Wasn't Scottish independence supposed to be the price for Brexit? Why then did the SNP poll badly?

I think the first thing to grasp is that Brexit fundamentally altered the case for Scottish independence. You have to remember that Scotland voted for the UK to remain in the EU, not for Scotland to remain alone if the rest of the UK left.

When both Scotland and the rest of the UK were in the EU, there would have been no customs border between the two, even after independence. After Brexit, for Scotland to rejoin the EU would have meant a customs border applicable to two thirds of Scottish trade.

It would also have precluded continuance of the UK Free Travel Area, since there is free movement of people inside the EU and the FTA would have negated any UK policy to control immigration. Obviously, the UK would not allow this. (Ireland was able to remain in the CTA because as an old EU member it was not obliged to join Schengen; new members are obliged to join).  In other words, Scots could no longer expect to move south freely in pursuit of economic opportunities.

New members of the EU (including Scotland) are also expected to have managed their own currency competently for two years and to commit to joining the Euro. As an old member, the UK had an exemption. Scotland has no currency of its own, nor any separate central bank. Using sterling as a foreign currency would be possible, but would not qualify Scotland for EU admission.

New members of the EU are expected to achieve a fiscal deficit target that Scotland would need about ten years of austerity to achieve, according to the Wilson Report. This would be particularly acute if the UK immediately cut off Barnett funding, stopped military expenditure in Scotland, and declined to continue the currency union, all of which would have been perfectly legitimate.

Thus, it was improbable that an independent Scotland could make a swift return to the EU, and independence would mean standing alone for at least a decade.

In spite of this, the SNP continued to agitate for independence and to neglect the day job of actually running an efficient devolved administration. The results eventually became too obvious to ignore.

Additionally, after the coalition with the Greens, the SNP began to pursue a whole agenda of politically correct policies which did not resonate with the Scottish electorate at large.

To this you have to add the impact of various scandals. The burdens accumulated until they could no longer be borne.

But I think you are wrong to see the Labour Party as pro-Brexit. Starmer was one who campaigned for a second referendum, and is still not trusted to not make unnecessary concessions to the EU in trade negotiations.

In short, Brexit did not figure highly in the list of reasons for voters abandoning the SNP.

An Election is Announced

(With acknowledgements to Sydney Carter's "Down Below".)


Well you’re working in the dark, when you vote
Not like walking in the park, when you vote
All the bastards lie to you
And you ‘ates ‘em through and through
And they won’t do nowt fer you, when you vote

Oh, they say that things will change, when you vote
Over policies wide-ranged, when you vote
But the fact is you’ll be caught
And your hopes will come to naught
And the only change is short, when you vote.

Oh, they say they’ll turn the page, when you vote
It’s the start of a new age, when you vote
But it’s goin’ to piss you off
When some new throats starts to quaff
And it’s new snouts in the trough, when you vote.

There ain't nobody to trust, when you vote
Cos the bleedin’ systems bust, when you vote
They’re supposed to work for you
But there ain’t one as ‘as a clue
And the truth cannot break through, when you vote.

But we’ll all just go along, and we’ll vote
By the nose be led 'eadlong, ‘til we vote
Then we find the bright new way
Looks a lot like yesterday
And the bastards get to stay, when you vote.

Quora Question: Is it time for the British to come into the 21st century and have an elected Head of State?

Let’s begin by distinguishing the role of head of state from the role of head of government.

The minimum function of a head of state is to symbolise the unity of the nation and to exercise that symbolic role in representative, ritual and ceremonial ways that help keep the body politic together. It is difficult for a partisan figure to symbolise national unity; by definition he or she has supported one political viewpoint and opposed others in the past and his or her one-time opponents may be reluctant to give such a figure the benefit of any doubt.

The function of a head of government by contrast is to serve as head of the executive, that is to say to be in charge of getting the work of government done. In a democracy this role does not require unanimous support; customarily it is supported by a majority or the largest minority, though there are exceptions to this principle.

Some constitutions combine the two roles, though not always comfortably. These are known as executive presidencies. They range from what are effectively autocracies to highly polarised and divided democracies, though sometimes you do find an individual capable of transcending party animosity and becoming a genuinely national leader. Where such a figure fails to emerge there is no obvious alternative as a national unifying force. The role may fall to an independent judiciary or sometimes society may suffer a loss of cohesion.

