Yes East Kilbride submission to the Smith Commission

Smith Commissioners representing SNP, Green,
Labour, LibDem and Conservative Parties

“Following the referendum we have a willingness, shared by all five of Scotland’s main political parties, to strengthen the powers of the Scottish Parliament, within the UK.

“My job is to create a process through which politicians, civic institutions and the Scottish public can come together, work together and agree the detail of what those powers should be.

“To that end, I am working to one aim: to produce a unifying set of proposals by the 30 November 2014.”

Lord Smith of Kelvin

The committee of Yes East Kilbride responded to the Commission's call for submissions by forwarding the following comments.

1        Our perspective on the Commission

1.1     This Commission is just the latest in a number of attempts to define a stable settlement for Scotland in the United Kingdom. These date back to at least 1885, with the establishment of the Scottish Office and the modern post of Secretary of State for Scotland. At this time, the growing importance of government in all aspects of society refocused attention on the undertakings in the Treaty of Union intended to safeguard Scotland’s unique identity after the union. The following year the Scottish Home Rule Association was formed.

1.2     Westminster has since made many attempts to redefine this relationship on its own terms:

·       adjusting the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland from that of a Cabinet attendee to a member of the Cabinet in 1926;

·       appointing a Royal Commission in 1969 that reported in 1973, but on whose proposals no action was taken despite being endorsed by the majority of Scots voters in a referendum;

·       re-establishing the Scottish Parliament in 1999, with minimal financial authority or accountability and a set of powers defined by reserving broad areas of policy to Westminster or restricting Holyrood’s capacity to amend or repeal specific pieces of legislation; and,

·       through the representatives of the pro-UK parties in the Scottish Parliament, establishing a second commission in 2008, whose 2009 report formed the basis for the Scotland Act 2012; an act conceded by its authors to have been superseded before it was enacted.

1.3     Despite these efforts, the movement towards Scottish Independence has continued to grow, with each new Westminster-driven ‘solution’ seeing yet another pro-independence milestone reached shortly thereafter. It seems clear that the Scottish people consider Scotland to be a

1.4     If the outcome from this Commission is to be different from that of its predecessors, it must turn the viewfinder round. The Commission must avoid looking at this issue from Westminster’s perspective – “what is the minimum we need to do to keep the Scots in the union”. It should look at the issue from Scotland’s perspective – “what should we do for ourselves, and what must be done jointly if we are to maintain the integrity of the union in a manner that benefits and respects all its participants”.

1.5     The justification for the Commission taking this perspective can be found in statements from all of the UK political parties over the years, and right down to the closing days of the referendum. This view was clearly articulated by Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister who, having reviewed the outcome of the 1979 referendum, chose to do nothing, and, in so doing consigned her party to the margins of Scottish politics until rescued by the coming of the Scottish Parliament and its system of proportional representation. Mrs Thatcher said:

“As a nation, they (the Scots) have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (nor indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.” Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years

1.6     It is a moot point that Scotland’s entry to the union was the work of a small band of decision-makers with no democratic mandate, and led to riots when the news broke. However, on 18^th September, Scots were offered the opportunity to regain their independence only because they voted for a party pledged to achieving significant change in how Scotland is governed.

1.7     Long-run opinion poll data demonstrates that the clear majority of Scots want a form of government that is at or near independence, or ‘near-federalism’ as stated by Gordon Brown. Two tables from the records of the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey demonstrate this point:

1.8     This table demonstrates that, over a four-year period a remarkably stable, minimum of 60% of Scots supported independence or the ‘devomax’ option, whereby only Defence and Foreign Affairs lie with Westminster. These positions were taken even against the option of devolving everything bar Defence and Foreign Affairs, Taxes, and Benefits.

Who should make decisions for Scotland?

 1.9     The following table demonstrates that, over an even longer period, Scots have consistently rejected a Westminster-driven welfare system, with a minimum of 57% wanting Holyrood to make the most important decisions, as against a maximum of 25% preferring Westminster. It is worth noting that the first three surveys in this table were conducted with a Labour Government in Westminster, so this is not simply a ‘Scots reject Tory policies’ short-term reaction.

Who ought to make most important decisions for Scotland about welfare benefits level?

1.10    Considerable time and effort was expended by civic Scotland in the run up to the referendum, promoting inclusion of a ‘more powers’ option on the ballot paper. Following considerable opposition by the UK Government, this was rejected. However, the response of the pro-UK parties to the rising tide of support for Yes in the latter days of the referendum led them to make promises of a considerably revised union that must now be redeemed.

1.11    In any referendum or electoral campaign, parties enter into a debate determined to emerge with as much of their opening position intact as is possible. Their policy commitments should remain consistent throughout the campaign, unless it is clear that these are not gaining acceptance with the electorate, in which case they may adjust their position. In interpreting the true mandate of the winning side following an election or a referendum we must give more weight to statements made at the end of the campaign, just before people vote, than long-forgotten positions set out in background papers.

1.12    The vote on 18^th September took place after the extraordinary (perhaps unprecedented) events of 9th September, when, instead of appearing at Prime Minister’s Questions, David Cameron, accompanied by his Deputy PM, and the Leader of the Opposition, abandoned Westminster and travelled to Scotland, and a second event on 16th September, when these same leaders issued a joint ‘Vow’ to the people of Scotland, delivered on the front page of one of Scotland’s leading papers and repeated by other papers and the broadcast media, which said:

1.13    “The Scottish Parliament is permanent and extensive new powers for the Parliament will be delivered by the process and to the timetable agreed and announced by our three parties, starting on 19th September.”

