Coverage and commentary on the Scottish referendum

First, just the bare reporting

Salmond resigns after Scots say 'no'

Radio NZ,

20 September, 2014

Scotland's first minister, Alex Salmond, who led the campaign for independence, has announced he will step down.

In yesterday's referendum 55 percent of Scots voted to stay in the United Kingdom, a clear majority over the 45 percent who voted for independence.

Mr Salmond said the Scottish people must now hold the British government to its promises of devolving more power to Scotland.

Mr Salmond will also resign as leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), which he has led for a total of 20 years.

Scottish voters backed the country staying in the UK by 2,001,926 votes to 1,617,989 in yesterdays' referendum.

Meanwhile, the Queen has said Scotland's vote to stay in the Union was "a result that all of us throughout the United Kingdom will respect".

She added: "Knowing the people of Scotland as I do, I have no doubt that Scots, like others throughout the United Kingdom, are able to express strongly-held opinions before coming together again in a spirit of mutual respect and support."

Prime Minister David Cameron said the three main Westminster parties would now deliver their campaign pledge to boost the powers of Scotland's devolved parliament.

Mr Salmond, 59, is Scotland's longest-serving first minister, having held the post since the SNP won power at the Scottish Parliament in May 2007.

Speaking from his official residence at Bute House in Edinburgh, the first minister told journalists: "For me as leader my time is nearly over, but for Scotland the campaign continues and the dream shall never die.

"I am immensely proud of the campaign that Yes Scotland fought and particularly of the 1.6 million voters who rallied to that cause."

Mr Salmond said he would resign as SNP leader at the party's conference in November, before standing down as first minister when the party elects its next leader in a membership ballot.

Nicola Sturgeon, the current deputy first minister and deputy SNP leader, is seen as a clear frontrunner to replace Mr Salmond.

Mr Salmond, who will stay on as MSP for Aberdeenshire East, added: "It has been the privilege of my life to serve Scotland as first minister.

"But, as I said often during the referendum campaign, this is not about me or the SNP. It is much more important than that.

Ms Sturgeon said she could "think of no greater privilege than to seek to lead the party I joined when I was just 16," but said she would not make an announcement today.

Mr Salmond also used his resignation statement to question Mr Cameron's more powers pledge.

"We now have the opportunity to hold Westminster's feet to the fire on the 'vow' that they have made to devolve further meaningful power to Scotland.

"This places Scotland in a very strong position," he said.

“We have heard the voice of Scotland - and now the millions of voices of England must also be heard. The question of English votes for English laws – the so-called West Lothian question – requires a decisive answer.”

David Cameron

Scottish referendum results: Cross-party consensus collapses amid Tory-Labour spat on the 'English question'

the Independent,

19 September, 2014

The cross-party consensus which defeated calls for Scottish independence has been shattered almost immediately by a bitter row between the Conservatives and Labour over David Cameron’s plans to bring in “English votes for English laws”.

Labour accused the Prime Minister of “playing party politics” with a “kneejerk quick fix”, warning that his sweeping reforms could cripple a future Labour Government. Without its large contingent of Scottish MPs, a Labour administration could struggle to get its budget and laws passed by the Commons.

In turn, the Tories accused Ed Miliband of trying to kick “the English question” into the long grass after he proposed a constitutional convention that would not report until next autumn – after the May general election.

Scotland voted by 55 to 45 per cent against leaving the 307-year Union, a more decisive margin than the opinion polls had suggested. His dream of independence crushed, Alex Salmond announced his resignation as Scotland’s First Minister and leader of the Scottish National Party today.

He seized on the Labour-Tory row, accusing the two parties of already reneging on the last-minute promises of further devolution for Scotland which helped sway the referendum. “I think people in Scotland would be astonished and outraged, particularly those who voted No on this prospectus,” he said. “My suspicion is there is some doubt in the Prime Minister's mind about carrying his own backbenchers, therefore a reluctance to have a [Commons] vote.”

Although the reforms affecting Scotland and England will run in parallel, Mr Cameron hoped they would proceed “at the same pace”. Some Conservative MPs, who want the Prime Minister to go further by setting up an English Parliament, threatened to vote against extra powers for the Scottish Parliament unless he beefs up his proposals for England.

The Prime Minister said: “We have heard the voice of Scotland - and now the millions of voices of England must also be heard. The question of English votes for English laws – the so-called West Lothian question – requires a decisive answer.”

But Harriet Harman, Labour’s deputy leader, told The Independent that Mr Cameron’s proposals would provide no answers to the “disillusion and disengagement” shown by the Scottish referendum.

