Another side of Lesley Riddoch

Union of Crowns – Nordic precedents

We've just recorded a podcast available at www.lesleyriddoch.com on the difference between the two recent Scottish independence debates where I've been a panellist – on BBC Radio 4 Any Questions and last week on BBC Scotland's TV debate. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01bw82l/The_Big_Debate_Choosing_Scotlands_Future After half a lifetime on the wireless I tend to behave like a radio contributor (or a hard-to-silence presenter!) on both mediums. But the structure and control TV exerts definitely dampens the TV audience I think. Anyway have a listen to the podcast and see whit you think. I've been writing about the vexed second question issue again in the Scotsman – also on www.lesleyriddoch.com.

I see confusion is a recurring theme in this referendum debate -- today's Scotsman front page suggests it's confusing for Alex Salmond to talk of a continuing United Kingdom after independence. It would be more accurate for Lec to talk about a continuing Union of Crowns – this happened in Norway between 1814 and 1905 when the King of Sweden was also King of Norway (although the Norwegians opted to elect him after "local" Prince Christian Fredrik nobly stepped aside to prevent a wholesale takeover when the Danes lost Norway after siding with Napoleon.) Do you follow? Anyway, thanks to Christian Fredrik's quick thinking the Norwegians had already drawn up a very radical constitution at Eidsvoll while the Treaty of Kiel was being signed. So when Swedish regal takeover took place, the internal operations of Norway were largely left to the Norwegians for a "highly devolved" century --except when royal prerogative allowed the King to impose Swedish values. So there were bust ups – but the Norwegians pretty much won them all. Ironically, the Swedish King was forced to accept cabinet government in Norway before he accepted it in Sweden! When things finally came to a head in 1905 over separate Norwegian consular representation, it was the Swedish King who insisted on a referendum to confirm the Norwegian people supported the move. The result was 368392 for break-up, and just 184 against! This helped a peaceful transition. The question of who should be head of state in Norway was also resolved by referendum. The Norwegians voted for a monarchy and Prince Carl of Denmark was asked to do the job. He changed his name to become King Haakon VII. So the "auld enemy" was invited back in to the "big symbolic job"! There is surely all sorts of resonance for Scotland and England in this. Certainly our story is different. Its 100 years later. Support for Scottish independence is far weaker than it was in the Nordic nations who separated from their respective Mother Ships in the 20^th century (Finland 1917, Iceland 1944 and Norway 1905). In relative terms, some of those separations involved the same difference in population size experienced by England and Scotland. Iceland at 300k is at least 10 times smaller than the population of Denmark. But then the territories of the two are not contiguous. Finland does share a land border with enormous Mother Russia – but left at a time of revolution and upheaval "next door." The Nordic independence movements do however have one thing in common – theye were all backed by the overwhelming majority of their population at the time and governance had always been more local and empowered than Scotland's. Maybe that's the biggest difference between all the Nordics and ourselves – high levels of doubt about our own abilities that arise from centuries of paternalistic "top-down" governance by a succession of Labour and Tory governments – and from a decision-making class which has always benefitted materially from the economic success of the Union. Still, it amazes me there is so little interest in histories other than our own – and the Irish. The Nordics have handled differences like grown-ups. Surely there are models aplenty for Scotland in there!

 

 

Hello to tweeps or twitter or FB followers

After some recent media, I seem to have a large number of followers in the social media world. One of my interests is the role of the Nordic model in shaping our future. I started a real world group called 'Nordic Horizons'

Nordic Horizons is a policy group that aims to find out what makes the most successful small countries in the world work so well. We have round table debates on specific policy areas in the Scottish Parliament usually kicked off by someone from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland or Iceland with direct experience. We've already talked about early years, outdoor kindergarten, women's quotas, small municipal government, the High North and drilling for oil in the Arctic and the "Nordic Model" itself. We hope to confirm a sizzling wee programme for the rest of this year by our next meeting on Feb 7th - McKommunes -- people-sized government for Scotland. Nordic Horizons is a cross party and no party group and the aim is to learn from Nordic success, not blindly copy every aspect of Nordic life. We think Scotland needs more working examples of how small nations can work better - whether devolved or independent - and we hope Scotland can bring something to the party too (and not just a large Macallans).

Check out our Facebook group and join in - all event details are also posted here. and you would be very welcome on 7th if you are in Edinburgh- you need to book a place - but  - be quick - there are just 20 places left!

Its my party and Ill cry if I want to.....

Can't quite believe what Malcolm Rifkind said earlier this week regarding the English chucking the union oot the pram completely if the Scots keep whining on about independence. He was responding to news that nearly half of voters in England (45 per cent) believe Scotland gets "more than its fair share of public spending", while 40 per cent believe England gets less than it should. Tory Scottish grandee and former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind warned that politicians should be aware of the circumstances that led to the break-up of Czechoslovakia when debating Scotland's future. He told The Scotsman: "The Slovaks said they wanted more time, but the Czechs had had enough and said, 'Sorry we've decided for you'. "It is quite possible for England to decide it doesn't want the other parts of the United Kingdom."

