Sunday, 4 January 2015

Four books reviewed

And so that was Christmas.

And what I have done?

Well my main reading was to finish reading the four referendum books: David Torrance's  100 days of Hope and Fear; How Scotland's Referendum was lost and Won; Alan Cochrane's Alex Salmond: My Part in his downfall; Iain MacWhirter's Disunited Kingdom and Peter Geoghegan's The People's Referendum.

I enjoyed them all but, as you'll learn, I thought the Geoghegan book was easily the best of the four.

That's partly because the authors had slightly different objectives. Cochrane and Torrance set out essentially to write the second draft of history. The problem is that it is, or at least was by their self imposed deadlines, too early to be writing history. So each really does little more than revisit their diaries and pick out bits they thought to be important.  There is no real analysis involved and while, for the dedicated partisan of the struggle such as myself, it is interesting to be reminded of, or see the authors' perspective of a particular event you otherwise learn nothing really new.

Or at least from the Torrance book you learn nothing really new. What I think you're meant to learn from the Cochrane book is how important the author was to events. To be honest however you come away thinking the exact opposite. His contacts with "the enemy" are perfunctory at best and his knowledge of their campaign, strategy or tactics, almost non-existent. But more revealing still is his lack of real engagement with who was actually running his own team.

Never mind my own Party, who always held the key to victory (or defeat), his idea of who the key players on the Tory side were is almost incredible in its ignorance. Ruth Davidson is dismissed early on as a lightweight although patently she was both the most prominent campaigner and strategist of the Scottish Tory campaign throughout. But even Ruth's most prominent lieutenants, Annabel Goldie and Murdo Fraser, are largely ignored in favour of various obscure figures from the landed gentry still, it appears, pledged to the cause of Michael Forsyth in his role as "Prince over the Border" and harbouring the deluded desire that one day the Scottish Parliament might yet be abolished altogether.

So the book is probably worth the read for some of the caustic opinions expressed. But only for entertainment. And certainly not in the belief that many of these opinions have much actual validity.

David Torrance is more balanced but still suffers from relying on information conveyed to him while the battle still raged. So he can tell you what their line or our line was at the time of events but not really whether or not that was a view truly, let alone unanimously, held internally within either campaign. There is no real explanation as to why the result ended up as it was. That is just what happened. I'll come back to this point.

I turn then to Iain MacWhirter's book and start by observing its not really a book at all but rather a collection of essays. A couple of these consist of little more than collating and reporting fact, particularly the chapter on the life histories of the major players which you get the impression is there mainly to bulk out the product.

But there is in some of the more substantive polemic , I regret to say, some very selective reporting of fact in relation to the conduct of, particularly, the Yes campaign. Ironically, since the book went to press, Iain has written in the Herald of how the conduct of some Yes campaigners served their own cause no favours but if he held that view at the time of writing this book you'll find little evidence of that here. The Yes cause is all "let a thousand flowers bloom" while No is motivated, it would appear, by nothing but unremitting and unfounded negativity simply for the sake of it.

The fantasy economic case that the Yes campaign was premised on: not that an independent Scotland was a viable concern but rather that it was an instant panacea for everything from welfare reform to international terrorism is embraced completely in the earlier part of the book although interestingly in his own later analysis pieces he readily concedes that a common currency and open border would require continued English influence over areas of Scottish policy. I have news for him. That's not what the "secret oil fields" brigade were saying at the time.

But the central thesis of the book is where it is at its weakest. The suggestion that in ruling out a common currency "Westminster" won the battle but will ultimately lose the war.

MacWhirter concedes that he is the lightest of indy-lighters; indeed that in an ideal world he'd probably be a federalist. The problem is that the September 18th vote wasn't about federalism. In an attempt to persuade one part of a necessary coalition to vote Yes, through the "currency union", an attempt was being made to suggest what we were really getting was something very like federalism. But that wasn't the proposition on the ballot paper. By ruling out the currency union the "English" simply made that clear. They did not, as MacWhirter asserts, threaten to economically cripple an independent Scotland, they simply said more clearly than the nationalists were ever willing to do "If you're on your own, you're on your own."

