What's The Welsh For 'Schadenfreude'?

Interesting developments today in Wales, where all hell appeared to break loose after Labour put out a press release declaring that there would be no more progress on a referendum on further devolution until after the general election.

Referendum? Further devolution? Labour? Yes, you read the above correctly. Enacted by a Labour government and supported by the Lib Dems, as a result of the 2006 Government of Wales Act, provision exists for our Cambrian cousins to hold a referendum to decide whether or not the Welsh Assembly should be given primary legislative powers. Even some Welsh Conservatives are now in on the fun, arguing that not only should there be a vote on granting legislative powers, but also arguing in favour of the move.

The statement by First Minister Rhodri Morgan, Welsh Secretary Peter Hain and the Chair of Welsh Labour clearly caught their Plaid Cymru coalition partners unawares. Part of the 'One Wales' coalition deal between the two parties is a commitment to holding the referendum, if it is winnable, by May 2010. In response, Plaid branded the move as a "serious breach of trust" and "completely unacceptable". Things appeared to have cooled down by the afternoon, though, with Rhodri Morgan and Plaid Depute First Minister Ieuan Wyn Jones able to say in an emergency statement following some hasty afternoon negotiations that "all options" on timing were open.

The similarities, not to say differences with Scotland are immediately apparent. With the Westminster Government insisting that there will be no progress on Calman until after the election, and this attempt by Peter Hain to delay a referendum in Wales, the game being played by Westminster Labour is pretty clear. Everything will be put into the deep freeze for now and the election fought on the claim that only Labour can deliver on further devolution in an attempt to try and shore up their vote. This either buys another few years of time in which to do nothing if Labour gets re-elected, or leaves the whole thing for the Conservatives to deal with should they run out winners.

Except, neither Plaid nor the SNP have played ball. The Scottish Government has draft orders in place which would allow for Calman to proceed without any need for further delay. Meanwhile, with Rhodri Morgan due to stand down, Plaid have the option of refusing to back any Labour candidate for the First Ministership who opts to backslide on this aspect of the coalition deal.

But why might Labour, other than its innate conservatism and reluctance to concede any more devolution than it absolutely must to fend off the electoral threat of the nationalists, be so keen to put the brakes on? The answer may lie very close to home, with echoes to be heard in the increasingly shrill cries against holding an independence referendum in Scotland.

Firstly, there's the problem for all of the unionist parties, but particularly for Labour, of being seen to support a Welsh referendum while ruling one out in Scotland. It's a position which holds precisely zero credibility. With public support for a referendum already high, it's a contradiction with which the SNP would need no encouragement to make hay over.

However, the ramifications run so much deeper. Think on the 'neverendum' argument posited by unionists as a reason why Scots shouldn't even be permitted to hold a first vote. Joyously, in section 103 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, it is made clear that if a majority of Welsh voters do not back the transfer of primary legislative powers, this does not prevent Westminster from laying the orders necessary to hold a further referendum in the future.

In just one paragraph, the Labour party in Government, and the Lib Dems who supported the bill on its passage, have enshrined explicitly in legislation the principal that there should be no time bar on holding a subsequent referendum if people vote against. Scotland can't get a vote on further constitutional change, but the Welsh can have as many votes as they like until they deliver what the government considers to be the right answer. Thus, by Labour and the Lib Dems own hands, the neverendum argument, such as it ever was, is killed stone dead.

The timescales promise to be similarly glorious, at least from an SNP perspective since all parties in Wales seem still to be contemplating a referendum prior to 2011. Compare and contrast this position with the unionist advanced argument in Scotland that constitutional ‘navel gazing’ (Calman presumably excepted) is the ‘wrong’ thing to do in a recession. In Wales, we will shortly be hearing the counter argument from a Lib/Lab/Con alliance that only with the further transfer of powers can the measures needed to counter the downturn adequately be taken.

If the Welsh Assembly backs a referendum by the required 2/3rds majority, the Welsh First Minister has to give notice of this in writing to the Secretary of State. The clock then starts ticking – the Secretary of State then has 120 days to either lay a draft of a statutory instrument containing an Order in Council before each House of Parliament, or give notice in writing to the First Minister as to why they are refusing to do so.

