SNmr

Keep it calm, your country needs you

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Sat, 04 May 2013 13:40:00 +0000

In terms of the theory, winning elections is a simple process. In my time in Scottish politics, and from my side of the business, I've come to understand three simple rules, which if followed increase the chances of success exponentially.

The first is one I have written about a great deal, the idea that a positive (or more accurately, as I've pointed out before, an optimistic) campaign will always beat a negative campaign. If the battle is between two negatives, then the most negative will win. If it is between a negative and a mixed (part positive, part negative), the negative will win. But if a wholly positive faces a negative or mixed, then the positive will come out victorious. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about what a positive campaign can or cannot do. It doesn't mean you can't highlight a problem or a concern, but rather, the problem has to be balanced with offering a solution. That part of the equation - the solution - is why I am very confident the No campaign will never be able to construct a positive campaign. And, in terms of balance, my rule of thumb is to spend 3 times as long talking about the solution, the way forward, than talking about what is going wrong.

It is also very important that there is authenticity in the claimed problem. I used to always find it amusing that during the 2007 and 2011 election campaigns the SNP's opponents were trying to characterise the party in certain ways, as extremists, out of touch, obsessed with one thing, when the research told us that voters regarded the SNP people they met as being the most human, ordinary and connected: that is why the 'team' element of the SNP's 2011 election campaign was so powerful. People were able to judge the SNP not on what others said, but on what the SNP did. The false characterisations rebounded for many voters, because they didn't ring true. That is a very important lesson for all of us in the Yes campaign, faced as we are with an almost daily barrage of negative assaults, many of them personalised and outlandish. By our own words and actions we will be known.

The second is another oft repeated truism about election campaigns. If the election is fought on your ground, you are likely to win. If it is fought on your opponents ground, they are likely to win. And the ground you define is one that should enable you to build the largest coalition of support. For the No campaign, their ground is clear: uncertainty and "it's all about Salmond". They want people to vote in 2014 on the detail of independence (essentially on a record that doesn't exist, just as they tried with the SNP in 2007) and for it to be a judgement on the First Minister and Scottish Government. This, of course, makes sense given that even in 2011 the SNP fell short of 50% of the vote: an anti-SNP coalition gives the No parties the majority they seek. For Yes, we are determined that people make their decision based on an assessment of what both a Yes and a No will mean - it is a choice of two futures. If people believe Scotland will be fairer and more prosperous after a Yes rather than after a No then they will vote yes, and that is why our efforts must be focused as close to 100% as possible on making this case.

We must also be really aware of how and when people tune in to the debate. For many of us who are active in the campaigns, we have an unhealthy level of engagement with the minutiae and so feel the ebb and flow more than everyone else. In this atmosphere people often miss the underlying movements, concentrating as they are on the next day's headlines. For the SNP in the past, and for Yes now, the most powerful engagements are not through newspaper headlines or in parliamentary exchanges, they are in the personal contacts and through social media - our own channels of communication. That is where victory will be secured. How do I know it? From the 'science' and from experience. People trust their friends and family more than any paper or politician and as we saw in 2007 the SNP faced a major onslaught in the media, including, if you remember, the polling day noose: but the SNP won.

What is most important is how things look in the real world rather than how they feel to us. In this respect there has to be congruence and consistency. To take an example, No undermine their key 'it's all about Salmond' line by highlighting differences of view and alternative opinions about what should happen, policy wise, in an independent Scotland. Because, ultimately, you will only get non-SNP policy choices if you elect a non-SNP government.

The third rule is one I have not written about explicitly before but which, in the context of this particular campaign, is perhaps the most important. It is about the mood we create as much as the detail of any campaign messages. Scotland will not vote Yes in a mood of acrimony or in an atmosphere dominated by anxiety. Anger, rancour, point scoring, pettiness - they put us in the fast lane to a No vote. The psychology of this is unchallengeable - for the majority, anxiety will predispose them to the supposed safety of the status quo. Whereas a case that is presented calmly and with confidence, makes it far, far easier for people to choose Yes.

Above all, we must be respectful of the views expressed by others. You don't convert someone to your cause by telling them they are wrong. You don't bring them on to your side by trashing their roots or their political background. For those of us with an SNP background it may be difficult to admit, but we wouldn't be here today without the efforts of those in the Labour Party who took forward devolution. They didn't do it on their own, and they sometimes leave out the SNP contribution, but without co-operation across the parties the Scottish Parliament (that has, to give just one example, protected our NHS from Tory privatisation) would not be in place. I look forward to building a parliament together that can also protect our welfare state.

The journey to a Yes for a Labour member or supporter will not be an easy one, and the gulf they have to cross will grow larger if the Yes side does not show understanding and respect for the values that motivate them. A Labour Yes comes from a different place than an SNP Yes, just as a Green Yes is based upon different priorities too. And, just as for Labour members and supporters, so too the general public - they want to understand the purpose of more powers, or indeed all powers, as Yes argues.

This is not an ordinary election where, after the votes are counted, the opposing camps can sit on opposite benches in the parliamentary bubble and throw politics at each other. This is about deciding whether or not we build a new independent country. That creates a different sort of responsibility for all of us. And for those, supposedly, on the Yes side, who sit and let poison drip through their key boards, my message is very clear - you are one of the biggest barriers to a Yes success.

But poison can drip just as corrosively from politicians and commentators, and while some of the political sophisticates in the Labour Party may think it is fair play to demonise Alex Salmond, because he is a politician, others without their supposed mastery of political strategy may try to follow their lead. If it is ok to describe Alex Salmond's democratically elected government as a dictatorship or the man himself as the Scottish equivalent of a Mugabe, Mussolini or Milosevic or as akin to North Korea's Dear Leader, are we surprised that others - bloggers, journalists, comedians - are also seen as fair game?

We are extremely fortunate in Scotland to have a truly sophisticated electorate, one that, when it tunes in, sees the bigger picture in a way many of us caught up in the fog of war don't always appreciate. What sways them is very different from what sways a newspaper headline writer. That is why those of us on the Yes side must always take a step back. We must ask, what is it that is really important to the person or people we are engaging with? What is it the people of Scotland want to see and hear over these next 16 months? And that must be our single-minded focus.

Have no doubt they will be turned off by the slightest whiff of the sort of poisonous anger that can drip out in Parliament or from a computer key board. They can smell anger rooted in animosity, hatred and fear a mile away. It will turn them off, just as night follows day. And that goes for both sides. If there is to be anger in this debate don't make it personal, let it be an indignation, an outrage based on the belief that there is a better way.

I should add that these rules or lessons have been learnt by me in their breaking as well as in their keeping. But, as we look forward to the crucial next 500 days, I know that success depends on all of us getting it right.

Devolution and independence part of the same home rule journey

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 15:06:00 +0000

My first introduction to politics was in the early 1990s in an organisation called Scotland United - we campaigned for a multi-option referendum in the period just after the 1992 election returned the Tories to government in the UK (despite Scotland voting overwhelmingly against them). For me independence and devolution are very much part of the same 'more powers' continuum. This is an article I wrote on the Yes Scotland website on this very point:

"Scots like it and want it to continue and grow. Devolution, that is. That’s why we want to complete the powers of the Scottish Parliament, not set limits on them.

Devolution has been a good start: we’ve had a strong Scottish Parliament with full control over things such as health and education. But now Westminster is taking us in a dangerous direction, with greater instability and insecurity through policies such as austerity and welfare changes. It is clear we need a stronger Scottish Parliament and a new approach.

Since devolution in 1999, the Scottish Parliament has delivered for the people of Scotland. Our parliament has led the way with groundbreaking legislation. It has transformed our country and brought power closer to our communities.    It is therefore little surprise that opinion polls routinely show that Scots like devolution and want to see our parliament’s powers grow. In particular these polls tell us that people want the Scottish parliament to be responsible for decisions on tax and welfare and to have the power to remove nuclear weapons from our shores.

In recent weeks the debate about how we build upon the success of devolution has taken centre stage. All the parties in the Scottish Parliament now support the strengthening of devolution.   We all know that devolution is popular. The Yes parties believe the Scottish people should decide how our parliament grows, whereas the No parties believe that decision should be made at Westminster.

The No campaign points out that devolution and separation are two very different ideas. We agree. But devolution and independence are part of the same journey. Independence is very different from separation.

In September 2014 we face a choice between two different paths: building on the success of devolution with an independent parliament or major changes to our society with Westminster’s austerity and welfare changes - with all the risks and uncertainty those things bring.   It’s a choice between focusing on getting our economy back on track - with Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands - or years of uncertainty and instability if we leave Westminster politicians in control.

It is a choice between the values of unity and solidarity, where we work together as equal independent nations (much like the most successful union in the world – the partnership of Scandinavian nations), versus the politics of division, where a Westminster system delivers even greater inequality and undermines so much that is good in our society .

By voting positively for a new partnership on these isles, allowing us to work together as part of the same family of nations, we are taking the opportunity to complete devolution. This completion of devolution with independence is the exact opposite of the separation the No parties talk about. By choosing Yes we can reject the No campaign’s separatist vision and rhetoric – we can reject the sort of Scotland they speak of.

All three No parties are now “actively considering and putting forward their ideas” on how they think we can best develop devolution in future. But the fantastic thing is that we don’t have to wait for these politicians to make up their minds, or indeed to get permission for any changes from their bosses in London. Instead the people of Scotland can choose to complete the devolution project with a Yes vote in 2014.