“You cannot deal with a problem at the grassroots with a top-down solution,” she said. “He is doing it to try to outflank Ukip, assuage his rebellious backbenchers and set a trap for us. It is all about narrow party political advantage and not about the future of the country.”

Mr Miliband, who wants to put the NHS centre-stage at Labour’s annual conference starting tomorrow, could find his strategy disrupted by the “English question”.

He proposed “codifying” Britain’s unwritten constitution, including replacing the House of Lords with “a senate of the nations and regions”.

Labour will oppose “English votes for English laws”, arguing that any government needs to be able to “command a majority in the Commons”.

But the Labour leadership is under pressure from some Labour MPs to address the issue highlighted by Mr Cameron. John Denham, a close ally of Mr Miliband, said: “English Labour needs its own voice in this process, unrestrained by Labour from other parts of the Union.

“I’d argue that devolution with England has been held back by a UK Labour Party not convinced that England needs change as much as Wales and Scotland. Now we need a voice of our own.”

He added: “Any attempt to change Westminster without wider change in the way England is governed will be a crude fix, lacking legitimacy or authority.”

Frank Field, Labour’s former welfare reform minister, said: “The promises to Scotland ensure that the ‘English question’ will dominate May’s general election.

“Voters will demand from all English candidates whether they support English home rule and if they support giving an additional £1,500 a year, for ever, for every person living in Scotland, over and above what they will vote for their own constituents.

“Voters will demand ‘yes’ to the first question, and ‘no’ to the second.”

Mr Cameron is also under pressure from his own party. Owen Paterson, the former Environment Secretary, demanded an immediate recall of Parliament.

He said: “It is unacceptable that in the late stages of the campaign an ex-Labour leader [Gordon Brown] was allowed to make rash promises of ‘extensive new powers’ to the Scottish people with the endorsement of all three UK party leaders, but with no mandate from Parliament.

“Such a lopsided constitutional settlement cannot last; it is already causing real anger across England. If not resolved fairly for all the constituent parts of the UK for the long term, it will fall apart.”

Peter Bone, Tory MP for Wellingborough, called for a devolution Bill to “cover the whole of the UK” rather than just provide more powers for the Scottish Parliament.

William Hague, the Commons Leader, who will draw up the English reforms, said it was “inconceivable” to continue to allow Scottish MPs to vote on English matters. But Mr Hague ruled out plans for a new English executive or parliament, saying: “I don’t think people in this country will want that, and I don’t think our work will lead to more expensive government.”

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, said major constitutional issues “should not be the playthings of one individual party or the other”.

In a statement from Balmoral, the Queen welcomed Scotland’s vote to stay as part of the UK as “a result that all of us throughout the UK will respect”.

Democracy triumphs in Scotland

Published yesterday before the vote. Additional reasons why Scotland was never going to be allowed to go it alone.

If Scotland Bolts: What Happens to the UK’s Security Council Seat?

The National Interest,
17 September, 2014



As Scotland approaches its independence referendum on Thursday, desperate unionists are groping to bolster the “No thanks” cause. There is no shortage of compelling reasons to stick together. But one claim being advanced is truly far-fetched: that Scottish secession endangers the United Kingdom’s permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Last week former British Prime Minister John Major alleged as much, warning, “We would lose our seat at the top table in the UN.” This ignores geopolitical realities and historical precedents.

The fear-mongers have concocted the following story: The UN Charter has no provisions for succession to UNSC permanent seats, and this legal void provides a potential opening for diplomatic chaos that spoilers and troublemakers may fill. The UK achieved its permanent seat in 1945 as the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) and Northern Ireland. Its dissolution will result in two successor states, the rump UK and Scotland, neither of which—or, alternatively, either of which—is eligible to claim that seat. The result will be political turmoil and jockeying, perhaps spurred by Russia or China, over which country should occupy the UNSC’s permanent fifth seat. The diplomatic crisis will also embolden major emerging powers like India and Brazil, and perhaps longtime aspirants such as Germany and Japan, to stake renewed claims.

This is not going to happen. The near-certain outcome, if the Scots unwisely choose to go it alone, is that the authorities in Edinburgh will immediately recognize the UK government’s UNSC claim. A newly independent but closely integrated Scotland has everything to lose and nothing to gain by disputing the UK’s permanent seat. (Nationalism may be “political romanticism,” in Isaiah Berlin’s words, but even the most starry-eyed Scots understand that a country of fewer than six million has no permanent slot on the UNSC). Perhaps more surprisingly, the attitude of the remaining permanent four UNSC members will be identical: they will quickly recognize the rump United Kingdom as the state entitled to permanent membership.