If this Assembly vote happens prior to the election, say in mid February 2010, it means that the first thing a Welsh Secretary will have to do post-election is decide whether or not a referendum can go ahead. Whether that person be Labour or Tory, even assuming that matters don't move quite so quickly, it seems likely that just as the unionist parties carry out their threat in Scotland to vote down a referendum bill, the issue will be resurrected almost immediately when matters come to a head in Wales.

Gloating is seldom an attractive trait in politics, but then again, neither is the defence of blatant double standards. Thanks to this piece of three year old legislation, the unionists have slayed every single argument that ever passed their lips against the principal of a referendum on constitutional change, on the principle of having future votes if required and on the principle of having a referendum during an economic downturn.

Peter Hain is due to visit Wales tomorrow, and will doubtless come under intense pressure to explain firstly why today's statement was made, and secondly, to state whether he backs the position as set out this afternoon by The First Minister and his Deputy. It should be fun to watch, but not nearly as much fun as it will be to see Scotland's unionists squirming over why Scotland should be denied a referendum just as the Welsh seem set to prepare to go to the polls.

The twisting and turning in the months ahead will be simply exquisite to watch. Now where's that popcorn?

UPDATE: Plaid Candidate Heledd Fychan seems mildly amused by it all as well...

S&I Elsewhere - waleshome.org

I have a new article up on the excellent waleshome.org site. Please go and take a look.

Beginning To Take Notice

Sat 15 Aug 2009 By Richard Thomson

For as long as anyone can remember, the devolution debate in Wales has been towed along by developments in Scotland. But that is changing, and Wales might now set the pace of reform...

Going Soft On Independence

One of the main arguments deployed against Scottish independence is loss of influence. Scotland would be trading being part of a big country to be a small country, we are told. Influence in the world is all about willingness to use armed forces; having a permanent seat on the UN security council; having Trident - the implication being it's only the big boys that count when it comes to making friends and influencing people.

On the surface, it's a tricky one to argue against. For centuries, it was the countries which were most successful at mustering power on land and on sea which were best able to secure resources and influence over others. However, with the rise of 20^th century nationalism, the decline of the British empire and the rise of the USA, we began to see that it was not necessary to threaten or occupy a country in order to gain access to its resources or influence its people.

We learned that free trade could be mutually beneficial; that countries could expand their influence by working together in alliance. We even began to see that the brute military power of countries with the ability to destroy the planet, brought no guarantee of success even when brought to bear against smaller and supposedly 'inferior' forces. Admittedly, some of our recent leaders may not have learned very much from this, but the lesson was there for those prepared to see it.

Today, the world, as ever, is in flux. As US power wanes, we are heading for a multipolar world. Declining US influence means declining UK influence, at the same time as we see the rise of China and India. It's hard, for me at least, to avoid the conclusion that engaging effectively and winning influence in the world's emerging countries, is going to require a humility and openness for which even a century of steady British decline has failed to prepare our Westminster elites.

Whatever Lyndon B Johnson may have had to say about influence, hearts and minds are seldom won over these days by hard power alone. This is where 'soft power' comes in – the ability to influence others through culture, values and ideology rather than threat, violence or other forms of coercion. Yet for a state which was once described as having lost an empire but had not yet found a role, paradoxically, the UK has actually been remarkably effective post-1945 at building up its soft power around the world.

Respect for British institutions waxes and wanes. However, the institutions which work most effectively overseas are often not the traditional outlets of diplomacy, but those such as the BBC World Service and the British Council. While refusals to accept the limitations of hard power - such as the Iraq misadventure - alongside Labour's blatant attacks on the independence of the BBC, have helped undermine British standing in the world, the reputation of those institutions endures as a result of being built up over many years and the lives they have touched over that time.

Independence would mean Scotland leaving these institutions behind, at least in their present form. This gives us a tough act to follow in many respects, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. In fact, in many ways, Scotland is already well placed to build up a soft power which reaches the parts that no British institution can.

Firstly, independence would force a fundamental reappraisal for everyone on the British archipelago of who they are and who they want to be, but that is also a process which would demand great honesty. For better or for worse, Scots have had a huge and disproportionate impact on the way our modern world has been shaped. We can't, after all, re-write our history – we're as much a part of the history of the British Empire and recent ill-advised military adventures as our larger neighbours to the south.