1.14    In his last speech before the referendum vote, the Prime Minister said:

          “'Business as usual’ is not on the ballot paper…The status quo is gone. This campaign has swept it away. There is no going back to the way things were”

1.15    In the final days of the campaign, many of those backing a No vote across all of the major pro-UK parties echoed such views. It is for this reason that, in interpreting the term ‘extensive new powers’, the Commission must start from the premise that the three ‘opening position papers’ published by the pro-UK parties in the run up to the referendum, like the 2012 Act, have been superseded. Any attempt to rely on one of these papers, or a simple synthesis of their provisions (if such is even possible) as the basis for going forward would be an act of bad faith; an attempt to negate the change in the position of the No campaign driven by the impact of the campaign.

1.16    The ‘views of the others’, in Mrs Thatcher’s terms, are quite clear. Scots want substantially more autonomy than is in place at present, or will come into being with the implementation of the 2012 Act, and more than was on offer in any of the position papers published by the pro-UK parties before the referendum. The view of the rest of the UK, as expressed by the pro-UK leaders in the closing days of the referendum debate, is that they are committed to responding positively to Scotland’s desire for a radically different union in order to seek greater stability for the UK. They have tasked the Commission to deliver an outline of that radically different union.

1.17    The alternative to delivering a radically different union is that the Smith Commission becomes just another stepping-stone on the path towards the breakup of the UK. While Yes East Kilbride would welcome that outcome as the best way forward, we believe that the people of Scotland deserve to be treated with respect, and the UK parties must live up to their campaign promises. That is why we have made this submission.

2        A new constitutional settlement

2.1     In 1707, Scotland was undoubtedly a separate and independent nation when its representatives negotiated the Treaty of Union and embedded in its provisions protection for the expressions of Scottish nationhood. At no point since 1707 has that status of Scotland as a separate nation been seriously challenged, and at no time since then have the Scottish people been asked to endorse a contrary view; nor were they in the 18^th September referendum.

2.2     Following the announcement of the referendum result there was a call by Jack Straw MP, former Labour Home Secretary, for Westminster to restate the Union, permanently enshrining it in a modern legal framework designed to prevent Scottish independence. Such a proposal played no part in the referendum process. However, as evidenced by Jack Straw’s intervention, there are those within the UK Parliament who would follow the example of the Spanish Government and block any future expression of the views of the Scottish people on this question.

2.3     The Commission must take the opportunity to recommend statutory recognition by the UK Parliament for the 1989 Claim of Right, signed by all but one of Jack Straw’s then Scottish colleagues and their Liberal Democrat colleagues and endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the Scottish Parliament in 2012, which stated:

          “We … do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs...”

2.4     There was much debate prior to the referendum about the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum on independence. All parties involved in the Commission have expressed the view that Scotland is a separate nation and should continue to be so; none has yet articulated agreement with the opinion of the UK Government’s legal advisers that Scotland was ‘extinguished’ in 1707.

2.5     Holyrood is now widely accepted as the focus for the expression of Scotland’s political persona. Johann Lamont articulated this most recently, in her resignation statement, when she said:

“.. colleagues need to realise that the focus of Scottish politics is now Holyrood, not Westminster.”

2.6     That being the case, it is time to acknowledge that the restriction on Holyrood’s capacity to call a referendum on independence should be political, subject to the will of a sovereign people, not legal, subject to the decision of a court.

2.7     The Section 30 order that passed to the Scottish Parliament the power to hold a referendum contains a time limit of December 2014. Instead of allowing them to die, the Commission should recommend incorporation of its provisions into a revised Scotland Act. In addition to clarifying that the Scottish Parliament has an entrenched position in the UK Constitution, this should also entrench Holyrood’s legislative competence to call a referendum on independence without the approval of the Westminster Parliament or the UK Government.

2.8     Such a change will properly establish the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs in a modern democratic context. The right of Northern Ireland to choose democratically to leave the UK and reunite with the Irish Republic, enshrined in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, offers precedence for this recognition. However, the process by which this can be exercised in Northern Ireland reflects that community’s troubled past and does not form an appropriate precedent in the Scottish context.

2.9     We commend the submission by Andrew Tickell on this point.

3        Specific comments on the principles articulated by the Commission

3.1     We welcome the set of principles agreed by the Commission to guide your work, and have used these principles as the basis for more specific comments. It would be appropriate for the Commission to seek wider views on the principles, including from civic Scotland.

3.2     Principle 1: Form a substantial and cohesive package of powers, enabling the delivery of outcomes that are meaningful to the people of Scotland.

3.2.1   We welcome the commitment to produce a substantial and cohesive package of powers, enabling the delivery of outcomes that are meaningful to the people of Scotland.

3.2.2   The Commission must learn from the experience of the first 15 years of devolution – in this respect, the Scottish Government will be a source of significant information about where powers identified as devolved are stunted by their overlap with reserved powers.

3.2.3   The debacle of local government finance is a clear example. While nominally devolved to the Scottish Parliament, when change was advanced it was found that, because Council Tax Benefit was not devolved, changing the current regime would cost Scottish taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds in extra payments and provide a windfall benefit to the UK Treasury.

3.2.4   Another example is Childcare, with responsibility for provision, funding, and regulation lying with the Scottish Parliament but tax credits, used by many parents to pay for their childcare, reserved to Westminster. Such overlapping arrangements are a recipe for confusion for providers and parents, waste, and poor planning and accountability.