But there is a more fundamental flaw in the MacWhirter argument still. While hatred of the English was clearly an acceptable motivating factor for (some) participants in the Yes campaign (the problem of that necessary coalition for yes once again) any reciprocal animosity was to bet met with nothing but a "how dare you". The whole point of Scottish Independence has always been "We wish to owe nothing to them". Only the already converted were ever however going to proceed on the basis that, after independence,  they would nonetheless continue to owe something to us. Certainly the currency proved a major problem for the Yes campaign but that wasn't the fault of those who did no more than point that out.

And so finally to my favourite book of the four. Peter Geoghegan's The People's Referendum. Geoghegan has a similar perspective to Torrance but from the other side. If the facts don't suit the cause of independence he will report them anyway.

But the real success of Geoghegan's book is in what he doesn't try to do. He doesn't attempt a comprehensive history. Rather he tries to reflect a mood of the time, that time being roughly the last three months of the campaign. And in much the manner of the great Studs Terkel he doesn't try to fit his people to his argument. Rather he lets them speak for themselves and leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions. If I had a criticism it is that he never really challenges the beliefs of his interlocutors. This is who they are and this is what they think. And perhaps he is a little too biased not to the forty five per cent who ultimately voted yes but rather to the fifteen per cent from the traditional left who ultimately did so although not expected to do at the start of  the contest.

But these are minor caveats compared to the book's other great virtue; it is quite beautifully written. You could read it for pleasure even if you cared little or nothing for Scottish politics. Geoghegan is Irish. Perhaps it is true that while the Scots produce great journalists the Irish produce better writers. That has certainly been the case here.

Anyway that's pretty much my review except that I'd like to say in closing that none of these books is as yet anything approaching a comprehensive history of the referendum. And such a book is, I think, worthy of being written. On 18th September, contrary to any expectation, nine people in every twenty voted, at least nominally, to completely end one of the world's oldest and most stable nation states. That has to give those of us on the other side cause to pause and think why that might have been. They were not all fundamentalists, or idiots, or even people so beyond despair in their personal circumstance that they felt nothing could be worse than the status quo.

We live in a democracy and these people's concerns need to be addressed. For those who do not learn from the errors of the past are doomed to repeat them.

Happy New Year, by the way.

Monday, 29 December 2014

The War is Over

At this time of year it is customary to take kids to the cinema.

When I was myself but just a boy I was taken on a festive trip to see what remains one of my favourite films: Patton.

For those of you unfamiliar with the plot, it is a biopic, of sorts, of General George S. Patton who commanded US forces during the Second World War in North Africa and Italy but who most famously of all then led the US 3rd Army in France and beyond after the Normandy invasion.

The underlying message is threefold. Firstly, that Patton was a great military commander; secondly, that he was a complete lunatic and, thirdly, that, as a result of these two differing characteristics, he was a man born for war and left in the end without any great purpose without it.

Towards the end of the film Patton attends a victory event with the Soviets in Berlin. And he suggests that since the two allies clearly hate each other; will, in his opinion, eventually, come to blows, and already have their optimal armies in the field then they should just get on with fighting each other there and then.

It takes wiser heads to inform him that the war is over and that neither side has an immediate appetite for further hostilities.

There are any number of Pattons in Scottish public life. Not just on the opposing sides of the political war just ended but amongst the war correspondents as well. It wasn't just fun while it lasted, it was the time of their lives. As much "fun" as Patton's tanks racing through the Ardennes to relieve Bastogne had proved to be to the General himself. Iain MacWhirter is out there now punting his book on how the referendum has changed the world. Good fortune too him, but somewhere deep down he knows that it hasn't and that next year there will be a significantly lesser appetite for a considered evaluation of Angela Constance's first term as Education Secretary. Just asAlan Cochrane appreciates that, at Christmas 2015, indiscreet gossip about the reorganisation of Scotland's Accident and Emergency Departments will be unlikely to see any future publication on the topic flying off the shelves.