For this reason there is merit in keeping the roles of head of state and head of government separate. Since the head of government is elected it is probably best if the head of state is not, because you don’t want a struggle between rival mandates.

The virtues of a monarchical system include new incumbents having experienced an apprenticeship, sometimes accepting an increasing share of royal duties as the reigning parent ages; it is rare for a complete ingénu to ascend the throne not knowing how to behave. As long as the restrictions upon this role are understood by all it is nowadays rarely controversial.

By contrast it is quite common for incoming political heads of government to lack experience or knowledge, resulting in errors of policy in early years.

You probably couldn’t introduce a monarchical system today, but that doesn’t mean it’s no longer fit for purpose or could easily be improved upon. Remember the guiding principle of management by exception - ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!’

US Election Hysteria

Everyone please take a deep breath, sit down and count to ten.

In the great scheme of things, the success of a protest candidate in a reasonably democratic election should not rank very high on the scariness scale.

It has been my feeling for a long time that democracy was decaying into a shell of itself with the rapid growth of a class of professional politicians that had little or no idea of the problems confronting the folk they allegedly represented.

Brexit came as a shock to this class when if they had being doing their job properly it might not even have happened, let alone come as a bolt from the blue.

The Beltway politicians in the US are similar in this respect to the London-centric UK political elite, a similar class in France, Germany, Holland etc. In Scotland the SNP are riding a wave of inchoate (and innumerate) populist revolt against the system.

It's forty years since Lord Hailsham drew attention to what he called 'Elective Dictatorship'. The re-energising of the whole process is overdue and sadly the professional political classes would not listen any other way.

Of course it remains to be seen if they will listen this way. 

In the words of the old Chinese curse, we live in interesting times.

Scotland's Voice

In order that 'Scotland's voice shall be heard' we Scots have decided to change our traditionally successful tactic.

Hitherto we have sent to London representatives of UK-wide political parties who could and did take a disproportionate share of the great offices of state.  Two recent Prime Ministers, three chancellors, foreign, home and defence secretaries,  the outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury and numerous other ministers have been Scots.

For some reason the English, Welsh and Northern Irish used to be content to allow Scots to run the country. But that wasn't enough for us, so we have now sent to London 56 members of a purely Scottish party who, with no significant allies at Westminster, cannot hope to hold any UK office of state at all. Scotland's voice will no longer be heard in the cabinet room or in senior departments as it has been up to now.

Perhaps someone will explain to me how having our representatives shouting from outside the cabinet room is more likely to ensure that Scotland's voice is heard than having several of the most crucial seats inside was.

Confined to opposition, it will be tempting for Scotland's representatives to become shrill and peevish. We have no-one but ourselves to blame for this loss of influence. Since austerity is the current UK government's policy and the SNP demands an end to it, we can hardly be surprised if we are told we have leave to spend more money in Scotland provided it is all raised in Scottish taxes.

Wizard of Oz Election?

A column in The Times this week suggested the forthcoming election was like a contest between the Wizard of Oz characters Tin Man and Scarecrow; a party with no heart versus one with no head.  It went on to suggest the SNP was exploiting these mainstream shortcomings.

In my judgement, the SNP takes to even more egregious lengths than the mainstream parties the art of promising the manifestly undeliverable before wrapping the whole package in the mawkishness of a pledge to  deliver the victims of non-existent oppression from their imaginary chains. If ever there was a political grouping careless of its own shortcomings it is the SNP.

In democratic practice however practical shortcomings do not matter. The electorate are not going to check your sums; they are not likely to understand that today's over-consumers are stealing from future generations. They will even perceive unpalatable statistics as lies generated by a conspiracy. They feel that once upon a time we seemed to be able to afford things we allegedly can't afford now. The only possible explanation for this is government mean spiritedness.

Before the crash the Blair/Brown years delivered statistical growth by bloating the public sector and encouraging reckless borrowing; the coalition has restored statistical growth on the back of domestic consumption. (Though to be fair the Eurozone debacle has hardly provided them with a feast of export potential.) It's all done with smoke and mirrors.

I'm not sure about heads and hearts. Perhaps we should remember that the central government of Oz was also based on a populist fraud.