3.2.5   One of the most significant areas of tension between the current devolution settlement and the will of the Scottish people has been in the field of Welfare policy. The imposition of the Bedroom Tax, which is both undesirable in principle and unhelpful in practice in relation to Scottish housing, is just one example of this conflict. Alongside greater flexibility of income sources, the Scottish Parliament needs to have greater autonomy in the fields of Welfare and Social Security. As evidenced above, the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey has long demonstrated support for devolved responsibilities for welfare, including benefits.

3.2.6   There has been much talk of the need to maintain a UK-wide minimum welfare guarantee. We consider that this can be achieved by amending the Scotland Act to give the Scottish Parliament a general competence in the field of welfare and social security, while preserving a UK-wide social security system from amendment.

3.2.7   The submission by Andrew Tickell spells out how this general competence can be achieved in terms of amendments to the current legislation.

3.3     Principle 2: Strengthen the Scottish devolution settlement and the Scottish Parliament within the UK (including the Parliament’s levels of financial accountability).

3.3.1   We welcome the commitment to strengthen the Scottish Parliament and increase its financial accountability. However, if the parliament is to be stronger as well as more accountable, it must have flexibility in how it manages its sources of income and the impact its decisions have on the Scottish economy.

3.3.2   The focus on Income Tax as the sole major tax to be devolved is not appropriate if the parliament is to be strengthened as well as made more accountable. With its high visibility, Income Tax is a major driver of accountability, but changes in Income Tax also have little impact on economic growth.

3.3.3   If Holyrood becomes dependent on Income Tax as its sole major source of revenue, and economic levers remain at Westminster, there will be no opportunity to maintain public services by stimulating economic growth because the public finance benefits will still largely flow to the Westminster Treasury. In these circumstances, the pressure on Income Tax levels in Scotland will only be in an upwards direction. This would drive up dissatisfaction with and disengagement from the Scottish Parliament, an outcome that none of the parties to the Commission should wish to see.

3.3.4   The creation of Revenue Scotland means that the Scottish Parliament can quickly gear up its own tax collection capacity to administer additional devolved taxes. Currently, the UK Government controls some twenty-five taxes and other sources of income while the Scottish Parliament has partial control of income tax and control of just two minor taxes. When the Scotland Act 2012 is fully implemented this will increase the level of control over income tax, but subject to considerable constraints, and increase the number of minor taxes to four.

3.3.5   There has been much talk of devolving with a purpose. The purpose in devolving a basket of taxes is precisely to allow the Scottish Parliament to meet the aspiration set out in the first principle - the delivery of outcomes that are meaningful to the people of Scotland, which devolving only Income Tax, or together with just one or two minor taxes is unlikely to achieve.

3.3.6   Some of the taxes and other levies are closely associated with policy responsibilities that are either already devolved to the Scottish Parliament or should be as part of the Commission’s proposals. Devolving these taxes and levies would allow the Scottish Parliament to develop coherent policy and revenue packages that reflect Scotland’s unique assets and resources, and the preferences of Scottish voters.

3.3.7   In this respect, we endorse the submission by the Scottish Government as regards a broad devolution of tax powers.

3.4     Principle 3: Aim to bring about a durable but responsive democratic constitutional settlement, which maintains Scotland’s place in the UK and enhances mutual cooperation and partnership working.

3.4.1   We endorse the focus on a responsive settlement founded on cooperation and partnership working. However, the Commission must recognise that co-operation and partnership both start from the assumption of separate, unique, individuals combining in a common endeavour.

3.4.2   The language of incorporation and ‘Scotland extinguished’ heard during the referendum has no place in a package of proposals founded on this principle; nor does the right of an overweening partner to dictate terms. We ask the Commission to reject the proposition that the Scottish people, expressing their sovereign voice, have no right to withdraw their co-operation if the basis on which co-operation is taking place, or the outcomes it is delivering, are no longer acceptable.

3.4.3   Our comments on a new constitutional settlement are directly relevant to this principle. Any “durable but responsive democratic constitutional settlement” in the modern, democratic context must start from the position articulated in the Claim of Right. The decision makers in Westminster must work for and earn the continued participation of all parts of this voluntary union.

3.5     Principle 4: Not be conditional on the conclusion of other political negotiations elsewhere in the UK.

3.5.1   We endorse this principle, which is reflective of the work of the Commission as a continuation of the referendum process. Those speaking on behalf of the UK Government, and those leading the No campaign consistently stated that this referendum was a decision for the Scottish people. In this respect, it is difficult to see how the submission by the Liberal Democrats easily fits with the work of the Commission, relying, as it does, on “a route map to a federal future for the United Kingdom”. Given the timetable to which the Commission is working, it must not divert into exploring federalism for the whole UK.

3.6     Principle 5: Not cause detriment to the UK as a whole nor to any of its constituent parts.

3.6.1   Our view is that this principle needs reconsideration.

3.6.2   One of the signs of the fundamental failure of the UK to operate in the interests of all of its citizens is the disparity between the constantly growing prosperity of London and the South East as against the position of other nations and regions of the UK. The nexus of the state capital, a highly centralised government machine, cultural centre, a global financial centre, and the location of most company headquarters creates the kind of “giant suction machine, draining the life out of the rest of the country” so famously described by Vince Cable.

3.6.3   If one of the aims of devolution is to spread economic prosperity more widely across the country, it is difficult to see how any substantial devolution of power can be anything other than damaging to that region’s relative dominance of the UK economy. The UK Government’s response to Lord Heseltine’s review “No stone unturned”, stated:

          “Over recent decades, London and the south-east have been relied on as the primary source of economic growth in the UK. Despite significant investment in the regions, London, with around 13 per cent of the population, produces around 21.5 per cent of UK Gross Value Added (GVA), and has the highest GVA per head of all regions. But countries can be more successful when they are driven not just by their capitals, but by multiple thriving centres each with their own strengths.”