And that is just the correspondents. The respective armies also can't quite give up the fight. Sure it is fun for my side to point out the consequences that would have followed a Yes vote now that oil retails at $60 a barrel. But it doesn't matter. There wasn't a Yes vote. And it is also fun for the Nats to anticipate vengeance on the Labour Party. But so what even if that comes to pass? There is not, in their wildest fantasies, going to be another referendum any time soon. Never mind a reliable Yes majority.

It's over. The vast majority of the conscripted on either side just want to get home to their families and get on with their lives.

I was as enthusiastic a warrior as any. I am in no doubt that the 55% saw off not just an economic catastrophe but a greater evil in its wake where those who might have won, realising that the English were now beyond their meaningful hatred, would have turned their vitriol on those still easily to hand. That is forever the pattern of all small nationalisms. Always claiming to be uniquely different but always proving in the end to be fundamentally the same.

It's time however to realise that, grateful though we are for victory, the fighting is over and get back to normality. Even if that does involve some in being unwillingly demobbed

And with that I wish all my readers a happy and prosperous 2015. Hopefully with a Labour Government at the end of it


Sunday, 7 December 2014

The 18th Brumaire

I didn't write a blog last weekend. Basically that was because I couldn't be bothered.

Actually, I'm not a lot more bothered this weekend, although I concede that provides little incentive to read on.

It's just that Scottish politics is becoming a bit groundhog day. The Nats claim they are on the road to somewhere, we politely point out that they've had their referendum and lost, we all go to sleep and next morning the alarm goes off for another day and both sides repeat the exercise.

There are wee bits of personality politics along the way, Gordon going and Eck moving (he hopes) and one or two straws in the wind as to what's to come: Nicola cracking down on some zoomer cooncillors; Murphy spotting the Nat bruises on health and education and for the moment at least just giving them a playful tap. But there nothing really big happening and I suspect there won't be now 'til after the Festive Break.

Then of course we will properly be into General Election mode.

It suits the media to talk up that as something different from the normal manichean Labour/Tory contest. It always does. Last time it was Nick who was to be the gamechanger. next time it will be suggested to be Nigel and/or Eck.

But come May 7th there can only be two sorts of Government. One led by us or one led by the Tories. You may not like first past the post but that is it's inevitable outcome. Maybe "only" 65% of the electorate will vote for the two big Parties but that's still more than enough to guarantee one or other of them the lead role and rule out any possible need for a "grand coalition".

In that context the wee Parties have little real influence, even a big wee Party as the Libs have been for the last five years. I'm not doubting that the some Lib Ministers can claim some achievements in office but so can any number of able Tory departmental ministers. Are these, any of them, really "Liberal achievements" or more truly only Liberal achievements which the Tories would have been happy to see as Tory achievements anyway?

What is undoubtedly the case is that the last four and a half years have seen on the big ticket items: Health, Education, Welfare, above all the central thrust of economic policy, a strategy which it is difficult to see would have been significantly different had the Tories been unencumbered by their coalition partners.

"Next time" we are told it would be different. But would it?

I suspect it might be in one regard. The Libs will pay a high electoral price for their dalliance with the Tories. Personally, I think that's a bit unfair. Quite what did those who voted Lib Dem in 2010 expect their chosen Party to do given the actual result? And even at the height of Cleggmania few surely believed that the Libs would ever do better than to hold the balance of power?

But others will look on and think "We're not getting caught like that", Including, I suspect, whatever fragment of the Libs at Westminster survives the coming storm.

So confidence and supply, either formally or on a case by case basis, is likely to be the order of the day in the eventuality that neither big Party has an absolute majority.

And insofar as anything interesting has happened in Scottish politics this week it relates to that point and to a subtle but critical change of what the SNP are saying on it.

For in today's Observer Kevin McKenna reports Salmond as saying this.

