Before the next general election, Labour will need to lead the campaign to save the union. John McTernan outlines how the party should help thwart Alex Salmond’s dream
Few things in politics are utterly predictable, but Alex Salmond’s next move is. He will call a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, on or around 24 June – which is the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn. Hate Braveheart? You ain’t seen nothing yet. The most nauseating, stomach-churning festival of fictional history and pseudo-patriotism is going to kick off in Scotland very shortly. And it will be paid for by the British taxpayer. Yes, your hard-earned taxes will be used to fund blatant propaganda – and no one will stop it. Why do I say this? Because for the last four years as a minority government the Scottish National party ran the most politicised administration ever in British history – and that includes Militant’s control of Liverpool city council – and no civil servant, to the highest level, has ever challenged this. Why? Because, to use a good Scots word, they’re feart.
It seems everyone has bought into the Scottish first minister’s myth of inevitability. As he puts it: ‘They said there would never be a Scottish parliament – and there is. They said there would never be a minority SNP government – and there is. They said there would never be a majority SNP government – and there is. They say Scotland will never be free – but we will be.’’ It is a tendentious argument, but it is delivered with such self-belief that it cows most people I know, supporters or opponents. As a senior SNP figure once told me: ‘The problem with Alex is that he’s a man who’s got a date with destiny. The trouble is – he might be right.’
Of course, objectively there are three main reasons that Salmond will not have his way. First, there has never been a time over the last 25 years when more than one-third of Scots have told pollsters they support independence. And, as the SNP’s popularity rose before the general election in May, support for separation fell to record lows. This is related to the second point: Scots are canny. Being part of the UK is a good deal – even taking account of oil and gas revenues Scotland receives £15bn more a year in spending than it raises in taxes. And those are Salmond’s own figures. But third, and most importantly, there is the Labour party – the party which has shaped modern Scotland, from hydroelectricity to Silicon Glen, and devolution, is not going to let Scotland separate itself entirely from the rest of the UK.
In the immediate aftermath of the brutal defeat in May there was much pessimism. The national media noticed that there was a different politics in Scotland – something Scots had broadly understood for the past 20 years. And surveying the scene there was soon a consensus that not only was Labour done for, but there would be a referendum and Salmond would triumph again. This is faulty, if understandable, logic – but as the Labour party slogan used to have it, the victory of ideals must be organised.
Any objective analysis of Scottish Labour’s position would start with the catastrophic defeat, but it would not stop there. Just a year before, in one of the worst defeats Labour has had in its history, there was a three per cent swing to Labour, and over a million people voted for the party in Scotland. The reason? Twofold. On the one hand, Scots want Labour to represent them at Westminster – as the Inverclyde by-election showed. On the other, they responded to the positive, optimistic, future-facing agenda, which the then Scottish secretary Jim Murphy gave them in 2010.
Scottish Labour needs to learn both lessons: better organisation on the ground has to be matched by a powerful vision of the future. The UK will not be saved by dolefully repeating figures on why Scotland will be poorer outside the UK – which it will be – but by talking about how much poorer the UK would be without Scotland. The two most-loved British institutions – the BBC and the NHS – were gifted to the nation by respectively a Scot, John Reith, and a Welshman, Nye Bevan. That is the greatness of our country. And the third fundamental institution – the British army – is disproportionately Scottish. Pride in, and passion for, these shared British institutions bind us together and exemplify the values that we share.
The very word ‘British’ is holy water to the nationalist vampire – they hate it, and seek to undermine it in any way they can. But recognition of the strengths of the ties that bind us has led to a new SNP tactic labelled ‘independence-lite’. This is the idea that Scotland, once separated, would share the monarchy, the currency, the central bank, army and naval bases at home and embassies abroad and so on. Hardly the heroic vision of America’s Founding Fathers, or even the leaders of the Baltic nations freed from the yoke of communism. But this is not about logic, it is about removing objections to independence by blurring them. The best response is mockery on the one hand, and ‘daft laddie’ questions on the other hand.