That’s how we have done it before – through our votes we have a track record of delivering, including the creation of the Scottish Parliament back in 1999. The devolution debate is alive and well. And now that we are seeing the full impact of the new and highly damaging Westminster agenda, more and more Scots are moving towards a Yes.

A Yes to completing devolution with independence. A Yes that once and for all rejects separation and the sorts of divisions in our society delivered by successive Westminster governments over these past 30 years (inequality that respected international experts tell us has grown faster here than anywhere else in the developed world).

The London parties are keen to present this as a false choice between devolution and separation, but nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, with a Yes vote we can get the best of both worlds – an independence that allows us to build on devolution, to see it grow and develop into something that protects us from the worst of Westminster’s ways.

The devolution debate has always been pluralistic with different parties and Scottish society setting out how they want Scotland’s democracy to work. That was how devolution was established in the first place, with all parties campaigning together to deliver a Yes, Yes in 1997. We can achieve the same again in 2014, with a Yes vote bringing Scotland’s home rule journey to a fitting conclusion.

If you want to join the campaign to build on the success of devolution click here."

We've heard it all before

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:33:00 +0000

We’ve heard it all before on oil & gas. The No parties saying one thing in public (that oil wealth is a bad thing for Scotland) but another in private (that oil wealth is a good thing for Scotland). And even worse, saying one thing about oil in Scotland (that it is a bad thing) and another, completely opposite and contradictory, about oil in the UK (that it is a good thing).

And it seems that the figures they are now using to make this topsy-turvy case have been criticised by the oil industry. In a letter of 13th March 2013 to the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR - the people who produce the oil revenue estimates), the Chief Executive of Oil & Gas UK, Malcolm Webb, wrote:

"This year we forecast capital investment will reach £13.5bn, a historic high, even in real terms. This builds on investment of £11.4bn last year. These record levels secure our place as the UK’s largest industrial investor. More importantly, this investment will feed through to increasing production levels in future years – we expect a daily production rate of 2 million barrels of oil equivalent by 2017, providing a vital boost to the UK’s balance of payments and manufacturing output.

It is important to the wider energy debate that the OBR’s forecasts reflect the most up to date information available. Activity levels in the offshore oil and gas sector are constantly changing and as such the most recent forecast commentators are using is your Autumn Statement forecast, which is based broadly on last year’s Activity Survey. This information is now over 12 months out of date."

That's right, the numbers that have been at the heart of the No campaign's recent oil claims are based on information that 'is now over 12 months out of date' and exclude the impact of record high investment. And while the No campaign peddle their oil myths to Scotland, the UK Energy Minister, John Hayes MP, was telling the House of Commons on 14th March 2013 that "North Sea oil and gas have a long and bright future".

But this is not the only inconsistency in the No approach. Let's take a look at the words of No Campaigner in Chief, Alistair Darling, and his contrasting attitudes on oil.

When talking about oil and the UK he said, "there are potentially more than 20 billion barrels of oil and gas still available to be produced, which is good news for industry, our economy and energy supply . . . The oil and gas sector is one of the UK's most important industries..." (Press and Journal, February 2, 2007)

And, a year later, Mr Darling was boasting that there were "substantial reserves" of oil left in North Sea. In an interview on the World at One in 2008 he said: "...anything we can do to increase the amount of oil coming out of the North Sea will help, and although as Professor Kemp was saying, it is a mature field, it's nearly 40 years old now, everybody knows that there are still substantial reserves there..." That same year, the Daily Telegraph reported that 'North Sea oil will last for 100 years'.

Mr Darling is also one of those who dismissed the McCrone Report – the 1970s publication the No parties kept secret remember. Those same No parties were telling us that revenues would be lower than expected and that the oil would soon run out and that an independent Scotland shouldn’t and couldn’t depend on it (recognise the narrative?) when they were being told, in private, the exact opposite - that oil & gas would turn Scotland into one of the wealthiest and most financially secure nations on the planet. In fact the McCrone report made clear that all that was wrong with the SNP estimate of the benefits of oil & gas for Scotland “is that it is far too low”.

But, so we can be clear on the pattern, lets look at what other politicians from the No parties have been saying – telling us that oil & gas would have run out years ago (and confirming that ultimately we can’t trust a word they say on Scotland’s oil & gas future):

"Oil will run out but textiles will not." - Nicholas Winterton MP (Tory), Hansard, 27 March 1985

Timothy Eggar MP (Tory): "Would not my hon. Friend agree that one of the deepest concerns and one of the results of the BGC monopoly is that some private oil companies now predict that we will run out of gas or cease to be self-sufficient by the end of the 1980s?"
Peter Rost MP (Tory): "Undoubtedly this is accepted..." - Hansard, 19 January 1982

"...the benefits of North Sea oil will run out faster than was previously expected..." - Jack Straw MP (Labour), Hansard, 21 February 1983

"...when the oil has run out in 25 years." - Tony Benn MP (Labour), Hansard, 21 May 1979

"North sea revenues will be running out before the end of the decade." - Jeff Rooker MP (Labour), Hansard, 10 April 1984

"...the oil will run out in 30 years instead of 50 years..." - Tony Benn MP (Labour), Hansard, 10 November 1981

"...the oil will last for another 25 years..." - Stuart Bell MP (Labour), Hansard, 19 March 1986

“North Sea oil will run out within the next two decades. It will no longer he there in 30 years' time.” - the late Ioan Evans, Former MP for Cynon Valley (Labour), 1980

"North Sea oil will run out before long" - the late Lord Hampton (Liberal), Hansard, 20 December 1989

The No campaign would like us to think that oil & gas is the only thing going for Scotland and our economy, but nothing could be further from the truth. If we strip out oil & gas from our GDP figures, Scotland’s national wealth is still 99% of the UK level.

Building for the future, we have 25% of the EU’s potential for offshore wind and tidal energy, and 10% of wave power, altogether worth up to £14 billion each year by 2050. We have the whisky industry with exports worth £4.2 billion - 23% of the UK’s food and drink exports, the food and drink industry worth £10 billion, with fish and aquaculture Scotland’s largest food export, tourism which generates over  £5 billion and 200,000 jobs, the Scottish construction industry worth around £21.4 billion annually and agricultural output worth £2.7 billion and 11.4% of UK total agricultural output.

And, we have Scottish ingenuity – for our size we have more highly ranked Universities than the UK, the US or Europe. Good ideas generated by Scots and Scotland have changed the world around us and will continue to do so.

So think on these many strengths and ask yourself, why aren’t we doing better economically?

And each time you hear the No campaign go on about oil & gas remember these three things:

First, for forty years the No parties have been misleading us about the opportunity and future offered by oil & gas – so why should we believe them now?

Second, time after time, it is the SNP and the Yes movement that have provided the most accurate predictions about the contribution oil & gas is making and will make to Scotland’s economy – why should that change now?

And, finally, why on earth should we pay any attention to people who try to persuade us that Trident on the Clyde is good for Scotland, but well over £1 trillion (and as much as £1.5 trillion) of remaining oil & gas reserves is bad for us. It takes a Snake Oil Salesman of epic proportions to get away with that one – so don’t let them.

After all these are the same No parties who haven’t saved and invested a single penny of our oil wealth, an act of gross negligence. Take even a quick look at this list of oil funds around the world to understand the shocking scale of their failure.

We know the date and we know that we can win

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:38:00 +0000

Yesterday’s poll in the Sunday Times provided the most recent snapshot of opinion on Scotland’s constitutional future, with the gap between Yes and No narrowing. According to Panelbase, a swing of only 5% is needed for the pro-Scottish independence campaign to win in 2014.

As the experience of the SNP in the run up to the 2011 election tells us, we have to be cautious about headline poll numbers. Throughout the autumn and winter of 2010/11 the SNP was well behind in the polls, and yet all of us involved in the campaign remained confident in our prospects for a substantial victory in the actual Scottish election. Why? Because the fundamentals underneath the headline numbers told a very different story – including a substantial lead for the SNP on questions such as who would make the best First Minister. We knew that the election was almost certainly going to be fought on this ground, and so it transpired. As we got closer to the actual poll and people focused on the actual issues at stake, these fundamentals transferred into higher SNP support.

The same is the case with the independence polls. While the headline numbers currently show a No lead, the fundamentals paint a different picture – including clear majorities who believe decisions on tax and welfare should be taken in Scotland, higher levels of trust in the Scottish Parliament than Westminster, and the belief that the Scottish Government will do a better job of representing Scottish interests in the EU. Once again, when people actually focus on what the referendum means – and essentially it does mean a choice between a Yes path and a No path (as ably demonstrated by the SNP broadcast last Friday) – then I have no doubt that Yes will win.

Yes Scotland’s research confirms that people are there to be persuaded. At SNP conference this weekend we launched new canvass cards, which have the independence question asked in two ways, including an innovative 1-10 scale. So people are able to tell us how they plan to vote in the referendum – Yes, No or Don’t Know (in the same way as the traditional polls) but they can also say where they are on the scale, with 1 being totally opposed and 10 being totally in favour.

This method is already forming part of our research approach, with thousands of people across the country engaged in this way. The 1-10 scale gives us a more detailed understanding of people’s attitudes towards independence than any poll. If we take ‘don’t knows’ as anyone between 3 and 8 on the scale then just over half of voters in Scotland are undecided. If we narrow that definition to people between 4 and 8 on the scale, just under half are undecided.