Scotland is firmly part of the English speaking world. Nearly 9 out of 10 schoolchildren in the EU learn English, with at least 2 billion people around the world having either full or at least some understanding of the language. Our universities help teach the world, both by bringing students to live in Scotland and through distance learning. People around the globe are as curious about us as we are about them, which gives us a huge potential audience for our cultural output.

We also have the Edinburgh Festival, which has for decades been much, much bigger than the city or even the country which spawned it and gives us a cultural profile which any independent country would envy. Whether its to do with television, film, theatre, music, books or politics, for one glorious month, the world comes to us. As if this embarrassment of riches weren't enough, our three weeks in the sun means that whatever we happen to be thinking, planning, doing economically, socially or culturally in Scotland, is at the same time brought to the attention of the rest of the world.

Blessed may be the peacemakers, but they can through their actions achieve more influence than the warmongers. Previous SNP manifestos have committed the party to the establishment of a Scottish peacekeeping college, as well as a European Peace & Reconciliation Centre. The opportunity to enhance the global diplomatic capital which already exists is there if we wish to take it. None of this can physically stop a tank rolling across a border of course, but by opening minds, building links, by helping people to understand that they each have a stake in the future of each other, such approaches can be far more effective in building peace, security and prosperity than any number of nuclear warheads or Security Council resolutions.

With independence, we won't be starting from year zero. We will have a set of institutions, ideas, outlooks, values and histories which our forbears have built up, and which we ourselves will continue to build upon. Taking the narrative of a small, prosperous, socially-just, peaceful, culturally rich nation which is respectful of difference, democracy and international law, and which has resolved its political status peacefully, could provide no more compelling example to the rest of the world.

With our history, experiences of empire building and retrenchment, centuries-long exposure to industrialisation and 'globalisation', history of immigration and emigration, outlook, culture, philosophical, religious and epistemological traditions, we have a truly unique voice and perspective we can bring to bear. Set alongside our intimate understanding of the Anglosphere, who in reality could argue that Scotland wouldn't be a soft power superpower if she chose to become so?

Laugh if you like. These days, you don't need to be a military giant or even have pretensions of being a military giant to have influence. When it comes to power and influence it's no longer about the size of the dog in the fight - it's the size of the fight in the dog that counts.

Will Sentiment Endear It?

I went out twice this last week and met two different girls – let's call them Jenny and Louise. Jenny I met at a pub quiz and we started chatting after a friend and I had shoved our way into their team. After the friend had headed off, Jenny and I spent an hour flirting gently over what remained of the quiz. Then it suddenly started getting heated and serious.

Sadly, I mean in a political sense. What on earth was independence all about, she demanded? Weren't we all Brits together? Independence was all about borders and barbed wire, surely? What on earth did we want to cut ourselves off like that for? We had a Scottish Prime Minister for goodness sakes. Did we really dislike the English so much that we could no longer share a country with them?

Curses. And it had all been going so well, too.

Sensing there was no way to laugh this one off quickly and therefore resigned to a discussion about politics, I gave a quick rationale for the union as seen from 1707. The Scots wanted free trade, which was about to be denied them by the English and the Spanish, while the English wanted to secure their troublesome northern border against the threat of invasion from France. Leaving dynastic and religious concerns aside as most of us have, 300 years on, we were in a free trade block of over 500m peoples, with full access to global markets. The threat of a French invasion of England also seemed, well, remote these days, despite the fact that London can now be referred to with some accuracy as France's fourth largest city.

Over that time, Scotland had retained her unique legal, educational and ecclesiastical independence – institutions which for better or worse had shaped our country differently to the rest of the British archipelago. Scotland had always been administered differently, and as the scope of the state expanded, rather than incorporation, there was administrative devolution in 1885. The Scottish Parliament had brought proper parliamentary accountability to that administration. Accordingly, it was difficult for me to see why that administrative and political independence shouldn't also be extended to economic policy and international relations, especially when we can see on many issues that the opinions and interests of Scotland and England don't always coincide. In the end, Independence simply represented for me the single constitutional settlement superior to all others.

