading a travel book of your hometown; reassuringly familiar, with extra titbits of seasoned observations. On arrival, no one really acknowledges the stray, docile dogs of Istanbul that sleep unflinching in the middle of a thoroughfare, the high-pitched girly hubbub of fashionable Turkish women drinking in Nişantaşı, or why overly personal questions are the norm from perfect strangers. Scott explores all of this and more, with superb style. 
She is refreshingly candid about her impressions of her countrymen and more, importantly, its women — especially a certain husband-hunting cohort. “Somehow, rightly or wrongly, Turkish women have decided that men like them to act like little girls, and they are playing that part as best they can.” But Scott addresses feminism in Turkey head-on and goes well beyond the much discussed headscarf debate, exploring the treatment of women in the workplace (in liberal Istanbul), female entrepreneurs and trailblazers in the poorer and more conservative South East as well as the government’s contentious curbing of a woman’s right to choose. But beyond political observation, Scott’s book is a truly personal discovery of modern Turkey. Her experience of modern Turkey is infused by both her mother’s memory of Turkey and Scott’s own comparisons to British culture, producing a highly entertaining tapestry, backed by sharp observations and a witty pen. 

You can read more of her take on Turkey on her blog 

Revenons, cependant, aux moutons. With the referendum only 2 weeks away, here is a good post on how to make some sort of sense of all the words with which Scottish citizens have been drenched in the past 2 years.