Thursday 19 September 2013
The Common Weal project
Really just wanted to link to an excellent article by Robin McAlpine of the Jimmy Reid Foundation, from the Sunday Herald of September 15th 2013.
Friday 6 September 2013
Exploding the unionist myths... Again
Last night, I watched STV's Scotland Tonight debate between Nicola Sturgeon and Anas Sarwar. The debate was poorly handled by John MacKay and while Sturgeon won, it wasn't a convincing victory due to the distracting tendency of the aggressive Sarwar to shout, interrupt, take the debate off-topic and to avoid giving answers, instead sticking to sound bites and a pre-prepared script.
As always, whilst witnessing the arguments against independence put forward by Sarwar on behalf of Scottish Labour and Better Together (or Project Fear as members inside BT refer to the organisation), I could not help but be reminded of the scaremongering and lies told before our devolution referendum in 1997.
In fact, I recently watched 'Scotland Debates: Devolution' from 1997 and the claims made by the unionists (the 'No/No' or 'Think Twice' groups) throughout are depressingly familiar.
Hosted by Bernard Ponsonby (one of last night's analysts), the programme pitted Labour's Secretary of State, the late Donald Dewar, then leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats Jim Wallace, SNP leader Alex Salmond, all on the Yes/Yes side, against Conservative constitutional affair spokesman Michael Ancram, Labour MP for Linlithgow Tam Dalyell and chairman of the Think Twice campaign, Donald Findlay QC.
Throughout the show, fears are raised by the No side which in hindsight have proven to be nonsense. Bear that in mind when listening to today's No campaign.
Early in the show, Tam Dalyell makes reference to the fact that in the lead up to the devo referendum, it was claimed that problems such as the Skye bridge tolls could be solved by a Scottish parliament. He argues that "No amount of laws are going to meet these grievances, no amount of talk in a parliament is going to address these problems."
In actual fact, the devolved Scottish parliament DID successfully abolish the tolls in 2004.
Clearly, the UK today is deeply flawed, with rising child poverty, unacceptable levels of unemployment, austerity measures, cuts to benefits, a bedroom tax which hurts the most vulnerable in our society. When unionists argue that independence is not the solution to these problems created by Westminster, remember that we were told the same about devolution and the problems of the 1990s. We were told devolution would not solve various problems which it in fact has, the Skye bridge tolls being just one example.
Successes such as the public smoking ban, free prescriptions, the abolishment of the graduate endowment fee, the Scottish government's vastly better management of the NHS, these are thanks to taking decision-making powers from Westminster and placing them in the hands of the people of Scotland, in a government who are fully accountable to the electorate at the polling station rather than a parliament where we have effect on only 10% of the members.
Independence would allow us to take further control and enjoy further successes; do not believe anyone who tells you otherwise. They lied to us about devolution and they lie to us still.
Later in the devolution debate show, Michael Ancram states: "I believe that these proposals are bad for Scotland, they are bad for the people of Scotland, they are bad for business in Scotland."
He also later stated that a devolved Scotland would raise taxes, be less competitive, attract less inward investment and create less jobs.
In fact, inward investment in a Scotland with a devolved government is currently at a fifteen year high, with market share at similar levels to that of 2004. It would be nigh on impossible to argue now that devolution has been bad for business in Scotland.
That claim in relation to devolution has been well and truly busted, just as it has with regards independence. While many senior figures in the No campaign are on record as saying the uncertainty around independence is bad for business in Scotland, the opposite has been found to be the case.
UK Chancellor George Osborne said: "I think that uncertainty is damaging investment in Scotland – and there are major businesses around the world who have asked me as chancellor in the last year 'tell us what is going on in Scotland - we're worried about making an investment in that country'."
Prime Minister David Cameron said: "This is very damaging for Scotland because all the time businesses are asking 'Is Scotland going to stay part of the UK? Are they going to stay together? Should I invest'?"
Secretary of State Michael Moore repeated the claims, saying: "With too long a period, we will just increase the uncertainty about Scotland's future, which will affect jobs, it will affect investment plans."
Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson said: "…continuing constitutional uncertainty is damaging business in Scotland."
This has been proven to be completely false. Accountancy firm Ernst & Young, in a recent attractiveness survey, said: "There's certainly no sign of investors being deterred from coming to Scotland; if anything, the reverse appears to be true."
More scaremongering shown to be simply not true; just as it was in '97.
On the devolution referendum's second question regarding tax-varying powers, it is claimed during the '97 show that with local government taxation, a Scottish government could bring in new taxes. Of course, in reality, Scotland has been hurt not by new taxes created by our devolved Scottish parliament, but by Wesminster's Bedroom Tax.
