A lot more 'left' to be said

With polls of voting intentions in the independence referendum showing Yes and No neck and neck, Yes East Kilbride has announced two meetings to let Labour voters who are still undecided find out what a Yes vote would mean to them.

On 27 June, a meeting entitled ‘The progressive case for Yes’ will be held at the Murray Owen Centre from 7.30pm. Speakers include Carol Fox of Women for Independence, a former Labour parliamentary candidate. Carol will be joined by her brother, Colin, co-spokesperson of the Scottish Socialist Party and a former MSP.

Pat Kane; musician, writer, activist and former rector of Glasgow University will argue that independence offers the chance to make Scotland a more equal society.

The second event ‘Can you be Labour and Yes?’ will be held on 2 July at Greenhills Community Hall.

This event will feature Jim Sillars; former Labour MP and SNP Deputy Leader, who recently withdrew from a meeting in the town due to the death of his wife, Margo MacDonald MSP, who had close connections with the town.

Joining Jim on the panel will be Allan Grogan, founder of Labour for Independence, and Sandra Webster of Women for Independence, who will argue that only a Yes vote gives Scotland the power to build a fairer, as well as a more prosperous society.

Commenting, Chair of Yes East Kilbride Paul McCartney said:

"We have some fantastic events over the next few weeks, and we encourage all undecided voters, especially those who traditionally back the Labour Party, to come out and hear the progressive case for Yes.

"At our stalls and on the doorsteps, we find more and more people moving to Yes, especially among traditional Labour voters who are unconvinced of the case for No.

“The last Better Together event in East Kilbride featured a Tory Cabinet Minister and was moved at the last minute to avoid facing the people of the town. By contrast, Yes East Kilbride events are open and welcoming.

"Panicked by the growing support for a Yes vote, the three pro-UK parties are now offering more powers to the Scottish Parliament, if there is a No vote. The fact is that only a Yes vote lets us harness Scotland’s enormous wealth to deliver a fairer society. It is an opportunity we must take with both hands.”

Trolling, Trolling, Trolling – with Ms JK Rowling….

Drew Campbell was a founding member of Yes East Kilbride. Although he has moved out of the town, he retains many local connections and contacts.

When JK Rowling, long known as a supporter of the union, donated £1million to the No campaign and published a statement in support, Drew responded, as a fellow writer.

Members of Yes East Kilbride suggested making Drew's response available through the bog, which we are happy to do.

Dear Joanne

We've never met but we are both writers, indeed both members of the same writers' association.  We both live in Perthshire, you in a castle, me in a flat.  You used to work for Amnesty International; I used to be a member and still campaign on human rights.  I’m sure we have many other things in common despite my book sales, income and public profile being, well, let’s say a tad less than yours.

I guess neither of us voted for the SNP; I’m a member of the Scottish Green Party, while you have publicly declared for and donated to the Labour Party.  I’ve got plenty of friends who are Labour voters and a few who are members; your friendship with former Labour leader and Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been well publicised so I’m going to take a guess now and say the timing of your very public intervention so soon after the initiative taken by your friend Gordon was not a coincidence.  Fair enough.  That’s how these things are done.

My problem is this: Your statement provides a major platform to propagate yet more misinformation from the No camp.

Let's take "…a fringe of nationalists who like to demonise anyone not blindly and unquestionably pro-independence" and "that they might judge me 'insufficiently Scottish' to have a valid view."   I'm sure a tiny minority of sad pseudonymous trolls will do just that.  It's got nothing to do with the hundreds of thousands of serious Yes supporters, campaign politicians and leaders, and therefore, I’d suggest, should be of no relevance to your decision.  However, since you chose to highlight it in your statement it behoves you to at least acknowledge the vitriol coming from the other side.  Colin and Christine Weir made a similarly large donation to the Yes campaign and were met with quite vicious abuse from “Britnat” trolls.  More to the point, the Weirs were subject not only to "Britnat" attacks online, but also vile insults and insinuations from No camp politicians and mainstream publications like the Daily Mail.  That's of a different order from online loudmouths, that’s politicians and mainstream press giving a lead.