And, contrary to some received wisdom, women are not more opposed to independence, but rather women are more undecided. That doesn’t mean that the Yes campaign does not have work to do to make the case to women more effectively, but we should also be aware of two other points. First, if Yes has a ‘women problem’ then that means No has a ‘men problem’ (and they face that problem from what has been their high-water mark in the polls). And, second, with the No campaign’s appalling welfare changes about to come into effect on April 1st and with women set to feel 75% of the impact of those changes, what we can be sure of is that No are on the point of massively alienating this sector of their support.

Which brings me to the third and final lesson from our research – No support is built upon incredibly shaky foundations. We know that many people who currently say they will vote No do so because they have a ‘fact’ or belief that means they think we can’t be independent. This is usually around whether or not we can afford it. These anchors for No support are very fragile and can be removed by a series of simple arguments: essentially being able to persuade people that Scotland’s got what it takes to be an independent country and that, when we look at our many economic strengths, it all adds up to more prosperous Scotland if we are independent and able to determine our own economic future.

Once people have a full understanding of Scotland’s financial position and our economic potential then their doubts about independence are quickly erased and they begin to ask the more pertinent question, not whether we can afford to be independent, but rather, given all we have, why isn’t Scotland a more successful and fairer nation?

Now that we have the date of the referendum, it is my intention to blog a bit more regularly and so, in a few days time, I’ll set out the key arguments that we know, currently, are most effective in drawing people towards a Yes vote.

Who would benefit from a No?

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:07:00 +0000

There were some really unedifying responses to today’s Scottish Government statement on the referendum date, but the prize for most obsessive and most shortsighted surely goes to the Scottish Labour Party’s press release, which led on Salmond announces his retirement date.

I don’t usually speculate on the consequences of a defeat, but the utterly myopic triumphalism of the Labour MSPs in Holyrood has persuaded me, for a short-time only, to break this habit.

So who would benefit, politically, from a No in 2014?

Some commentary today focused on the fact the referendum is being held before the UK party conferences, pointing out that this protected the vote from 3 weeks of non-stop pro-Union campaigning at those events. But few have looked at it from the other perspective.

The UK conferences will effectively kick-start the 2015 UK general election and so just think about the impact of a No vote on those campaigns. Which party would get the biggest electoral boost from a Scottish No (if it happens)? I can assure you, it would not be the Labour Party.

So lets work with Scottish Labour's premise and imagine, if we can, a No scenario in 2014 . . .

Labour and Tories may share a platform and campaign together before the vote, but as soon as the votes are counted there would be only one person in the No victory spotlight. Peer into that future and what do you see? It's David Cameron, UK PM, alone on the winner’s podium. Ed Miliband and Johann Lamont, thank you, your job is done.

I bet the Tories are rubbing their hands in anticipation at the fillip a Scottish No would give them as they enter their pre-election Conference. They would hail the PM as the man who saved their 'nation'. Success breeds success. And no one does flag waving better than the Tories. If you thought John Major was saved by his soapbox campaign to save the Union in 1992, well you ain’t seen nothing yet.

And so today, while Scottish Labour loyalists congratulate themselves in advance of any victory, the rest of us can see the bigger picture. They will have spent 18 months as the foot soldiers of the No campaign, and every door they knock for No, every leaflet they deliver will help, in the event of a No victory, to deliver David Cameron the keys to Downing Street for a second term. You might call it ironic. Let's make sure it doesn't happen.

(p.s. in case there is any doubt, nothing in the above should be read as me thinking there will actually be a No vote in 2014. This scenario was brought to you courtesy of the Scottish Labour Party)

They come bearing half-truths

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:57:00 +0000

The CBI Director-General, John Cridland, has come north to tell Scotland we shouldn't be independent. He has every right to do so.

But what he has no right to do is use half-truths as the basis for his scaremongering.

I hear that Mr Cridland will tell the CBI Annual Dinner in Glasgow tomorrow night that the "immediate effects [of independence] would be profound, and in the short term costly. When Slovakia separated from the Czech Republic, it cost the country four per cent of its GDP in the following year."

But what Mr Cridland won't tell us is what happened next. In the years since independence economic growth in Slovakia has averaged 3.5% each year, compared to 1.9% for Scotland. Their growth rate has been almost double that achieved here. And that extra growth has a direct benefit for ordinary Slovak families - benefits like higher wages, more jobs, higher standards of living. You might call it the Slovaks' independence bonus.

And this excellent economic performance covers the period of the financial crisis when we have been told it was better for Scotland to be part of the bigger UK. In fact, the Slovak economy only contracted for 1 year during the crisis, compared to two years for the UK and for Scotland. And over the past two years of recovery they have enjoyed growth rates of 4.2% and 3.3% compared to 1.3% and 0.4% here. You won't hear the CBI talking about that!

In case you thought this story only applies to Slovakia, don't worry the beneficial effect of independence can be seen elsewhere across Europe.

Lets take the countries in the EU that became independent in the early 1990's (Slovenia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania). Over the past 20 years, the average annual economic growth rate for these six newly independent nations has been 2.9% - thats our growth rate plus half as much again. And remember, more growth means more jobs and opportunities, higher family incomes and a better standard of living.

So don't believe CBI Director-Generals when they tell you Scotland should be happy with our lot. More of the same may suit a CBI boss in London and Tory ministers at Westminster, but it is bad news for families across Scotland.

It is time for something different. There is a better way forward for Scotland. We too can claim our own independence bonus as we use our huge resources, our own tax base and our fantastic international reputation to drive forward our economy and deliver the fairer and wealthier nation we all know, in our hearts and in our minds, that Scotland should be.

Why antis should go to Iceland

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 11:34:00 +0000

The International Monetary Fund has just published its latest statistics for the relative wealth per head of different countries. And, for Iceland, Ireland, Norway and the UK, they paint a fascinating picture.

The figures are based on 'purchasing power parity' which allows us to make a fair comparison between the different countries, and they show that Norway, Ireland and Iceland are all wealthier per head than the UK. Indeed, at no point in the financial crisis did any of the countries dip below the UK in this IMF wealth league table.

If we take a look at 2010, when the full impact of the crisis was being felt, the wealth per head for each country, in current international dollars, was:

Norway 52,164.773
Ireland 39,491.564
Iceland 36,535.164
UK 35,343.700

The UK was 1,191.5 behind the 'poorest' of the three, Iceland at this point.

Fast-forward to this year, 2012, and the IMF estimates:

Norway 54.479.058

Ireland 40.443.263

Iceland 39,082.925

UK 36,605.022

This year, the UK is now forecast to be 2,477.9 "current international dollars" behind 'insolvent' Iceland.

And putting the IMF's crystal ball to full use, lets take a look at referendum year, 2014. What will be the relative strength of the 4 countries by then? Won't being a powerhouse big country have propelled the United Kingdom above lowly Iceland at least?

Norway 57,217.364

Ireland 44,283.334

Iceland 41,647.386

UK 38,935.325

It seems not. In 2014, the UK won't even reach the level of GDP per capita that Iceland enjoyed in 2012. The wealth gap between the two countries will have increased, once again, to 2,712.1 per person.

Similarly, for Ireland, the wealth gap in 2010 saw the Irish still 4,148 "current international dollars" ahead of the UK in wealth per head and, according to the IMF, that Irish advantage will increase to 5348 in 2014.

Norway's 16,821 advantage per person in 2010 becomes 18,727 - pretty much 50% wealthier than the UK.

Not quite what you'd expect from listening to some of the rhetoric, even still, of the anti-parties. Perhaps they should go to Iceland, or Ireland or Norway - small, independent countries which, it seems, now form an Arc of . . . faster recovery.

Outside the bubble

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:46:00 +0000

This week, and the furore in Holyrood over Murdoch, has provided some interesting insights into the way the public engages with the political debate. I should emphasise at the start that this blog is not meant to be a judgment on the various arguments presented, as I think you all can guess which side I would be on.

In the SNP, we have a programme of ongoing engagement with voters through a variety of research techniques, from the old-favourite focus groups to more direct one-to-one conversations, where we test the political pulse of the nation. In recent days, as the debate in Holyrood has reached fever-pitch, we've been out and about, as usual, and the results have thrown up two fascinating points, which are of general interest to those of us with an interest in politics.

The first is where voters get their information. In the past the SNP has been frustrated by our lack of coverage on the network, i.e. UK wide news. We have argued (and indeed bemoaned the fact) that many, indeed most, Scots look to UK outlets as the primary source of news. That focus on UK programmes (and therefore a UK agenda) has been confirmed this week. The fact that the Scottish aspects of the Murdoch story have hardly featured on the 'main' news means that awareness levels are lower than might be expected by those who live and breathe the Holyrood bubble. The Scottish angle is therefore seen as second order, and not the real story. When probing people's attitudes to this week's stories, their responses have been more focused on Mr Hunt than on Mr Salmond.

The second is how voters process the information they do receive. I remember being told that about 10% of communication is about what you say, 40% on how you say it and 50% on how you look (as much about your demeanour as anything else). The insight from our research in recent days is that the lines that have gone down so well in the eyes of the opposition and with many of the Holyrood journalists, are also the ones that have gone down least well with the public. The point when Johann Lamont lost it, it appears, was with her description of the First Minister as 'wee Eck'. It shouldn't come as a surprise when we think about it, because for real people the point when they think someone is losing an argument is when they get personal and start to throw insults. In the real world that is a sign of weakness in an argument, not, as it appears to be in the eyes of Holyrood, a strength. And in terms of tone, the opposition have, in the main, come across as shouty and angry. That may have fired up the troops on the backbenches but if anything it has resonated poorly with voters.