3.6.4   Without commenting on the correct position as far as the rate of Corporation Tax is concerned, it is clear that, for example, the principle as stated could drive a decision not to devolve Corporation Tax because any diversion of future investment in HQ functions from London to Scotland may damage the London economy. The principle may have other unintended consequences in terms of favouring the status quo and needs reconsideration, or be balanced against other potential outcomes.

3.7     Principle 6: Cause neither the UK Government nor the Scottish Government to gain or lose financially simply as a consequence of devolving a specific power.

3.7.1   We agree with this principle, but recognise that, in relation to income, a decision as to whether this principle has been met can be problematic, particularly when set against the retention of the block grant through the Barnett Formula. The debate around the partial devolution of Income Tax now contained in the 2012 Act demonstrates this problem. This difficulty emphasises the need for Holyrood to have access to a range of sources of income, and not be reliant on a single major tax.

3.7.2   There will undoubtedly be transition costs associated with these changes. These must be managed in a way that reflects the referendum argument that Scotland benefits from the ‘pooling and sharing’ of resources and risk, and the funding mechanism should not put strain on the delivery of services in Scotland.

3.8     Principle 7: Be implementable; be compatible with Scotland’s and the UK’s international obligations, including EU law; and be agreed with a broad understanding of the potential associated costs.

3.8.1   We agree with this principle.

4        Conclusion

4.1     Yes East Kilbride is participating in this consultation out of respect for the views expressed by voters in East Kilbride, elsewhere in South Lanarkshire and across Scotland, many of whom voted No only in response to the clear shift in position adopted by the UK Government and those backing a No vote in the referendum campaign.

4.2     We take at face value the stated willingness of the rest of the UK, as expressed by the UK Government and other parties, to respond positively to the aspiration for a radically different union in which Holyrood exercises ‘extensive new powers’ significantly beyond those exercised at present, as delivered by the 2012 Act, or as envisaged in the position papers tabled by the pro-UK parties.

4.3     We ask the Commission to take this opportunity to apply a Scottish perspective to the nature of the union and to make recommendations on both powers and accountability that respond to the clearly stated aspirations of the Scottish people.

4.4     We also ask the Commission to propose a revised union, truly founded on principles of co-operation and partnership, in which the right of the Scottish people to exercise their sovereign voice is subject to democratic restraints and not to being overruled by the courts.

Yes East Kilbride

October 2014

What next for Yes East Kilbride?

When Yes East Kilbride was launched in the spring of 2013, today’s circumstances could hardly have been foreseen.

Speakers: Drew Campbell of Scottish Greens, Naimh Conlon,
Dennis Canavan, Chair of  Yes Scotland, Linda Fabiani MSP,
Carolyn Leckie of Women for Independence and Alan Bissett
of National Collective

Both locally and nationally, the referendum campaign was hard-fought. Yes East Kilbride brought together a wide range of people, some from political parties others unconnected with party politics. The Yes campaign featured

colour,

Yes EK Committee Member Ali Salamati gets into the
atmosphere at the Edinburgh Rally September 2013

comedy,

Image Courtesy: Greg Moodie / Funhouse Graphics

culture,

Aye Inspired National Tour visited East Kilbride Civic Centre

and voter engagement.

One of many canvassing sessions across East Kilbride.
This one in The Murray, one of many Yes voting parts of EK

Yes projected a positive vision of Scotland’s future. By contrast, the aptly named Project Fear talked Scotland down and used powerful voices from British and Scottish establishments to generate fear about the allegedly dire consequences of a Yes vote.

The vilest tactic we heard of locally was the targeting of OAPs, with canvassers, including bussed in Labour MPs, advising them a Yes vote threatened their pension. The lies told to pensioners in East Kilbride mirrored the dishonesty of the official No campaign and the pro-UK media.

These headlines sum up much of the No campaign - a denial to Scots
of any risks associated with a No vote in spite of all evidence to the contrary

In the dying weeks of the campaign, despite the level of fear engendered by the No campaign, it became clear the momentum was to Yes. Yes picked up in the polls and a range of people, some from within pro-UK organisations, including the Labour Party, and some previously reluctant celebrities, speaking out for Yes. In panic, the unionist parties unveiled a vaguely-defined compromise, backed by the UK Government, which should have been observing electoral purdah, which they had undertaken to observe.

Just two days before the vote, the Daily Record carried a Vow endorsed by The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Leader of UK Labour, which said:

“The Scottish Parliament is permanent and extensive new powers for the Parliament will be delivered by the process and to the timetable agreed and announced by our three parties, starting on 19th September.”

In his final speech before the vote, David Cameron said:

“'Business as usual’ is not on the ballot paper…The status quo is gone. This campaign has swept it away. There is no going back to the way things were”

On 18 September, having been subject to eighteen months of unrelenting scare stories and the offer of a new constitutional settlement, on the largest ever turnout in UK electoral history, Scots voted No. Analysts suggest that significant components in the No victory might have been as follows:

• A gender divide – with a higher proportion of women than men voting No,
  (which might be related to:-)

• An age factor, with as few as a third of voters aged 65 or over voting Yes
• A socioeconomic factor, with less well-off voters more likely to vote Yes than those in more comfortable circumstances,
• A national identity factor, with voters born elsewhere in the UK half as likely to vote Yes as voters born in Scotland, and self-identification as Scots, British, or a mix of the two, also influential
• A ‘silent minority’ factor, with voters who usually abstain turning out to vote, and more likely to vote No.

These findings are in line with what we found locally.

