Grasp

A cross-post with sluggerotoole.com on the issue of the Scottish independence referendum.

The Unionist cause in Scotland fighting an independence referendum campaign should be doing so from a position of inherent strength. Support for the Union has consistently outpolled support for independence. In more recent years any spikes in the support for independence have been just that, unsustained for any significant period of time. Also the natural conservatism of voters about change is on Unionism’s side.

So that’s that then we can all go home?

Regrettably, no. These two factors appear to be their problem.

The firmness of support has led to a degree of complacency. It has contributed to an intellectual laziness among the advocates for the Union. The benefits and strengths of the Union are too often seen as sufficiently self-evident that they often remain unarticulated and there is an over-reliance on shillings and pence as the show-stopper. This then leads to far too much reliance on scare stories. The Unionist contribution to the debate so far in Scotland is at serious risk of making the SNP look like the good guys.

This combination of complacency and negativity means the Unionist cause has not developed a positive narrative. This means that in the battle to connect with the emotions of the voters it simply isn’t on the field. It could be possible to win without this but Unionism in Scotland would not be served well in the medium or long-term by a ‘dirty’ or ‘negative’ win. A ‘clean’ or ‘positive’ win is better at containing the separatist forces for longer. This is important as Salmond has created a second tier in his party more than capable of succeeding him. The past assumption of Salmond goes and the threat would disappear is no longer true.

Negativity does have a role in any campaign but has to be credible and based on a positive platform not what you offer voters for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

In the past the Unionist case could have been assured of a financial advantage but £2m of donations to the SNP have reduced this. Also the SNP has perfected maximising impact for spend as its masterful use of cheap database software and social media in the last Scottish election shows.

So what are the Unionism’s weaknesses?

The most fundamental weakness is the dire state of the Scottish Unionist parties, in particular Scottish Labour. The reasons for this will not be explored here other than to say they have no narrative, weak leadership and creaking organisations. Salmond has been blessed by his opposition. This is why the national leaderships have had to step in. However, this doesn’t solve the problem as ‘London’ stepping in can create as many new issues.

Beyond the opportunity to play a nationalistic card around their involvement the fact is that none of the national leaders have strong personal brands (either in Scotland or across the UK) and if the last election is anything to go by they aren’t very good at campaigns either. The Conservatives had everything going for them and couldn’t get to a majority, Labour produced a negative and confused campaign and the Liberal Democrats got lucky with the debates but couldn’t transform that into electoral growth. On a local note the ill-fated UCUNF is a warning of how badly things can go wrong when a campaign is riven by local v national tensions.

This means a new untainted Unionist campaigning organisation is essential. The Scottish Unionist political parties should have a role in its establishment but they cannot be allowed to be the dominant presence. The Unionist case needs a Scottish and non-party political voice that will sell a positive narrative. It should also realise that this will not be a media won campaign but on the doorsteps so they will have to develop a significant ground operation.

The political class will have to get Alex Salmond out of their collective heads. An obsession with Salmond leads to an emphasis on counter-strategy rather than a strategy, too negative a message and more likely to bolster Salmond’s popularity than harm it.

What role should other Unionists elsewhere play in the campaign?

Unionists from elsewhere in the UK can help with finance, expertise and personnel. However, it should allow the Scottish Unionist campaign to decide on what role they directly play in there. What is needed in the other parts of the United Kingdom is a complementary campaign to a positive Scottish Unionist narrative. The Scottish campaign sells the benefits of the Union our role should be to make it clear Scotland is wanted.

BTW here is the best piece I have read on the referendum campaign.

Debate

I am now in possession of a large quantity of leaflets to promote the No2AV debate in the Ulster Hall.  Anyone who is interested in getting copies to promote the event or distribute themselves drop me an email - fair_deal2005ATyahoo.co.uk

Less equal than others

The primary argument used for the stricter enforcement of constituency size when drawing future boundaries is to ensure votes are "equal" across the country.  Two constituencies were exempted from this but what has gone unnoticed is that the principle will most likely not be applied to Northern Ireland.  The legislation gives the boundary commission here greater flexibility to go outside these limits.  The special provisions state:

"7 (1) In relation to Northern Ireland, sub-paragraph (2) below applies in place of rule 2 where—
(a) the difference between—
(i) the electorate of Northern Ireland, and
(ii) the United Kingdom electoral quota multiplied by the number of seats in Northern Ireland (determined under rule 8), exceeds one third of the United Kingdom electoral quota,"

This sub-paragraph states:

"(2) The electorate of any constituency shall be
(a) no less than whichever is the lesser of - N - A and 95% of the United Kingdom electoral quota, and
(b) no more than whichever is the greater of - N + A and 105% of the United Kingdom electoral quota,
where—N is the electorate of Northern Ireland divided by the number of seats in Northern Ireland (determined under rule 8), and A is 5% of the United Kingdom electoral quota."

The basis for this legislative provision is that the 2009 figures would indicate that this situation is likely to arise in Northern Ireland and unlike the other constituent parts of the UK it has less seats to spread any remainder over once the number of seats has been allocated.  In December of last year Northern Ireland would have had 15.3 parliamentary quotas. 