Along side the 'science' there are also the anecdotal points. One of my colleagues put up a Facebook status reporting the comments of a constituent who had been in their office when FMQs was on. The woman's comment on the exchanges was 'who is that rude and angry woman'. An hour or so later, a day-tripper to Edinburgh who had popped in to Parliament to see FMQs - not an SNP member - was so outraged by the tone and nature of Johann Lamont's questioning that he came in to party HQ saying he wanted to donate £50. The donation was gratefully received.

The point here is that what works in Holyrood doesn't always work in Scotland. People look to their politicians for solutions to the problems they face in life (especially at this time of economic uncertainty) and they are turned off by the endless, it seems, politicking. Angry attacks in the chamber may cheer the backbenches and the researchers in the parliamentary offices - and, indeed, they reflect the attitude of these backbenchers and researchers to the SNP. But, the people of Scotland, as a whole, don't hate the SNP and by allowing their own hatred to colour their attacks, Labour are effectively shooting political blanks. The more visceral and over the top they become, the less they resonate with the mainstream of public opinion.

I remember back to the days when the SNP lost election after election, and one of the reasons was we spoke to ourselves and we spent too much time looking inwards to the parliamentary debates. WInning a debating point in parliament seemed like a success. But a key lesson we learnt is that in politics you have to speak to the people, and in a way people can engage with. Think about the people you have as friends - they probably aren't Mr or Mrs Angry, or people who just moan and complain all the time. You spend time with people who are on the same wavelength and engage with you in a decent way. And those friends who you have grown to like can make mistakes without it threatening the relationship. That is what adult relationships are about and it is this sort of relationship with voters that politicians should aspire to. As adults we no longer seek the same sort of friendships we had in the playground and so politicians who behave as though they are in the political playground are on a hiding to nothing, in my view.

At this point in the local elections, thousands of door step contacts are pouring in to SNP HQ each day and the sophisticated voter analysis tools we have built up over the years give us a very clear understanding of the level of SNP support in the country. The numbers we had last year told us way before the polls that we were in the lead and the final figure in our own numbers was very close to our final vote. And this week, we have, of course been paying close attention to the numbers. The good news for the SNP is that our vote share is steadily increasing and has done so each and every day this week. In part that is because we have worked hard to build the sort of adult relationship with voters that is bigger than the flurries of opposition name-calling - after all voters are interested in substance, in what a politician will do for them: not who they had breakfast with 5 years ago.

Mr Cameron's speech

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:34:00 +0000

Once again, it's been a while since my last post!

However, I couldn't resist a quick comment on Mr Cameron's speech in Edinburgh yesterday.

It had some wonderfully crafted sections, with real poetry and some nice imagery. But, like candy floss, it was all fluff, with no real substance. And, after the initial sugar rush of sentiment, the hunger for change remains.

There was one section of his speech that was of particular interest to me - the Prime Minister's suggestion that the case for independence is weakened because many Scots live south of the border, and many English people north of the border. I lived in England for over 10 years and worried about the state of the English NHS and voted in local elections and cared about the quality of the school my (English) partner's son went to. But none of this made me think that Scotland should not be independent.

Indeed, I think the fact that so many Scots live in England and have built a life and a family in England should lead us to the opposite conclusion.

First, Scots living in England is clearly not an argument against independence. When I last looked at the figures there were, proportionately, as many people from the Republic of Ireland living in England as Scots - and clearly Ireland is not ruled from Westminster.

Second, it is also not an argument for closer union. The fastest growing and largest group of people now living in England is EU citizens. A UK government parliamentary answer in 2009 suggested that almost 900,000 people from the EU 15 states (i.e. not the new accession countries like Poland or the Czech Republic) live in the UK and Channel 4's fact check quotes an ONS figure of almost 1.8 million for 2008-09. So, if the Prime Minister's argument is correct, he should be telling us about the need for even greater European integration - which clearly he is not.

Finally, the reason why the PM has unwittingly undermined his own anti-independence case is that the number of Scots living in England (and vice-versa) is confirmation of the strength of our social union, which will continue with independence. What will end is the residency in London of the 59 Scottish MPs sent to the House of Commons (at a cost of £50 million). We will no longer have a political union which sees a Tory PM we didn't vote for, running far too many of our affairs.

The connections that bind us together as part of a family of nations will remain. How do I know this? Well, it was in the 1980s that Westminster lost its final legal power to legislate for Canada and Australia (what we seek for Scotland) and yet, this doesn't stop tens of thousands of Canadians or Australians setting up home in the UK. Add to them the New Zealanders or South Africans, the Indians and Pakistanis (and more) who live in and contribute to England. The same parliamentary answer I referred to earlier, shows 150,000 Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders living in the UK.

These Commonwealth citizens reside happily in England and they are proof that yes, independence means the end of Westminster rule, but it does not mean the end of the close bonds of history, family or residency that link us together. The fact that so many Scots live in England is proof, if it was ever needed, that the social union will flourish with independence.

Tomorrow

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:00:00 +0000

Tomorrow is a day that will go down in Scottish history.

In 20 years time, as we look back on how Scotland became independent, 25th January 2012 will be seen as the starting point. The interviews to the media, the photographs from the referendum consultation launch, will feature in the retrospectives and in the history books. Those images and soundbites will become part of our nation's story, a well-remembered back drop: the sights and sounds at the very beginning of a process that will change Scotland for good.

This is the most exciting project that any nation can undertake. We have the opportunity to choose a better way forward, to choose the right path for this 21st century.

70 journalists from nations around the globe will be in Edinburgh tomorrow to witness events. They know something is happening in Scotland - they can see a nation on the move. I was speaking to one of them today. A man who has witnessed the emergence of many new, independent nations, and indeed, whose own country became independent in living memory. And he used a phrase that has stuck with me:

"Every independence movement has its heroes, men and women who perform herculean tasks for their country."

Across Scotland tonight are the men and women who will become Scotland's heroes. The people who will build our new, independent nation. Some will be at the coal face of government, working hard to ensure that on day one as an independent country, Scotland has everything in place, with the firm foundations we need to prosper and grow. Knowing many of these people, I have no doubt that they will be successful in this task.

However, the majority of our independence heroes will not work for the government or for the SNP. But, over these next two and a half years, they will be the people who deliver independence. They will be advocates and ambassadors for independence, making the case in their work places and on the doors.

And, they will have a powerful and winning message: independence will put the people who care most about Scotland, that is the people who live and work in Scotland, in charge of Scotland's future and Scotland's success.

No one is better placed to govern Scotland than the people of Scotland themselves. No one will do as good a job, because we have the greatest stake in making our country the best it can possibly be. It really is that simple.

Another one bites the dust . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:03:00 +0000

Another independence scare-story bites the dust, or in this case, more precisely, has been explictly denied.

The Independent on Sunday, quoting UK government sources, suggested that Spain would seek to veto Scottish membership of the EU. The parallel given was Spain's refusal to recognise Kosovo and the claim was based on alleged Spanish fear that Scottish independence in the EU would "encourage separatist ambition" in Catalonia and the Basque Country.

The IoS story has now resulted in what seems to be a stern rebuke from the Spanish Foreign Minister (translation provided via Google translate).

The actual position of the Spanish government is that the referendum on independence is an internal matter for the UK and that Scottish independence and the situation in Catalonia and the Basque Country are "completely different processes in which no parallels can be drawn (translation)". The story in IoS was "strictly false".

It shows how far British ministers are willing to go to try and misinform and, basically, scare people in Scotland. As the First Minister pointed out yesterday, this story was based, not on what Spain was saying, but on a UK government briefing. However, it's a big deal for the UK to have one of its allies forced to deny a story emanating from "senior Foreign Office sources" using quotes from "a senior UK minister".

This is the latest in a string of empty scare-stories from the anti-independence campaign. In future, perhaps they should all come with a special government health warning - "please take with a very large pinch of salt".

Our own voice and our own priorities

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:11:00 +0000

The anti-independence campaign has shifted focus. In their sights, Scottish defence policy. Last week we had Tory Defence Secretary Philip Hammond, describing SNP defence plans as "laughable". This, of course, from a Defence Secretary with an aircraft carrier but no planes to fly from it . . .

Mr Hammond also wishes to spend billions on new nuclear weapons, replacing Trident, a cold-war relic designed with the sole purpose of obliterating the USSR, with 'son of Trident', a nuclear missile system designed, well, to obliterate the USSR. But the USSR no longer exists - you get my point. So what is the purpose of spending £100 billion on new nuclear weapons? It seems, solely to keep the UK's seat on the UN security council - £100 billion to be spent so the British Prime Minister can keep up the pretence of global influence and power. Laughable? Perhaps, if it wasn't so serious.

And then we had Labour's Lord George Robertson of Port Ellen, former NATO General Secretary, describing SNP plans as perilous, despite those plans being for a defence posture similar to NATO members and partners such as Denmark, Norway, Austria or Sweden. I presume that when he was NATO General Secretary, Lord Robertson didn't believe those nations' defence profiles were perilous to them or their allies. Indeed, as we saw recently, Denmark, a nation the same size as Scotland, flew, together with Norway, as many sorties over Libya as the UK. To put it at its simplest, what the SNP proposes for Scotland is what suffices for the UK's allies.

I saw a quote recently, which some attribute to Ghandi: "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you and then you win". It seems very appropriate as we watch the anti-independence campaign unfold.

The UK government clearly doesn't have a clue about Scotland or where Scotland stands today. It seems a big part of their strategy, if they have one, is to try to talk us down, to tell us that we shouldn't rise above our station and do the things the big boys do. Have an army? Not Scotland, no. Although it's ok for Norway and Denmark, for Sweden and Austria. Have our own foreign policy, our own national interests and our own priorities? No, leave that to those who know best.