These decisions would be consistent both with historical precedent and the national interests of other Security Council members. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, the Commonwealth of Independent States (comprising the states that broke away from the Soviet Union) endorsed the Russian Federation’s claim to the permanent UNSC seat. Russian President Boris Yeltsin transmitted a letter to this effect to the UN secretary-general, who shared it with the broader UN membership. He received no objections, as UN members sought to avoid a UN constitutional crisis. The other permanent members quickly recognized the Russian Federation as the successor state on the Security Council. All this occurred even though the Russian Federation’s population (149 million) was 48 percent smaller than the Soviet Union’s (285 million). Russia also became the only former Soviet Union nation to earn recognition as a nuclear weapon state. Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine all proceeded to eliminate their arsenals.

In proportional terms, Scotland’s departure from the UK would represent far less of a demographic and economic hit, reducing its population by 8 percent, from 64 to 58.7 million, and its GDP by approximately the same percentage. The two successor governments would have little difficulty negotiating new arrangements allowing the rump UK to retain control over its nuclear arsenals parked on Scottish soil, as well as military bases there.

The disintegration of the Soviet Union may be the most obvious historical precedent, but it is not the only one. Across the Channel, France provides another—albeit more violent—example, in the case of French Algeria. Unlike the majority of French imperial acquisitions, Algeria was no mere colony. After 1848, Algeria was constitutionally part of metropolitan France, administered as a French département. After a bloody civil war, the government of President Charles de Gaulle eventually agreed to independence in the Evian Accords, confirmed in an Algerian referendum of July 1962. Although this departure significantly reduced the territory of “France,” it had no impact on France’s status as one of the five permanent UNSC members.

So the past is the prologue. Unless, some argue, the other P5 members want to kick out the UK? Washington and Paris, obviously, will be solidly in London’s camp, anxious to (re)consolidate the Western triumvirate on the UNSC. But why wouldn’t Vladimir Putin, angered at Western “meddling” in Ukraine, seek to flex his muscles by opening up the question of UNSC membership? Might China, too, seize the moment to shift the balance of forces on the Council away from the West?

No. Neither Russia nor China will do anything of the sort. Russia is as much a declining as a rising power, given its dismal long-term demographic, economic, technological, and military prospects. A permanent seat on the UNSC, along with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, are its two central claims to great power status. Moscow has zero incentive to open up the Pandora’s box of permanent membership, and it has been most vocal among the P5 in opposing various recent proposals for UNSC enlargement. Beijing has been content to hide behind Russia’s position. At a rhetorical level, China claims to favor an expanded UNSC, but only in its “elected” (as opposed to permanent) membership. Beijing adamantly opposes the permanent membership candidacies of both Japan and India (its ostensible BRICS partner)

The upshot? The rump UK might face some diplomatic complications. But it is unlikely to find its permanent UNSC seat in jeopardy.

During its first term, the Obama administration declared itself open in principle to limited UNSC enlargement, including additional permanent members. But despite a flurry of diplomatic excitement in 2010 (including an oblique endorsement of India’s eventual membership), the White House has done zero to follow up on this diplomatic tease. And it is not about to do so now, at the expense of its closest ally. Indeed, a “yes” vote for Scotland’s independence would doom any prospects, however remote, of U.S. leadership on UNSC membership reform.

This is understandable. But in a larger sense, it is also unfortunate. With each passing year, the composition of the UNSC, particularly its permanent membership, diverges further from the global distribution of power. With no periodic reset to accommodate rising nationsprepared to contribute to international peace and security, and with some current members (notably Russia) devoting themselves to obstruction, the perceived legitimacy and practical efficacy of the UNSC will decline, and dissatisfied nations may increasingly ignore or bypass it in pursuing national security interests.

But this is a struggle for another day, when minds are not so focused on long-ago battles from Bannockburn to Culloden Moor.

This article first appeared in The Internationalist blog on the Council on Foreign Relations website here. 

A rather surprising article from arch-Liberal, George Monbiot

How the media shafted the people of Scotland

Journalists in their gilded circles are woefully out of touch with popular sentiment and shamefully slur any desire for change

the Guardian,
17 September, 2014



Perhaps the most arresting fact about the Scottish referendum is this: that there is no newspaper – local, regional or national, English or Scottish – that supports independence except the Sunday Herald. The Scots who will vote yes have been almost without representation in the media.



There is nothing unusual about this. Change in any direction, except further over the brink of market fundamentalism and planetary destruction, requires the defiance of almost the entire battery of salaried opinion. What distinguishes the independence campaign is that it has continued to prosper despite this assault.