Donald Findlay and the No/No side warned that with tax-varying powers, the Scottish government could raise taxes - despite the fact that, at the time, the status quo of Westminter was just as able to raise taxes to an unlimited level. These same claims, proven bogus in the reality of devolution, are made with regards tax levels in an independent Scotland, where we are told we will need higher taxes to survive. The same fears are trotted out.
In 1997's show, Tam Dalyell says looking forward at the effects of devolution over the next five to twenty years, he predicts marginalisation of Scotland within UK and Europe.
This has proven to be completely bogus. Our role in Europe and support for European Union membership has increased with devolution over that period. We have the major share of the EU’s oil production, almost a quarter of its offshore renewable energy potential, a fifth of its natural gas production and a twelfth of its seas. There are approximately 150,000 workers and students who have chosen to come to Scotland from Poland, Ireland, Holland, France, and other countries of the EU.
In the event of independence, IPSOS-Mori polling shows support for membership of the EU at more than 60%. This contrasts greatly with England, where recent polling suggests that a majority of people are in favour of leaving the European Union.
We were told lies about our role in the European Union then and we are told lies about it now; about the supposed risk to membership, about the strength of our position in Europe. Now, as then, the unionists are scaremongering.
The No side claim during the 'Scotland Debates: Devolution' show that a devolved Scottish parliament would have no resources to deal with:
- Nurses' pay (Scottish Government increased nurses' pay to higher than that of their English & Welsh counterparts in 2007)
- Hospital waiting lists (90.8% of patients for which 18 Weeks RTT could be measured were seen within 18 weeks while in England, waiting times are currently at a five year high)
- Education and school repairs (Audit Scotland’s March 2008 report 'Improving the School Estate' showed significant progress had been made in improving the estate and overtaking the legacy of pre-devolution underinvestment in schools, when expenditure on maintenance, repair and replacement failed to keep pace with the rate of deterioration)
We were told that the Scottish Government would not have the resources to deal with issues it has addressed far better than its Westminster counterparts. The reality has blown those lies out of the water. Now, we are told that Scotland does not have the resources to go it alone and be independent. The reality is that Scotland does have the resources and would in fact fare a great deal better with its own government having more power.
Only last week George Osborne during his visit to the North Sea oil rigs told us that our resources are better left in the hands of Westminster - that having the benefits of some 90% of North Sea oil in an independent Scotland, rather than our current 10% share, would somehow make us worse off, that we do not have the resources to cope. We had the resources to flourish with devolution and we have the resources to flourish further still in an independent nation.
Unionists told us before the devolution vote that matters such as education, housing, health, agriculture and justice would be better handled under continuing Westminster rule than in a separate Scottish government, yet few would vote now to reverse devolution. These decisions are better handled by MSPs accountable to the Scottish people.
Unionists tell us now that we would be best leaving such non-devolved matters as warfare and the economy at the hands of Westminster. The success of devolution shows us that this is not the case.
Unionists told us then that making just 10% of parliament in Westminster was better than forming 100% of parliament in Edinburgh. But the failings of government in the last 14 years have continued to come from Westminster; the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the economic crash and the resulting austerity measures.
At one point, Donald Dewar asks the Conservative why when there are powers presently exercised by Westminster, that's fine, but when those powers are passed to Scots who are going to sit in a Scottish parliament, unionists think they uniquely cannot be trusted to take sensible decisions. History repeats itself. We are being told again that decisions are better made for us in England when we have learnt from the past that this is simply not true.
Jim Wallace makes reference early in the show to the poll tax, nursery vouchers, quango-tisation of water and sewage, reform of local government. These problems were left in the past with devolution, but could just as easily be substituted for today's bedroom tax, benefits cut, austerity measures, Trident. Westminster rule hurt us then and continues to hurt us still as we do not have full powers for Holyrood.
In last night's show, Anas Sarwar - when he wasn't interrupting Sturgeon or questioning the SNP's record in goverment, like next year's referendum is even remotely about one party - unintentionally summed it up best when he said "It's not about Tory welfare reforms. I voted against them."
Scottish MPs do not have a voice in Westminster. Our country's representatives vote unanimously against bills and they are passed regardless.
Just as the Think Twice and No/No representatives failed to present a positive case for the status quo then, Sarwar used his opportunity not to speak positively of the union, but to belittle the SNP, criticise Sturgeon and fear-monger where independence was concerned.
Just as the Yes campaign has a positive vision for an independent Scotland, the Yes/Yes side of 1997 were quoted that night as saying things like "We want to return power to Scotland," that they were looking to represent "every significant strand of Scottish opinion," with the message to "Show faith. Have hope. Take courage."
Then, as now, the language of the Yes side was positive and optimistic about Scotland while the No crowd were peddling fear, concerns and pessimism. Just as devolution has proven to be a positive step for Scotland, independence would benefit our country and hand power back to the people who live here.
One audience member summed it up best, telling people that they should "Vote yes with your heads and your hearts, not no with your pockets."