‘How precisely would that work? Do explain,’ is a deadly question for nationalists. The truth is they do not have a clue. They are much like the proponents of AV in the recent referendum, or, to take another example, like the supporters of a republic in the Australian referendum. Their movement is broad, and shallow, and therefore bound together by a host of compromises. One of the traps we too often fall into is to allow ourselves to be portrayed as ‘unionists’. We are not. That word has a long and honourable tradition in British politics, but that is not ours. We are in favour of what exists, the status quo, the longest-lived and most successful single market in the history of the world. Nationalists want a disruptive and transformational change. Let’s get them to explain what that change would be, what it would do, and why they think that would be good.
Take one simple area. A lot of people have been sold on the notion that Salmond is a social democrat. But his first priority economically is a cut in corporation tax. It is an odd sort of social democrat who thinks big corporations are overtaxed. It is, of course, pure Reaganomics – the Laffer Curve. It is fun to point out, but more profound is the unease this provokes which gets the response: ‘Don’t worry, that will be sorted after independence. Mind you, I’m not keen on it myself.’ This is somewhat reminiscent of the promise that the contradictions of capitalism would be easily resolved when we got socialism. The devil is in the detail and we – and Scottish voters – need to know: what are the new anti-poverty strategies that separation would permit? How will life expectancy be increased and standards of education raised?
Of course, there will be a referendum, but expect more tricks here. The SNP want to conduct it outside the oversight of the Electoral Commission and have a multiple choice question. Why? So they can maximise the chance of getting across the line, not by winning more votes, but by fragmenting the overwhelming majority. Our response should be clear. Already there is a groundswell of popular opinion calling for the vote to be held soon. If it were done, ‘tis well it were done quickly. Scottish Labour should voice that demand and speak up for a fair vote. There should be one question: should Scotland stay in the union? And a straight choice: yes or no? And appropriate oversight by the impartial Electoral Commission. It will be a tough fight, but Britain cannot afford to lose Scotland – and it won’t.
—————————————————————————————
John McTernan is a commentator and strategist, and is currently thinker-in-residence for the government of south Australia
—————————————————————————————
message to beloved Scotland : see “Runnaway”,Del Shannon.Youtube. Love ya baby !
2014 is the year that the Ryder Cup and the Commonwealth Games comes to Scotland, so in addition to Bannockburn the World’s eyes will be on Scotland for sporting reasons.
However, if I were Salmond I would wait and hold the referendum at the same time as the 2015 General Election – making Scottish independence an election issue in England and Wales, making the future of the Union a centre-piece debate for the entire United Kingdom.
2014 would be a good time to start the referendum campaign in earnest, but set it for May 2015 and hopefully England will be rid of them before you can say “Barnett Formula”.
No social democrat would accept party funding from Brian Souter owner of Stagecoach.
Salmond thinks he is Scotland’s most sccessful entrepreneur!
SNP funding comes principally from the membership of the party. Brian Souter has contributed, and it has caused some consternation at times. However, if you are having some sort of jibe at Alex Salmond because of this, you are conveniently ignoring the behaviour of UK parties accepting donations from even more dubious sources. You cannot criticise any loans given to one party without examining the loans to all parties.
Alex Salmond does not see himself as an entrepreneur. It is part of his remit, as the head of the government, to create the conditions that will allow Scotland’s business community to flourish. As an oil economist, he is in a considerably better position to do this than any other party leader.
And define a “social democrat”? Will you also use examples from across European politics to strengthen your argument?
Come on the Unionist community, where are the mature and intellectual arguments for remaining in the Union? All we are seeing is a constant tirade of lies and ridiculous scenarios. What a pile of dumplings!
Britain cannot afford to lose Scotland, but Scotland can afford to lose Britain.
I am pretty relaxed about whether Scotland goes independent or not. Living in Northumberland I get a good picture of what goes on in Scotland and as the article says it gets a good deal but my county and region (the North East) doesn’t and often loses out to Scotland, so may be we would be better off with it gone. Of course much of the rabid anti-SNP-ish is the result of one thing: without Scottish votes Labour would never get a majority at Westminster, so a lot of this is about self-preservation. Let’s concentrate on England and its governance – it is scandalous there is no separate England governance structure and even more scandalous that there is no effective regional governance for our regions (apart from London that is!) . I am a federalist – let’s set out a clear constitutional plan for the UK and present a positive case about the Union and then Scots may wish to remain.