I appreciated that there were strong feelings, but that all my English friends and family members would still be there after independence, and my relationship with them unchanged. The economic, social and cultural links which we all valued were things which transcended politics anyway. Those which were worth preserving and which enjoyed public support would continue to thrive. Scots would still watch Wimbledon and Eastenders, and England would still be rubbish at football. For all that I had in common with folk from Wales, Northern Ireland or England, or for that matter Canada or the USA, Britishness really wasn't part of my identity, but if it could be said to be, it would be in the same sense that a Swede or a Norwegian was Scandinavian. Fundamentally, I was more concerned about the person you were than I was in where you were from.

And as for borders, Ireland had one of the most heavily policed and fortified land borders in Europe until the end of the troubles. Now, you can cross from one side to the other without even seeing a sign to tell you that you'd done so, other than to tell you you were now in Monaghan instead of Fermanagh, or Donegal rather than Tyrone. If we were 'all one people', did she feel the same sense of alienation about the existence of the Irish Republic? (No).

It's been pointed out before that all this dispassion and rationality sometimes makes Richard a very dull boy, but that's the way it is. I do get fired up emotionally and culturally about independence, but to be honest, that's never enough on its own – it's got to be both head and heart as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, this was logic in a head-on collision with feisty sentiment, and my argument did seem to placate her, but only slightly. It upset her that anyone could want independence, but I'd be lying if I denied that it upset me that my views on Independence (unexpressed all evening until that point, as it happened) had upset her.

As Walter Bagehot said of the mystique needed to sustain royalty, you do not let sunlight in upon magic. The same is true of the economic and constitutional arguments surrounding the union (at least it is if you are a unionist), for once you do, the internal contradictions of a state which has lost its reason for being become all too apparent.

Let's forget about the mad, the bad and the frankly dangerous to know (3rd article down). However poorly Gordon Brown may have articulated it in the past (2nd article down), for many people, there are huge emotional attachments to the idea of the union, even if not to the reality. Debating the economic and constitutional arguments might be all very well, but there's a sense almost of hurt building up in England that the Scots might be in some way about to reject them. Now that's no argument against independence, but it's one factor which nationalists would do well to try and ameliorate in whatever ways we can.

Anyway, I'll finish with Louise – a sociology student from London doing her dissertation on Scottish Nationalism. I'd been invited along by a mutual friend to their post-lecture drinks session as a 'primary source', if you like. Her choice of subject might have been unusual enough on its own, but when she outed herself as a supporter of independence, my curiosity was piqued – what on earth had prompted a London lass like her to give a moment's thought to Scottish Nationalism, far less to support it so strongly?

Her answer was poignant. Her father, who had passed away while she was very young, had been Scottish, and despite marrying a Londoner and bringing up his family in the city, had remained a passionate supporter of independence. She was proud of her heritage, and wanted to know more about the movement to understand a bit more about what had burned inside her father. We moved on to other subjects as the evening wore on, but her tale moved something inside even a cynic like me.

So, one for, one against, and in the end, I'm not sure how my reasons for supporting independence come close to matching the intensity, felt from different sides of the argument, by Louise and by Jenny. Ultimately, you can't let your future be governed by sentiment alone. Nonetheless, it's certainly a factor, and one we shouldn't discount, no matter what side of the debate or the border it comes from.

Allez les Blancs!

Jeez - how did this happen?!

European Championship Qualifying : Group B Table

12 September 2007 22:19

		P	W	D	L	F	A	GD	PTS
1	Scotland	9	7	0	2	17	7	10	21
2	Italy	9	6	2	1	15	7	8	20
3	France	9	6	1	2	15	3	12	19
4	Ukraine	8	4	1	3	10	9	1	13
5	Lithuania	9	3	1	5	7	11	-4	10
6	Georgia	9	2	1	6	14	15	-1	7
7	Faroe Islands	9	0	0	9	3	29	-26	0

Making The Grade?

There was a thought-provoking feature in the Business section of today’s Sunday Herald. Reporting on the Ofcom conference on public service broadcasting in the ‘nations and regions’, the paper carried some rather incendiary comments from ITV Chief Exec Michael Grade, to the effect that the reason Scottish TV producers did not get more network commissions was because ‘they were not talented enough’.