Firstly -- what about the Welsh and the Northern Irish? Are they ripe for chucking just cos the SNP have started rocking the boat -- tainted by Celtic association? Secondly - what?! The trouble for England is the absence of political leadership to tackle its own democratic deficit and the habit of using Westminster interchangeably as an ad hoc English parliament. I wrote about this in the Scotsman this week www.lesleyriddoch.com and posted these remarks on Facebook yesterday. There's been a right load of interesting reaction.........

• I've heard that William Hague has threatened to stop 'promoting' whisky at British embassy receptions. So unintentionally revealing, these comments, about the nature of the Union.
• The scare story of the week is surely Richard Dannat's- Scottish soldiers would be too bored if they joined a Scottish regiment! While the English lads were off getting blown up in Afghanistan we could send our boys over the border for a wee pre-emptive in Morpeth or Alnwick. Salmond could get on the hotline to Downing Street, "don't worry its not an invasion. The lads were just getting a bit fed up!"
• Classic big-state petulance, when confronted with astonishing sight of once-subservient small state no longer entirely thrilled by their wise and kindly rule! Gorbachev had exactly the same look on his face in 1990, when he realised the Baltic States were serious about breaking away.
• And he used parallel of Czechs with Slovaks .. A total win win situation too .. The Slovaks esp :) .. Unintentionally helpful, clearly had not thought through his scare story.

And here's another constitutional point emailed in about the non-equivalence of Westminster and the sovereign body that represents the English people.....

I listened to you speak during the last week on the matter of the referendum and Scotland's Constitutional position. Not many people know the position and I hope that you might use your communications channels to provide some clarity. I use the short but authoritative article by Prof David Walker (an expert on constitutional law) as my source and it is well worth a read:

 http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/52-6/1004238.aspx

Here is my short synopsis:

1. The treaty of union was agreed between commissioners for the Parliaments of Scotland and England, and thereafter ratified by the two Parliaments.
2. Acts of Union were passed separately by both Parliaments to bring the UK Parliament into existence.
3. The UK Parliament has no legal authority to alter or repeal the treaty, which remains a treaty in international law.
4. The UK Supreme Court as an institution of the UK Parliament has no legal authority over the treaty that brought the UK Parliament into existence.
5. The treaty must therefore be referred back to representatives of the original contracting parties, with appropriate international oversight; it is not simply a matter for UK domestic law.

6. It becomes arguable of course about who can represent the contracting parties, the Parliament of Scotland possibly being one party, and the representatives of England to be agreed, and as Prof Walker says in his final sentence, this all needs careful consideration.

I read the statement today "constitutional issues are not devolved to Holyrood". We can also say "Under the treaty of union constitutional issues were not devolved by the Parliaments of England and Scotland to Westminster". The treaty of union gave no right to Westminster to alter or repeal the treaty. No Westminster institution can have legal authority over the treaty that set the UK Parliament up. It is an international treaty that can only be changed by the two contracting parties.

 All interesting stuff Ill try to raise in Newsnight Scotland's special referendum debate tomorrow – Burns Night – when Im on the panel with Nicola Sturgeon, Johann Lamont and Michael Moore.

Clocks trending Simon says

More of a crossword clue than the title of a podcast episode; but it has been that sort of week. Daylight Savings gets 'talked out', social media is discussed by youngsters. And Simon Hughes mumbles about devolution. And Lesley is going to be a token Tory...now if that doesn't pique your interest into listening to this week's 'Lesley Riddoch Podcast' - I don't know what will. 

No Daylight Saving please – we’re Scottish

Let me correct what happened on the Daylight Saving Bill today. It seems me old mucker Angus Brendan Macneil (seen having a fly round of golf during the South Uist Games at Askernish last year) was too smart to get directly involved in the filibuster which finally talked it out. The SNP did submit a whole stack of questions beforehand but it was a group of anti-European Tories who did all the talking. Christopher Chope warned change would annoy Scots and prompt them to vote for independence. I'm sorry but that annoys me. And sounds completely coached. Seems likely the SNP helped the Tories talk out an eminently reasonable proposal to cut late afternoon road accidents, save energy and offer winter daylight when people can use it best. Meanwhile SNP MP Pete Wishart - of Runrig and now the parliament's band MP4 - will be chuffed that the Live Music Private Members Bill did get through (perhaps because Chope was too knackered to shout his usual "object".) Yip. this is how we are governed.

Indyref and clock change cowardice

Interesting offer today by Henry McLeish to lead the Devo Max Campaign. Having "served" under his Chairmanship on the Scottish Government's Prisons Commission, I'm sure he'd do it very well -- he's a believer and a real people person. The only worry is that Devo Max will be undelivered at Westminster (if independence is rejected) UNLESS a party like Labour makes it official policy. Devo max must be to Labour what Indy is to the SNP before it looks like more than a spoiling mechanism. Mind you it seems the SNP are familiar enough with that. Sensible legislation to put clocks forward in winter (lighter afternoons) has just been talked out by the SNPs Angus Brendan MacNeil and Tory crackpots. Seems some MPs were worried that clock change might "agitate" the Scots b4 the indyref. Not as agitated as I am that SNP can ignore all the evidence that lighter winter evenings would save Scottish lives, save Scottish energy bills and give us daylight when we can use it for leisure. Instead Angus Brendan was happy to dawdle through the lobby with Tories like Christopher Chope, the arch-terminator of private members' bills, Jacob Rees-Mogg who wants an independent Somerset time zone, and Philip Davies' who called the bill, the "Berlin Time" Bill. Nice company. This is unimpressive "Little Scotlander" posturing over a modest but rational proposal supported by ROSPA, all the sports bodies south of the border and by some brave sorts in Scotland. Even NFU Scotland put their traditional veto on hold to support a reconsideration of the evidence (which is all this bill suggested). I see some wag has already suggested renaming GMT Glasgow Mean Time – since none of the decisions about time in the UK are made anywhere near Greenwich.

Meanwhile, I can't help thinking the scrap Fred the Shred's Knighthood rammy is a distraction. By all accounts RBS are set to give his successor an austerity-mocking £1.5 million bonus. They also stand accused of failing to support long standing business customers through tough patches forcing them into the arms of the receivers and jeopardising 11,000 jobs last week alone. It seems despite the Coalition's "get tough" measures, top bankers are still just waving two fingers at society. What's to be done about that?

Any Questions

The crew after last week's Any Questions Debate – the hard to recognise junior politicians in red jackets are lasses from Loretto School. Thanks to Jonathan Hewat – who is Director of External Affairs there, not the Headie as I thought in the latest podcast!

Twitter talk Glasgow Uni Media Week

I'll be speaking in Glasgow Uni this Thursday as part of Glasgow University Media Week 2012 on the subject "Twitter and Facebook – Guilty as charged?"

Rarely has a subject become more topical with Joan McAlpine's "scottishness" tweet followed by Tom Harris's Hitler YouTube riposte. Do come along if you have time.

Williams Room, John McIntyre Building, University Avenue, Glasgow

2pm-3pm, Thursday 19th January.

http://www.facebook.com/events/288557254526740/

http://www.glasgowstudent.net/events/mediaweek/

'Any Questions' Uncovered - the podcast

It was a week where fiesty women were much in evidence. Joan McAlpine had a tweet flare up, Margaret Curran and Nicola Sturgeon faced off on Question Time and Lesley joined the panel at 'Any Questions'. So, lots to talk about this week in the Lesley Riddoch Podcast. And some revelations about 'Any Questions'.

 

Any Questions – that referendum again

Any Questions last night in Musselburgh with Margaret Curran, Michael Moore and John Swinney was a hoot. It's repeated today Saturday at 13.10 and followed by Any Answers (which I may not be brave enough to listen to) and is thereafter on the iplayer. Last night I turned up beforehand to have a chat with Jonathan Dimbleby and BBC News boss (and old pal) John Boothman. Mr D was absolutely charming and genuinely excited by the prospect of some new real meaty debate in the UK – Mr B was his usual laconic and highly informed self. Just so you know the questions ARE chosen by the audience and Loretto School's wee theatre was absolutely packed. Once we got going, it seemed to me a lot of the politicians answers were going unchallenged – seems even the most senior politicians are so worried about being "on message" they can't really listen to one another or trust their own instincts about when and how to intervene. Anyway I did press Michael Moore on whether the "date stamp" on Westminster's offer of legality still applied. Seems it doesn't. I also suggested (fairly forcibly I'm told) that the Lib Dems and Labour need to come forward with an option clarifying devo max to widen the range of constitutional options open to Scots beyond the two "extremes" of independence and the status quo. Surprisingly, afterwards, there was a lot of agreement amongst the speakers about the need for this. But much worry that it's too complex for people to understand. Seems to me it comes down to this. Do you think we should raise and spend our own taxes? The answer for some will be "aye if we get more money that way." That doesn't really work does it? Scotland probably won't raise more of a tax base solo than getting pocket money from Westminster and anyway there's no guarantee. But that moves us on to the real nub. Do we want to raise our own taxes because it's the only way to have control AND responsibility as a nation? If not lets not waste one another's time with the step beyond. Enough already. If you have the time cast an ear. It was very funny too (in parts!)