Email
Send to a friend
Share
Contact us
-
Contact the Politics editor
politics@theguardian.com - Report errors or inaccuracies: userhelp@theguardian.com
- Letters for publication should be sent to: guardian.letters@theguardian.com
- If you need help using the site: userhelp@theguardian.com
-
Call the main Guardian and Observer switchboard:
+44 (0)20 3353 2000
Live
Sort by:
- Latest first
- Oldest first
Auto update:
- On
- Off
MSPs would not be able to scrutinise spies properly under independence, says report
The Scottish parliament would not be able to exercise proper oversight of the intelligence services in an independent Scotland, an Edinburgh University briefing says.
You can read the document, Intelligence and security oversight in an independent Scotland, here (pdf). And here is the summary.
First, if kept unchanged after independence, the Scottish parliament may not be big enough to give intelligence and security oversight the attention it needs. With only 129 MSPs, the Scottish parliament already struggles to fill its committees. Independence would create many new areas of policy needing scrutiny and oversight, including intelligence and security. Simply put, there may not be enough MSPs to go around.
Second, current MSPs lack expertise in security and intelligence matters. Without some knowledge of the nature of intelligence work, and without the experience to ask the right questions and look in the right places, it may be difficult for MSPs to properly oversee the new single Scottish intelligence agency. Of course, there would be a learning process in any new area of policy responsibility, but experience at Westminster shows that it is particularly difficult for parliamentarians to acquire expertise in intelligence and security.
Third, an independent Scotland is likely to work closely with the UK’s existing security and intelligence agencies (despite whatever the UK government has said about this in the referendum campaign). Given the difference in size and capability between a newly independent Scotland and the remaining UK, it may be difficult for Scottish MSPs to hold the intelligence agencies of the UK to account in their interactions with Scotland.
There is a good commentary on the latest poll movements in Scotland at Polling Observatory, an academic blog specialising in polling. Here’s an extract.
As regular readers of the Polling Observatory will know, we tend to take a conservative view of sudden movements in public opinion. Most short-term shifts in the polls are nothing more than random noise. Indeed, a recent study shows that apparent swings in public opinion during campaigns are often not due to actual shifts in opinion, but instead result from differential response rates: in other words, supporters of side currently faring worse in the polls are less likely to respond when surveyed.
There’s a deluge of Scottish independence articles in today’s papers. You can read all the Guardian articles on this topic here. Here are three articles in other papers I found particularly interesting.
Britain is a state but not a nation. Scotland is the opposite — a nation demanding the right to be recognised as a state. It’s time to clarify our terms, so pay attention at the back. A nation is made up of people who think of themselves as belonging together, who conduct, in the philosopher Ernest Renan’s memorable phrase, “a daily plebiscite” of membership of the nation. The state is the set of political institutions that turn that national feeling into power ...
Not long ago, Mr Miliband was pressed on what England might learn from Scotland. Free bus travel for the elderly, he replied.
There is a better answer. Although nine out of ten immigrants to Britain live in England, they tell pollsters that they feel British rather than English. The odd neutrality of Britishness is attractive to immigrants for precisely the reason it is so hard to write poetry about — it is empty and therefore hospitable to newcomers. There is no sense of kith and kin, no hint of blood and belonging. It is a citizen ceremony and a passport. It is an obligation to obey the law but, beyond that, nothing is expected.
He also argues that Scottish independence would force Labour in England to modernise fully.
That sorrow does not extend all the way through Labour, by any means. None of them would dream of breaking cover, but there are former Labour cabinet ministers who can see that Britain without Scotland is the short-cut back to new Labour. Tony Blair used to demand that Labour modernise or die so often that it became a standing joke among his entourage. A victory for Alex Salmond would do the job far more comprehensively than Mr Blair ever managed.
And he says that Alex Salmond might be quite happy with a no victory that leads to more devolution.
My guess — and that’s the right word — is that it will work just enough to give Mr Salmond what I suspect, in his rare quiet moments, he has half always wanted. Some defeats are victories in disguise and this could be one of them.
They now feel more comfortable than ever before about their Scottish identity because sectarianism has significantly declined, discrimination at work is no more and most enjoy social and educational parity with Scots of all backgrounds.
The SNP has worked hard to establish close relations with the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Alex Salmond has often praised the academic and moral excellence of Catholic schools. His government is committed to keeping faith schools, despite the opposition of many Scots who believe they perpetuate religious divisions.
The changing nature of Scotland’s dual identity may also be relevant. Not so long ago Britishness was more popular than Scottishness. Now that has been reversed. The descendants of Irish immigrants can relate more readily to the modern symbols of secular Scottishness than their grandparents did to the empire, monarchy and Protestantism that sustained British identity in Scotland for so long.