The following table provides a partial analysis of the referendum count for East Kilbride, based on ballot box samples taken at the count and information on turnout at a local level published by South Lanarkshire Council.

These results exclude postal votes, which were handled in a way that means they cannot be allocated to local areas. However, even a significant No lead among postal voters in the town would not have stopped the result in East Kilbride being a victory for Yes. The silence on this issue from local No campaigners confirms that they are aware of this result.

Where do we go now?

At a post-referendum meeting, the Yes East Kilbride Committee agreed to recommend that Yes activity continue on a cross-party and non-party basis.

The ‘Yes’ message developed a strong set of identifiers during the campaign. It was allied to positive messages about social justice, hope, aspiration, and community. It created strong cross-party and non-party engagement. The post-referendum ‘bounce’ in membership of the pro-Yes political parties is a very strong signal about the way Scots responded to the campaign.

By contrast, now that the referendum is over, ‘No’, is a dead message. As became clear during the campaign, prolonged use of the Project Fear approach identified its supporters as negative about Scotland, and the message gradually lost its effect. Apart from a bunch of thugs who took over George Square in the aftermath of the referendum, no one is rushing to associate themselves with the winning side of the referendum.

Having kept out of the way during the campaign, Scotland's
unionist extremists re-emerged in the aftermath of the vote

For many supporters of pro-UK parties, especially Labour, there seems to be a distinct unease at the way the referendum was won and at events since the result was announced. It is now clear that Scotland’s future has been placed in the hands of politicians whose priorities are firmly elsewhere.

The widely divergent actions of those from the No camp following the referendum demonstrate just how shallow were the principles that bound the campaign together. In the immediate aftermath, David Cameron hoist Ed Miliband on the issue of English votes for English Laws in return for supporting a strengthened Scottish Parliament.

Within hours of the result being announced,
the Prime Minister turned the tables on
Labour and the LibDems

Not to be out-Toried, even by the Tories, Jack Straw proposed that Scots lose any special status within the UK – with our right to national self-determination denied, as is the position adopted by Madrid in relation to Catalunya and the other regions and nations of Spain – a legacy of Spain’s fascist past.

A right to national self-determination is enshrined in the UN Charter of
Human Rights, but Jack Straw wants to follow post-Franco Spain and
abolish it in the UK

The positivity of the ‘Yes’ strategy and the panicked response of the No camp left a legacy on which we can build in the aftermath of the referendum and in the longer term.

In essence, the referendum isn’t over until the promises made in the run up to the vote are delivered. The starting point is the commission headed by Lord Smith.

The Smith Commission

The UK Government has appointed Lord Smith of Kelvin to convene a cross-party commission and to make recommendations for further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament. As part of this process, the UK Government will produce a Command Paper, to be published by 31 October setting out its thinking on the way forward. Draft clauses for a bill to be laid before the UK Parliament will be produced by 25 January. 

The description given by the Smith Commission website is that "this process will deliver more financial, welfare and taxation powers", for the Scottish Parliament. Whether the process will deliver anything to match the panicked rhetoric of the No campaign in the days before the vote, or the expectations of the people of Scotland, as demonstrated in this Panelbase poll (opens an Excel table), only time will tell.

East Kilbride's MSP, Linda Fabiani, has been appointed as one of two SNP Commissioners. The Scottish Greens, and the three pro-UK parties have also appointed Commissioners. Details of all commissioners can be found here.

This is the timetable being followed by the Commission:

• 10th October 2014: Deadline for political parties to submit their views on more powers as part of the Smith Commission’s engagement programme. 

• 31st October 2014: Deadline for civic Scotland to submit views on more powers for the Scottish Parliament to the Smith Commission. Publication of a Command Paper by the UK Government

• 30th November 2014: Heads of Agreement with recommendations for further devolution of powers, to be agreed by cross-party talks and a “wider engagement programme”. 

• 25th January 2015: Publication of draft clauses.

If you want to keep up with the activities of the Smith Commission, their website is here.

Submissions, including by individuals, can be made to the Commission here. 

So, where next?

An earlier version of this paper was presented at a packed meeting of Yes activists in East Kilbride on 7 October. People were able to share their memories, thoughts and analysis of the campaign, and comment on the outcome and on the way forward for Yes East Kilbride.

Well over 100 EK residents turned out on 7 October to discuss a way forward

It is clear that there is a demand for Yes East Kilbride to continue to provide a vehicle for cross-party and non-party input to the post-referendum process. Three areas of activity have been identified and these have been written into the following revised statement of objects for the group:

1. To monitor implementation of the commitments made by the UK Government and the No campaign, notably the undertaking to strengthen significantly the economic and legislative powers of the Scottish Parliament.
2. Through research, campaigning, and advocacy to enable the people of East Kilbride to hold local elected members to account for delivery of the referendum commitments and to contribute to consultation processes feeding in to legislative action to implement these commitments.
3. To promote and defend the sovereign right of Scots to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, enshrined in the 1989 Claim of Right.

One thing is certain, the people now flocking to Yes are doing so with no illusions about who is, and (yes, this means you Scottish Labour), who is not on the side of the ordinary people of Scotland. 

As Alex Salmond said as he announced his forthcoming resignation as First Minister and SNP Leader:

"The real guardians of progress are not the politicians at Westminster, or even at Holyrood, but the energised activism of tens of thousands of people who I predict will refuse meekly to go back into the political shadows."

 With almost 100 new members signing up to Yes East Kilbride on the night, it is clear that the people of East Kilbride will be well represented among Yes activists of the future.

What if Scotland votes No?