Responding to suggestions that Ofcom should impose a quota system to increase commissions from outside London, Grade described supporters of the proposal as “living in dreamland”. In reply to criticisms that metrocentric TV executives ignore Scottish producers, he responded with a blunt “I’m sorry to say that the money will follow the talent”. And asked by STV’s Bobby Hain to confirm if his comments meant he thought there was a lack of talent in Scotland, Grade replied “Yes. It’s your problem, not my problem. You can’t expect us to dish out money like sweeties because it’s your turn”.

Ouch. But before we join the posse to lynch him, let’s quickly take a look at the case for the prosecution. On the surface, the charge that Scotland gets less than its fair share of the goodies is cut and dried. With 9% of licence fee payers (and therefore you assume a similar 9% of viewers, Scottish based producers received just 3% of all commissions from the 4 main UK networks this year, down from a still measly 6% in 2006.

It’s long been recognised that, just like anywhere else, Scotland goes through cycles in terms of the quality of her televisual output. However, it’s exacerbated by the sporadic nature of the funding available. Partly because of the centralised nature of UK broadcasting, people quickly hit a ceiling in the Scottish industry, and find themselves having to move away to get the access, the funding, the facilities, the nurturing and the expertise needed to progress talent and ideas. All of which makes it harder to build up and sustain a critical mass of creative talent.

This makes it far harder to ensure a consistent stream of quality output, and contributes to a skewed sense of place as people struggle to see and hear people living like themselves on the small screen. This phenomenon is recognised, at least in part, by some of the obligations placed on our public service broadcasters to better reflect the diversity of the UK. As Stuart Cosgrove of Channel 4 points out sagely, if it weren’t for his station’s contractual requirement to make 30% of programmes outside London, it’s unlikely that a series such as ‘Shameless’, set in Manchester, would ever have been made.

So do Scottish producers have a point? Almost certainly. I don’t think there’s any doubt that despite the BBC’s planned part relocation to Manchester, London remains the key centre in the UK for mainstream broadcasting. Simple proximity to the movers and shakers who control the budgets makes it far easier to get a commission. And since success breeds success, it’s easier to maintain this momentum in the metropolis than it is outside the M25.

Case closed, then? Well, I’m not so sure. Uncomfortable as it may be to recognise, and however bluntly he may have put it, doesn’t Michael Grade actually have a point? He may have declined to soft-soap the Scottish delegates, but he didn’t claim that there was any intrinsic lack of talent in Scotland. Nor did he say that there wasn’t interest in commissioning content produced in Scotland. On the contrary, he was quick to say that ITV was “open for business”, and further, that “we are not so rich in ideas that we can afford to turn down anything that we think has got half a chance of working”.

We should recognise here that there are big financial pressures in TV-land just now. Advertising revenues are down, while the BBC is having to cut its cloth in anticipation of a lower than hoped for increase in the licence fee. In this context, it’s going to be tougher for everyone to get their programmes made. And with limited budgets to play with, should we really be surprised if commissioners become more conservative and risk-averse?

Then there’s the question of whether we are actually coming up with the sort of ideas that people will want to see. As Stewart Cosgrove points out, Scottish companies seem to restrict the marketability of their ideas by being ‘too focused’ on single documentaries and ‘turning their noses up at high volume returning formats’.

Our greatest strength in Scotland is that there’s a huge potential market for our output right across the Anglosphere, providing we make the sort of programmes that people actually want to see. There is, after all, a limited market for things just because they are Scottish. We might be rich in artistic talent, but the interest we understandably have in ourselves isn’t always shared by the rest of the world. To succeed, we need to be making more programmes which also have a resonance elsewhere.

It shouldn’t be difficult. We’re no-more self-obsessed as a nation than any other on the face of the earth, but we do often lack confidence in our own abilities. Series like ‘Taggart’ and ‘Rebus’ are shown throughout the world, and if the suburban Australian sagas of Ramsay Street can hold a worldwide audience, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t be able to do likewise.

And so we return to the issue of how we can secure a bigger share of what looks like a shrinking cake. I’ve no doubt that the Scottish industry needs a fairer and more consistent share of resources if it’s to start reaching its full potential. But creativity and imagination cost nothing. As Grade points out, maybe we shouldn’t be asking what people like him are going to do about it. We should instead be asking what we are going to do about it for ourselves.

