Nobody will stand up for Scotland abroad
Joan McAlpine has an important point about the al-Megrahi affair (hat-tip: SNP Tactical Voting), namely that both the UK and the US are saying Scotland’s government were wrong to release him, but there’s nobody on the international stage to fight Scotland’s corner:
Since foreign affairs are not devolved to Edinburgh, David Cameron officially speaks for us. On this occasion he trashed us in front of the world. Where were we? We should have had a right to reply at least. After all, Scottish troops are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, as they did in Iraq, to support America. Would Obama and Cameron have condemned a friendly, independent sovereign nation like this?
Even those who disagreed with the decision to free al-Megrahi should agree that this situation is untenable – the US government should be discussing this issue with Alex Salmond, not with David Cameron, and only independence will resolve this issue.
Independent London
The seven countries of the British Isles
Ken Livingstone was asked in an interview what he would most like to achieve as mayor. He replied:
Total independence for London. If London was independent we would have more people than half the members of the UN do, we’d be able to use more of our wealth to provide better infrastructure and a better quality of life instead of pumping £20 bn more into the national economy than we get back.
I’m all in favour of an independent London. It’s so different from the rest of the country that it skews everything.
For instance, London is multicultural and has lots of really rich people (and very poor ones, too), which isn’t true for the rest of the country. This makes it very hard to create national policies.
However, one issue is how large the Republic (or Kingdom) of London should be.
If it was created based on its current area, so many commuters would be left outside it that England and London wouldn’t be independent at all.
So I think it needs to be fairly big, probably taking in everything within the green belt around it. Perhaps it should also include everything between London and France, given that it would be odd for people from Dover to have to travel through London to get to their capital in central England.
Vote Match
Filed under: Denmark, Europe, Lib, SNP, Scotland, election, independence, referendum
In Denmark, websites that calculate which parties you agree the most with have been a regular feature of election campaigns for a decade.
However, they have been missing in the UK (to some extent because they make less sense under first-past-the-post), but now there’s finally one on The Telegraph’s site: Vote Match.
I tried it out, and it gave me roughly the results I expected (see the graph on the right).
The UKIP are much further up than I expected, and I had expected the LibDems and the SNP to be neck-and-neck, but then I do disagree with certain LibDem policies (such as Scottish independence and a referendum on EU membership).
Do try it out, and if you’re brave enough, publish your results in the comments section!
Banks in an independent Scotland
Lots of unionists seem to see in the problems of Bank of Scotland (HBOS) and Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) the ultimate proof that Scotland is too small to be independent.
Not all unionists are convinced, however.
Apart from Fraser’s points, it’s worth remembering that independence would have consequences in many unexpected ways, and the size of banks is likely to be one of them.
If Scotland had been independent for the past hundred years, it’s unlikely that BoS and RBS would have grown so big. Other small countries don’t tend to have any banks that large. (Apart from Iceland, that is.)
It might also be that independent Scottish competition authorities would feel obliged to split up the banks as they’re too dominant here.
But even if Scotland was home to the headquarters of massive financial institutions, they probably would have separate structures in Scotland and England, and Scotland would only have to save the Scottish bit.
Another party leader quits
I got a surprising email from Nicol Stephen about an hour ago.
In it, he announces that he’s stepping down as leader of the Scottish Libdems. He says it’s for family reasons:
But when it goes beyond that, when it crosses a line, something has to be done. And at that stage – when you have to make a choice between family and politics – there can only be one answer.
That sounds to me like his wife has given him an ultimatum: Either you leave that job, or I’ll leave you – no?
The Convenor writes this in a separate email:
Our election rules mean that the post of Leader must be filled by an MSP who must receive the nomination of at least one other MSP. If the election is contested, then there will be a ballot of all Party members. The whole election process is likely to conclude by the start of September.
I hope there’ll be at least one good candidate – somebody who realises that the Libdems are not that far removed from the SNP on many issues, and that many Libdem voters are actually in favour of Scottish independence. Nicol Stephen was definitely far too unionist for my taste.
When to hold a referendum
Filed under: Europe, Lab, Lib, Scotland, election, independence, referendum
The LibDems said at some point that one should only hold a referendum on a topic that one is in favour of. And so they supported a referendum on the European Constitution (which they’re in favour of), but oppose one on Scottish independence (which they are against). A bit strange that they abstained on the question of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, though, given that they were in favour of that, too. Makes you wonder whether the principle is fully set in stone.
Labour seems to be of the opposite opinion: They were against a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (which they supoorted), but they now seem to be in favour of a refendum on Scottish independence (which they’re against).