In the referendum debate, we often hear statistics comparing Scotland, especially its economy, with that of the UK. It is now accepted that Scotland, with or without oil revenues, is a wealthy country. Even when the two campaigns present contradictory evidence, the difference between the two campaigns is usually just a few percentage points of the total economy.

If we vote No, we are not endorsing the status quo, we have been told this by all three UK parties. Many of the financial and policy arrangements currently in place in the UK will change in future. Those of us in the Yes camp regularly point out the dangers of voting No and leaving control of Scotland's economy in Westminster's hands.

The one thing that will definitely change if we vote No is that Scotland will be giving up, for a few years at least, the threat that we can withdraw our consent from the UK and opt for an independent Scotland. What a No vote is saying to Westminster is we're happy to be treated as a region of the UK.

Fortunately, if we have any concerns about what this means, we don't need to look to the future. All we need do is look at how Westminster serves the other parts of the UK at present, the ones that haven't had the negotiating power Scotland preserved for itself in 1707, but which is threatened by a No vote.

Now 'Inequality Briefing 43'  provides evidence of what that the absence of a constitutional counter-weight to London means for regions of the UK. Not surprisingly, Inner London is revealed to be the richest region in the EU, with GDP per head at three times the European average. More worrying is the evidence of just how much more geographically unequal the UK is compared to other leading European countries.

Data produced by Eurostat, the data agency of the European Union, shows that GDP per head in the poorest UK regions is lower than any region of France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland or Denmark.

If you are thinking of voting No, we trust this glimpse of what could be Scotland's future gives you pause for thought!

Eurostat measured GDP per head in regions across the EU, taking into account the different prices in different regions. The full data is available from here.

A letter to England

East Kilbride is now home to people from many parts of Scotland, other parts of the UK, and abroad. They have helped build the community we have today, and are welcome.

Opponents of Scottish independence have tried to portray the referendum debate as one based on 'identity politics'. It is not.

We are pleased to reproduce this letter, prepared by English Scots for Yes, which was set up by English Scots to support other English and English Scot voters who wish to vote Yes, or are undecided and want more information.

It gives four very powerful reasons for voting Yes, whatever your country of origin.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear England

During the course of this referendum campaign, you have been told many distortions of the truth and fabrications about Scotland and why people in Scotland are voting Yes.

You have been told by the likes of Andrew Marr and Jeremy Paxman that there is a strong anti-English feeling in Scotland driving support for independence, or that people in Scotland are voting yes because they want to break away from English people. You have been told by the likes of Taxpayer’s Alliance and UKIP that Scotland is a ‘subsidy-junkie’ leaching off the English taxpayer to pay for universal public services.

You have been told by the likes of the Daily Telegraph and Kelvin McKenzie that Scotland is a resourceless nation, an economic desert, which has little to offer this island or the world. And finally, you have been told by your own politicians – David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband – that independence will hurt you in England as much as it will hurt us in Scotland.

We write to you, as English people living and working in Scotland, to tell you that this is false. The movement for a yes vote has proven again and again what its real intentions are, and if the media in the UK will not listen we feel it is our duty to set the record straight.

First, as English people involved in the independence movement, we feel we are confident in saying that sentiment against English people has been virtually non-existent in our movement. What people in Scotland want to escape is the Westminster regime, not the English people. The yes movement is about a multi-cultural Scotland, a Scotland based on diversity, and is vociferously opposed to the racist, anti-immigrant sentiment of the likes of UKIP. An independent Scotland would attempt to learn from people in England, welcome people from England, and extend our hand of friendship as equal nations.

Second, it is untrue that Scotland is a ‘subsidy-junkie’. Scotland pays more in taxation to the Treasury than it gets back in funding. We have universal public services in Scotland like free prescriptions and free tuition fees because Holyrood has been responsive enough to the wishes of the Scottish people. It would be entirely possible to have the same in England if your politicians got their priorities correct. We hope, as an independent country, Scotland can prove that world-class universal public services is affordable, and that people in England who believe the same can use our example when deciding who to vote for.

Third, Scotland and her people have great potential, just like England and her people do, and we want to be an independent nation so that we can make the most of that potential. We are currently held back, just like the North of England is held back, by a UK economy and political system which supports international finance against all other industry sectors. In the UK we have the greatest regional inequality in Europe. That is a problem for Scotland and for the rest of the UK. We want independence to start addressing that problem.

Lastly, the politicians of the UK’s main parties are simply wrong. Independence will be good for Scotland, and it will be good for England. Yes voters in Scotland have no bitterness or resentment towards people in England; in fact we believe the relationship north and south of the border will grow stronger, as we both treat one another as serious partners and friends economically, socially and politically.

Yours faithfully
English Scots for Yes

Scotland: a nation, not a region

Here is an excellent article recently published in The Japan Times.

What a pity Scotland's home-grown press can't find the room to give the referendum such excellent coverage.

"Scotland’s wealth is being wasted by those who don’t care about the well-being of its people. Only independence can reverse this abomination."

By Ian Robertson

An independent parliament in waiting, Edinburgh’s devolved Holyrood legislature will become the beating heart of Scotland’s democracy if the country backs itself and votes yes in September’s independence referendum.

There is certainly no logical reason why a rich, naturally left-of-centre country like Scotland would vote against the best interests of the majority of those who call it home, to pursue the right-wing future offered by both Westminster parties.

For Scotland, independence is about democracy not nationalism; it’s about righting the wrongs of a country living its life as a region.

In a manic desperation to safeguard Westminster rule, British nationalists are trying to con people in Scotland into believing black is white: that more austerity, an increase in the retirement age, pensions being privatized, nuclear weapons on the doorstep of Scotland’s largest city, a lower life expectancy, record numbers of food banks, governments it didn’t vote for, are the best thing for Scotland.