"Salmond reiterated SNP policy not to enter a UK coalition government led by the Conservatives in the event of a hung parliament. He said: “My preferred option would be to see Labour win but fall around 20-25 seats short of a working majority. I would want the SNP to be able to force Labour to agree not to renew Trident in Scotland, devolve the setting of the minimum wage to Holyrood and agree to give Scotland some responsibility for its own immigration policy.”
Salmond said the SNP would be looking to squeeze concessions from a minority Tory government in the event that they were forced to turn to the SNP on an issue-by-issue basis. In such a scenario, the SNP would be looking for an agreement from David Cameron that Scotland would remain in the EU if it voted to do so in a referendum in which the rest of the UK opted to leave."

Ignore the first paragraph, it is just twaddle. Tails don't wag dogs and none of these "demands" are consistent with the unitary state we've just voted for. The second paragraph contains the beef. Again the specific "demand" is nonsensical. That a vote about something else could become a vote to break up the UK. No, the more important thing is this. If the Tories were forced to "turn to the SNP on an issue by issue basis", then on an "issue by issue basis" Salmond concedes the SNP might support a Tory Government at Westminster. Or, by implication, vote with the Tories to bring down a minority Labour Government. Just like they did in 1979. Good luck with that line in Glasgow in May.

Maybe old Marx was right all along. History does always repeat itself ..... "the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce".

Jings, perhaps my blog turned out to be interesting after all.

Monday, 1 December 2014

Broon

In the late Spring of 1979 I attended the Scottish launch of the Labour campaign to retain in power the Labour Government which had lost the confidence of the House of Commons in a vote but a few weeks before. A vote in which the SNP had notoriously lined up with the Tories.

I was then a “super activist”, alongside so many others in that now lost time. So, having spent my day knocking doors or delivering leaflets or whatever,  it was no sacrifice at all to head east to swell the numbers at  the Usher Hall to hear Prime Minister and Party leader, Jim Callaghan, rally his northern troops.

Except Jim wasn’t there.

The hall filled, the banners were draped over balconies and the bannermen, from Constituency Labour Parties, youth and women’s sections, trade unions, miners’ welfares and miscellaneous co-op and retail societies  waited to play their part by cheering our champion to the rafters. Almost irrespective as to what he might actually have to say.

Except that he had nothing to say. Because he wasn’t there.

Seven thirty came and went. So did quarter to eight. Eventually Helen Liddell, then the Party General Secretary,  appeared from behind the draped curtains.

 “We are all here to hear from Jim Callaghan” she informed us. Presumably for the benefit of anybody who was expecting to see the Bay City Rollers.

“Unfortunately Jim has been delayed by fog at Heathrow” (a few boos) “but his plane has just taken off” (cheers) “so we are just going to start the rally and Jim will speak when he gets here.” (lots of cheers).

And with that Helen left the stage and the depleted platform party trooped on. The troops cheered (albeit not entirely wholeheartedly) and the rally began.

Except that two minutes into proceedings Helen reappeared by the side of the stage, realising her own error, and started making various cut throat gestures across her neck. But it was too late. The die was cast and she eventually concluded that herself and retreated quietly again behind the curtains.

For the first speaker was Sammy Gooding, a stalwart of the Transport and General Workers Union, and the current chair of the Scottish Labour Party. And he was to deliver a speech of welcome to Jim Callaghan. Helen knew that because she had written it. Except Jim Callaghan wasn’t there.

Now, the position of Chair of the Scottish Labour Party is normally a sinecure.  While in office you get your name recorded in.....the record. You get to make a speech at the Welsh Party Conference and you get to chair the Scottish Executive Committee. And that’s generally it. Except in election years.  When you might actually come to the notice of the general public. So outwith election years it can be an award for long service but, by virtue of various smoke and mirrors, in election years it generally turns out to be somebody fit for purpose.

So back to Comrade Gooding.

“Jim, it is great to see you back here in Scotland” (pause) “Or it would be if you were actually here”. 