I actually tend to agree with Labour here: A party is voted into power to implement their policies. It therefore doesn’t need a referendum to get a mandate to do so. However, if there is something the party doesn’t want to do, but that is very popular in the wider population, it can make sense to hold a referendum to defuse the issue. It’s a bit masochistic, though, and most parties would prefer to delay the issue instead.
I’m not very fond of referendums anyway. They tend to be about everything else, and they often get quite emotional. And in many cases, the major parties can only really live with one result, which tends to provoke the electorate to vote for the other option in spite.
I tend only to support referendums on topics that transcend political parties, such as Scottish independence. I am looking forward to that one, just like Bendy Wendy! 
The British Parliament
Filed under: England, NI, Scotland, Wales, economics, health, independence
Although I’d prefer Scottish independence, if I can’t have that, I’d prefer a fully federal system in the UK. That would mean that the federal parliament should only deal with foreign affairs, macroeconomics, defense and a few other things.
Such a parliament should give ample representation to the smaller nations. The only reason that the English are allowed to dominate Westminster so heavily is that it is also their national parliament. As soon as the English had their own parliament to deal with schools, hospitals, traffic and so on, there would be no basis for this any more.
I think the fairest solution would be using the square-root of population figures.
I also think this would be a good opportunity to enfranchise the areas under the British Crown that are not part of the UK.
Given the current population figures, the new British Federal Parliament would look as follows:
| Nation | Population | Seats |
|---|---|---|
| England | 50,762,900 | 71 |
| Scotland | 5,116,900 | 23 |
| Wales | 2,958,600 | 17 |
| Northern Ireland | 1,710,300 | 13 |
| Jersey | 89,300 | 3 |
| Isle of Man | 80,058 | 3 |
| Guernsey | 65,573 | 3 |
| Bermuda | 64,482 | 3 |
| Cayman Islands | 46,600 | 2 |
| Gibraltar | 28,875 | 2 |
| Virgin Islands | 21,730 | 1 |
| Turks and Caicos | 21,500 | 1 |
| Anguilla | 12,800 | 1 |
| St Helena | 6,563 | 1 |
| Pitcairn | 67 | 0 |
| 61,013,215 | 147 |
Clegg or Huhne?
I guess it’s time to decide who I’ll give my vote for taking over the reins from Sir Ming.
Politically, Clegg and Huhne are very close, and none of them seems to agree with me on Scottish independence.
However, Clegg seems to be having a few problems with making up his mind, and I’m starting to think he’d be Ming II – polite, nice and completely unable to divert attention away from the two main parties. I also wonder whether he’d be slaughtered in debates in Westminster if he tries the Yes, er well no, hang on, or, sorry approach there.
So I’ll be voting for Huhne. I think he’s a fast and confident debater, and he has that cheekiness that is important to get noticed by the media. Also, I think a real economist will be a big bonus in the coming years.
Yes or no?
Filed under: Cons, Denmark, Europe, Lib, Scotland, independence, referendum
The new EU treaty is causing the Tories to try and get a referendum about it, while the LibDems have decided it doesn’t need a referendum, although they were strongly in favour of one for the original EU constitution.
Interestingly, the LibDems are also strongly opposed to a referendum on Scottish independence, although I don’t understand why that should be such a bad thing even for union supporters if they’re certain the people are pro-UK, too.
Having grown up in a country with lots of EU referenda, it’s a topic I’ve thought about a bit.
I think one should never have a referendum on a question where one cannot live with either outcome. It doesn’t make sense to have a referendum on, say, an EU treaty if there’s no consensus on what one would do if the answer from the people was No. When Denmark voted No in 1992, the politicians were wildly confused about the reasons for the No. In the end, they picked four areas that had been mentioned frequently in the debate, got opt-outs on these areas and then arranged a new referendum (which is why Denmark hasn’t introduced the euro yet).
On the other hand, I think a referendum can be a good solution if the politicians can live with either outcome and want to make sure that the outcome isn’t disputed for years afterwards.
A prime example of such a question is Scottish independence. It’s clear that Scotland can feasibly remain in the UK, and that Scotland would also be a viable independent country. However, the politicians clearly don’t agree on what the best solution is, and it’s not clear that they represent their voters well on this question (because people might have voted for a party because of some other policies they agree with).
I therefore strongly think we should not have referenda on EU treaties, but we should have one on Scottish independence!
London and the communist country
Fraser Nelson (conservative journalist and blogger) has a very interesting wee article in The Business.
He points out that outwith the greater London area, most people are either on benefits or working for the state, creating a situation almost like a communist country. Effectively, London is subsidising the rest of the country, rather than helping the rest of the country to grow faster. And this situation has been getting much worse under Labour.
Quite scary, and I definitely think this is another good reason to support Scottish independence!