The problem for the Westminster government is that we've seen how they've managed our defence policy and how they have spoken and acted for Scotland on the international stage. UK government figures confirm decades of defence under-investment in Scotland, while we bear the risk of housing Britain's weapons of mass destruction. Decades of cuts, base closures and amalgamations. Soldiers sent into the frontline with inadequate equipment, maritime reconnaissance cover removed from Scottish waters, no major conventional surface vessels operating from Scotland. A smaller military footprint in Scotland than in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria or New Zealand. And I haven't even mentioned Iraq, yet.

An ever-growing number of people are realising that taxpayers in Scotland contribute more than £3 billion to the UK Ministry of Defence and that nearly one-third of that huge total is not spent here. We pay our fair share, and more, which means, with independence we are in a strong position to safeguard our bases, regiments and the appropriate capabilities needed for the 21st century.

They want us to believe that Scotland is too stupid to run our own foreign policy. That somehow we are uniquely incapable - a claim brought to you by the very same people who delivered the biggest foreign policy disaster in perhaps 50 years, yes, in Iraq. But don't worry there's another one beckoning as Mr Cameron puts Britain on the fast-track to isolation in Europe and, if his backbenchers have their way, withdrawal from our biggest trading partner, the EU.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating, because the anti-independence camp don't yet realise. Scotland isn't the same country it once was. Our eyes were opened long ago. We won't be frightened out of this choice. The more they laugh at us, the more they fight us with their belittling scare-stories, the more certain I am that we will win. Roll on 2014.

Nostalgia meets the cold light of day

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:06:00 +0000

I was fascinated by Douglas Alexander's approach on Question Time last week. Not so much his demeanour and behaviour (as someone born just down the road, I always thought Bishopton boys were brought up to behave much better than that), but more the substance of his comments.

Mr Alexander's first line of argument revolved around the question: do we really want to break up the nation that defeated fascism together? He was referring, of course, to the Second World War. We owe the most enormous debt to those men and women who sacrificed their lives to protect this country. In many ways we owe them everything. Like Douglas Alexander, I was not around to experience the horror, the fear, the heartbreak, the courage or the indomitable spirit of those who lived through the war, I simply heard the stories second hand. But what I do know, intuitively, is that the Second World War should never be used as the basis for political point scoring.

Men and women who believed in the Union and in independence fought and died together.

Nations around the world united to stand up to the fascist threat, including some newly independent of Britain and some not. Even when Britain 'stood alone', the reality is that we stood shoulder to shoulder with, and fought alongside, people from New Zealand, Australia, the West Indies, South Africa, Canada, Newfoundland and India to name just a few.

And, have no doubt, an independent Scotland and an independent England would unite to fight fascism, or a similar threat, today, just as Scots, Welsh, English, Irish (including many from the south), Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, South Africans and more did 70 years ago. You didn't have to be one country to fight fascism 70 years ago and you don't have to be one country to fight for what is right today.

The political point I will make is not about the past, it is about the future. In years to come, being independent will give Scotland the choice to fight with others, once again, in a just war, like WW II, and allow us to keep our young men and women out of an illegal war, like Iraq.

Mr Alexander's second argument followed on closely from his first: do we really want to break up the nation that, after the war, built up the NHS and the welfare state? 60 years ago the London government was building these things up, with the full support and participation of Scotland. Now, they are knocking them down.

And this is not a sudden or new direction of travel. For 30 years the choice of Westminster politicians has been to move further and further away from the social democratic founding ethos of our welfare state. This may make uncomfortable reading for Scottish Labour supporters, but they know in their hearts it is true: not even 13 years of a (New) Labour government reversed the trend, it didn't even halt it.

The country being fashioned by London governments is not the one we "built together" after the war. Devolution has allowed us to save our NHS from Tory plans to dismantle the service down south. Independence (or indeed devo-max) will allow us to save the rest of our social democratic society. And it is a society and a consensus, here in Scotland, that is under grave threat. If you doubt this, just read the Spartacus report to see what is being done, in our name, yes, in our name too, to some of the most vulnerable people in our country.

The "what we built together" argument harks back to a Britain that no longer exists. Nostalgia, as an anti-independence weapon, will back-fire spectacularly. Because, once the warm glow dissipates, the cold reality of today and the future comes crashing in.

Yes, we fought a just war together and would do the same again, but we don't want any part of Westminster's illegal foreign adventures and horrific weapons of mass destruction.

Yes, together we built the NHS, the state pension, the welfare state, but today, the NHS is on the way out in England as Tories build on Tony Blair's 'reforms'. And does anyone seriously believe the state pension or the welfare net are safe in David Cameron's hands?

Douglas Alexander is one of Labour's top thinkers, but by asking Scots to look to the past he serves only to highlight the many ways Britain is no longer the same country. The post-war Union 'deal' has changed - against the will of the Scottish people expressed in election after election. The pace has stepped up, once again, under the Tories, but have no doubt the terms of the partnership have been altered by successive Westminster governments.

If we want to protect and preserve the things we hold dear, the things that reflect our values and our priorities, then independence is the answer.

If we see the contract we thought we had signed together, changing beyond recognition, is it not time to look for a new deal? To replace the old Union we have today with a more modern relationship that works for both nations as we move forward together in this 21st century?

Let London, if they choose, spend precious billions on new nuclear bombs rather than those same billions on better childcare or decent pensions. But not in our name. Instead, let the people of Scotland, the people who care most about Scotland, choose a better way. Let us learn from the past, and build for the future with independence.

Fair shares

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:19:00 +0000

As the London media tries to play catch up on the independence issue, we are starting to see many of the old hoary issues resurrected.

One, of course, is currency. What currency would an independent Scotland use?

Scotland already has a currency - its called the pound, aka sterling, aka £. On independence day that will remain our currency.

Lets be clear, the London government doesn't have exclusive ownership. It is as much our currency as it is the rest of the UK's. Any suggestion that a Tory government in London will have to give us permission to use sterling is just absurd. Decisions on sterling's future use will not be for London to take unilaterally, they will be for Scotland and the rest of the UK to take together.

And what about the Bank of England, aka the UK's central bank? Some might argue that because a Scot created it, we should take ownership after independence . . . but that wouldn't be fair!

The UK's central bank is something Scotland and the rest of the UK own together - we must not forget that. This means the rest of the UK does not have exclusive rights to the institution, or an exclusive say on its future. The Bank of England was a private company nationalised after the Second World War. Scotland will be entitled to its share of this asset and, as 'part-owner', Scotland will be entitled to representation (something we don't have just now).

An independent Scotland doesn't start from scratch. We already have everything we need (or a share of everything we need). We are entitled to a fair and equitable share of the assets and are responsible for a fair and equitable share of the liabilities we have built up together.

What we won't have a claim to is those assets that nature has bestowed on the rest of the UK. The coal under Yorkshire or Wales was not put there by the Union. Scotland has no claim to it. And the Union didn't put oil and gas under Scottish waters, so, quite simply, the rest of the UK has no claim to that.

Thank you, Mr Cameron

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 19:20:00 +0000

It's not often that I spend my Sunday lunchtime with colleagues from the SNP, but this Sunday the smiles weren't anything to do with the quality of the food or the conversation. It was all down to the interview the Prime Minister had given to the BBC earlier on Sunday morning.

It seems the UK government has blinked.

The mistake is not to offer the Scottish Parliament the power to hold an independence referendum (not that we need it). On its own that would have been seen as a constructive suggestion designed to protect the poll from mischievous intervention in the courts by those with the determination (and deep enough pockets) to try to stop the people from having their say. It would have shown respect for the mandate given by the people of Scotland to the SNP in May.

But what is a mistake, and a monumental one, is to try and attach conditions.

A party with just one MP in Scotland, that has been rejected time after time by Scottish voters, thinks it knows best. And thinks it can tell the Scottish Parliament what to do on timing, on wording and even on the choice that will be offered to the people. No wonder thoughtful Unionists, like Malcolm Chisholm think it is madness.

It is clear that the Tory Party doesn't understand Scotland. Their Westminster MPs don't really care about what happens up here. But one thing they do understand, to the point of obsession, is Europe. So let me explain, in language they will understand, just what they are about to do. And I don't do it to try and make them change their mind, but because the die is now cast: they have chosen their course.

Just a few months ago Tory backbenchers proposed a multi-option referendum on the UK's relationship with the EU. The referendum would ask people whether they wanted the status quo, a return of some powers from Europe or withdrawal from the EU. Can you imagine the furore if the EU Commission had intervened and said you can hold your referendum but only if it is a single question, with certain wording and within a time-frame that we, the EU, will decide? Such an action by the EU would have added millions to the 'UK independence' vote.

And as with Europe, so with Scotland. This is a decision for people living in Scotland: the sovereign people who have the right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. We entered the Union as an equal partner and we have the right to decide our future in that Union: whether we want some of the powers we gave before repatriated (as some may press for) or whether we want a completely new relationship as equal, independent nations. The Tory government in London is entitled to make the anti-independence case, but they have no right to try to hijack the referendum.

Today, we've seen a spike in hits on the SNP website and numerous telephone calls to the office. Thank you Mr Cameron! I can hardly have imagined a better start to the New Year for those of us who believe in an independent Scotland.

The Tory government is showing no respect for the voters, the parliament or the government of Scotland. They think they can treat us as though we were their Eton fag. They act towards Scotland in a way they would not accept for themselves. They just don't get it.

