Home Rule, not Tory Rule

I've been reading the Labour Party's reaction to a blog post by SNP MP, Pete Wishart. Writing on Better Nation, Pete explores issues around independence and British identity. It is worth a read.

There is a story about the blog post on the STV website and at the bottom comes the reaction from the Labour Party. For me, the key Labour quote is:

"Polls consistently show that the majority of Scots agree that Scotland is big enough, rich enough in talent and smart enough to make the most of all the opportunities that being part of the United Kingdom brings."

There are two things about this. First, it is almost a carbon copy of a line oft used by the SNP, except we argue that Scotland is rich enough, talented enough etc to prosper with independence. Imitation is, of course, the sincerest form of flattery and on this point, the people will ultimately decide where greatest opportunity lies.

But second, and more importantly, is where this positions the Labour Party. Essentially the party will be arguing that they see greater opportunity for Scotland under Tory rule than under Home Rule.

Analysis by David Denver, James Mitchell and others of the 1997 referendum (Scotland Decides: The Devolution Issue and the Scottish Referendum) identified an important change in Scottish attitudes towards constitutional change. Opposition to 18 years of Tory rule had hardened traditional Labour support in favour of a Scottish Parliament - the national question and the left-right cleavage came together to deliver significantly higher support for devolution than in 1979.

The Labour campaign in 1997 played heavily on this anti-Tory element. The Scottish Parliament would be there to protect Scotland from disastrous Tory policies on education and health, among others.

But today, if the quote is to be taken at face value, that Labour positioning has changed. Instead of being on Scotland's side against the Tories, they are now on the Tories' side even if that means being against Scotland. The Labour view now, it seems, is that Scotland shouldn't be protected from disastrous Tory policies on welfare or the economy. Instead we are to see them as part of the "opportunity" the United Kingdom presents. Tell that to families worried about job security, rising energy prices or the slashing of the welfare safety net.

The opportunity now offered by 'Scottish' Labour is to play the Westminster lottery: cast your vote and hope England doesn't vote Tory (once again). And if you lose (once again), just thole it for another damaging four or five years.

The balancing act Labour will need to perform is of Cirque du Soleil proportions. At election time tell Scots how awful Tory rule is, and as we saw from their 2010 and the first half of their 2011 campaigns that is about the only tune Labour in Scotland can now play. But at referendum time, present that selfsame Tory rule as part of the package: vote no for the opportunity of yet another Tory government. I look forward with anticipation to Tory and Labour leaders sharing the same 'Vote No' platform, after all a picture is worth a thousand words.

The alternative, of course, is much clearer. Vote yes for independence and end, once and for all, the prospect of Tory rule in Scotland. And looking at the 1997 numbers, I know what side of the argument I'd rather be on.

Founding father

Most of us will have heard of John Paul Jones, a Scot who was founder of the US Navy. Some of us will also have heard of Samuel Grieg, another Scot who is described as the founder of the 'modern' Russian Navy. In a few years time perhaps we will be adding another name to that list - Liam Fox, founder of the Scottish army.

Alongside the unfortunate aspects of the bases review announced in the House of Commons yesterday, including the loss of Leuchars as an RAF base, came the news that a multi-role brigade of the army is to be stationed in Scotland, along with the creation or upgrading of the barracks, transportation and training facilities needed to sustain the brigade.

This is what the International Institute for Strategic Studies says about these multi-role brigades:

"each including reconnaissance and armoured regiments (with Challenger 2 tanks), mechanised and light infantry and battalions with supporting units of equipment and enablers. There will be a migration of combat support and logistic assets currently held at divisional level into these brigades."

They describe it as "an innovation in which the British Army is potentially establishing a world lead".

And the HMForces website is even more explicit about their multi-function nature:

"The multi-role brigades will include the equipment necessary to undertake a wide range of capabilities . . .  These brigades will be self supporting in that they will have their own artillery, engineer, communications, intelligence, logistics and medical assets."

Why is this important? For the first time in my political memory we will soon have, in situ, the core of what the First Minister rightly described yesterday as "Scotland's army". And this army will have similar capabilities to those of nations like Norway or Denmark.

In the debate about Scottish independence, Mr Fox has made what I believe is the first major strategic error. He has, quite literally, been outfoxed.

Rather than strengthening the Union, as he went out of his way to claim, he has made it significantly easier to make the independence case. The old argument that Scotland would have to create an army from scratch has disappeared: we will have one, it will be there for all to see, created and located right here in Scotland. And yes, made up of soldiers serving today under the command of Whitehall's MoD, but established in a manner that makes it so very simple for that command, like the soldiers, to come home as it were, if we so choose.