Perhaps you can point to one instance – a single one – where a senior Yes figure has said anything on a level with the recent slander by Alistair Darling equating Yes supporters with “blood and soil nationalists”?

Ethnicity is not an issue in this referendum.  The Yes camp includes active supporters from every corner of the British Isles, the Commonwealth and the EU.  Voting is not on the basis of ethnicity; one million-plus Scots who live outwith constituencies in Scotland have no vote in September 18th but around 600,000 non-Scots resident (12% of the electorate) here are being fully encouraged to participate both in the vote and the debate.  So when you say “people try to make this debate about the purity of your lineage, things start getting a little Death Eaterish for my taste,” I have to ask – who’s said that?  Some online trolls?  Certainly not Yes.

The only side I’ve heard talking about issues of ethnicity is the No camp.  Focusing on ethnicity is a deliberate and tactical misdirection by ‘Better Together’ that you appear to have fallen for, a cynical trope used by powerful politicians for millennia including, in recent years, by your good friend Gordon – remember “British jobs for British workers”?

Your passing allusion to the bailout of RBS - the vast majority of which came not from UK taxpayers but from US financiers - is similarly misinformed.  Could an independent Scotland have saved RBS?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  Certainly an independent Scottish government would have had to deal with the issue differently.  Perhaps it would have borrowed from the US, or from the EU as Ireland did.  Perhaps it would have nationalised the bank as the UK did but, unlike the UK, taken control of the business – a far more sensible course of action, I’d say.  Whatever decision we took it would have been our decision.  And if the people didn’t like it, they would vote out the government and elect people prepared to prosecute the guilty – a bit like what happened in Iceland, a nation of just over 300,000 people who manage very well as an independent nation, thank you.

Far more relevant to the current debate is this: Will there be another crash?   In 2008 Westminster - then led by your good friend Gordon and his good friend Alistair – was responsible for regulating the City of London.  Since then no substantial reforms to regulation of the financial sector have been enacted, either from Labour or the current Coalition, nor are there any significant proposals from any of the three largest parties.  Neither have we seen any attempt to pursue the perpetrators of a raft of criminal acts that led to the financial collapse in the UK, not just RBS but HBOS, Barclays, Lloyds and others.  Nothing on Libor either, a prima facie case of conspiracy and fraud.  And on the “mis-selling” of financial products, insurances, mortgages, etc. over a period of almost thirty years?  Not so much as a breach of the peace.

Meanwhile George Osbourne, the current Chancellor (and, I’d wager my next advance against yours, the Chancellor following the 2015 UK General Election) cuts tax credits, child support, disability benefits, and demonises anyone dependent on welfare – you’ll recall that feeling – all while feeding a house price bubble in the South East of England that distorts the economy of the entire island.  Oh, and the fact his best man made a multi-million pound killing on the privatisation of Royal Mail –  good ol’ Westminster democracy at work again!   If you really believe embedded corruption in the City of London has been tackled, can I respectfully suggest it could be worth discussing this with someone other than Gordon.   And not Alistair either.

One final point on finance and democracy: The Remembrancer.  Do you know about ‘The Remembrancer'?  Sounds like a character from one of your books, I know, but this man – it's always a man – is very real, and is in fact the only unelected person permitted to sit in the Chamber of the House of Commons.  He sits behind the Speaker's chair and his role is to remind hon. and right hon. members of the interests of the City of London on any given matter.  He is known to roam around the tearooms and bars, free to lobby MPs on any issue he pleases.  You may think he might offer political donations, cushy sinecures and future directorships to compliant Parliamentarians - I couldn't possibly comment.

The Remembrancer is also the only person in the entire country who has the right to bar the way of the monarch - should said monarch wish to enter London's Square Mile.  So that’s The Remembrancer.  You may well know of him and his works, but 99% of people in the United Kingdom know nothing of his existence,  yet he holds one of the most powerful and important positions in the realm.  He, like old Voldemort, seems to be  one “whose name we do not mention”.  Maybe you could use The Remembrancer in your next book.