20 years out of date?

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:59:00 +0000

I've been busy in recent weeks getting the first piece of written work for my PhD finished. It is now in, I've caught up with my sleep and so back to regular, I hope, blogging.

And it is appropriate, for this first blog back, to focus on a subject that I am starting to understand much, much better than before: an independent Scotland's relationship with the EU, in particular the legal aspects.

Jim Sillars was in the papers yesterday talking about the SNP's policy on the EU and whether or not an independent Scotland would be a member of the EU. Jim Sillars was probably the first SNP politician I ever spoke to. I remember doing an interview with him as part of a school project in the immediate aftermath of his victory in the Govan by-election. He is someone who could, and did, inspire. I left the interview not yet persuaded, but perhaps with a few seeds sown in my mind. I've still got a copy of the interview lying around somewhere, if I can ever find a cassette recorder to play it again.

But back to the EU. Jim spends about a third of his article setting out why he thinks an independent Scotland might not be a continuing member of the EU. Somewhat ironically, given that he criticises the SNP policy on Europe for being 20 years out of date, the legal arguments he uses are themselves 20 years old and now very definitely out of date.

One of the most significant cases in EU law in recent years, dealing with the relationship between international law and EU law, was a case called Kadi. This was the subject matter of my Masters earlier this year.

Kadi was about a UN Security Council sanctions regime to freeze the assets of people associated with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. To cut a long story short, the European Court of Justice held that the measures to put the regime in place EU-wide breached general principles of EU law (basically Mr Kadi's fundamental rights) and were thus illegal, even though they had their origin in a Security Council resolution i.e. the very pinnacle of the international legal order. It was the ECJ declaring (or, in reality, confirming) the autonomy of the EU legal order from international law.

What does this mean for Scotland's membership of the EU? Simply, that the decision will not be taken on the basis of international law, state succession or the Vienna Conventions. It will be taken on the basis of EU law and that can be enforced by the European Court of Justice.

In recent years, there have been some specific developments in EU law that are of relevance. First, we have a new 'voluntary withdrawal' clause in the Lisbon Treaty. This, broadly speaking, requires either (i) negotiation or (ii) a minimum 2 year period, before a Member State can leave the EU. Link this to the Greenland precedent (whereby part of a Member State had to negotiate to withdraw from the EU) and you get the picture. It is not possible for a unilateral act of a single Member State or part of a Member State to result in the immediate withdrawal of that Member State (or part) from the EU. Given this position, to claim, as some still do, that Scotland would cease to be part of the EU on independence day is, if I can revert to political-speak, lacking in credibility. Scotland would continue to be part of the EU, and negotiations on voting weight, number of MEPs etc would be conducted from within the Union.

Second, the development of EU citizenship as a 'fundamental status' for Member State nationals in the EU. This is a fast-moving area of EU law, with cases such as Rottmann and Ruiz Zambrano pointing the way. It will be the focus of my second year of studies and so I will restrict my comments. However, again, I find it difficult to conceive of a situation whereby the Court of Justice would allow the removal of EU citizenship rights from 5 million Scots en masse. On Independence Day, Scotland will still be part of the EU and Scots will still be EU citizens.

A few final thoughts. First, Jim talks about the option of being a member of the EEA. However, the non-EU members of the EEA (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein - they are described as the EFTA states) have the vast majority of the obligations of EU membership but without the opportunity to influence those decisions. The EEA agreement, at Article 6, requires that the terms of the agreement are interpreted in conformity with the case law of the European Court of Justice, but the EFTA states do not have judges on the ECJ. Article 7 requires that the EFTA states implement EU regulations and directives relating to the single market, and again, those states don't have representation in the Council or European Parliament where that legislation is developed and decided. The implementation of the single market is where a significant proportion of EU legislation and EU case law is focused and to subject ourselves to the laws without the opportunity to be part of making those laws seems far from ideal (and indeed a significant loss of sovereignty). The EFTA states also make a financial contribution on the same basis as EU members, amounting to just under 3% of the EU budget. Indeed Norway contributes over €200 million to projects to reduce social and economic disparities in the EU.

The EEA agreement excludes fishing and agriculture and also areas like foreign relations and defence co-operation and the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (including the Schengen Agreement for open borders). However, EFTA members have signed up to Schengen. It is also important to recognise that in many areas outside the single market the national veto remains, for example over foreign relations, taxation and defence co-operation (and indeed over Treaty amendments). Scotland in the EU would not have to sign up to Schengen and would retain the veto over these other key policy areas and future Treaty changes.

Finally, and briefly, another misapprehension apparent in Jim's article is that any agreement on fiscal co-operation between the eurozone states would necessarily involve an independent Scotland. As I have written elsewhere, EU law makes crystal clear that Scotland cannot be required to join the euro and it is also clear that any further economic integration, if it comes, would only be required of the eurozone countries.

Saying Scotland should join the EEA may make a good soundbite or newspaper headline, but when you look at the substance and the legal basis for the agreement, it actually means Scotland retaining most of the obligations without any corresponding representation. I don't think that is a good option or a good deal. That's why independence in the EU remains the right choice for Scotland's future.

Don't do as we do . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 16:08:00 +0000

A couple of weeks ago, if you remember, there was a furore over whether or not the Scottish Government (a) had and (b) should publish, legal advice on Scotland's membership of the EU.

At FMQ's on 10th November, the new Tory leader, Ruth Davidson, said that the First Minister was "feart to publish the legal advice on an independent Scotland joining Europe".

Speaking after FMQs that day (and reported in the Sunday Herald on the 13th November), Iain Gray thundered: "The SNP has effectively taken out a superinjunction against the people of Scotland: not only are we not allowed the facts, we're not even allowed to know whether the advice exists."

And, not to be undone, Willie Rennie of the Lib Dems, demanded that "if the Scottish people are to make any kind of informed decision, we need clarity on the advice the SNP has received. If not, it will be in danger of losing the mandate it gained in May."

The day before, in Westminster, there was similar refrain, with Lib Dem grandee and former leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, pressing Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore: "Do you agree it would help to resolve the uncertainty if the Scottish Government would publish the legal advice it has received on this point so it could contribute properly to the debate?" Mr Moore replied, "that's a very important point".

So with all these demands by the UK government parties (Lib Dem and Tories) and their Calman partners (Labour) for the advice to be released, and being an inquisitive sort of chap, I thought I would see whether or not the UK government (a) had and (b) would publish, its legal advice on Scotland's membership of the EU.

I had a fair inkling that the advice existed, given that it had been 'leaked' a few days previously to one or two of the Scottish papers. And, of course, I had a special interest. Scotland's membership of the EU is the focus of my PhD: seeing the UK government legal advice would be tremendously useful for my studies.

So, earlier this week, provoking great anticipation and excitement, the UK government's reply to my Freedom of Information request popped into my inbox. Would I get reams of detailed and considered legal argument and sombre, thoughtful conclusions? Not a chance.

Here's the reply - with my emphasis added:

"Dear Mr Noon

Thank you for your email of 10 November making a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

You have requested copies of all the legal advice arising from Scottish independence including membership of the European Union.

In accordance with section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (information subject to legal professional privilege), I am unable to confirm or deny whether this department holds any information relating to legal advice on this subject. Such advice would be advice in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings, and is therefore exempt under section 42 of the Act.

Section 42 is not an absolute exemption; it is subject to the public interest test in the Act. There is a strong in-built public interest in withholding information to which legal professional privilege applies. The Courts have recognised that where a request is received under the Act and reliance is placed on section 42, there is a strong inherent public interest in maintaining legal professional privilege. In order to overcome that public interest there would need to be a countervailing public interest factor of at least equal significance that favoured disclosure. This reflects the role of legal professional privilege as a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole rests and the importance for the Government being able to obtain free and frank legal advice so that decisions taken are properly informed and legally sound.

Whilst we recognise there is a public interest in seeing what legal advice (if any) has been provided to the UK Government on the implications for EU membership if Scotland were to achieve independence, we have concluded that this is outweighed by the strong public interest in the Government being able to seek free and frank legal advice on such matters."

So there we have it.

For the Lib Dems and Tories, a clear case of 'don't do what I do, do what I say'.

As a footnote, I was tempted to ask Mr Rennie whether this response means the UK government is "in danger of losing" its mandate, but then remembered the Tory government (and its Lib Dem supporters) have no mandate in Scotland.

A compelling and simple case

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:31:00 +0000

I've had a few people ask me about the legal basis for holding a referendum on independence.

With my 'PhD student' hat on I'll say that this is something I am currently looking at, and will report back with the results of my own analysis of the legal position at some stage.

However, with my 'political adviser' hat on, I'll set out briefly some of the existing legal and political commentary on the ability of the Scottish Parliament to test the public's opinion on independence.

At its most basic, the legality of a referendum will be determined by its purpose. The argument here is a simple one. First, a referendum will only seek to find out people's views on whether or not they want Scotland to become independent. And second, and linked to this, it will not seek to change any reserved law. That will remain the responsibility of the UK Parliament.

So here are some previous legal views on the referendum:

The leading textbook on Scottish Constitutional law, (Scotland's Constitution: Law and Practice, Himsworth and O'Neill, 2009) discussing legislative competence, concludes:

“A recurring hypothetical example with a high political profile is that of a Bill to authorise the holding of a referendum on independence for Scotland. Because its purpose could be interpreted as the testing of opinion rather than the amendment of the constitution, such a Bill would almost certainly be within the Parliament's powers"

Stephen Tierney, Professor of Constitutional Theory, Edinburgh Law School, Scotsman, 7 June 2011:

"The Scottish Parliament has authority to stage a referendum. The Union is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act; the Scottish Parliament certainly cannot unilaterally authorise secession. But a referendum question, carefully framed, asking the Scottish people if they would like the Scottish Government to enter into negotiations with the UK government, would seem clearly to be within the Scottish Parliament's competence."

