The Parliamentary Case for Independence

Ask any MSP or MP who has worked at both Westminster and Holyrood "Which parliament do you prefer?" chances are the answer is always going to be the same. Whichever side of the independence debate they're on they are still likely to tell us they prefer Holyrood over Westminster. And it probably isn't so much political as pastoral. The Scottish Parliament has a charm and convenience that the UK Parliament doesn't have.

The debating chamber is certainly a lot nicer in Holyrood. The seats are better spaced out, there is no need for anyone to stand and every member gets their own desk on which to put their documents. The seating is arranged in such a way as to reflect what was intended to be a more consensual approach to parliamentary politics rather than the confrontational nature of the House of Commons. Aesthetically the chamber at Holyrood is much more pleasing. It has a fresh wooden look and lets in a lot more natural daylight. That in itself could have a more positive effect on the mood of the chamber. The freshness makes it feel closer to nature as was part of the original vision by the Spanish architect Enric Miralles (if you look at the shape of the parliament from above it is like a small litter of leaves). And it's modern. That's important because it sends out the message that this is a democracy that is current and up-to-date or at least more so than Westminster.

Holyrood from a golden eagle's perspective.

 

Cold War II? I hope not.

I enjoyed watching the Sochi Olympics. I enjoyed the opening ceremony better than the one at London 2012 although that was good as well. Russia had clearly been waiting a long time for this opportunity to show itself off to the global community and here was a showcase of Russian culture with the sound of Alexander Borodin's Prince Igor providing an atmospheric opening to proceedings evocative of the Russia of the 19th century rich in its ballets and literature before it made way for the chaos of the 20th Century. When the national anthem was played with the raising of the tricolour I was powerfully reminded that this was the first post-Soviet Olympic Games held on Russian soil. Yes, the setting of these Olympics raised some eyebrows: of all the places to host it why did the Russians choose somewhere far south in the Caucasus Mountains where it was much warmer? Surely further north in the heart of Russia where colder winters are better known would have been more apt, like the Ural Mountains. Nonetheless, this was very much Russia being exhibited and what a statement they made of it as they went forward and claimed the top medal-haul with 13 golds. Russia can certainly look forward to more great sporting festivities with the Grand Prix taking place in the same city in August and the World Cup all over the country (well, the European part), four years from now. So having invested in the most expensive Winter Olympics ever Russia is making significant progress in the 21st Century.

Sochi - Russia living the dream?

At least that's what we'd like to think. But Russia can hardly be seen as progressive right now. The Kremlin's suppression of gay rights was of course the big social talking point throughout the Olympics with people taking to twitter to ask Mr Putin if he was enjoying watching the double-luge (which is NOT a mixed event!). But as the Paralympics dawn it is events on the adjacent coastline to Sochi which is threatening to overshadow Russia's reputation. If ever there has been more evidence in recent years of the old Soviet Union's legacy in Eastern Europe the struggle in the Ukraine between those who want closer integration with the European Union and those who want to remain integrated with Russia possibly absorbed says it all. Are we about to witness an event that means the Cold War now has to acquire 'I' as a suffix?

Osborne's mistake will backfire

So we now know where the three would-be chancellors post 2015 stand on a formal currency union. Or do we?

Well delivering his speech in the West End of Edinburgh, George Osborne said to the people of Scotland "If you walk away from the UK you walk away from its currency". It was a threat with a clear political agenda. Blackmail, in other words. The BBC's Douglas Fraser commented "Pro-union parties said they would not negotiate ahead of the referendum - they're now doing so, but only to rule out negotiations." About the best thing any BBC reporter said all day. Had this been a unilateral referendum with no Edinburgh Agreement signed then I might have respected David Cameron's wish not to debate. I would have especially respected his wish if he said that his government would make the transition to independence as smooth as possible for the sake of the Scottish people if they decide democratically that they wish to become a sovereign nation. But his government has not shown any respect to the Scottish people by sending George Gideon Osborne (that is actually his middle name!) to say what his government would threaten to do if they vote for independence. By not even saying that a formal currency union would be one option for an independent Scotland his contempt was complete. If it just so happens that a majority of people have already decided to choose independence then George Osborne, Ed Balls and Danny Alexander have decided that the people of Scotland are making a big mistake. But more to the point this is proving that David Cameron is no longer treating this simply as a debate between people living in Scotland, the UK Government has actually come up here and interfered. That means David Cameron has an absolute moral obligation to come up here and debate with Alex Salmond so he can explain his Government's posturing. He is now accountable to the people of Scotland.