We should continue to show the same faith and pride in Scotland that we showed when we voted yes to devolution. Rather than let the unionists win by scaremongering and shouting down the chance to make Scotland better, we should grab our opportunity with both hands. History has judged us to be right in doing so in 1997 and the future would prove us to be right in voting for independence.
As always, whilst witnessing the arguments against independence put forward by Sarwar on behalf of Scottish Labour and Better Together (or Project Fear as members inside BT refer to the organisation), I could not help but be reminded of the scaremongering and lies told before our devolution referendum in 1997.
In fact, I recently watched 'Scotland Debates: Devolution' from 1997 and the claims made by the unionists (the 'No/No' or 'Think Twice' groups) throughout are depressingly familiar.
Hosted by Bernard Ponsonby (one of last night's analysts), the programme pitted Labour's Secretary of State, the late Donald Dewar, then leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats Jim Wallace, SNP leader Alex Salmond, all on the Yes/Yes side, against Conservative constitutional affair spokesman Michael Ancram, Labour MP for Linlithgow Tam Dalyell and chairman of the Think Twice campaign, Donald Findlay QC.
Throughout the show, fears are raised by the No side which in hindsight have proven to be nonsense. Bear that in mind when listening to today's No campaign.
Early in the show, Tam Dalyell makes reference to the fact that in the lead up to the devo referendum, it was claimed that problems such as the Skye bridge tolls could be solved by a Scottish parliament. He argues that "No amount of laws are going to meet these grievances, no amount of talk in a parliament is going to address these problems."
In actual fact, the devolved Scottish parliament DID successfully abolish the tolls in 2004.
Clearly, the UK today is deeply flawed, with rising child poverty, unacceptable levels of unemployment, austerity measures, cuts to benefits, a bedroom tax which hurts the most vulnerable in our society. When unionists argue that independence is not the solution to these problems created by Westminster, remember that we were told the same about devolution and the problems of the 1990s. We were told devolution would not solve various problems which it in fact has, the Skye bridge tolls being just one example.
Successes such as the public smoking ban, free prescriptions, the abolishment of the graduate endowment fee, the Scottish government's vastly better management of the NHS, these are thanks to taking decision-making powers from Westminster and placing them in the hands of the people of Scotland, in a government who are fully accountable to the electorate at the polling station rather than a parliament where we have effect on only 10% of the members.
Independence would allow us to take further control and enjoy further successes; do not believe anyone who tells you otherwise. They lied to us about devolution and they lie to us still.
Later in the devolution debate show, Michael Ancram states: "I believe that these proposals are bad for Scotland, they are bad for the people of Scotland, they are bad for business in Scotland."
He also later stated that a devolved Scotland would raise taxes, be less competitive, attract less inward investment and create less jobs.
In fact, inward investment in a Scotland with a devolved government is currently at a fifteen year high, with market share at similar levels to that of 2004. It would be nigh on impossible to argue now that devolution has been bad for business in Scotland.
That claim in relation to devolution has been well and truly busted, just as it has with regards independence. While many senior figures in the No campaign are on record as saying the uncertainty around independence is bad for business in Scotland, the opposite has been found to be the case.
UK Chancellor George Osborne said: "I think that uncertainty is damaging investment in Scotland – and there are major businesses around the world who have asked me as chancellor in the last year 'tell us what is going on in Scotland - we're worried about making an investment in that country'."
Prime Minister David Cameron said: "This is very damaging for Scotland because all the time businesses are asking 'Is Scotland going to stay part of the UK? Are they going to stay together? Should I invest'?"
Secretary of State Michael Moore repeated the claims, saying: "With too long a period, we will just increase the uncertainty about Scotland's future, which will affect jobs, it will affect investment plans."
Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson said: "…continuing constitutional uncertainty is damaging business in Scotland."
This has been proven to be completely false. Accountancy firm Ernst & Young, in a recent attractiveness survey, said: "There's certainly no sign of investors being deterred from coming to Scotland; if anything, the reverse appears to be true."
More scaremongering shown to be simply not true; just as it was in '97.
On the devolution referendum's second question regarding tax-varying powers, it is claimed during the '97 show that with local government taxation, a Scottish government could bring in new taxes. Of course, in reality, Scotland has been hurt not by new taxes created by our devolved Scottish parliament, but by Wesminster's Bedroom Tax.
Donald Findlay and the No/No side warned that with tax-varying powers, the Scottish government could raise taxes - despite the fact that, at the time, the status quo of Westminter was just as able to raise taxes to an unlimited level. These same claims, proven bogus in the reality of devolution, are made with regards tax levels in an independent Scotland, where we are told we will need higher taxes to survive. The same fears are trotted out.
In 1997's show, Tam Dalyell says looking forward at the effects of devolution over the next five to twenty years, he predicts marginalisation of Scotland within UK and Europe.
