Independence means playing with the grown ups...

[f4f3]

So, this week the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party, the three biggest and generally antithetical forces in UK politics, united together to rule out a formal currency union with Scotland, in the event that we vote to become independent.

I won't talk too much about the economics of a currency union - I understand that most economists think it's a workable solution, and that any other choice will cost Scotland a lot of money, and the remaining UK a lot more money. I'm prepared to argue the toss over that in the (unlikely) event that anyone wants to comment.

So it's important to understand that this was a political manoeuvre. The Unionists have joined ranks to set aside their political differences (however narrow these may have become) and the financial interests of their own voters, in favour of promoting the outcome they want in the referendum.

This doesn't surprise me in the slightest. The Unionist politicians are behaving like, well, like politicians. They are making big threats, they are working together, they are out to win.

When Scotland becomes independent this is the sort of situation they'll face 100 times a year. Larger, more powerful countries are going to gang up on them, bully them, use their economic and political levers to get the best possibly outcomes for their own country.

I'm interested that the Unionists have started this phase of their attack on Independence so early - I'd have thought that they would keep their powder dry till around July or August, and pull some big scare stories and some big bribes out of the bag when it's too late for them to be analysed. I'm waiting for the stories about England's claim to North Sea Oil, for Spain to come out and confirm a veto of Scotland's EU membership, for NATO to threaten to expel Scotland if it removes the Trident nuclear weapons system, and probably a few other threats. Cameron has been lobbying other EU countries pretty hard, as well as courting Putin's views and those of big Scottish based companies (although multi-nationals are blase about having another government to deal with, their senior office holders can be encouraged to make "personal statements" which are reported as "BP/RBS will pull out of Scotland").

I think Labour has queered its pitch in Scotland, though, for a long time to come. I held a grudge against the SNP for 30 years for supporting the Tory no-confidence vote which opened the door for Thatcher's government in, er, 1979. I think that I'll be seeing this jolly picture of Ed Balls and Norman Osborne chuckling together on some BBC sofa for a long time to come.

Comments

[ravurian]

Is his name Norman?

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Oh dear... Norman Osborne, father of Peter Parker's best friend Harry, is not really the UK Chancellor. He's the Green Goblin. Do you think my subconscious was trying to tell me something?

[andrewducker]

I had assumed that was deliberate...

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I try not to name call. Apparently my subconscious has fewer scruples...

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

I’m not sure that their association with the Tories as part of the No campaign is going to hurt them particularly badly. So long as the Tories stay more or less quiet and stick to the Tory Money Labour Activists arrangement they shouldn’t be too tainted.

I think more of a concern for the Labour Party is this combination.

Labour are not sending their best to Holyrood. Arguably, their best at Westminster are a bit swamped by everyone else and also not much able to comment on or influence devolved matters. Labour looks a bit peally wally to Scottish voters?

A sense of things not being run entirely above board in Glasgow as a result of long term dominance. The SNP nearly made signifcant gains in Glasgow last local elections. Coupled with stuff like the Unite intrigue in Fife. (1) Labour just look a little tarnished.

STV at local elections and PR at the Euros and Holyrood. There appears to be a strong causative link between local councillors and winning more seats at senior elections. Lots of this is probably about having lots of small loci of activism to call on. Having plenty of MSP’s and a few MEP’s can’t hurt either.

At some point it becomes possible that centre-left voters stop sending Labour MP’s to Westminster and start sending SNP ones.

If that happens I think it’s an all or nothing thing. Labour goes from 40 or so MP’s to six and the SNP vice versa.

If I were the SNP, post a No vote my GE 2015 manifesto would basically be “You can’t trust Labour to negotiate further devolution unless you send 40 SNP MP’s to keep them honest.”

If successful it would make for interesting coalition talks.




(1) I honestly don’t have a problem unions trying to get their person selected and elected. The Labour Party would probably be better if it had more union people on its benches. However, the way Unite appear to have been going about things looks dodgy.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

The SNP have been pushing the "Feeble Fifty" line about Labour MPs since the mid-80's, at least, and it seems to be getting some traction.

I used to think that Scottish voters had a neat aproximation of who would best represent them in each parliament, but I'm coming to the conclusion that Westminster is being seen more and more as a sideshow, which doesn't have much impact north of the border. I don't share that view, but it should make it easier for Labour to elect MPs than MSPs. And, of course, Labour activists see the Westminster Parliament as a bigger plum, in terms of jobs (though with more and more parachuted candidates, that might change).

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

I think what has changed in the last 15 or so years is Holyrood. That has given the SNP the opportunity to do something and also contrasted that with the relative powerlessness of the Labour MP’s from Scotland. Bedroom tax is a good example. 45 Labour MP’s couldn’t stop the bedroom tax in Westminster but the SNP could at least do something about it in Scotland.