I reckon that, if alive today, Hardie would back Scottish independence. If its parliament reflected the present Holyrood it would not be dominated by those from elitist backgrounds. It would be more representative of the public. And with more women than the Commons, Hardie, one of the strongest supporters of the women’s suffrage movement, would be pleased. He argued for the abolition of an undemocratic House of Lords.
Further, Hardie’s political manifestos advocated more public control. He wanted the nation to run the services essential to health and social wellbeing. His manifestos included the nationalisation of railways, mines, land, banks and pensions; plus free education. An independent Scottish government would be more sympathetic to Hardie’s policies. Britain’s declaration of war on Germany in 1914 was opposed by Hardie. As war hysteria mounted, he was savagely attacked by politicians and the press. By September, he and his family were being abused in the streets. But he continued to condemn the leaders who wanted war and the armament firms that profited from it. He would have been heartened by the prospect of a Scotland without Trident.
Updated
YouGov released its latest poll figures last night, but YouGov’s president Peter Kellner now has an article on YouGov’s website explaining the figures, and why he thinks support for no has risen over the last week.
The whole thing is well worth reading, but here’s an excerpt.
Responses to two questions tell us why Yes has now slipped back, albeit only slightly: it remains at a much higher level than at any point up to late August. We regularly ask people how they think independence would affect Scotland’s economy and their families’ own finances. During the Yes surge, optimism rose sharply and pessimism declined. Just one week ago, Scots divided evenly on whether their country would be better or worse off.
Now, the pessimists, 48% (up six since last week), clearly outnumber the optimists, 37% (down three). And the proportion who think that they personally would be worse off under independence is up as much as eight points in a week, to 45% - the highest in a series that goes back to last December.
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s deputy first minister, and Peter Mullan, the Trainspotting actor, are campaigning in Glasgow. My colleague Libby Brooks has sent me this Vine.
Farage urges Queen to speak out in defence of the union
Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, wants the Queen to speak out in defence of the union. He made the suggestion in his LBC phone-in this morning. Earlier this week Buckingham Palace ruled out an intervention of this kind, but Farage said he thought it would be helpful.
My understanding of the constitution is if the kingdom itself, if the United Kingdom itself is under threat, then in many ways you could argue she has a responsibility to say something.
I can completely understand her wanting to keep out of politics and she has done it absolutely brilliantly over 60 years., she is a globally admired figure. I doubt the royal family has ever been more popular over centuries than it currently is. But there are times when, if the United Kingdom, over which she is the monarch, is threatened itself, when it might be right to say something.
Let’s say we got to this Sunday and let’s say it was still 50-50 in the polls, I personally think she should say something, yes.
There is a precedent for this: she did it in 1977, she did it in Westminster Hall when she spoke, her Silver Jubilee speech, when the first modern calls for separation were being heard, and she said very clearly that I am the Queen of the entire United Kingdom. So she’s said it before and it might be handy if she said it again.
This is what Buckingham Palace said earlier this week in response to similar calls from some MPs.
The sovereign’s constitutional impartiality is an established principle of our democracy and one which the Queen has demonstrated throughout her reign.
As such Her Majesty is above politics and those in political office have a duty to ensure that this remains the case. Any suggestion that the Queen would wish to interfere in the outcome of the current referendum is categorically wrong. Her Majesty is firmly of the view that this is a matter for the people of Scotland.
According to the Daily Telegraph splash, BBC presenters at the Last Night of the Proms have been told not to mention Scottish independence.
Details of the BBC’s position on the Proms emerged after conductors said that they had been told that they weren’t allowed to “mention or talk about” the “large vote happening in Scotland”.
A corporation source confirmed that earlier the BBC issued “standard” guidance that the Proms should not “air discussions about things that aren’t music related”.
Tony Hall, the director-general of the BBC, emphasised that it will be “all about” a “celebration of music”.
He told The Telegraph: “The Proms is the most brilliant celebration of music. Music knows no boundaries but it brings people together. That’s what the Last Night of the Proms is all about.”
Galloway says independence would put Salmond in power for many, many years
Alex Salmond is 59. If George Galloway, the Respect MP, is right, Salmond could be leading Scotland for another 30 years there is a vote for independence. Galloway made the suggestion in an interview on the Today programme. Here are the main points.
- Galloway said Scotland would face an SNP goverment for many, many years if it voted for independence.
If you vote yes on Thursday you’ll get Alex Salmond. And you’ll get him for a long time, as long as he’s standing. And after that you’ll get Nicola Sturgeon. That, if you like, is the experience of Ireland. Eamon de Valera was president of Ireland until he was 91 years old. So they’ll write the constitution, they’ll polarise; they’ll make the dichotomy in the country, whether you are for independence or against independence.
