Labour lies and misdirection undermine credibility

The Scottish Labour Party’s central proposition at the moment is that we should accept Brexit and long-term Tory rule because these are simply distractions from key policy issues we aren’t tackling properly in Scotland. They’ve hired a Daily Mail guy not just as a regular staffer, but to personally lead their case in the media. Like Eddie Barnes, another journo hired by the Tories to do exactly the same thing, the Labour Party Daily Mail guy is using his new job to improve his own public profile. So he puts out the stuff of his day job in his own name, like leaders do. A lot of his stuff naturally reflects his Daily Mail values. Yesterday, he used Twitter to flag a Scottish Daily Express headline which in turn seemed to justify Scottish Labour’s present concern about a Scottish education system apparently in such a parlous state that we should ignore literally everything else to fix it. The tweet’s below.

Inside, the report is headed; “SNP accused of ‘failing our children'”. The article references a new report on education delivery by Scotland’s local authorities, published by The Improvement Service and the accusation the article refers to comes from Scottish Labour’s education spokesperson Iain Gray.  The central feature of the Daily Express article is Gray telling us that the Improvement Service document shows that the Scottish Government is letting everyone down on Education in schools.

Well, here’s how the actual Improvement Service source document Iain Gray refers to summarises its report on educational progress in Scottish schools over the last six years:

“Despite real reductions in the education budget since 2010/11, the number of pre-school and primary places in Scotland has increased by over 30,000 and measures of educational outcome continue to show positive progress, particularly for children from the most deprived areas….the trend on senior phase attainment shows a very strong improving trend. Overall attainment (average tariff score) improved by around 14% but, within that, the most deprived pupils improved the most (25.5%)”. 

You can read the report and make your mind up for yourself. But the report categorically says that local authorities, schools and professionals across Scotland have done a fine job over the reported period. Pre-schools, primary schools and secondary schools have all made considerable progress and most progress of all has been made in the education of children from more deprived backgrounds. All of this has been done against  a backdrop of difficult economic circumstances. By any standards, we should be proud of our schools and teachers.

What’s not in doubt is that early on in its time in UK government, The Labour Party radically increased expenditure on Education and Health, and this directly impacted upon the Scottish government’s budget and helped the Scottish government to prioritise it too.  Now that the Tories in UK government are slashing public spending as a matter of ideological priority, then all public expenditure is under continuous and extreme pressure across the UK.  Our education system in Scotland is doing well in spite of that. Would it do better without a Tory government slashing public expenditure across the board? Probably. But in the meantime, it’s quite clear that the Scottish government is funding education, in competition with other public services battling for public resources, well enough to ensure year-on-year improvement. And of course it’s equally clear that our educational professionals are doing us all proud.

It’s undeniable, then, that in this episode Scottish Labour and Iain Gray (Education spokesman, remember, not Finance) deliberately misdirected the Scottish public on schools performance through a cheap-crap piece in the Daily Express put up by the Daily Mail guy they’ve hired. And that’s literally the best they can do, because remember that this ‘educational mess’ they’ve made up is the reason they give for telling us to ignore Brexit and long-term Tory rule.

It’s not complicated. If you want cheap crap, misdirection and Tory values then you hire a Daily Mail guy who’ll likely go back there once he’s used the wee bit of profile to boost his future earning power. Disastrously for Labour, but bang-on for the Daily Mail and the Tories that paper supports, that cunning plan will also involve marginalising criticism of the ideological, public-expenditure slashing Tory government and instead actually being their support act on the dominant political issue of the day.

There are plenty of folk in Scottish Labour who think that neglecting a serious political critique in opposition and instead cosying up to the Tories is a terrible thing. And they know why this present effort at opposition is so dire. It’s  because Scottish Labour’s present leadership has made ultra-unionism – not Education, Health, the deprived or any other area of public policy – its signature feature.

The present Scottish Labour leadership’s obsession with supporting the Tory position on the constitution to the exclusion of all else is turning the Scottish Labour Party into just another mouthpiece of the Tory-supporting Daily Mail. There’s time to change yet; but not much.

Reblogged from 'From No To Yes' by Eric Joyce

http://www.ericjoyce.co.uk/

Can the Scottish Parliament hold a referendum without consent

From Stephen Tierney, Professor of Constitutional Theory and Director of the Edinburgh Centre for Constitutional Law. He is Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution and Co-Editor of the UK Constitutional Law Blog.

Can the Scottish Parliament hold a referendum without the consent of Westminster?

Whether the Scottish Parliament can unilaterally hold an ‘advisory’ referendum on this issue has never been finally resolved. But it seems clear that the Scottish Government does not propose to test this issue; instead it will seek the consent of Westminster to a so-called s. 30 Order, thereby ensuring that the UK Government will have to accept the referendum result.

A s. 30 Order would involve a temporary transfer of power from the UK Parliament to the Scottish Parliament to allow the referendum to go ahead, along similar lines to the 2014 process. The Scottish Government indicated its intention to go down this route in its white paper, ‘Consultation on a Draft Referendum Bill’ published in October last year, and this was also confirmed by the First minister today when she stated that she will ask the Scottish Parliament next week for permission to request a s. 30 order.