In the coverage of the referendum we see most of the pathologies of the corporate media. Here, for instance, you will find the unfounded generalisations with which less enlightened souls are characterised. In the Spectator, Simon Heffer maintains that: “addicted to welfare ... Scots embraced the something for nothing society”, objecting to the poll tax “because many of them felt that paying taxes ought to be the responsibility of someone else”.



Here is the condescension with which the dominant classes have always treated those they regard as inferior: their serfs, the poor, the Irish, Africans, anyone with whom they disagree. “What spoilt, selfish, childlike fools those Scots are ... They simply don’t have a clue how lucky they are,” sneered Melanie Reid in the Times. Here is the chronic inability to distinguish between a cause and a person: the referendum is widely portrayed as a vote about Alex Salmond, who is then monstered beyond recognition (a Telegraph editorial compared him to Robert Mugabe).



The problem with the media is exemplified by Dominic Lawson’s column for the Daily Mail last week. He began with Scotland, comparing the “threat” of independence with that presented by Hitler (the article was helpfully illustrated with a picture of the Führer – unaccompanied, in this case, by the Mail’s former proprietor). Then he turned to the momentous issue of how he almost wrote something inaccurate about David Attenborough, which was narrowly averted because “as it happens, last weekend we had staying with us another of the BBC’s great figures, its world affairs editor John Simpson”, who happily corrected Lawson’s mistake. This was just as well because “the next day I went to the Royal Albert Hall as one of a small number of guests invited by the Proms director for that night’s performance. And who should I see as soon as I entered the little room set aside for our group’s pre-concert drinks? Sir David Attenborough.”



Those who are supposed to hold power to account live in a rarefied, self-referential world of power, circulating among people as exalted as themselves, the “small number of guests” who receive the most charming invitations. That a senior journalist at the BBC should be the house guest of a columnist for the Daily Mail surprises me not one iota.



In June the BBC’s economics editor, Robert Peston, complained that BBC news “is completely obsessed by the agenda set by newspapers … If we think the Mail and Telegraph will lead with this, we should. It’s part of the culture.” This might help to explain why the BBC has attracted so many complaints of bias in favour of the no campaign.



Living within their tiny circle of light, most senior journalists seem unable to comprehend a desire for change. If they notice it at all, they perceive it as a mortal threat, comparable perhaps to Hitler. They know as little of the lives of the 64 million inhabiting the outer darkness as they do of the Andaman islanders. Yet, lecturing the poor from under the wisteria, they claim to speak for the nation.



As John Harris reports in the Guardian, both north and south of the border “politics as usual suddenly seems so lost as to look completely absurd”. But to those within the circle, politics still begins and ends in Westminster. The opinions of no one beyond the gilded thousand with whom they associate is worthy of notice. Throughout the years I’ve spent working with protest movements and trying to bring neglected issues to light, one consistent theme has emerged: with a few notable exceptions, journalists are always among the last to twig that things have changed. It’s no wonder that the Scottish opinion polls took them by surprise.



One of the roles of the Guardian, which has no proprietor, is to represent the unrepresented – and it often does so to great effect. On Scottish independence I believe we have fallen short. Our leader on Saturday used the frames constructed by the rest of the press, inflating a couple of incidents into a “habit” by yes campaigners of “attacking the messenger and ignoring the message”, judging the long-term future of the nation by current SNP policy, confusing self-determination with nationalism.



If Westminster is locked into a paralysing neoliberal consensus it is partly because the corporate media, owned and staffed by its beneficiaries, demands it. Any party that challenges this worldview is ruthlessly disciplined. Any party that more noisily promotes corporate power is lauded and championed. Ukip, though it claims to be kicking against the establishment, owes much of its success to the corporate press.



For a moment, Rupert Murdoch appeared ready to offer one of his Faustian bargains to the Scottish National party: my papers for your soul. That offer now seems to have been withdrawn, as he has decided that Salmond’s SNP is “not talking about independence, but more welfarism, expensive greenery, etc and passing sovereignty to Brussels” and that it “must change course to prosper if he wins”. It’s not an observation, it’s a warning: if you win independence and pursue this agenda, my newspapers will destroy you.



Despite the rise of social media, the established media continues to define the scope of representative politics in Britain, to shape political demands and to punish and erase those who resist. It is one chamber of the corrupt heart of Britain, pumping fear, misinformation and hatred around the body politic.



That so many Scots, lambasted from all quarters as fools, frauds and ingrates, have refused to be bullied is itself a political triumph. If they vote for independence, they will do so in defiance not only of the Westminster consensus but also of its enforcers: the detached, complacent people who claim to speak on their behalf.