A Timely Corrective

Cancer drugs, educational apartheid, free university tuition... if you believed everything you read in the English papers, you could be forgiven for thinking that it was all milk and honey north of the Tweed. And worse, that it's all happening thanks to the benevolence of the English taxpayer. Jings, crivvens, help ma boab etc ad nauseum.

Of course, we seldom hear the flip side to this - of how public spending in the English regions varies massively; of the imbalances in 'unidentified expenditure' which benefit London and the South of England the most; the NHS treatments available in England but not in Scotland, such as enzyme therapies, a strategy for COPD or liposuction for overweight children. No, it's much more entertaining (and easier) for journos and politicians to rabble rouse about feather-bedded Scots stealing bread from the mouths of our benevolent cousins elsewhere.

Of course, there's reasons for public spending being higher in Scotland - that small detail of having 1/12 of the population spread over 1/3 of the landmass for starters. However, if you come from a high public spend region like London or the North-East, it's easy to ignore these inconvenient facts, hiding instead behind the lower overall English spending figures per head to try and justify your own special pleading.

So, hats off then to Peter MacMahon, who in today's Scotsman, bursts systematically many of these silly little arguments. My own view is that England, or at least some parts of England, get a rough deal from the current constitutional and funding arrangements. However, since devolution isn't going to go away, surely even the most blinkered Scotophobe can see that incoherent bitching about perceived Scottish advantage isn't going to resolve the anomalies they claim to care so much about?

Independence would solve all of this at a stroke. However, as a service to my CEP-inclined friends out there who can't stand the idea of Scottish independence, here's a little suggestion: why not simply break the current link which exists between English spending and the Scottish block grant through the Barnett Formula? That way, Scotland gets to keep her taxes to spend as she sees fit, submits a portion to Westminster for shared services, and with the link between English policy and Scottish funding thus broken, you could have genuine 'English only' issues at Westminster, from which you could then ban all Scottish MPs from voting, Gordon Brown included.

As I said, it's always more fun to complain than to come up with practical solutions, but the current debate in England does no-one any favours. When independence comes, I'd prefer that it happens on the basis of continued mutual respect. Currently, England is being badly served by politicians either stuffed full of John Bull, or who prefer to pretend that these issues just don't exist. Where's England's Alex Salmond right now?

The Worst Small Country in the World?

Jack will be disappointed. It seems that despite all the marketing boasts which greet passengers at our airports, Scotland might not be the best (small) country in the world after all.

The Federation of Small Business has produced a report comparing Scotland to 10 other countries with fewer than nine million people, including Norway, Iceland and the Republic of Ireland. The measures compared included data on economic performance, employment rates, health and education. Scotland's poor life expectancy was a major factor in coming bottom.

In socio-economic terms, Scotland is like the curate's egg. The wealth enjoyed by Edinburgh, West Lothian, Perthshire and Aberdeen is not matched in much of west central Scotland. There's no doubt that perceived poor life opportunities and a general lack of care for personal wellbeing is a huge factor in our less than optimal economic performance. Nicolas Crafts of the London School of Economics sketches it starkly when he estimates that if Scotland simply matched English life expectancy, our GDP would increase by over 20%.

However, Scottish GDP is already fairly high, reaching £111bn once oil is factored in (this takes public spending as a share of GDP down to c. 41%, in contrast to the oft-cited figure of 50%). These figures would, on the 2003 OECD figures, make an independent Scotland the 8th richest country in the world per capita, sandwiched in between the USA and Sweden. Admittedly, a relatively static population massages the GDP per head figure somewhat, but you get the idea. Problems we may have, but a basket case we certainly are not.

There's no need for us to plunge into a collective national gloom over these indicators. Sure, they make for pretty grim reading, but the opportunity for us to do better is there. A number of measures can be taken to improve growth and help rebalance our population profile, such as cutting business rates and reducing the burden of graduate debt. However, one of the single most significant measures we could take is to improve the link between taxation and public spending, by introducing fiscal independence.