Colin Munro, Professor of Constitutional Law, Edinburgh Law School, Scotsman, 11 March 1998:

“There is nothing to stop the Parliament arranging to hold a referendum, because that would not involve a change in the law”

Mark Walters, Associate Prof. of Law, Queen’s University, Ontario, Modern Law Review 62 1999:

“The Scotland Act 1998 confers broad legislative powers which are (apparently) to be exercised on behalf of the Scottish electorate; hence, a consultative referendum – even on secession – would not conflict with the policy of the Act so long as its purpose is to assist the Scottish Parliament in determining the democratic will of the electorate.”

And this is what the politicians have been saying:

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, PA Newswire, 8 May 2011:

"Prime Minister David Cameron told Mr Salmond he will not stand in the way of the referendum, and said he will reflect on Mr Salmond's requests for devolution of borrowing powers, corporation tax and the Crown Estate Commission in the meantime."

Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore, BBC website, 8 May 2011

"I firmly believe the Scottish Parliament, if it so decides, can proceed with a referendum," Mr Moore said, adding: "There will be the normal electoral rules that have to be followed and it will have to be discussed carefully with the relevant authorities."

The Scottish secretary added: "We could, I suppose, try to make a constitutional issue about where the powers lie or don't, but I don't think that would be a sensible use of anybody’s time.”

Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, Scotsman 12th November 2011:

“The ball is in Alex Salmond’s court. He is the one who has advocated Scotland becoming independent, so it’s really for him to suggest how he will hold the referendum and when he will hold it.”

The argument that it is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to hold a consultative referendum (to repeat, something that in itself doesn't change any reserved law) was, of course, put forward by the late Professor Neil MacCormick in his article "Is there a Constitutional Path to Scottish Independence, (2000) 53 Parliamentary Affairs 721. Professor Neil summed it up well, making the point that this reading of the law is "as compelling as it is simple". I couldn't agree more.

Euro membership

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:14:00 +0000

There has been much discussion among politicians and the press in recent days, including at FMQs today, about whether or not an independent Scotland would be required to adopt the euro.

As someone newly qualified in EU law, I thought I would take a look, not at the political arguments, but at the black letter law - what the Treaties actually say.

So lets explore the 'worst case scenario' put forward by Labour and Tory politicians: Scotland as an accession state.

This is the legal position on euro membership:

The most recent accession treaty (for countries such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia and Poland) contains the following provision:

"Each of the new Member States shall participate in Economic and Monetary Union from the date of accession as a Member State with a derogation within the meaning of Article 122 of the EC Treaty"

Article 122 of the EC Treaty has now been replaced by Articles 139 and 140 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). If you stop at this point, the argument seems won - all new members "shall participate" in the single currency. However, there is another step. We need, also, to look at what Articles 139 and 140 TFEU actually say.

These articles apply to all Member States without a euro opt out, whether old or new, whether accession or not. Article 139 TFEU sets out that "Member States with a derogation" do not participate in the single currency or monetary union. Article 140 TFEU then makes clear that euro membership is not automatic. In order to join the euro, a Member State has to satisfy certain criteria, including currency convergence as part of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II).

So what are the rules for participation in ERM II? These are set out in the 16 June 1997 Resolution of the European Council establishing the Exchange Rate Mechanism and the 16th March 2006 agreement between the European Central Bank and the national central banks of the Member States outside the euro area. These make clear "participation in ERM II is voluntary for the non-euro area Member States".

So, in summary, the Treaties make clear that a Member State can't join the euro without demonstrating currency convergence as part of ERM II "for at least two years" and because Scotland (or any other Member State, old or new) can choose whether or not to join ERM II, we can't be forced to join the euro. There is a point of decision - whether or not to join the Exchange Rate Mechanism - which is ours to take, and if we don't join ERM II, we won't be joining the euro.

As a final thought, I started work for the SNP in the House of Commons and have huge respect for the House of Commons library and its highly effective staff. It is therefore very disappointing that they should put out a report on euro membership for an independent Scotland without referring to what the Treaties and other provisions of EU law actually say. I hope that mistake is now remedied.

When yes means yes

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:15:00 +0000

Over the past few days we've seen some comment on how a two question referendum in Scotland might work. People are asking what happens if devo max gets more yes votes than independence in such a ballot?

As the First Minister has made clear, the SNP will be campaigning full square for independence in the referendum. He is also open to including a question in the referendum on extending devolved responsibilities. And the Scottish Government has previously set out how this would work.

In the model proposed in the draft referendum bill in the last session, the choice would not be framed as an either/or. This is where the misunderstanding (or refusal to understand) arises.

Instead, the consultation paper sets out that voters would be asked, first, whether they want the Scottish Parliament to have responsibility for all matters except defence and foreign affairs. Then, they would be asked whether they want the additional powers that would take us to independence.

This is the same approach as in 1997. Scots were first asked whether they wanted a Scottish Parliament with responsibility for health, education, justice etc. Then, as the second question, whether they - in addition - wanted that parliament to have tax-varying powers. The two options weren't competing.

So if there is a 2 question referendum on independence the approach, based on the 2010 consultation paper, would, in broad terms, be as follows. First, people are asked whether they want the parliament to have responsibility for the economy, welfare, energy etc (i.e. devo max). Then they are asked if they want the parliament - in addition - to have responsibility for the other policy areas that mean Scotland would become independent.

Going back to 1997, three-quarters of Scots voted for the Parliament and just less than two-thirds for the additional tax varying powers. On the argument being presented by the Lib Dems and others, this result should mean that because the 'parliament only' option had more votes than the 'parliament plus tax-varying powers' option then the 'parliament only' option won. That is patently nonsense.

I've heard some say that in the independence referendum the two options wouldn't be linked. If you look back at the draft bill, that's clearly not the case. And, given that many of these same people are describing the middle option as 'independence-lite', the obvious point is, you can't have it both ways.

Another Scotland Office boomerang

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:21:00 +0000

The Scotland Office has published information today on Scotland's budgetary position within the UK over the past 30 years.

The press release from Mr Moore is headlined: 'Scottish Government must explain £41 billion oil deficit'. The claim is that over the past 30 years total spending in Scotland (including our share of 'UK services' like defence and foreign relations) has been £41 billion higher than total revenues, including oil and gas revenues.

An impressive piece of politics you might think? Proof that Scotland is 'too poor, too small etc' to be independent. But no, this is the Scotland Office, and it is an attack that has quickly fallen flat on its face.

If you look at the equivalent UK figures, the total UK deficit is £715.5 billion - and Scotland's population share of this is some £60 billion.

So, under current arrangements as part of the UK, over the past 30 years, Scotland has accumulated a share of the UK deficit equal to £60 billion.

As an independent country, we would have accumulated, according to the Scotland Office's own figures, a deficit of £41 billion. That is £19 billion less debt than we currently have as part of the UK.

Put it another way, the UK has burdened each and every Scot with additional debt equivalent to £3,800.

Mr Moore's latest boomerang attack is relevant to the independence debate in two ways. First, looking backwards. He has confirmed that Scotland would have been better off as an independent country: £19 billion better off.

And second, looking forward. Because he has told us just how much Scotland has actually contributed to the UK national debt over the last 30 years, we can now work out what our share of that debt will be, and it isn't the £60 billion from our population share. Instead, Mr Moore has helpfully lopped £19 billion off the figure that an independent Scotland will inherit. That means, on independence, Scotland will have lower national debt and lower annual debt repayments than if we remain part of the UK.

Once again, the Scotland Office shoots and scores a spectacular own goal. It must be the most costly press release ever issued. Although future Scots will thank Mr Moore, because he has single-handedly saved an independent Scotland a rather handy £19,000,000,000. So all I can add is, keep up the good work!

Looking forward to the FM's speech

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:09:00 +0000

It's the First Minister's speech to conference today and there is a real sense of anticipation among delegates and members here in Eden Court. There could be as many as five overspill rooms in the conference centre for those who can't get in to the 900 capacity main hall.

I've been doing a bit of reminiscing, thinking back to my first SNP conference in the early 90s in Rothesay, where we all easily fitted in to the community hall. The contest with today could hardly be greater.

There's also a book on sale at the Scots Independent stall that has on the front cover a picture of all the delegates at a conference in the 50s and on the back a picture of all our current MSPs, and there are more MSPs today than delegates back then.

The speech is divided into 3 main sections. The first focus is the economy, jobs and training, with some good announcements that will create new opportunities for thousands of Scots.

The second looks at the pressures on family budgets and particular the impact of rising fuel bills. Again, the FM will have something to say on help planned over the next year.

Finally, he will talk about the constitution, setting out why independence offers the greatest opportunity and benefit. It is the right of the people of Scotland to determine their future, a point the SNP understands, but which it is not yet clear the other parties fully comprehend.

#SNP11

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:10:00 +0000

I will be missing the start of SNP conference this year - a conference that is set to be the biggest in the party's history, with some 1,200 delegates and 2,000 people attending. The gathering will contribute over £3 million to the local economy.

But I'll be following events through twitter, with the conference hashtag #SNP11.

The primary focus of conference will be jobs, the economy and the pressures on family budgets, especially soaring energy cost in a land of energy plenty.