The question is now no longer how or whether Scotland can have an army. That debate is over thanks to Mr Fox. The issue is what we ask our armed forces to do. For an independent Scotland that will certainly never be an illegal war like Iraq. And that's just one more reason why I believe, when the question is asked, Scots will vote yes to independence.

The emerging truth about the bank bailout

In case you missed it, it is worth listening to this weekend's Newsweek Scotland (available for a few more days on BBC iPlayer – the segment starts 15 minutes into the programme).

The bank bailout is one of those issues used by supporters of Westminster rule – and of course that means Tory rule - to argue that Scotland can't be independent, but the truth is slowly beginning to emerge.

The programme's interest was sparked by comments made by Scottish Secretary Michael Moore in the House of Commons two weeks ago. He claimed that Scotland would have had to bear the whole burden of any bailout of RBS and HBOS – an oft repeated line by Tory, Labour and now Lib Dem politicians trying to attack independence.

In response, the programme interviews actual experts, professors of financial law. Their argument – and it is a very different one from the politicians – is that Scotland would only have been liable for perhaps as little as 5% of the RBS and HBOS support package. Indeed, in the words of one, it would be “inconceivable” for Scotland to be held liable for the whole amount.

What is most interesting from my perspective – and having a bit of a sense of how these things work - is that Mr Moore was unwilling to go on the programme to back up his claims in the face of the arguments made by the professors. The Tory MP who participated in the exchange in the Commons was also unwilling to appear. It is one thing to stand up in the chamber of the House of Commons to make this attack on Scotland unchallenged (or indeed to put the claims on a leaflet or in a quote in a press release as regularly happens) but it is quite another to have to back them up under questioning and in the face of expert opinion.

It was left to former Chancellor, Alistair Darling, to make the Westminster case. And there was an important shift in the position. Gone was the suggestion that it was British taxpayers or the British State that bailed out the banks and instead was the admission that the finances for the bailout came from borrowing on the financial markets.

Up until now Unionist politicians have been linking the size of the Scottish budget with the size of the bailout package to suggest Scotland couldn't have managed a bailout on her own. Indeed in his statement to the programme, copied in full on its website, Mr Moore repeats this comparison. But we now know it is a false comparison. Instead, the issue is whether Scotland could have borrowed the necessary finances.

However, before getting into the question of the borrowing, it is also worth highlighting one other important aspect of the fragmentation of the Westminster case - the change in the cost of the bailout. At first it was suggested that the bailout would cost Scotland £470 billion and this is a figure repeated in Mr Moore's statement. But as the programme itself details, this was not the actual cash cost – that is significantly smaller, estimated at some £66 billion. And again, as the programme demonstrates, this cash-injection was made as an investment, with the banks charged billions for the protection they received and the UK government taking preference shares in RBS and Lloyds (for HBOS) for which they would be paid a handsome dividend. The most recent Budget confirms that the UK government now expects to make a profit from its bailout package (the latest estimate is a profit of £3.4 billion).

So, could Scotland borrow between £3.3 billion and £6.6 billion, the actual cost suggested by the professors? Without doubt. Indeed, the Scotland Bill proposed by the UK government gives even the devolved parliament a borrowing facility of that order. But, even if the professors are wrong, could we have borrowed more? The answer here is also a clear yes. Any of us who have sought a mortgage or a loan know that it is ultimately about collateral. And with an asset worth over £1 trillion in wholesale terms and maybe £300-£400 billion in revenue terms in North Sea oil and gas, does anyone without a political axe to grind doubt that Scotland would be a safe investment? Those politicians who want Westminster rule say Scotland would have been like Ireland or Iceland, but the actual comparison is Norway, and they were able to use their oil and gas asset to more than cover any costs associated with the financial crisis.

The issue of the bank bailout lays bare the approach that will be adopted by pro-Westminster politicians in any independence referendum or indeed any move to greater financial responsibility. They love telling us we couldn't, wouldn't, can't do it. It is all based on a desire to instill fear so they can protect the status quo. But as we are seeing, thanks to one BBC programme, it is fear-mongering that collapses at the first scrutiny.

They are trying to treat us as fools: people who will be scared by a big number. But, as May's election demonstrated, the people of Scotland are no longer easily frightened. Remember, first they said it was £470 billion. But now we know from the experts that Scotland's share of the bailout could have been as little as £3.3 billion.

But what about this status quo they are so keen to defend and protect, even to the extent of talking their own nation – Scotland – down. Beyond the theoretical argument about what would have happened if Scotland had been independent is the unquestionable truth that the banking crisis and subsequent financial collapse did happen while we were part of the UK. The events of the past few years aren't the result of independence, they are the consequence of the Union. If we are paying a price for the banking crisis it is a cost that came with this selfsame status quo.  