- Galloway rejected the SNP’s claim that their brand of politics was very different to Westminster’s.
When I see the pictures of Mr Salmond playing footsie with Rupert Murdoch on discussion of the future of a post independence Scotland and his other pals, billionaire bigot Brian Souter and Jim McColl, it doesn’t look all that different to politics at Westminster.
- He said the collapse of support for Labour in Scotland had encouraged support for independence.
It is the death of Labour in Scotland that has caused this crisis.
- He said the division between the powerless and the elite was more important than the division between the Scots and the English.
The real division in our society is not between English people and Scottish people anymore than it’s between Protestant people and Catholic people or black people and white people, but between people who have got wealth and power and those who don’t.
I’ve taken some of the quotes from PoliticsHome.
Oil expert says independence would be best for North Sea oil industry
At Gordon University in Aberdeen there is a professor of petroleum accounting. He’s called Alex Russell and he thinks independence would be good for the Scottish oil industry. Yes Scotland have just issued this statement from him.
There is no question that had Scotland been an independent country in 1975, that Scotland would be extremely wealthy now and there would be no national debt. The weight of evidence is that the UK government has failed to invest the harvest from the North Sea oil for future generations.
Would an independent Scotland look after Scotland’s oil and gas resources better than the current UK government? I believe it would, and would ensure that the people of Scotland benefitted much more than just now. What is more – by providing a much more stable fiscal regime - Scotland can increase confidence and thus investment in the industry. That is why I am voting Yes and I encourage others to do the same next week ...
The oil forecasts from the Office of Budgetary Responsibility are ludicrously pessimistic, and a huge understatement of the future potential of North Sea production. The forecast from Professor Alex Kemp, that up to 24 billion barrels appears plausible, is one I agree with, and one backed by Oil and Gas UK ...
Though the quantities of oil and gas left are lower than what has so far been removed, the prices are higher, so the value of the second half of Scotland’s oil opportunity may be even greater than the first forty years. We need to grasp that opportunity for Scotland through a yes vote.
Updated
The comedian Rory Bremner has used an article in the Telegraph today to explain why he is backing the union. Here’s an extract.
After the untimely death of Robin Cook – a known atheist – we attended his funeral service in St Giles’ Cathedral. The Bishop of Edinburgh, Richard Holloway, finessed that one beautifully. “We all know Robin was an atheist,” he said. “But I always thought of him as a Presbyterian atheist.” Well, if I am a Unionist, I’m a Scottish Unionist. My Union isn’t the Union of Cameron and Osborne, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage. It’s the Union of Gordon Brown, of Ming Campbell, of Douglas Alexander, and Michael Moore – historically of Robin Cook, John Smith and Donald Dewar – and, yes, of Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney, Scots working within and beyond Scotland to promote Scottish values.
IMF says vote for independence could lead to short-term disruption in the markets
The IMF has said that a vote for Scottish independence would create short-term disruption in the markets, the Guardian is reporting. Here’s the start of our story.
The International Monetary Fund has warned that a yes vote in next week’s Scottish independence referendum could result in financial market turmoil.
A vote for independence would create “uncertainty” while a number of “complicated issues” were being thrashed out, in particular over which currency an independent Scotland would use, the Washington-based organisation said.
The long-term impact on the economy would be determined by the outcome of the detailed negotiations carried out in the aftermath of the referendum, which is less than a week away.
Nigel Farage's interviews - Summary
One of the key issues in the independence campaign, perhaps the key issue, has been or not an independent Scotland would be able to for a currency union with the rest of the UK. The Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems all say this would never happen. Alex Salmond says they are bluffing, and a majority of Scottish voters believe him. Given the obvious advantages of such a union, there are grounds they are thinking that they are right. As Salmond is fond of reminding us, one unnamed government minister said as much to the Guardian earlier this year.
But this ignores the question of whether a UK government would every be able to get a currency union through parliament. Alistair Darling once floated the idea in an interview that there would have to be a referendum. He quickly backtracked, because talking about a referendum would undermine the claim that the main UK parties would never contemplate this idea, but this morning Nigel Farage prized this issue open again, implicitly warning that Ukip would turn this into an election issue.
He also had some interesting things to say about the constitution. He spoke to the Today programme and BBC Radio Scotland. Here are the key points from both interviews.
- Farage insisted that English voters would never support a currency union. Significantly, he implied that if the Conservatives were to change their stance on a currency union in the event of a yes vote (as Alex Salmond insists they would), Ukip turn this into an issue in the 2015 election, and campaign on the basis that it would block such a deal.