“Die before you retire” would be an apt slogan for the no campaign.

Scotland really is being asked to vote for its very own dystopia; where the poor are to be used as the logs on a roaring Westminster bonfire that’s burning the remaining threads of a fair and progressive society.

The Westminster government in London uses Scotland as a place to house its weapons of mass destruction and for its abundant resources. And it will continue to bleed the country dry for its own ends if the no camp’s message of doom and gloom prevails in September.

Fortunately the ludicrous nature of the scare tactics and threats being imposed on the debate by those determined to control Scotland for their own self-interest is unraveling by the day. The polls show things are pretty much neck and neck, with the no side edging it at the moment. But people across Scotland are only now beginning to fully engage with the debate and they hear loud and clear the lies of the no side.

When the ministry of defence in London says the nuclear submarines housed in Scotland are a little too dangerous to be relocated to certain parts of England, the people of Scotland know they are being taken for fools. They see that Scotland is not a valued part of the United Kingdom; rather, it is a place to be placated with false promises in the hope it will continue to fall for the lies of Westminster millionaires.

The truth is that Westminster is financially, politically and morally bankrupt. The keenness among pro-unionist members of the U.K. parliament from Scotland to push the country toward a no vote is borne from their own self-interest. They want to continue enjoying their inflated Westminster salaries before whiling away their later years in the warm and unelected surroundings of the House of Lords; living the life of the privileged while those they serve starve inside austerity Britain.

Scottish independence can be the beginning of the end for this desperate political construct: the U.K.; it can spark a democratic revolution across Britain.

As a country, Scotland’s natural constitutional state must be independence. For the regions of England, many of whom feel disenfranchised by the elites running what is one of the most centralist states in the developed world, devolution and greater local decision making could be the prize, if Scotland votes yes in September. English democrats will rightly push for more powers closer to home. Indeed there is growing support from liberals in England for Scottish independence, with twitter buzzing in recent months with backing from those south of the border sick of the direction of Westminster rule, many telling Scotland to have courage and “go for it.”

U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron tells Scotland it should vote no to independence because “we’re better together,” but ultimately it will mean being together in isolation. The London regime is planning for an in/out referendum on membership of the Europe Union to try and win back the right-wing conservative voters it has lost to the puerile anti-European UK Independence Party, whose acting chair in Scotland recently attacked Glasgow City Council: saying it was for “gays, Catholics and communists”. This charming party is expected to do well in England at this year’s European elections, and in the next U.K. general election. Yet another right-wing party then with no support in Scotland on course have a say on how the country is run.

When it comes to the EU referendum, opinion polls show Scotland would vote to remain in the EU, while the rest of the U.K. is largely determined to leave. Scotland’s opinion will count for nothing though, as its far larger southern neighbor will ultimately decide, due to the sheer size of its electorate.

With any luck, this democratic injustice won’t come to pass because the country will have voted yes to independence. The polls show the momentum is with the yes movement, who are running an inspiring grass-roots campaign organizing local meetings across Scotland pretty much every day to talk with the public about independence and what it will mean for them. People are listening and want to hear more.

In town halls the length and breadth of Scotland, the pro-democracy independence side are winning debates on a weekly basis. The only barrier to this has been when debates have been canceled because the no side failed to put forward someone to take part.

Sadly Westminster is only interested in democracy as far as it is able to dictate the terms of it. In the case of Scotland’s independence referendum, this has been to stifle proper debate. Cameron won’t even go head to head with Scotland’s first minister, Alex Salmond; he’s been too busy lobbying Russian President Vladimir Putin and other national leaders: briefing against Scotland internationally while refusing to address the issue on his own doorstep.

Even U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne on a trip to Scotland in February refused to speak to Scottish Television after announcing there would be no currency union with the country in the event of a yes vote.

A U.K. government minister has since let slip to the Guardian newspaper there would “of course” be a currency union. The inability of Westminster to treat Scotland with respect has become a hallmark of this campaign.

More worrying than this, though, have been the pronouncements by some senior U.K. government figures that Westminster might not accept the result if the people vote yes. The sheer contempt which some within the British nationalist camp have for the democratic process is beyond belief.

Scotland needs to bring an end to this ridiculous situation and gift its parliament with the transformative powers that come with independence.

If the country votes yes, political parties of all colors will have to respond to its aspirations and come forward with new policies. A no vote on the other hand will leave Scotland in the grip of one party rule for the foreseeable future, as the right-wing Conservative Party and formerly left of center Labour Party adopt the same policies in a scramble to secure the crucial votes of those in the south of England.

Labour leader Ed Miliband has even made clear his ambitions to become the male Maggie Thatcher, pledging to govern like the iron lady herself if he becomes U.K. prime minister. The woman who used Scotland’s oil to finance her thirst for war and to destroy the country’s industrial base, is not the type of role model the people want a potential Labour prime minister to follow. And with Miliband now intent on more austerity if he gets the top job, both Westminster parties are on course to destroy the hopes of future generations, with the Child Poverty Action Group revealing that 100,000 more Scottish children will be forced into poverty by 2020 as a result of London’s austerity obsession.

The society of Scotland has a once-in- a-lifetime chance to claim the political powers needed to avert this impending, and — in so many parts of Scotland —already existing, humanitarian crisis.

According to the Financial Times newspaper: “An independent Scotland could expect to start with healthier state finances than the rest of the U.K.”

Scotland’s wealth is being wasted by those who don’t care about the well-being of its people. Only independence can reverse this abomination.

Iain Robertson is editor of Enterprising Energy magazine, and partner at Write Word International.