Will the UK Parliament grant such an order?

It is of course under no legal obligation to do so. The issue is, as it was in 2012 when the Edinburgh Agreement was signed, essentially political. The UK Government does not need the distraction of a Scottish independence referendum during Brexit negotiations, particularly as it will find it very difficult to concentrate fully on saving the Anglo-Scottish union while engaged in what could be very fraught and complex talks with Brussels; but nor will it want to be presented as frustrating the will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby strengthening support for independence.

In the end, it may well acquiesce in principle to a second referendum, but lay down requirements as to timing, insisting that the referendum only be held after an exit agreement with the EU has been achieved. One argument will be that Scots are unable to make an informed choice on independence until they know what the final terms of Brexit will be.

Framing the referendum’s rules

The Edinburgh Agreement in 2012 laid out the rules for the 2014 referendum, providing that it would be overseen by the independent Electoral Commission, stating that it had to be held by the end of 2014 and that the question could only offer two options: independence or the status quo, and not a third option such as devo-max. The Scottish Parliament was given discretion to determine the franchise (which it set at 16 years), to set the wording of the question and to frame the funding and spending rules. These latter two powers were framed in line with UK legislation on referendums and elections (PPERA 2000) and as such they were also regulated by the Electoral Commission.

The process rules were relatively uncontroversial in 2014 and overall can be taken to have worked well. The indications are that the Scottish Government is looking for similar controls this time.

The big argument could well be over timing if the UK Government insists that the referendum be held later than the Scottish Government would like. Another pressure point could be the wording of the question. The Scottish Parliament had relative control over this for the 2014 referendum but it is not inconceivable that the UK Government would want the UK Parliament to have a say on this for a second referendum: perhaps framing the options as Leave/Remain, rather than Yes/No.

Another issue is how many options should appear on the ballot. Interestingly, it was the UK Government that insisted upon only two options last time while the Scottish Government mooted the possibility of a third option on ‘devo-max’. It is possible this time that unionist voices may suggest a third option. Federalism, long the constitutional solution favoured by the Liberal Democrats has found growing support among Conservatives and is now the official policy of the Scottish Labour Party. It is possible that a radical proposal for a written constitution, entrenching federalism, and proposing a significant reform of the House of Lords as a territorial second chamber of Parliament, could be put forward either for inclusion as an option on the ballot, or as a new ‘Vow’, similar to that presented just before the 2014 referendum.

Is a second independence referendum inevitable?

The UK Parliament could of course refuse a s. 30 Order. But this seems unlikely. It is also possible that the Scottish Government will, over time, withdraw its plan. The First Minister has indicated that there could be room for compromise with the UK Government if the latter is willing and able to negotiate a special status for Scotland in the Brexit negotiations. Even in the absence of this there are other factors that could frustrate the Scottish Government’s plans. For example, moves towards a good deal for the UK in Brexit negotiations and opinion polls showing support for independence diminishing, added to a commitment to further constitutional reform in a federal direction, could possibly combine to halt the process.

But what seems clear is that the Scottish Government is not bluffing. If, as looks likely, it can gain a majority in the Scottish Parliament to request a s. 30 Order, and can convince Westminster to grant this, then the path will be set for a referendum process that could see Scotland leave the UK just as the UK leaves the EU. The onus is now firmly upon the UK Government to take extremely seriously the distinctive priorities of the devolved territories – Northern Ireland and Wales, as much as Scotland – as it begins the Brexit process.



(Suggested citation: S. Tierney, ‘A Second Independence Referendum in Scotland: The Legal Issues’, U.K. Const. L. Blog (13th Mar 2017) (available at https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/))

Just So Everyone Can Be Absolutely Clear.

Because, as I'm sure you will understand, clarity will be very important in the forthcoming Brexit negotiations with the EU.

Building a better, fairer Scotland

Independence is a means to an end, and not an end in itself unlike the hubris driven hard Brexit plan. Scotland needs a plan to deliver the kind of society we want to be. With that in mind pro-independence group Business for Scotland met with the Scottish Government’s Scottish Growth Commission officially on three occasions and communicated their detailed, positive economic vision for Scotland as an independent nation. They believe that independence, coupled with a new positive and inclusive approach to economics, offers more security, shared prosperity and faster growth potential than post Brexit, xenophobic isolated Britain ever can. Their five top priority suggestions were:
1) We need to elevate economics towards a higher purpose than narrow, greed-driven stock market and GDP growth as a measure of success. Westminster offers lip service to shared prosperity, but fails to recognise that the purpose of economics should be the distribution of assets and wealth for the maximum well-being of all in society. First, we need to agree a national set of values to aspire to. Our suggestions: Fairer distribution of wealth, improved welfare, better management of our natural resources to reach environmental sustainability, better education and employment opportunities for young people and higher R&D and skills investment. Boosting our society’s feeling of wellbeing, including life-expectancy and happiness.

Yes, we should measure GDP growth as one factor but economic performance measurement can’t just be growth related. It needs to include productivity, balance of trade, long-term national debt levels and wage growth to be more inclusive.

Once you have defined a set of values and measures by which you can judge the true progress of a nation, you can define the policies that will deliver that true progress.

2) We want Scotland to remain a member of the EU, but if that is not instantly/seamlessly achievable then single market access is a must, with an option to rejoin the EU as an independent nation if the Scottish people see fit.

EFTA or EEA membership is an acceptable way to trade and would be far better for Scotland and our business community than staying with the UK post brexit. Westminster’s hard Brexit will cost tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland, knock billions off our economy, create rapid inflation, increase borrowing and the deficit, damage our international exports and cut real wages leaving more and more Scottish people living below acceptable economic standards. Independence will offer many trading and foreign direct investment advantages — the scale of which will become evident as the terms of Brexit become clear by autumn 2017.

3) Currency: In 2014, the then strength and stability of the pound and the wish to make independence a smooth process meant that the offer of a currency union was sensible. However, a policy that your opponents can just say no to was not ideal politically. Now the pound has lost 16 per cent of its value, become volatile and is expected by many to drop to parity with the Euro/Dollar during the Brexit negotiations. Sterling post-Brexit is no longer a viable candidate for a currency union it is now advisable to create an independent Scottish currency, our own central bank and a series of investment banks to invest in high growth potential sectors such as biotechnology, renewables and information technology. Full monitory policy control including the use of quantitative easing to invest in growth, not to boost asset and market values as the UK did, offers more value to Scotland in the changed circumstances than a currency union.

4) Oil and gas: In an independent Scotland there must be openness and clarity over the tax policy relating to the North Sea taxation and that would mean benchmarking taxation against that of other comparable countries such as Norway who generated £17 billion more oil and gas-related revenues that the UK last year. The UK Government gave massive tax breaks to companies such as Shell and BP, but Shell who took £81m in tax rebates from the UK Government in 2015 managed to pay £11bn in dividends to shareholders, the world record, last year. A complete review of the oil and gas sector and its future must be carried out in the time between an independence vote and independence day and that review must not be led by a unionist oil industry insider. This review must include the fact that the West Coast of Scotland may have oil reserves that are yet to be exploited, currently the UK Government allows no West Coast exploration due to nuclear submarine activities. An independent Scottish Government should allow West Coast exploration. It should also consider how to maximise future revenues for the benefit of the nation, treat oil revenues as a bonus and a fund to invest profits in securing Scottish services, pensions and in renewables so that over time we can turn the North East from a world centre of oil and gas expertise into the global leader in renewable energy.

5) Benefit Corporation Tax Credits: An independent Scotland could create a uniquely competitive corporation tax system. Rather than cutting corporation tax like the UK a simple credit based system allowing companies to earn tax discounts through activities that drive shared prosperity should be introduced. Tax credits can be earned through targeted investment and corporate behaviours that create a better fairer more prosperous Scotland and increase overall Government revenues while allowing corporations that benefit Scotland to reduce their direct taxation.

Credits could earned by paying the real Living Wage, thus creating savings on Government benefit payments and increased NI and PAYE tax contributions thats would be worth £1bn a year. Increasing exports to improve Scotland’s balance of payments. Spending more on applied R&D, raising R&D spending in Scotland from 1.8 per cent of GDP to three per cent over five years would add £12bn to Scotland’s GDP. Prompt payment of invoices to SME’s (30 days or less) would increase SME business turnover by between five and 10 per cent a year and increase the speed of investment in Scotland’s real economy, creating tens of thousands of new jobs. If big business could be persuaded to invest in areas that deliver the social values and growth aspirations of our independent Scottish economy while increasing overall Government revenues then taxation policy can be used as tool to deliver the elevated economics that many aspire to but feel can’t be delivered by old-fashioned Westminster big corporation sycophants.

You can read the article by BFS in The National here

First Minister Speech to Conference March 2017

 Here is Nicola Sturgeon's full speech to the SNP Spring Conference on 18th March, just after Theresa May had advised 'Now is not the time' for a second independence referendum. Anticipation in the hall was high, but this went above and beyond.

Getting our Indy on.

For a' that.

A year on from the referendum and the political change or progress made in Scotland in the last year has been inescapable – but really it’s the climax of a far longer and more deep rooted movement – largely fuelled by the historical ignorance, avarice, self - and dis-interest of established politicians in both Tory and Labour parties and the UK establishment.

One year on I am more optimistic than ever for Scotland and its people. There is light at the end of the unionist tunnel, the light of taking responsibility for our own affairs, playing a unique part in the world not filtered through the needs of the UK and being a good neighbour to England and wider afield. Scots are not rushing towards it in an emotional pell mell of Braveheartery or anti-Englishness, but rather approaching in a measured way, considering the benefits of change, and noting the disadvantages of the current set up, reinforced as they are daily through a mainstream media with little or no journalistic integrity.

When we are ready, we will become independent, on our own terms .
It’s coming yet for a’ that.