This has proven to be completely bogus. Our role in Europe and support for European Union membership has increased with devolution over that period. We have the major share of the EU’s oil production, almost a quarter of its offshore renewable energy potential, a fifth of its natural gas production and a twelfth of its seas. There are approximately 150,000 workers and students who have chosen to come to Scotland from Poland, Ireland, Holland, France, and other countries of the EU.
In the event of independence, IPSOS-Mori polling shows support for membership of the EU at more than 60%. This contrasts greatly with England, where recent polling suggests that a majority of people are in favour of leaving the European Union.
We were told lies about our role in the European Union then and we are told lies about it now; about the supposed risk to membership, about the strength of our position in Europe. Now, as then, the unionists are scaremongering.
The No side claim during the 'Scotland Debates: Devolution' show that a devolved Scottish parliament would have no resources to deal with:
- Nurses' pay (Scottish Government increased nurses' pay to higher than that of their English & Welsh counterparts in 2007)
- Hospital waiting lists (90.8% of patients for which 18 Weeks RTT could be measured were seen within 18 weeks while in England, waiting times are currently at a five year high)
- Education and school repairs (Audit Scotland’s March 2008 report 'Improving the School Estate' showed significant progress had been made in improving the estate and overtaking the legacy of pre-devolution underinvestment in schools, when expenditure on maintenance, repair and replacement failed to keep pace with the rate of deterioration)
We were told that the Scottish Government would not have the resources to deal with issues it has addressed far better than its Westminster counterparts. The reality has blown those lies out of the water. Now, we are told that Scotland does not have the resources to go it alone and be independent. The reality is that Scotland does have the resources and would in fact fare a great deal better with its own government having more power.
Only last week George Osborne during his visit to the North Sea oil rigs told us that our resources are better left in the hands of Westminster - that having the benefits of some 90% of North Sea oil in an independent Scotland, rather than our current 10% share, would somehow make us worse off, that we do not have the resources to cope. We had the resources to flourish with devolution and we have the resources to flourish further still in an independent nation.
Unionists told us before the devolution vote that matters such as education, housing, health, agriculture and justice would be better handled under continuing Westminster rule than in a separate Scottish government, yet few would vote now to reverse devolution. These decisions are better handled by MSPs accountable to the Scottish people.
Unionists tell us now that we would be best leaving such non-devolved matters as warfare and the economy at the hands of Westminster. The success of devolution shows us that this is not the case.
Unionists told us then that making just 10% of parliament in Westminster was better than forming 100% of parliament in Edinburgh. But the failings of government in the last 14 years have continued to come from Westminster; the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the economic crash and the resulting austerity measures.
At one point, Donald Dewar asks the Conservative why when there are powers presently exercised by Westminster, that's fine, but when those powers are passed to Scots who are going to sit in a Scottish parliament, unionists think they uniquely cannot be trusted to take sensible decisions. History repeats itself. We are being told again that decisions are better made for us in England when we have learnt from the past that this is simply not true.
Jim Wallace makes reference early in the show to the poll tax, nursery vouchers, quango-tisation of water and sewage, reform of local government. These problems were left in the past with devolution, but could just as easily be substituted for today's bedroom tax, benefits cut, austerity measures, Trident. Westminster rule hurt us then and continues to hurt us still as we do not have full powers for Holyrood.
In last night's show, Anas Sarwar - when he wasn't interrupting Sturgeon or questioning the SNP's record in goverment, like next year's referendum is even remotely about one party - unintentionally summed it up best when he said "It's not about Tory welfare reforms. I voted against them."
Scottish MPs do not have a voice in Westminster. Our country's representatives vote unanimously against bills and they are passed regardless.
Just as the Think Twice and No/No representatives failed to present a positive case for the status quo then, Sarwar used his opportunity not to speak positively of the union, but to belittle the SNP, criticise Sturgeon and fear-monger where independence was concerned.
Just as the Yes campaign has a positive vision for an independent Scotland, the Yes/Yes side of 1997 were quoted that night as saying things like "We want to return power to Scotland," that they were looking to represent "every significant strand of Scottish opinion," with the message to "Show faith. Have hope. Take courage."
Then, as now, the language of the Yes side was positive and optimistic about Scotland while the No crowd were peddling fear, concerns and pessimism. Just as devolution has proven to be a positive step for Scotland, independence would benefit our country and hand power back to the people who live here.
One audience member summed it up best, telling people that they should "Vote yes with your heads and your hearts, not no with your pockets."
We should continue to show the same faith and pride in Scotland that we showed when we voted yes to devolution. Rather than let the unionists win by scaremongering and shouting down the chance to make Scotland better, we should grab our opportunity with both hands. History has judged us to be right in doing so in 1997 and the future would prove us to be right in voting for independence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)