“Can I say how well you are looking” (pause) “Wherever you are”. “And your smile is well justified”  (Pause, pause, move on) “because you can be happy with the result we are going to deliver for you here in Scotland”.  “But we know how much you appreciate that in turn, as we can tell from your presence tonight ..............or will be able to tell when you get here”.

And so it went on, reaching a particularly low point when reference was made to Callaghan’s son “Not such a wee boy now as you can see...............or at least as you would see if he was actually present”

Now, no harm to Comrade Gooding but he was clearly inadequate to the task of chairing the Party in an election year. Except that 1979 wasn’t meant to be an election year.  Until comrade Callaghan had (actually) turned up to the TUC to make his “waiting at the Church” speech the previous September, the assumption had been that the election would have taken place in 1978.

And then, in 1978, the Chair of the Scottish Party would have been a young activist more than capable of ad libbing the late arrival of the Party leader.  He would have been Gordon Brown.

You see, that’s how far back Gordon goes.  Not just ‘til then but to before then. To his service on the Scottish Executive that led him to the chair.  To the Red Paper on Scotland. To his election as first student Rector of Edinburgh University.

Tony Blair famously said that he was not born into our Party, he chose it. And it was that sense of slight detachment that made him such a formidable electoral asset. But it was never, ever going to make him loved. With or without Iraq.

Gordon was born into our Party.

And for all his moods and vendettas and fucking, fucking indecision he never ever made a single call he did not think was in the interests of the Labour Party and of the cause of working people that we serve. Even when he made the wrong call. For what it’s worth I think he was wrong to defer to Blair in 1994 but wrong again to think that call could be retrieved once Blair had proved so spectacularly electorally successful.

But have I ever thought Gordon was consumed by personal ambition? Never. He believed a Brown led government would be more radical than a Blair led Government.  He wasn’t wrong. But his motivation was never who would get the credit but rather who would see the benefit.

When the dust settles on this era delegates to the Party conference not yet born will quote Gordon Brown in their speeches knowing that the hall will cheer in response.


For we are best when we are Labour.

Sunday, 23 November 2014

Some poetry

The poets were at it again yesterday in the cause of Scotland. No-one obviously could compete with the achievement reached in such masterworks as Alan Bissett's "Peoples Vow" which in striking metaphor and pathos can only really stand test beside the likes of Paradise Lost.

I link to it here in acknowledgement of the scope of its achievement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZrtOM7CicM
I urge you to watch it. No really I do. Just don't do it with a full bladder.

But I like a bit of poetry myself so I was delighted to come across the newly published poem below by a little known Scottish Poet. It is my great pleasure to give it wider currency. And it Rhymes.

THE BATTLE OF FINNIESTON
by Bobby Northey

It was an Autumn evening
Wee Shuggie's work was done,
And he, his feet up on the couch,
Was reading that day's Sun
When he was disturbed by the strains
Of crying coming from his weans.

He joined them in the other room
To see what was afoot,
"It's Jimmy" said his elder sprog,
"His toe banged that big book".
For engaged in some childish caper
The boy had tripped....... on a White Paper

And looking down upon the tome
A tear came to Shug's eye,
And through the dust that layer'd it now,
He felt years past flash by,
"It was that very book" mused he
"Caused lots to join the SNP."

"And what was that?" the weans inquired
With little comprehension,
"It was a really curious thing"
Said Shug, pleased for attention,
"There was a time that lots you see
All rushed to join the SNP."

"But why and when and where was this?"
The children asked wide eyed,
"It was a long long time ago"
A wiser Shug replied
"Before you ask, I now know not
Why quite so many lost the plot".

"Their leader then was Black Bitch Eck,
His deputy from Govan,
For quite some time they fooled the mob
They knew the route to heaven,
And though they lost quite heavily
Still, many joined the SNP"

"They sometime claimed their movement then
Was something really new,
They claimed a great awakening
And in fairness woke a few,
But, on reflection, lots and lots
Were just the same old loud mouthed Trots."

Though Eck had failed, they each avowed,
"Where Nicola leads then I go",
And Eddie Reader sang them songs
As they gathered in the Hydro
So it was plain for all to see
That lots had joined the SNP."

"They sang, they danced, they heard wee poems
They lauded Alan Bissett
And all the time ignored the fact
They'd had their chance and missed it,
For ev'n the hated BBC
Said lots had joined the SNP"

"It was a time of dreams back then,
Though few could comprehend them,
But when the dreaming had died down
They'd still lost the referendum,
But it was all alright you see
For lots had joined the SNP"

"And everybody praised Great Eck
Who this great fight did lose,
"But what good came of it at last?"
Inquired Shug's infant two.
"Why that I cannot tell" said he
"But lots had joined the SNP"

Sunday, 16 November 2014

Speed



I am sure I was not alone in anticipating the first SNP Conference after the referendum with some relish. After all, a fair section of the fundamentalist wing of the Party had spent most of the campaign predicting that Salmond's wishy washy version of Independence would unravel in the full glare of public exposure and lead to electoral disaster and, jings, that was exactly what had happened.

Independence was off the agenda for at least a generation and indeed, if you thought about it for five minutes,  it was now less than clear what the SNP's purpose in life now exactly was? Was it as a technocratic career structure to the limited levers of power in a devolved Scotland? Was it indeed, and instead, as a vehicle to secure the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism? Could a movement only now really united by gripe and grievance really sell that long term to anyone but the wildest anglophobe?

All of this being addressed in public view boded rich entertainment for the well disposed spectator and even richer fare for those less charitably inclined.

And yet it never happened. The Nats have come and gone from Perth leaving behind not the slightest splatter of blood on the walls of that fair city's conference centre. How was this possibly achieved, I hear you ask? How did they achieve such unanimity in the aftermath of an epochal defeat?

It was easy, they pretended it hadn't happened.

So, in a brilliantly choreographed (reduced) two day event their disgraced and departed leader left the stage without so much as a polite mention of the reasons for his going. Their new leader then inherited the throne and announced that she was confident Scotland would one day be independent. No-one was rude enough to point out that Scotland had had the chance to achieve just that state a mere six weeks past and, despite campaigning in the most fortuitous of circumstance, the nationalists had singularly failed to convince the majority of the population of the merits of that course of action.

Why they had lost was not discussed at all and indeed it wasn't even clear that they all accepted that they had lost. Jim Sillars went so far as to assert they had [only] lost arithmetically! It was as if they expected Eck one day to imitate that member of the other famous Ewing Family,  Bobby, and step out of the shower to announce that the horrific events of 18th and 19th September had all just been a dream. Except, of course, Eck had gone for some reason. It was Nicola now...................but she was just as good. She'd soon have another referendum..... or something. Anyway, here are two men in kilts and with bagpipes to lead us all in Scots wha hae.

And that was it.

Insofar as there was a a way forward it appeared to consist of trying to win as many seats as possible at the 2015 UK General Election. In the light of which putative achievement "Westminster" had better listen or........something.......... will happen. Not entirely clear what but it's early days. What it certainly won't be is support for a Tory Government. Most certainly not! Only a Labour Government would ever get the support of the Nationalists. Although we in this hall are all agreed Labour and the Tories are just the same anyway. Which does rather make you wonder why we would support a government formed by either of them? Their supporters all hate Scotland, particularly the Scottish ones. Although I suppose, when you think about it, in an essentially binary Party system, failure to support a Labour Government would look, to the uninitiated, awfully like support for a Tory Government? Ach well, Christmas is coming, I vote for a bit of early Turkey!

And so the delegates went on their way and my own televisual viewing shifted from the Perth Conference hall to watching Slovenia qualify as the most recent nation to prove a disappointment to Scotland.

But, later yesterday evening, @andimecbandi expressed a desire herself for an early festive experience and we stumbled upon Ms Sandra Bullock in While you were Sleeping buried away in our movies on demand.. I like a good romantic comedy and am a great admirer of Ms Ms Bullock's oeuvre. 