Independence Referendum: Yes EK urge constituents to vote yes to save Scotland's NHS

From the Daily Record 21 August

NHS consultant surgeon, Phillipa Whitford, tells voters at a public meeting in Westwood Hall that a Yes vote in four weeks time is essential to ensure the NHS stays alive in Scotland.

NHS consultant surgeon Phillipa Whitford 

addressing voters at a public meeting in Westwood

Yes East Kilbride has continued its programme of door-to-door canvassing, taking the positive message for independence to all corners of East Kilbride.

The core Yes message is simple: by taking the powers and responsibilities of a normal country, Scotland can be one of the world’s richest nations and use this wealth to deliver a fairer society.

By contrast, the message from the No camp seems to be that we Scots are uniquely incapable of running our own affairs and must continue to rely on Westminster to take the big decisions for us.

One of the issues debated over the past week has been the future of our National Health Service.

While senior opposition and medical figures in England and Wales express alarm at the impact Westminster’s privatisation agenda will have on the NHS, Better Together says, not to worry, the NHS is safe in Holyrood’s hands.

The reality is that, in the event of a No vote, Scotland would be under immense pressure to follow the same path as Westminster on the NHS.

We have already seen how this kind of pressure works under devolution with PFI contracts, promoted by the UK Treasury, creating major difficulties for the NHS and local authorities.

Most notably for East Kilbride, the Hairmyres PFI contract continues to create difficulties in improving the quality of service in the hospital.

On Friday, August 19, the future of the NHS featured heavily at a packed public meeting in Westwood Hall.

The speakers were Cat Boyd, a trade union activist, Kate Higgins, of Women for Independence, and Philippa Whitford, an NHS consultant surgeon.

With over 30 years’ experience working in the NHS, Philippa Whitford’s message was clear, a Yes vote is essential to ensure the NHS stays alive in Scotland.

Saturday saw a welcome innovation when the town centre management provided space for both sides of the campaign to provide information to shoppers.

The response at the Yes stall was simply overwhelming, fully justifying the decision to make this opportunity available.

By agreement with Better Together and the town centre, both campaigns will repeat the exercise this Saturday – please do pop down for a chat!

Yes East Kilbride believes the response on Saturday justifies the continuation of this service from now up to referendum week.

We’ll keep you posted.

A tale of two crossroads

This is a piece about how National Collective challenged one of Better Together's array of wealthy and powerful backers and the challenge facing us all on 18th September. It is an extract from an article on the growth of National Collective into one of the driving forces behind the Yes campaign.

It defines two crossroads. The first faced National Collective when threatened with court action for doing no more than telling the truth when the press refused to do its job. The second crossroad faces us all on 18 September. We can give in to Project Fear, vote No, and let someone else define Scotland's future. Or, we can vote Yes and recover the power to set our own course. It really is that simple.

It's time for Yes.

Original by Ross Colquhoun, National Collective

On Sunday 7th April 2013, Better Together revealed the details of those who donated £1.1 million to their campaign. The Sunday Herald provided a platform for Ian Taylor, who donated £500,000 of that money, to explain why he chose to back Better Together to such a degree despite not being eligible to vote in September.

We were confused. Nobody in the press seemed to be expressing any concern over Taylor’s background, despite a series of press reports linking Vitol Group, the world’s largest oil trading company, which Taylor serves as CEO, to several ‘scandals’. So we collated a series of stories already in the public domain, and in doing so challenged Better Together over the source of much of their funding.

The reports we raised were serious, and we did not publish them brazenly or without due care. Taylor’s company had been accused of giving $1 million to a Serbian Paramilitary leader, of bribing Saddam Hussein’s government and of tax avoidance, amongst others. All of these stories had been sourced and had been in the public domain for several years. We simply, in response to Taylor’s piece in the Sunday Herald, compiled them and asked Better Together to respond.

Within days, Mr. Taylor’s lawyers sent us legal threats accusing both Michael Gray and myself of defamation. We were informed that they would pursue substantial damages from us personally if we did not remove the article immediately, publish an apology and agree to never to publish the material again.

We took this threat seriously, of course. Ian Taylor is a rich and powerful man and the courts are often a rich man’s playground. Out of fear of provoking further action, we were forced to become silent. We didn’t tell our closest friends and family what was happening. We sought legal advice. We went through the original article with a fine tooth comb to check if, in fact, there was any basis in the claim of defamation. We couldn’t find any. So a week later we held a press conference at Nelson Mandela Square in Glasgow to announce that not only would we not be backing down and removing the article, we would be investigating every avenue of their business for further evidence of ‘dodgy deals’.

National Collective was now on the mainstream media’s radar.

This year we have a question that will define our generation. We can be the Scotland who chose to grasp the opportunity to create a better society, or the Scotland who put fear before hope.

Scotland’s Referendum is a fork in the road, it’s about the nation we are and the nation we want to be.

Would you rather live in a country that welcomes immigrants or detains them?

Would you rather live in a country with a strong welfare state at the heart of its society or a crumbling welfare state facing privatisation?

Would you rather live in a country that is a positive influence on the international community or a warmongering dwindling empire?

Would you rather live in a country that advocates peace in the international community or stores nuclear weapons in our communities?

Would you rather live in country where we can tackle child poverty head on or where ⅕ children live in poverty?

Would you rather live in a country where you actually get the government that you voted for or one where we are perpetually given governments that don’t reflect our demands?

It really is that simple.

For the first time, Scotland’s future really is in your hands on September 18th 2014. Vote Yes because it’s a once in a lifetime opportunity for all of us to build a better Scotland.

Read the full article here: