The demonisation of the Scots

Above, a Conservative Party campaign advertisement. At bottom, a misogynistic excerpt from the English Sun on 10 March 2015. (It didn't run in the Scottish Sun; the two often run articles that are diametrically opposed.) And here, a transcript from an interview with Nicola Sturgeon on the Today Programme, 28 March 2015 (interview begins at 1:50:30). The transcript doesn't capture the way John Humphrys speaks over Sturgeon, in order to call her arrogant three times in arrow.

Humphrys: Put yourself in the position of somebody in an English constituency listening to a Scot saying we can lock the Tories out of government. It's entirely possible the Tories will win the most seats, certainly the most votes, in England, and yet here we have a Scottish leader saying we can lock them out of government even though we ourselves want to be independent of that country. It's surpassingly arrogant, isn't it?
Sturgeon: Governments at Westminster have to be able to command a majority. Firstly, it's a matter of simple arithmetic that if there are more anti-Tory MPs in the House of Commons then Tory MPs then we can choose to lock the Tories out of government.
Humphrys: I know, what I'm saying is that it looks incredibly arrogant of you.
Sturgeon: Let me come onto that in a second.
Humphrys: No, no, I take the arithmetical point. But it is breathtakingly arrogant of you. You want independence yet you're saying that we're going to deny the English people the government that they want.
Sturgeon: Let me speak to the listeners in England. You know Scotland right now, just as a matter of fact, has a Tory government when the Tories have one MP in Scotland. Now in the UK it is who can command a majority.  What I'm saying is the kind of policies that the SNP would want to pursue in the House of Commons I think would find support not just in Scotland but in the UK. But the fundamental principle here is that if you want to be the government in the House of Commons then you have to command the majority, and if the Tories can't command the majority then they don't deserve to be the government.

Am I the only one who finds Humphrys argument profoundly anti-democratic? Demon = No Dem.

Cobblers, common sense, and civil servants

Labour keeps banging on `Vote SNP, Get Tory', claiming that the party with the most seats will get first crack at forming a government. Common sense says this is cobblers, and it turns out the high-ranking civil servants agree with common sense. From Common Space.

THE civil servant who was crucial to forming the current UK government has said that a deal including the Scottish National Party is a “feasible scenario” based on current polling figures.
Sir Gus O’Donnell - whose name is abbreviated to ‘GOD’ inside the political establishment - made the comments to The Guardian when questioned on the implications of a hung parliament.

And from the Guardian.

O’Donnnell said: “The one thing we need to be aware of is people thinking that what Nick Clegg said last time constituted an iron law that only the biggest party, somehow defined either by seats or votes, gets to have the first say. That is not true.”
He added that current polls suggest the most likely government would involve a Labour-Lib Dem coalition supported by the SNP. “If you look at the numbers that looks like a feasible scenario,” he said.

59% of Scots want a second referendum within ten years

A survey by Survation shows 59% of Scots would like a second Independence referendum within ten years. Only 20% said they would never like another referendum. But the same survey shows that if another referendum was held today, it would come out No again, 52% to 48%. Surprising all those folks want another chance to vote No ...

Say no to a Scottish national ID system

The Scottish government has opened for consultation plans of that would lead to database sharing among a vast range of organisations, and could lead to the introduction of de facto ID cards via the back door. Responses to the consultation are due by 25 February 2015. ORG Scotland writes:

A minor, barely noticed consultation is not the way to make a major change to Scottish citizens’ privacy and their relationship with the state. Creating a national ID register was rejected by the SNP and the UK, and the bare minimum should be for the Scottish Executive to introduce primary legislation whereby the public and MSPs can debate the nature of these changes and whether they are acceptable.

Respond to the consultation quickly, courtesy of ORG.

ORG is planning meetings to discuss how we can stop the Scottish Government's plans in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen, and is tracking developments in their blog.

Here is the original consultation,  and a detailed response by ORG.

Fracking: No moratorium/Moratorium

On Monday 26 January, in Westminster Labour claimed a 'victory' over fracking, while in fact abstaining on a vote for a moratorium. Jim Murphy, leader of Scottish Labour, has claimed to be against fracking but didn't even show up for the vote.

On Wednesday 28 January, in Holyrood, the Scottish Government announced its support for a moratorium on fracking, following the lead of the Scottish Greens who proposed a ban last year. Keep your eye out for the consultation, and your chance to ask for the moratorium to be made permanent.

The face of Jim Murphy

This photo of Jim Murphy is courtesy of Wednesday's National. Worth more than the 50p, not counting anything else in the paper.

Murphy is a piece of work. He changes his position on major issues. Repeatedly in interviews he claims Labour voted one way when they voted the other. And his main argument to vote Labour?

“Nearly 200,000 Yes voters ... can decide whether to vote Labour to get rid of the Tories or to vote SNP and keep the status quo.”

Implicit here is the notion that no alliance between Labour and SNP will be possible, or even thinkable. It is the same bullying strategy we saw in the referendum: collaboration with Scotland is not an option, even if it is in the UK's best interest; vote our way or you will suffer the consequences.

Meanwhile, Murphy's deputy, Kezia Dugdale, has leaked the truth: “I think what we are setting out to do is to be the largest party, I have no qualms whatsoever about working with the SNP.”

I'm not looking forward to a repeat of Better Together's mistruths and bullying during the referendum. Are there no issues Labour wishes to debate?
Murphy

Save our Universities!

An independent Scotland is in danger of losing one of its major assets in the time between now and independence---the excellence of its universities is under threat. Below is an open letter to my MSPs. Support and suggestions for how to carry this forward as a campaign are solicited.

Dear Gavin Brown, Sarah Boyack, Alison Johnstone, Kezia Dugdale, Cameron Buchanan and Neil Findlay,

I write to ask your help to preserve a secure future for Scottish Universities.

Academics for all UK universities, including those in Scotland, have faced falling wages and falling pensions over many years.  "The real
wages of academics have fallen by 13% since 2008, one of the largest
sustained wage cuts any profession has suffered since the Second World
War." So wrote Will Hutton in the Guardian, October 2013 [1].

In 2011, Universities UK imposed vastly reduced pensions on new
hires. Old hires who pay into the pension fund for forty years receive
a pension of one-half their final salary; new hires who do the same
receive a pension of one-half their average salary. Basing pensions on
average rather than final salary may be sensible, but to do so with no
adjustment in multiplier suggests employers are using this as an
excuse to slip in a large cut; it means new hires receive about 2/3
the benefits received by old hires. All staff also suffered other cuts
to pensions: additional caps and less good adjustment for inflation.
At the time, it was predicted that within a few years old hires would
be moved to the inferior scheme for new hires, and that is what has
now come to pass. [2]

Universities UK argue that the reductions are necessary to avoid a
deficit, but their claim has been widely criticised. Notably, a group
of prominent statisticians point out Universities UK inflated the
deficit by assuming a buoyant economy when predicting future salaries
but assuming a recession when predicting investment returns. [3]

A strong university system is one of the jewels in the crown of the
UK, and particularly for Scotland.  That excellence is a huge driver
of innovation and growth. If Scotland reduces its investment in
universities, it won't be long before we feel that loss throughout the
economy. [4,5]

Scotland has a University system second to none, and to keep it strong
we need pay and pensions that attract and retain the best minds
throughout the world.  We must have a system that is fair to both: old
hires must retain attractive conditions; new hires must have the bad
deal imposed on them in 2011 rolled back. Speaking as an old hire, I'd
settle for a cut in pension if it meant bringing new hires onto
the same level: we must keep the system strong for the future.

An obvious point to aim for is parity with the TPS scheme used at
post-92 institutions; fall below that and we will see old universities
lose their best staff to post-92 institutions, a nonsensical position.

The UCU is currently in negotiation with UUK, but there is unlikely
to be a good outcome without political support.

I write to ask you, as my representative in the Scottish parliament,
will you direct the Scottish Funding Council to make fair treatment
for academics in Scottish Universities, both new hires and old, a top
priority?

Thank you for your consideration. Yours,

-- Philip Wadler
Professor of Theoretical Computer Science
School of Informatics
University of Edinburgh