So that’s democracy in the UK today, the democracy the No campaign asks us to put our faith in, all part of the same unwritten constitution that holds sovereignty lies with “the Crown in Parliament”.   We in the Yes campaign believe in a different kind of democracy, one with a written constitution that begins and ends with the sovereignty of the People.

As to your quote, "I'll be skint if I want to and Westminster can't tell me otherwise… and I’ll vote yes, just to stick it to David Cameron" – frankly, I thought better of you.  It’s insulting to the whole tone of the campaign.  It sounds like a crude stereotype of a taxi driver – “I ’ad that Gordon Brown in that back of my cab, once!” – I mean, really, where did that come from?  I really would be interested to know the source, because it is very unconvincing dialogue.  More a Straw Man - there's another character, Jo, free of charge - an unrepresentative fiction that can be set up and knocked down again and again to divert attention from real issues.

And yet, I can point to MPs like Labour’s Jimmy Hood saying in the House of Commons that he would choose to stay in the union even if it made Scotland poorer.  That's a real person, Joanne, a Scottish MP.  A spokesman for the No camp.  Not a troll, not a Straw Man, but a real person, a real MP, with real political power.  To use your own words, that's a form of patriotism I'll never understand.

As far as your judgement calls on Scotland's economic prospects, oil revenues, doubts over SNP's fiscal plans and faith in the analysis of neoliberal-leaning think-tank IFS - that's entirely up to you.  I respectfully disagree.  I would only ask you think again – really think, because I know you’re smart – then think again before becoming a cipher for the very worst aspects of No.

Yours respectfully


Drew Campbell

Dishonesty from the No camp is a real turn-off

On Friday 6th June, a group of East Kilbride churches sponsored a referendum hustings which attracted a large audience of committed Yes and No supporters and some undecided voters.

The No case was presented by Labour's Michael McCann and Conservative Councillor Graham Simpson. The SNP's Linda Fabiani and non-party former BBC journalist Derek Bateman represented Yes East Kilbride. Father Nolan, of Our Lady of Lourdes, gently, but firmly, kept the speakers in order - not an easy task given Michael McCann's reputation for being hot-headed.

The Question Time style event covered a wide range of topics, from Defence to the European Union, from Currency to Oil Revenues. A number of questions were submitted in advance of the meeting. While most represented a genuine desire for dialogue, some were used to inject disinformation into the debate.

This was done most distastefully on the issue of immigration, with the questioner attributing the Project Fear figure of 1 million new migrants to Alex Salmond. Americans have a very good term for such misinformation, it is called 'dog-whistle' politics and it is a sign of real desperation that the No camp is resorting to it.

Perhaps the most interesting exchanges took place when Michael McCann faced a challenge from the floor. Shorn of the ability to simply abuse the audience, Mr McCann chose the tactic of inventing an alternative reality.

Yes and nuclear weapons

Early in the debate, the audience was treated to the claim by Michael McCann that membership of NATO was restricted to countries with nuclear weapons. This was a deeply worrying misrepresentation given Mr McCann's previous employment as assistant to his predecessor, Adam Ingram, a former Defence Minister in the Labour Government.

As pointed out by the Yes representatives, the majority of NATO countries have no nuclear weapons; indeed, representatives of leading anti-nuclear states play a full role in NATO affairs. Last year, the government of Norway, a founding member of NATO, hosted a conference on abolition of nuclear weapons and representatives of over 120 governments turned up. The former Norwegian Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, who has campaigned against nuclear weapons, is to be NATO's next General Secretary.

The No camp representatives made clear that a No vote will be taken as an endorsement of the Trident renewal programme that will divert £100billion of taxpayers money into the continuation of these weapons of mass destruction. Many church leaders have expressed concern at this programme, and Scottish CND is backing a Yes vote as a means of halting this escalation in the UK's nuclear position.

Pulling and Not Sharing

One of the arguments advanced by the No camp is that, within the UK, Scotland enjoys the benefit of wealth being shared across the UK.  Indeed, Michael McCann told the audience the UK had been extremely successful at redistribution. The problem with this argument is that it has not been the case in the past and recent decisions taken at Westminster mean it is even less likely in the future.

Increasingly, wealth in the UK has concentrated in London and the South as successive UK Governments prioritised financial services, heavily concentrated in the City of London, at the expense of manufacturing, much of it located in Scotland and the North of England. This process was described in a recent book as a '60 year suicide'.

Between 1998/99 and 2008/09, four-fifths of the increase in incomes went to those with above average incomes, with two-fifths going to the  richest 10% of the population. This process of concentrating wealth in the hands of such a privileged group, many of whom live in and around London, has been condemned by Vince Cable, a leading member of the UK Government. Mr Cable famously described London as a Giant Suction Machine, draining the life out of the rest of the country.

One of the means by which income, and wealth, is distributed across society is through the welfare system, which automatically makes additional payments to those affected by any economic downturn. Not only does this help hard-pressed families, it also helps maintain demand, to the benefit of many companies.

Mr McCann was asked about the decision of the Tory-led Coalition to place a cap on the welfare bill. The cap covers spending on most benefits, including pension credits, severe disablement allowance, incapacity benefits, child benefit, both maternity and paternity pay, universal credit and housing benefit. Labour backed the cap, with only a brave thirteen Labour MPs, not including Mr McCann, having the courage to vote against the measure.

In a response that has become increasingly typical of the No campaign, Mr McCann simply denied there had been any such change. He told the audience that all items of public expenditure have always been subject to strict limits. If that is the case, we wonder what all the fuss was about when George Osborne floated the idea of a cap in 2013, and then announced its introduction in his 2014 Budget.

The introduction of the cap means that the next time the UK economy is harmed by the casino banking sector based in London, the poor throughout the UK will bear the brunt even more quickly, as the cap on welfare drives reductions in benefits for the most vulnerable in our society.

Since the hustings, as we have campaigned throughout the town, Yes East Kilbride activists have been approached by voters concerned at the disinformation spread by the No team, not just on these issues, but on a range of issues, including pensions and public sector jobs. In a piece of bad news for the No camp, it seems that presenting such a dishonest case simply increases the suspicion a No vote is a real high risk vote for Scotland in this referendum, and drives people in the direction of a Yes vote.

To be told off by one Professor may be a misfortune; to be told off by two shows desperation

In early May, Yes East Kilbride held a training session for its growing band of volunteers.

Imagine our surprise when one of the requests to attend came from Ontario - not Ontario Park, Westwood, but Ontario, Canada.  Having made contact, we found that our long-distance request came from Professor Robert (Bob) Young, of Western Ontario University.

Professor Young's research interest is in how governments of different levels work together - and what happens when they don't and a people opt to pursue their independence. Much of his research is based on the federal structure of government in Canada, including the option of Quebec pursuing an independent path. Finding himself in Scotland, and with some time on his hands, he chose to drop in on the Yes and No campaigns.

We were pleased to have him attend what proved to be a very enjoyable event, with dozens of volunteers, some experienced, some brand new, wrestling with the best way to get our message across in East Kilbride.

When Bob left us that night, we thought that would be the last we might hear of him; how wrong we were. Just a short while later, safely back in Canada, he found himself as one of two professors forced to distance himself from yet another of the UK Government's never-ending scare stories. This time, the Treasury claimed that start up costs for an independent Scotland would be somewhere between £1.5 billion and £2.7 billion.

Treasury publicity said these estimates were based on the work of Professor Young and of Professor Patrick Dunleavy at the London School of Economics. Professor Dunleavy described the Treasury's calculations as "bizarrely inaccurate".  Bob Young's response was perhaps more measured, advising the press that the estimate was not his, but was extrapolated from the top of a range of estimates by other academics.

In an attempt to shed some light on the subject, Professor Young wrote a short piece. With his kind permission, we reproduce his piece here. This article first appeared on the ESRC 'The Future of the UK and Scotland, website.

One of his critical findings is the role of uncertainty in driving up transition costs for both sides. The period of the referendum should be the time of peak uncertainty. In the event of a Yes vote, it is in the interest of both Scotland and rUK that, post 18 September, the spirit of the Edinburgh Agreement is implemented and both governments move quickly to finalise the key terms on which independence will occur.

Financial Reflections: Clarifying transaction costs in secessions 
Robert Young, University of Western Ontario, 2nd June 2014

The week of May 26th featured a bitter exchange between the UK and Scottish governments about the set-up costs of an independent Scotland.  My work was cited, and I want to set the record straight and also to clear up some of the confusion about this issue.

In secessions, the transition to independence is a crucial period.  I argued this at length in The Secession of Quebec and the Future of Canada, a scholarly book in which I tried to predict the outcome of a Yes vote in the 1995 Quebec referendum.  In the Quebec-Canada case, economists were unanimous that there would be short-term costs for both countries.

These transition costs comprise losses arising from political and economic uncertainty, fiscal costs as transfers end, and transaction costs.

Last week's dispute was about transaction costs.  What are these?

Transaction costs include:

1.  resources devoted to negotiating new arrangements,

2.  the cost of disentangling the two states,

3.  the cost of creating new institutions and programs, and

4.  the cost to firms and citizens of learning about the new arrangements and accommodating themselves to the new realities.

In the case of Quebec-Canada, estimates of transaction costs varied considerably.  As I reported, Pierre Fortin estimated the costs of re-organizing the Quebec state at about .4% of its GDP.  Patrick Grady, no optimist about secession, estimated the cost of "institutional restructuring" to be "large" for both Quebec and Canada, meaning over 1% of GDP.

It is not unreasonable that estimates of transaction costs differ, because they can be deployed to affect voters.  More fundamentally, they would take place in the future, which is unknowable.  Finally, these costs can be divided into "fixed" and "variable" costs.  There is unquestionably some minimum cost associated with negotiating independence, carrying it out, and learning about it.  But costs can rise much higher if negotiations are difficult, if there is little cooperation in implementing new arrangements, and if the new system is very much different from the old one.

In the case of Scotland and the rest of the UK, there is a great deal to negotiate, more than in Canada.  On the other hand, a lot of preparatory work has been done in the White Paper and through the Scotland Analysis studies.  As well, the Edinburgh Agreement commits the two sides to working together constructively "in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom."  This helps.

On the other hand, some issues would involve hard negotiations - over Trident and the currency, for instance.  Moreover, independence would involve two sets of interlocking negotiations, with Westminster on the one hand and the EU on the other.  A lot of expensive person-days would be consumed in these.

Disentangling Scotland from rUK would be much more costly.  This is the business of implementing independence - transferring public servants, dividing the armed forces and their assets, making arrangements about pensions and other payments, terminating and co-ordinating programs, transferring records, and much more.  Without a great deal of cooperation here, costs rise.

The expense of creating new Scottish institutions has drawn much attention because of the recent Treasury estimates of £2.7billion.  But everything depends on what is set up and how it is done.  Patrick Dunleavy sensibly suggests that Scotland would need ministries of defence, foreign affairs, revenues, and welfare.  This neglects the many specialized agencies that HM Treasury counted in its estimate.  An independent Scotland would need more institution-building than Quebec, which has a very extensive administrative apparatus (including offices abroad).

But here is where cooperation could come in.  It is conceivable that Scotland need not set up a Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency, for instance.  It might purchase services from the DVLA, and avoid set-up costs almost completely.  Such arrangements would erode over time as Scottish and rUK policies diverged, but they can help limit transaction costs.

To the extent that independence does not radically disrupt existing rules and practices, the learning costs to the public are also lessened.

Four concluding observations are warranted.

First, estimates of transaction costs vary, in part because the future is unknowable and in part because politicians deploy estimates to affect voters.

Second, transaction costs are short term.  If a small, nimble economy with custom-made policies can do better economically, short term costs of all kinds can be offset by higher growth (see my analysis on the LSE website).

Third, transaction costs are strictly financial.  There may be other compelling values in vote choice, such as a secure position in the EU or a stronger welfare state.

Finally, however, after a Yes vote, there will inevitably be transaction costs.  The key is to anticipate them and manage them.