More recent research by the House of Commons Library (pdf file) has confirmed that on the updated registration figures in May 2010 that Northern Ireland now had 15.35 parliamentary quotas.  The HoC Library research predicted on the May figures that while the rest of the UK would have boundaries limits of 72,371 to 79,989 in Northern Ireland they would be 72,371 to 81,755.

Since then a further 15,365 people have been added to the Westminster register (pdf file) in Northern Ireland (about a fifth of a parliamentary seat quota).  This potentially increases the differences between the mainland and NI quotas even more but still not large enough to justify an extra seat.

Super whizzo idea

Instead of simply acting on their promise to cut Sinn Fein allowances the latest Coalition delaying tactic is the super whizzo idea of letting Sinn Fein write their own oath.  The Mail's temparture has been suitably raised by Owen Paterson's comments at the Northern Ireland Select Committee over the parliamentary oath and Sinn Fein's abstentionist policy:

"I have said if the oath is an obstacle, come to me with an alternative text, we already do it for people who are not Christians. So far they have not..."

Perhaps Paterson missed such statements as this:

"There are a lot of things which there can be no certainty of and there are some things of which we can be certain. There will never, ever, be Sinn Fein MPs sitting in the British Houses of Parliament."

"even if the Commons oath was removed, Sinn Fein would refuse to take their seats in a parliament whose legitimacy they did not accept."

In the related expenses issue it has been risen and fallen with the tide.  First, they were going to be untouched.  Second it was going to be reviewed with a partial cut hinted at.  However, some are now asking whatever happened to the review?

Patience - Updated

The Parliamentary Voting Reform and Constituencies Bill will receive its second reading today with the Coalition leaders talking tough while others return it in kind.

The difficulty with this scenario is that it ceases to be about the bill and what it is seeking to achieve rather the political fight around it.  The core weakness of the bill is that it is trying to do too much in too short a space of time when if a degree of patience where shown in it and its associated measures the goals within it could probably be achieved. 

It would be better if the bill was held back until after the House of Lord proposals are developed and that the reform of constituencies have a target date of 2020 rather than 2015.  This will enable a rounded decision on the new structures of government and voting systems.  The roll-out of a new registration could be completed in advance of the re-drafting of the boundaries with the likely problems tackled (if Northern Ireland's experience is anything to go the likely result is less not more on the register as intended with much follow-up required).

UPDATE:  Ian James Parlsey provides a more in-depth analysis of the issues around the Coalition's Constitutional Reform programme.

The Effects - AV and cutting seats

Tim Montgomerie has a good run down on two analyses of the impact of AV and the redistribution of seats.

Sooner rather than later

The latest Conservativehome survey of Conservative party members shows a small majority in favour of a non-aggression pact with their Coalition partners where they are the top two parties.  The primary argument against it is maintaining voter loyalty, organisational machine and potential impact upon other levels. As Tim Montgomerie sums it up:

"What’s the point of having a Conservative organisation in a seat such as Torbay if it is not allowed to challenging the sitting Liberal Democrat MP? If the Tories don’t fight every seat, the United Kingdom Independence Party or a new right-of-centre party could use the abandoned territory as launch pads for local, European and other elections."

Bigger Problem v Answer

One of the more interesting proposals in the ConDem Coalition is the intention to examine the West Lothian Question. If equality of citizenship is to be a core principle of the United Kingdom then it does need to be taken seriously.

Blair's decision that it did not matter was plain wrong and it was interesting how much the issue of Scottish MPs passing English legislation came up even when Labour had large majorities. It is also one would have came under significant focus if Labour had eeked out a few more seats and stayed in power through a coailtion deal with the Liberal Democrats. The Tory or Ken Clarke proposal of a dual class of MPs wasn't much of a solution either.

However, the other proposals of the Coalition deal actually make the West Lothian issue worse. It sets out to implement Calman and potentially increase the powers of the Welsh Assembly. hence it will make the Westy Lothian issues of the consitutional arrangements worse while it looks for answers to the problem.

PS The 55% nonsense is still included in its proposals.

What's the problem with 50%+1?

When I was reading through the LibCon, ConLib or ConDem (copyright Daily Mirror) coalition agreement, I did consider the proposal for the new 55% confidence meaure plain unwise. The idea of fixed term parliaments is a reasonable one but the addition of this proposal seemed to be the creation of an unnecessary problem. So it appears to have transpired with Tory disquiet at the proposal being expressed. The new coalition certainly didn't need a row as its third day story but the inclusion of this idea has provided it.

The core problem with the proposal is it could create the circumstances of absolute paralysis. The proposal is not helped by the fact that where the figure 55% appears to have come from. The answer seems to be found in the mathematics of the present parliament. If the coalition fell a Tory minority government could continue under this rule. However, it is not a good idea to shape constitutional practice on the basis of a single and rare election result.

Avoidance seems to have been the immediate position the Tory leadership have adopted. David Cameron has simply talked about the idea of a fixed term parliament. The Leader of the House of Commons, Sir George Young defence of the policy simply ignores the concerns about 55%.

Granted arguments about the constitution do tend to raise the general public to even greater levels of disinterest but 50%+1 is a simple concept which will have much natural sympathy. Cameron did once claim to be the heir to Blair, if he continues with this part of his proposals he'll have inherited Blair's trait towards constitutional vandalism.