Conference will begin with the First Minister visiting Nigg to announce a major new investment. This sets the tone for the weekend and will be the first of a series of announcements or initiatives designed to support recovery and build future economic strength. It contrasts sharply with the UK government’s decision to pull the plug on the Longannet carbon capture plant.

Energy will be a central focus, with two elements: renewables allowing us to create more jobs and re-industrialise Scotland, and the confirmation that oil and gas will flow for ‘many, many’ years to come (in the words of David Cameron). With billions flowing into the London Exchequer today and billions more to come, we should be able to invest this wealth in boosting our economy, supporting measures like carbon capture and also protecting people from fuel poverty.

The constitutional aspect will also be focused on creating jobs, controlling our energy wealth and maintaining growth and recovery. We'll be proudly stating that Scotland has the people, the resources and the ingenuity to flourish as an independent nation.

Our vision for this more successful future is underlined by our efforts on training and education: 25,000 MAs, a guarantee of a learning or training place for 16-19 year olds and university education kept free. It is demonstrated by our action on offshore renewables as we work to put Scotland at the forefront of marine renewable technology.

We also offer a different approach, based on a social contract with the people (measures such as the Council Tax freeze and the living wage). This reflects our social democratic ethos and the values that are a central part of Scottish society and contrasts with the approach being adopted elsewhere in the UK. Together, these two elements – economic and social – underpin the sort of nation we want Scotland to be and know Scotland can be.

The first part of conference will be focused on where we are already independent and our record of delivery and plans for education, health and justice. We will also be asking people to consider what more we could achieve if we also had economic and financial independence. This would give us the tools we need as a government and nation to boost jobs and economic growth – to continue with the successful Plan MacB which the UK government will not follow and now threatens with its cuts.

And we will also be pointing to the clear additional benefits that independence over all aspects of Scottish life will bring – the ability to speak with our own voice in the EU and make the right choices on issues like Trident, where with independence we could decide to invest the billions wasted on nuclear weapons on pensions and proper universal childcare provision instead.

Conference will kick off with a big thank you to the voters who gave us their support in May. This unprecedented mandate must be recognised by the UK government and throughout conference, we will be making clear the steps forward that are now expected as a result of this historic support.

The people spoke in May – it is now up to us to deliver and the UK government to listen and respond.

A double standard on tax?

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 18:04:00 +0000

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about the supposed "tax bombshell" in the Scottish Government's budget. At that time various papers, politicians and institutions suggested that a forecast increase in business rates revenue equated to an increase in business tax.

One such politician was 'Scottish' Secretary Michael Moore who thundered: "I am alarmed at the reaction that the Scottish Government’s Spending Review has provoked from the business community. In particular, I’m concerned at the fears expressed about the projected business rates and the significant risk that they could prove a major disincentive to new investment in Scotland. Scottish firms’ fears that they could be facing a damaging hike in business rates set by the Scottish Government must be addressed."

This got me to thinking, and to wondering what is happening to the business rates revenue controlled by Mr Moore's government? So I looked at the Office for Budget Responsibility's March 2011 Economic and Fiscal Outlook (table 4.7) to find that business rates revenue between 2010/11 and 2014/15 is set to increase by 25% - by Mr Moore's standard surely "a damaging hike in business rates"?

But of course, business rates aren't the only form of business tax. I remember CBI Scotland suggesting that what happens to business rates is an indication of what might happen to corporation tax, and so again I checked for Westminster's corporation tax increase. Over the same period, corporate tax revenues in the UK are set to go up by a massive 26% with a 39% rise anticipated for offshore (i.e. Scottish oil & gas) corporation tax revenues. By the same standard, surely also a Westminster business tax bombshell? But not a peep from CBI Scotland.

The original Centre for Public Policy for the Regions (CPPR) report on the Scottish budget got all its publicity by a double and treble counting of the anticipated extra business rates revenue. That got us the figure of £850 million for the so-called tax increase. So I decided to do the same for the UK, but this time, not just for the various taxes on business. How about working out the total tax increase proposed by the UK for businesses, families and individuals?

According to the UK government's official forecasters, the Office of Budget Responsibility, and on the exact same cumulative basis as generated all those lurid headlines about the Scottish budget just a few short weeks ago, up to 2014-15, under UK government plans, we will pay a massive £200 billion of extra tax. Not so much a tax bombshell, more of a tax tsunami.

But of course I know, and readers of this blog know, that a revenue increase is not the same as a tax increase. Indeed the increase in UK corporation tax receipts comes at a time when the corporation tax rate is set to fall by 1% each year. Further evidence, if it was needed, of the benefits of such a policy if corporation tax were devolved Scotland.

Small is beautiful, efficient and effective

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Noon) — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 15:46:00 +0000

Former Scottish Government Permanent Secretary, Sir John Elvidge, is under attack today as part of the opposition political parties' attempts to criticise the work of the civil service here in Scotland.

The Sunday Express highlights a report written by Sir John, in a personal capacity and after he had retired, called Northern Exposure. The Express article is critical of Sir John for saying that the new structures of the civil service here in Scotland - based on an attempt to end policy silos and create a more joined up approach to government, both good things - are working well. The piece in the newspaper is also critical of Sir John's identification of, and praise for, the role of Scottish Government ministers in taking forward this process of reform and improvement.

I had intended writing a blog about Sir John's report in any case, regardless of today's press coverage, because I wanted to contrast the position here in Scotland, as set out by Sir John, with the position in Whitehall as set out by the Public Administration Committee in the House of Commons (in a report published within a few days of Sir John's report).

This is not a party political issue, or at least should not be. It is about good government, as the comments of former UK Labour minister, Lord Adonis, on Sir John's report demonstrate. Lord Adonis said: "[Sir John] also highlights the very radical change that he introduced as Permanent Secretary to the structure of Scottish government - an end to departments, a unified approach to government which was accompanied by a political decision by the incoming government to reduce the number of Ministers. As Whitehall goes through its major change programme, Ministers and officials would do well to reflect on the experiences John outlines."

The contrast is perhaps best illustrated through two quotes. First, here is Sir John on Scotland:

"Alongside a group of politicians who have embraced the challenge of forms of government unfamiliar to them, the Civil Service has also played a central role. As well as providing essential continuity of understanding about the processes of government, it has displayed agility and energy in assisting the adaptation of that understanding to fresh challenges."

And second, this is what Bernard Jenkins MP had to say about the equivalent Whitehall machine:

"As our report points out, we know that the Prime Minister's director of strategy and others at senior levels in the Government, are exasperated by the lack of progress and are apparently appalled by the 'custom and practice' of Whitehall and by the deadweight of inherited policy."

When Scotland's civil service is being described as agile and energetic, while the Whitehall system is characterised with words and phrases like 'exasperated' and 'lack of progress', is that not something that should make papers and politicians up here pause, and perhaps praise, rather than try to criticise?

And while, in the UK, the MPs' report found that "the centre of Government does not provide the necessary strategic leadership and a governance framework to enable departments to manage their change programmes", Sir John points out that:

"In partnership between Civil Service and political leadership, a radical Scottish model of government has developed since 2007, building on the learning from the earlier period of devolution. It is based on the effort to have government function as a single organisation, working towards a single defined government purpose based on outcomes, and establishing a partnership based on that purpose with the rest of the public sector which is capable of being joined by other parts of civil society. It rests on an ambitious conception of what is achievable through such a partnership between the public sector and civil society. It places strategic leadership and the facilitation of cooperation between organisations and sections of society at the heart of the role of central government, rather than a managerialist view of the relationship of central government to others."

And if you think the problems identified in Whitehall are new, just read Tony Blair's 'A Journey'. On page 205 he describes the civil service in the following terms:

"The problem with them, as I indicated at the beginning, is inertia. They tended to surrender, whether to vested interests, to the status quo or to the safest way to manage things - which all meant to do nothing."

As part of this blog, I try to get behind the words of the opposition politicians to try and understand their actual motivation. A generally good, effective and motivated Scottish Government team of civil servants is not good for their narrative, especially when contrasted with a cumbersome Whitehall machine. The opposition, today, are trying to persuade us that with independence or greater autonomy the machinery of government would be more costly - there wouldn't be the economies of scale that the Whitehall system supposedly provides. But the picture these insider accounts paint is very different. Whitehall is proving not to be good value. In the words of UK MPs and even a former UK Prime Minister, the system at the heart of UK government isn't working. Instead it is Scotland, with the advantages of size, short lines of communication and decision making, and the ability to create a responsive government, that is performing better.

We've known for a while that in terms of economics that Scotland is an optimum size to prosper and flourish. Now we are also seeing that Scotland is an optimum size to govern. Earlier this week the Guardian ran an opinion piece by Paul Kingsnorth called 'This economic collapse is a "crisis of bigness"'. In it he quotes Leopold Kohr, from his book 'The Breakdown of Nations: 'Bigness, predicted Kohr, could only lead to more bigness, for "whatever outgrows certain limits begins to suffer from the irrepressible problem of unmanageable proportions".'

That, it seems, from the analysis down south, is the problem for Whitehall. So if, over the next few weeks, you hear UK politicians trotting out figures for the supposed cost of running a Scottish welfare system or administering a Scottish tax system, know that their figures are based on their experience of a Whitehall machine that is cumbersome and complex. They will ignore the £300 million of extra efficiencies generated here in Scotland simply by making government work better, including making it more joined up. Take their attacks, as I know you will, with a pinch of salt, because as the evidence tells us, in the real world of government, Scotland can, does and will do things better.