Let me assure listeners in Scotland; that is not a bluff. Because politically it would be impossible to say to the English “let’s stand surety for the Scottish financial services industry, but not get the tax revenues”. So Salmond would find himself with a currency, but without a central bank, rather like Panama or Zimbabwe using the US dollar ... I think if George Osborne was to give Scotland membership of economic and monetary union with the United Kingdom, and was to face a general election next year having acted as a guarantor for Scotland’s financial services industry - good though many parts of it are, we saw back in 2008 that these things can go wrong - and to say to the English voter, “I’m standing surety for these industries, and, by the way, the tax revenues will not be coming to London”, I think that is now politically impossible.
Asked what would happen if Osborne did offer a currency union, Farage replied:
Their vote would collapse yet further in next year’s general election.
- He called for a new constitutional settlement, with a federal UK and more direct democracy.
I am fully in favour of a federal United Kingdom. We need a new constitutional settlement. At the moment, the English are feeling rather ignored in all this, because we’ve been talking about Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland over the last 17 or 18 years. A new constitutional settlement for the UK, that will suit everyone ...
I sense this idea that Westminster wants to keep what powers it has to itself is something that is completely out of date, and, yes, I do think we’ll have a federal UK. And I also think, over the course of the next few years, that demand will grow for direct democracy as well. And I can see us having not just this particular referendum, but referendums on far more issues.
- He said Salmond was not offering the Scots proper independence, because an independent Scotland would still be subject to EU laws.
The truth is that Mr Salmond’s plan is not for independence. This whole referendum is in danger of going by default. Mr Salmond wants Scotland to be part of the EU state. He wants his laws made in Brussels. He’s got no chance of renegotiating Scottish fisheries.
I’m fearful that people have switched to the Yes side, believing this is a noble, bold plan of Mr Salmond’s to be a self-governing independent nation, when it’s nothing of the kind.
- He said Labour voters in Scotland were supporting independence because they were “contemptuous” of the Westminster political classes and that this was a view he shared.
- He said he had no intention of being “inflammatory” when he visited Glasgow today. He was remined that the police had to be called last year when he came to Edinburgh and had to take refuge in a pub after he was pursued to protesters.
- He said independence would lead to money being taken out of Scottish banks.
If you’re an investor and you’ve got money invested in a Scottish bank and you wake up next Friday and Scotland has voted Yes and you find yourself in the position where the banking industry in Scotland doesn’t have a central bank and a lender of last resort, then you will want to withdraw your funds - which is why the banks will want to come south to London.
What Sir Jeremy Heywood told Alex Salmond about the Treasury 'leak'
Here is the key quote from the letter that Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary, sent Alex Salmond yesterday in response to his claim that the Treasury leaked market-sensitive information about RBS to damage the yes campaign. Heywood said:
This was not a UK government announcement - it was simply a confirmation of the Treasury’s understanding of RBS’ contingency planning.
In response to .... informed media reports about RBS, the Treasury judged that it was important to set this out - at a time when the UK financial markets were closed - given their overarching responsibility for maintaining financial stability in the UK.
Nigel Farage has been giving interviews this morning. He was on the Today programme earlier, and he has just been on BBC Radio Scotland.
He insisted that English voters would never support a currency union with Scotland. This may sound academic, because the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems insist they would never offer one anyway. But if, like Alex Salmond and many other Scots, you think they’re bluffing, then Farage’s comments are significant - because they imply that, in the event of a yes vote and a U-turn from the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems on a currency union, Ukip would fight the election on a very strong “no currency union” platform.
I’ll post the quotes shortly.
To start the day with something poetic, here’s another engraving on the wall of the Scottish parliament (which is not far from the Guardian’s base in Edinburgh).
Engraving on wall of the Scottish Parliament pic.twitter.com/MCo7pNVcVh
— AndrewSparrow (@AndrewSparrow) September 12, 2014
By this time next week, we’ll know.
A new poll came out at 10pm last night that offers some cheer to the no camp, although YouGov are only giving no a four-point lead, which is much smaller than the lead Better Together were enjoying earlier in the campaign.
And, in another overnight development, Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary, has rejected Alex Salmond’s claim that the Treasury improperly leaked information about RBS to damage the yes campaign.
Here’s the agenda for the day.
10am: Alex Salmond is campaigning in Aberdeen. It’s the first stop on a day that will see Salmond and his deputy Nicola Sturgeon visit three cities each - Aberdeen, Inverness, Dundee, Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Stirling - before they meet up in a seventh, Perth, at 3.45pm. Salmond is travelling by helicopter.
11am: Johann Lamont, the Scottish Labour leader, is campaigning outside Asda in Falkirk, to highlight warning prices could go up under independence.
6.30pm: Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, holds a press conference before addressing a no rally in Glasgow.
7pm: Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown and Lamont address a Labour rally in Glasgow.
If you want to follow me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
;