But as I watched the action unfold I realised what the SNP Conference had reminded me of and it was one of Ms Bullock's other films: Speed.

You will recollect the storyline. A bomb is planted on a bus and is primed to explode should the bus's speed drop below a certain velocity. For reasons I can't now recall, Ms Bullock ends up driving the bus. ( I know this is ridiculous but it's a movie!). This being Hollywood, there is a happy ending but the tension of the preceding plot derives from the knowledge that if the bus stops everybody on board gets blown up.

And that was the SNP Conference. Nicola was at the wheel knowing that if they conceded they had stopped going forward then they'd all get blown up.

The problem for Nicola and her partisans is that in this case we are in the realm of Holyrood, not Hollywood. Of fact not fiction. The bus already crashed on 18th September. No amount of dreaming otherwise is going to change that.

Monday, 10 November 2014

Homage to Catalonia

This weekend past saw the twenty-fifth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

This was an epochal political event in more than one way. For, quite aside from the symbolism of the end to the division not just of Germany but of Europe it was then followed by an entirely orderly transition to a new constitutional settlement, again not just of Germany but of Europe, all carried out within the continuity of the rule of law.

The Germans voted for re-unification and the GDR effectively became part of the Federal Republic inheriting in turn the European Union membership of the latter. This was then followed by the orderly transition into EU membership of the other former countries of the Warsaw Pact and the, more or less orderly, dissolution of the Soviet Union.

It seemed at the time that we were seeing a new order in Europe where disputes were settled not by force of arms but by force of argument. Crucially, I repeat, then encompassed into a legal continuum.

Now, as it transpired in Yugoslavia and more recently in Ukraine, not everyone is yet signed up for this. But undoubtedly the states of Western and Central Europe are. And that has very real consequence for Scotland. 

Here, you need to go back a fair bit in the process that lead to the September 18th Referendum past.

There was, to say the least, considerable doubt whether the Scottish Parliament in May 2011 had the legal vires to hold an Independence Referendum. The Scotland Act 1998 proceeds on the basis that the Scottish Parliament has legal competence in all areas not reserved (legally) to Westminster. But in the areas that are so reserved it has no legal competence at all.

And that lack of legal competence is enforceable in court. Any attempt to legislate outwith the competence of the Parliament can be challenged in court and the decision of the courts (not, crucially, of the Parliament) is final. 

For example, the legislation passed by the Parliament in relation to minimum pricing of alcohol is currently under court challenge as incompatible with the Treaty of European Union. Any legislation incompatible with EU membership being specifically beyond the legal competence of the Scottish Parliament

Suppose the ultimate decision, probably by our Supreme Court having taken advice from the European Court of Justice, is that the legislation is in fact incompatible? Legally then there is no legislation. It's as simple as that. And that has consequence.

Suppose further that the Scottish Government, even with the unanimous support of the Scottish Parliament, announced that we did not accept that legal outcome? That this measure had widespread both cross party and public support and in that knowledge that they were instructing the Police still to arrest those selling alcohol below a certain price and the Crown Office to "prosecute" them?

It simply would not happen. There would be no "law" being broken and no "crime" to be prosecuted. The "legislation" would be no more than a piece of paper. The Police would not arrest; even if they did the Crown would not prosecute; even if they did the courts would not convict. That is what is meant by the rule of law.

Now in terms of Paragraph 1(b) of Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 (the legislation creating the Scottish Parliament) "The Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England" is a matter specifically reserved to Westminster. It is an area therefor where the Scottish Parliament has no legal vires.

But of course Scotland did have a "legal" referendum. Never lose sight however of the fact that this occurred not because the Scottish Parliament acted illegally but because the Westminster Parliament acted to give the Scottish Parliament temporary legal authority to hold such a vote despite the fact that the vote was clearly about "The Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England". Temporary legal authority negotiated as part of the Edinburgh Agreement and given legal effect by virtue of an Order in Council made under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998. Temporary authority which, there having been a vote, has now expired.

It seems to me that in the kerfuffle that has followed the vote on 18th September this has been completely lost sight of. The newspapers and the SNP leadership hustings are full of discussion about whether there should be an SNP Holyrood 2016 manifesto commitment to another referendum but, with respect, the issue is not when Holyrood might call another vote. Holyrood cannot call another vote unilaterally. The issue is when Westminster might allow such a thing and that's got nothing to do with the SNP. As I say, that was the more or less unanimous legal view prior to the Edinburgh agreement and any lingering doubt was surely resolved when, by seeking the Edinburgh Agreement, the Scottish Government themselves effectively conceded that they needed Westminster permission to act. And in asking the question of Westminster again no-one should expect any answer short of "not for a generation". That, after all, was the basis on which the Nationalists secured their agreement to the referendum just past in the first place

Now, I just want to make clear what I'm saying here. I am not engaged in a political argument over where sovereignty ought to lie in these matters, I am engaged in making a simple legal one. Holyrood has no unilateral legal authority to hold an Independence Referendum. And that means that any purported Holyrood legislation to achieve such an event would be a fundamental legal nullity. Returning Officers would have no legal authority to incur expenditure publicising such a vote, let alone to incur expenditure conducting or counting one. If they were inclined to act illegally (a most unlikely event) they would be interdicted from proceeding by the courts. If they breached the interdict (an even more unlikely event) they would be locked up. That's what the rule of law entails.

But most importantly of all, even if the nationalists somehow got to the end game of a vote and even a vote overwhelmingly for Independence, "everybody" could just ignore it. 

You don't need to take my word for it for that's exactly what has happened in Catalonia this last weekend.

The Nationalist controlled Parliament there announced they were going to hold an Independence Referendum and passed "legislation" to this effect. The Spanish Supreme Court ruled that this legislation had no legal effect as it contravened the Spanish Constitution. That Constitution, adopted after the fall of Franco and endorsed then by all parts of Spain in a referendum, specifically prohibits the unilateral secession of any one part of the Country. A referendum about precisely that proposition was therefor ultra vires of the Catalan Parliament and could not go ahead decided the Supreme Court. After a bit of mucking about, the Catalan Nationalists announced they would accept that outcome but would have an "unofficial" vote, conducted legally (in both senses of the word)  independently of the Parliament but with majority political support from within it

Which the Catalan Nats duly did yesterday when in a derisorily low turn out event the nonetheless differential enthusiasm of the separatists delivered them an 80% Yes vote. But so what? Is Catalonia Independent this morning? Can its Parliament levy any taxes other than those it is allowed to do so under the current constitutional settlement? Can it raise its own army, police its own borders, require anyone at the EU or the UN to consider its application for membership? Is anybody even in Madrid paying the slightest attention?

Now of course there is an alternative but that alternative involves the repudiation of the rule of law and the resort to the use of armed force. But that brings me back to where I started, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. That course of action is not likely to be acceptable not just to Spain but to any other European democracy. It is not how things are now "done" in this part of the world. So even if the Catalans achieved some sort of military victory what they would be left with would be a pariah state excluded from engagement, never mind co-operation, with the rest of democratic Europe. And utterly financially ruined in the process. Which, to be fair, is pretty much the conclusion the Catalan Nationalists have reached themselves. Without progress within the rule of law there can now be no progress. Their referendum has given them another excuse to gripe and moan and....that's it. 

And that's where Scotland is now. Independence outwith the rule of law is just so......... 19th Century and Independence within the rule of law has had its chance. No doubt we will have to put up with our own griping and moaning for some time yet but slowly that will sink in even to the most died in the wool Yesser.

 The vote recently past wasn't just for the moment, it was for keeps. Unless the Nats can somehow explain otherwise. Which, although they continue to put on a brave face for the moment, they know they ultimately can't. Hopefully once we've finally got a competent leadership back at the head of the Scottish Labour Party that will be made clearer to everybody else.