We're not a poor country, nor are we subsidised by anyone else. No-one holds us back, and no-one will prevent us in the longer term from taking the actions that the other independent nations seem to be able to use to deliver better life outcomes for their peoples. Taking greater responsibility for our own affairs, on both personal and governmental levels, is surely the best way to deal with our unique set of national strengths and weaknesses.


Small Nation - Worst Wee Country
Devil's Kitchen - The Best Wee Country In The World?
Pat Kane - Scotland Is Unwell

Forewarned is Forearmed...

Ho-hum. Tomorrow (Monday) will see the discharge of the latest fusillade designed to convince us all that the Scots are too wee, too poor and too stupid to be Independent. Yes folks, its time for the Government Expenditure and Revenues in Scotland (GERS) report once more.

There's a number of problems with this report, not least to do with the fact it's always out of date by the time it is published (this one will be for 2004/05). However, the biggest problem is its tendency to both exaggerate spending and underestimate revenues raised in Scotland.

Nowhere is this more blatant than over North Sea oil and gas. Even though 95% of these revenues would accrue to Scotland, GERS leaves them out entirely. In calculating a Scottish budget 'deficit' (the figure we are invited to believe is the amount of subsidy coming north), it also overlooks the fact that the UK as a whole is running an even larger (and real) deficit. This alone would render impossible any kind of domestic UK subsidy to Scotland.

One of the other arguments heard most often from unionists is that since Scotland gets more in 'identifiable' spending than the UK average of £7,000 per. head, we are therefore being subsidised by English taxpayers. This is twaddle, so please bear with me while I explain why:

1. The figure has nothing to do with whether Scotland is 'subsidised' or not, since it only deals with spending levels, not the amount of tax revenues raised in Scotland to cover it.

2. It excludes £74bn of 'unidentified' expenditure, most of which actually gets spent in London and the South East rather than Scotland.

3. The differences in English regional identifiable spending per. head are actually pretty big as well:

NORTHERN IRELAND - £9,084.
SCOTLAND - £8,265.
LONDON - £8,037.
WALES - £7,666.
North East - £7,689.
North West - £7,368.
Yorks & Humber - £6,829.
East Midlands - £6,248.
West Midlands - £6,676.
Eastern - £5,864.
South East - £5,959.
South West - £6,634.

With 1/12 of the UK population spread over 1/3 of the landmass, it should not come as a surprise that Scottish ‘identifiable’ spending is above the UK average. However, since London gets £1,000 more per. head than the UK average and the East Midlands £750 less, does this mean that the East Midlands is subsidising London?

Of course it doesn't, and for exactly the same reason that the figures tell us nothing at all about Scotland. But you don’t need to take my word for it. Here, in quotes, is what some prominent Scots have had to say about GERS since Ian Lang brought it into existence during his unlamented Viceroyship:

GERS – In Quotes:

‘I am disappointed that both you and the Chancellor have reservations about publishing the booklet I have had prepared and printed setting out the details of the government’s expenditure and revenue in Scotland. I judge that it is just what is needed at present in our campaign to maintain the initiative and undermine the other parties. This initiative could score against all of them'. Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Lang, in a letter to the Prime Minister dated March 3, 1992.

‘Caution should be applied in the interpretation of the fiscal deficit. This is the difference between two large numbers, both of which are estimates and subject to large margins of error’. Dr John Rigg, Scottish Office Senior Economist, Autumn 1996.

‘The SNP claims the Scottish Office figures are distorted. The party has a point.’ The Economist, 26th October 1996.

‘Nationalists have a point when they allege the whole GERS exercise was designed to engender fear’. Alf Young, The Herald, 21/1/03.

‘Nationalist or Unionist, whether you trust GERS or not analysis to date reveals a budgetary balance that is not wildly out of line with contemporary experience in other economies in Europe’. Alf Young, The Herald, 21/1/03.

‘It tells us nothing, I would argue about the situation under independence’. Dr Andrew Goudie, Chief Economist, Scottish Executive, The Times, 21/1/03.

London Calling

One time Revolutionary Communist NUS apparatchik turned New Labour luvvie, David Aaronovitch, has an amusingly bile-filled article in today's Times. I really can't be bothered to take his argument to bits (too easy), so here instead is an article I did for last month's Scots Independent newspaper, which kind of preempts his clumsy intervention into the debate.