Good luck to our athletes in Sochi

Very rare is it that Scottish and British are effortlessly interchangeable the way English and British are on so many occasions. But as I write this, Team GB are taking to the ice to throw some heavy stones along the length of a rink towards what I hope will be Olympic glory. With the lads skipped by Lockerbie's David Murdoch and the lasses skipped by the stunningly attractive Eve Muirhead (sorry I couldn't resist the comment) the curlers may as well be called Team Scotland which is what they are in the World and European Championships.

Eve Muirhead and her rink, Team Scotland/GB

I can remember in 2002 the jubilation that followed the team's success in Salt Lake City. Everybody was saying "this is Team Scotland" and there were saltires a many in celebration. I myself agreed, this is a moment for the Scots to be proud of but I felt that not as a Scottish nationalist so much as someone who preferred the idea of a united island country called 'Great Britain'. Yet that wasn't in antipathy towards Scottish nationalism because I didn't really have a clue about Scottish politics. I knew there was a devolved Scottish parliament, I can remember that being a big thing in 1997 but if anyone were to ask me 'Who is Alex Salmond?' I would likely have shrugged my shoulders and said "One of the MSPs who campaigned for devolution" and nothing else. It was only in 2006, a year before the SNP's first term, that I started to read up about and follow the Independence movement. But it has little bearing on my sporting allegiances. I may support Scotland in the 6 nations but in the footy friendly last August I supported England because that's what I normally do in football and with some competitive games still left in the qualifiers each win mattered at least mentally. My sporting allegiances vary because put bluntly, your country is great at some things, alright at others and crap at the rest.

Currency union matters as an option, formal or informal

There are few people in a position of power at a UK level that those of us who advocate Scottish independence have much respect for. Yet the Governor of the Bank of England is one of those few. Amazingly Sir Mervyn King is reputed to have had a far better relationship with Alex Salmond than with Alistair Darling, a testament perhaps to just how badly Brown and Darling handled the economy. Salmond was involved in some discussions relating to currency union with King before Mark Carney took. In his role as governor Carney is not going to have the same agenda as a politician, he is simply there to do his job and being Canadian his opinion on whether or not Scotland should be independent is not going to be as strong. On the one hand he may feel Scotland is only seeking what most Canadians desired during the years of colonial Britain, on the other hand he may see echoes of the Quebecois referendum in Scotland's big decision. Either way his involvement in the current debate is reasonably neutral and respectable and is not holding back from providing answers out of any fear of 'pre-negotiations'. Alex Salmond and Mark Carney got on with the technical discussions and the latter presented his analysis a week ago.

Mark Carney and Alex Salmond

It is of no great surprise or worry that compromise has to be found in formalising a currency union. Yes, the UK government remains the main user of the Pound Sterling and the founding state of the Bank of England. But Scotland has a stake in the currency as well and most importantly it holds the cards on this issue. The UK government has indicated it may refuse a formal currency union but actually it is the UK government that will urgently feel the need for discussions with the other government for the formalisation of the common currency area.

Why not all nationalists are Nationalists.

My first post in 2014, the year Scotland decides. What could I write about? Well maybe I could get everybody into the mood by stirring up a bit of nationalism. How about that? Of course I would be far better discussing the practical benefits of a Yes vote but maybe I should tackle this subject sooner rather than later.

There is nothing wrong with nationalism as such whether that's Scottish nationalism or British nationalism. But it's when it is used emphatically in political discourse that makes it a problem. We're entitled to our own emotions and our own desires for our country. But when you have to make the case for or against a political viewpoint it has to be done so with proper reasoning.

Scottish nationalists on the whole understand this which is why their focus on the Scottish independence debate is about creating a better and more empowered society. Some may express the sentiment "Scottish not British" but it is more a personal thing for them. British nationalists, that is to say those who support the union for emotional reasons (which it's fair to say isn't everyone who supports the union), have on the other hand often gone all-out in trying to put identity at the heart of the debate as though the only way to have any strong bond with your friends and family south of the border is to share a 'nation'.

Just how should we remember World War I?

The village of Ousby in Cumbria sits upon the school bus route which I took many times when I was living in the Eden Valley near Penrith. What I was unaware of was that in times past Ousby was one of the luckiest communities in England. You won't find a War Memorial in the village for those who perished in the 1914-1918 conflict. You might think 'my goodness, what a scandal how can they not care about their war dead?!' But that's just it - there are no war dead. For Ousby is one of only 53 'Thankful villages' in all Britain, those parishes that lost no lives in the First World War. 53. And that's it. They're all in England and Wales with none in Scotland. Further more only 13 of these thankful villages (or parishes) lost no lives in the Second World War either and Ousby isn't among them.

It goes to show the very scale of the casualty list from World War One. Nearly a million people from the UK died as a result of the conflict, the vast majority being soldiers and this accounted for 2% of the population. And next year the outbreak of this disastrous event, which 'lost a generation', will be 100 years ago. We should mark the events of World War One but not use them as an excuse to celebrate.