You make some pertinent observations, but, in truth, it is Westminster and the UK that benefits most from Scotland being in the Union. The subsidy junkie issue is a myth. London is the most subsidised part of the UK, albeit it is also the wealthiest.
Nevertheless, Scotland is in a healthier financial position than the UK as a whole. The GERS figures; Westminster’s own annual assessment of Scotland’s expenditure and revenues, shows Scotland in fiscal surplus year on year. It is England that has the huge fiscal deficit. In fact, the UK’s financial position is similar to that of Greece, and only maintains the AAA credit rating required to access the loans needed to stop us heading the way of Greece from the collateral of oil and gas. McTernan, and those like him, is simply lying.
Much of the expenditure attributed to a Scotland within the UK would not be required in an independent Scotland. One example of this would be spending on defence and the nuclear deterrent. Scotland has no imperial aspirations.
The facts should be laid bare, and let the people decide. After all, by the Claim of Rights of 1689 it is the people that are sovereign, not parliament or the monarch.
You are absolutely crapping yourselves aren’t you!
The train has already left the station, you can’t stop it and you know it!
A big L for loser!
“Take one simple area. A lot of people have been sold on the notion that Salmond is a social democrat. But his first priority economically is a cut in corporation tax. It is an odd sort of social democrat who thinks big corporations are overtaxed.”
As the writer of this piece of twisted spin knows full well; It has nothing to do with thinking the big corporations being overtaxed. The purpose of cutting corporation tax is to encourage the big corporations to set up in Scotland. This will create jobs, reduce unemployment levels, provides more taxpayers contributing to Scotland’s coffers and boost Scotland’s economy. It would be an odd sort of social democrat who did not try to provide jobs and improve the lot of the working man. If he finds it offensive that the big corporations may have their taxes cut in order to improve the lot of the working man, he should perhaps also take offence at his own Labour Party who are funded by some of the self same big corporations.
Nor is it only the big corporations who pay this tax. Small businesses also pay corporation Tax. Since consecutive Labour and Tory Westminster governments have seen off all of Scotland’s industry, small businesses are noe the backbone of the economy. A cut in corporation tax would give Scotland’s small businesses more cash to reinvest in their business, help them expand and, as above, create employment etc.
john, pray tell, what have the poor people of south australia done to be lumbered by a sad neo-con fascist like yourself. ?
do people actually pay you for writing such opinionated rubbish? or are you on a messianic mission like your buddy mr blair to reincorporate the former colony of australia into your great british empire?
get over yourself and admit that your precious british union is finished.
yours for freedom
rob
” whassoo meat !” “ham nort yerr meat ” ” ach neo, ar ye neought” “nivver, ham aweey te ge pished , ar ye cummin’ ? ” “Ha can ge wi ye man ,hav te stey here, there’s a fight aun an the divvel te pey ”
” whassoo meat !” “ham nort yerr meat ” ” ach neo, ar ye neought” “nivver, ham aweey te ge pished , ar ye cummin’ ? ” “Ha can ge wi ye man ,hav te stey here, there’s a fight aun an the divvel te pey ”
Good Grief the Cyber-Nats get everywhere don’t they. As usual they spread hate and bile. I can’t wait to hear what they have to say for themselves when they lose the referendum.
Yes, they do!
Mr. McTernan says, “First, there has never been a time over the last 25 years when more than one-third of Scots have told pollsters they support independence. ”
That is odd but I could swear that the THIRTY NINE PERCENT who supported independence in the latest TNS poll is over one-third. Or did someone change math and move the amount of one-third on me?
And wasn’t that THIRTY NINE PERCENT a percentage point above those who support the union? Why, yes, I do believe it was.
Mr. McTernan was not by any chance being economical with the truth, now was he? Why, yes, I do believe he was. Tsk.
“Few things in politics are utterly predictable, but Alex Salmond’s next move is. He will call a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, on or around 24 June – which is the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn.”
“Utterly predictable”-what rubbish!. As an earlier comment pointed out McTernan only recently declared that there would be no referendum at all-and that was after the SNP victory not before it.
When I see who the enemies of Scottish independence are I can only be confident of victory-Lord Haw Haw is a good description of McTernan indeed and his lies are so obvious he is virtually living proof of the existence of parallel universes.
On the one hand, Scots want Labour to represent them at Westminster
2015–and the other hand two fingers