'Over the past few weeks, I’ve been enjoying the BBC series on Suez. I’m not usually a fan of docu-drama, but this has been superb, bringing home how General Nasser brought the post-imperial delusions of the British ruling classes back down to earth with an almighty crash.

'In the SNP, we tackle daily many of the delusions that live on when making the Independence case. ‘Scotland’s voice would be puny’, it is said. ‘Being British is the only way to retain influence in the world’. At this we can laugh, setting recent abject failures in British diplomacy and the brittle posturing of Tony Blair against the positive roles played by much smaller European states.

'Something I find much harder to thole, though, is the faux-sophisticate sneering of the London-based left when it comes to the SNP. Perhaps this is because otherwise, we might have a fair amount in common with them when it comes to policy. However, I disdain utterly their self-proclaimed monopoly of concern when it comes to internationalism, social justice and the vitality of our civic society.

'Their dislike of the Conservatives just about allowed them to stomach devolution. A historic wrong was being righted, they told themselves around Hampstead dinner tables. Anyway, surely it will bring us closer together and what with Europe becoming more powerful and everything… sorry, I’m being terribly rude here. Shall I open another bottle of Chianti?

'And that was about as much thought as most ever gave it. However, with the unpopularity of Scottish Labour and the apparent momentum behind Independence, Hampstead has awoken. It seems discombobulated, neither understanding nor liking what it sees in the SNP. Perceiving a threat, instead of engaging with the debate it reaches for the comfortable and familiar anti-nationalist clichés so beloved by the 57 varieties of Brit left.

'Thus, we are now being treated to a series of articles telling us how Scottish nationalism is backward looking and exclusive, unlike the ‘given’ opposites of Britishness. Being British lets us share a greater destiny, we are told, instead of being isolated little Scotlanders, festering in the petty resentments of narrow nationalism.

'As a credo, it’s marked by fuddled thinking, rampant double standards and fraudulent assertions of conceptual superiority. It’s amazing how cosmopolitan citizens of the world, who would no more consider themselves isolated from Paris than from Pinner, can still somehow see Scottish Independence as isolation. ‘Britishness good, Scottish nationalism bad’ bleat the sheep, in an attempt to drown out any dissenting voices.

'Hugh MacDiarmid referred to the contradictory aspects of our character as the 'Caledonian Antisyzygy’. Perhaps its time to consider the Metro-Left Antisyzygy: the home of diversity which sees cultural difference as a threat. The force for good which undermines international law. The upholder of non-proliferation shaping to replace Trident. The guarantor of economic prosperity headed for a £700bn national debt by 2010.

'Devolution, Blairism and ‘Cool Britannia’ were the last roll of the dice for Britain. But far from killing the SNP stone dead, devolution has for many made Independence easier to contemplate. Blairism, meanwhile, is now being seen for the ephemeral cult of personality it always was. And as for the latter… despite the best efforts of Blairite thinktanks, it died an agonizing and lonely death somewhere between Noel Gallagher’s champagne glass and the fatuity of the Millennium Dome.

'With his sweeping majorities, Blair had the chance to reinvent Britain by introducing a written constitution, a bill of rights, scrapping the Lords, reforming the voting system and encouraging regional government in England. Instead, he seized the levers of centralised executive power with a Gollum-esque glee. Having enjoyed almost a decade of absolute power, Labour can hardly complain in future if the Tories decide to play by the same rules.

'An even vaguely competent Cameron leadership will surely see New Labour smashed on the rocks of English public contempt. Normal service will be restored, and the whine will resume once more that we need to stick together so we can return Labour to government.

'Well, I'm a democrat. If England votes Tory, as far as I'm concerned, that's who should govern England. No ifs, no buts. If the Metro-Left don't like the idea of the tyranny of the minority, they should be clamouring for PR to be introduced while they still have the chance, then buckle up tight for the kind of realignments we have already seen in Scotland.

'Approaching the 300th year of union, we find ourselves shackled to a decorative and decadent power centre increasingly irrelevant to the people it tries to govern. It is insulting to suggest that either England or Scotland needs the other as a bolt-on accessory to ensure its good conduct and high standing in the world. I’d like to think that in the SNP, our sights are set higher than that – would that these modern day Habsburgs could say the same'.