Back to the future

I'm just back from a long weekend in Italy, with part of my time spent in Rome and part in a lovely medieval village called Santo Stefano di Sessanio in the mountains of Abbruzo. I was there for a wedding and it was a truly international occasion, with guests from a dozen or so countries of birth who lived and worked in a dozen or so more.

I always find it encouraging, when meeting people of such diverse backgrounds and experience, to see the genuine warmth there is internationally for Scotland. There was some awareness of the specific events of recent months with the SNP victory, but more generally an understanding of the broader constitutional debate here at home. And again, I was personally encouraged by people's attitude towards independence. They see it as something normal and natural for their nation and see no reason why Scotland cannot first, choose the same path and second, flourish as an independent nation.

On a weekend when many of the guest were marking Canada Day or the 4th of July - the independence days for Canada and the USA respectively - the concept of Scottish independence was well understood.

In the USA, of course, independence happened in entirely different circumstances and as a single event, but in Canada the process has been more subtle, as one of the wedding guests was keen to point out to me. Starting with the creation of Canada in 1867 as a dominion within the British Empire, it was only in the 1930s that Westminster lost the power to legislate for Canada (except when Canada consented) and indeed only in 1982 when full independence arrived with the British Parliament losing its remaining ability to amend parts of the Canadian constitution. As we saw so vividly with the visit of the Earl and Countess of Strathearn (Prince William and his new wife) to Canada, that nation remains one of 16 Commonwealth Countries to retain the Queen as head of state. And, as the same guest highlighted, Canadian and other Commonwealth forces fought alongside Britain in the second world war, with thousands of Canadian citizens also serving as part of British units, in particular the RAF.

A close relationship remained even though the constitutional aspects of that relationship changed over time. However, ending the right of Westminster to legislate first on domestic affairs and then more widely, was a crucial part of that process.

Because I was in Italy, I missed the State Opening of Parliament on Friday but caught up with it on the BBC website yesterday. I thought the First Minister's reference to the Queen's role at the head of the Commonwealth was an important one. The Queen has lived through almost every conceivable form of constitutional change within her various realms.

The end of the parliamentary session also marked the end of my first month back as a special adviser. It's been good to return after a year out working for the SNP on the election campaign. So, some quick reflections to mark the end of this first period.

First, the majority. What has been most encouraging is the real sense of opportunity that exists as a result of the government's majority in parliament, linked also to the fact this term is 5 rather than 4 years. There is a feeling of energy and potential among ministers and officials, with detailed work well under way to begin implementing the various policy initiatives that we put forward during the campaign. There will be more on this in the first weeks back after the recess as we set out our legislative and financial plans.

Second, the mood. I have written before about the professionalism of the civil service and their ability to respond to whatever governmental construct comes their way. The First Minister mischievously pointed out in his Taking Scotland Forward speech in the first week that majority government was the one option the civil service strategists hadn't expected, but the equally mischievous reply was that it was also a scenario the SNP had not expected. But whatever the expectation, officials are simply getting on with the job.

The new mandate has created a renewed sense of impetus. And that applies not only to ministers new and old, who have a clearly visible spring in their step, but also to the teams around them. This is not meant to suggest in any way an endorsement of the result by those officials, simply the reality that elections and the new situations they throw up can provide - and in this case did provide - certainty and direction.

My observation when I started working for the Scottish Government after 2007 was that the incoming ministerial team was like a micro-chip, with a new operating programme, inserted into the government machine. Today, the analogy is slightly different. The micro-chip remains in place, but this time the machine has received a fully-charged new battery.

And finally, some more personal reflections. I'm back helping out with FMQ prep and I had forgotten just how valuable the whole FMQ exercise is. This is about more than what happens in the Chamber. There is a huge benefit for the government to have the First Minister, week in and week out, being kept fully up to date on what is going on in each and every portfolio area. It means that the person at the centre of government in Scotland has a genuine feel for what is working and what is not. The glare of public scrutiny on two or three policy areas in the chamber is replicated with private scrutiny across two or three dozen policy areas in the FMQ process. And that is scrutiny by senior policy officials, by ministers and Cabinet Secretaries as the information flows through the system to eventually reach the First Minister's chamber folder where the government position must be robust.

As one colleague observed after the very first FMQs, that's one down and only 174 to go until the next election. There will be ups and downs, and as always events and surprises. However, the Scottish Government will get on with the task - to work hard, governing well and responsibly for all the people of Scotland.