Scottish Greens are accusing UK Chancellor George Osborne and SNP Finance Secretary John Swinney of waging a phoney war, with their suggestions that a Sterling zone is either impossible or inevitable.

Scottish Greens have not ruled out supporting a Sterling zone as a short term transitional arrangement, but have urged the Scottish Government to keep an open mind about moving towards an independent currency. The Scottish Government’s currency paper, published today, endorses the idea of a Sterling zone but agrees the need for flexibility should circumstances change.

Patrick Harvie MSP, Co-convener of the Scottish Greens, said:

“George Osborne is more interested in scaring people ahead of the referendum than an honest assessment of the options after it. In the event of a Yes vote both sides would need to recognise the mandate given by the people, and settle down to the real negotiations. Scotland’s hand in those negotiations would be strengthened if we did the groundwork on our own currency so we keep it as a realistic medium-term option.

“Osborne’s economic credibility is in tatters and now he’s attempting to wage a phoney war by suggesting we’re doomed unless we stick with the existing arrangements – arrangements which fail to reflect our needs and aspirations. If Scotland votes for full control of our own affairs it is reasonable to expect our economic priorities to diverge from the rest of the UK, so we would be wise to keep our currency options open.”

(Ends)

Treasury comments:

“None of the options under independence would serve Scotland as well as the current arrangements.”

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_41_13.htm

Scottish Government currency paper:

“All macroeconomic frameworks should have the flexibility to evolve if circumstances change, this is a key aspect of economic sovereignty.” (Page 4)

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00419554.pdf

Tomorrow, the Scottish Parliament will meet to consider Thatcher’s legacy. Here’s why I called for this debate.

The passing of Margaret Thatcher has prompted endless coverage about her period in office, and her political legacy. So much that I heard one man text in to a radio programme to complain that he had reached “Thatcheration point”! If he’s an Evening Times reader then I apologise, but I’m going to add my own comments to the deluge of analysis.

It’s important for several reasons that we take this opportunity to reflect on the ideas which Mrs Thatcher, more than any other politician, embodied. Marking her death does not mean celebrating it; I found that attitude as distasteful as many of her admirers. But it would be bizarre if this moment passed without a debate about how our society has been shaped since Mrs Thatcher declared that there was no such thing.

There are many people, including those who will cast their first ever vote in next year’s referendum, for whom Mrs Thatcher was already a historical figure only; they didn’t live through the times that she shaped. This may be their first chance to question some of the assumptions which have held sway for the last 30 years, about the dominance of the ‘market’, the unaccountable power of big business, and the individualistic values which Thatcherism promoted.

That referendum, in which Scotland will make a hugely important choice about its future, is another reason why this debate is timely. There are people on both sides of the independence debate who opposed Thatcherism during the 80s, and who remain committed to overturning its legacy today. Even across the constitutional divide, there is much that unites us. I don’t think Scotland can challenge free market fundamentalism or the values of greed and selfishness without far greater economic control, but if others disagree it’s important that their ideas are heard. The constitutional debate must be about the kind of society and economy we want, not just the location of government power.

Finally, the moment is ripe to debate the legacy of that free market, buccaneer capitalist economic model precisely because we’ve seen it fail so spectacularly. The ‘big bang’ deregulation of the financial markets, and the three decades of centre-right politics which followed (whether under the Tories, New Labour, or now the Tories again with their LibDem helpers) have brought us to where we are now. The recession which everyone except the super-rich has been living through cannot be solved with another dose of the poison which caused it. If we can’t make use of this moment in history to start a new chapter, we will have failed both our own generation and the next.

The Scottish Green/Independent group at Holyrood is urging politicians of all viewpoints in parliament to engage in an honest debate on the legacy of Thatcherism.

The group has chosen to make its allocated debate slot this Wednesday – the day of the former prime minister’s funeral – an open debate with no formal motion or voting. The theme of the debate is “There is still such a thing as society”, reflecting Margaret Thatcher’s comments that society is made up of individuals who should look out for themselves first.

Patrick Harvie, Green MSP for Glasgow, said:

“Margaret Thatcher has died, but the tragedy for huge numbers of people is that Thatcherism as an ideology still lives. We aim to encourage honest consideration of the legacy of Thatcherism, the core elements of which – competition and selfishness – continue to affect our society and our economy.

“Despite her efforts to undermine Scotland’s shared values and public services, it is important to assert that our society still exists. Collective solutions to shared problems are all the more important in light of the failure of the Thatcherite economic model.

“By encouraging an open debate I hope we’ll see a bit less of the tribal politics Holyrood has suffered of late and bit more of an effort to acknowledge our shared aspirations for Scottish society. There are those on both sides of the independence divide who oppose the values of Thatcherism; they will need to find ways to work together after the referendum, whatever the result.”

Ahead of Saturday’s Scrap Trident march through Glasgow city centre and Monday’s blockade of Faslane, Scottish Greens are calling on the SNP Government to change their stance on military spending.

In a letter to the First Minister to mark the Global Day of Action on Military Spending on Monday (15 Apr), Scottish Green MSPs along with independent colleagues John Finnie, Margo MacDonald and Jean Urquhart urge Alex Salmond to reconsider the SNP’s plan to commit £2.5 billion to an annual defence and security budget as part of NATO.

Patrick Harvie MSP, Co-convener of the Scottish Greens, will be among the Scrap Trident speakers in George Square on Saturday.

Patrick said:

“This weekend of action shows the appetite to rid Scotland of this horrific nuclear weapons system has grown stronger and stronger. A debate led by the Scottish Greens in the last session of parliament resulted in a historic vote against the renewal of Trident, and we continue to call for communities reliant on military jobs to be helped to diversify.

“It is vital that those of us who want to see Trident scrapped also make the case against outdated overblown military budgets and pro-nuclear clubs like NATO. An independent Scotland that took a different tack from the UK would send a very powerful message to the international community about the folly of military aggression.”

(Ends)

The text of the letter to Alex Salmond:

Dear First Minister,

Global Day of Action on Military Spending

Monday 15th April 2013 marks this year’s Global Day of Action on Military Spending. The UK commits £39 billion of public money each year to military expenditure whilst vital public services face drastic spending cuts. It is our firm belief that this is the wrong choice. Our public resources should be focussed on challenging society’s inequalities, improving people’s health and well-being and helping create an environmentally sustainable society and we hope you share that view.

Independence will give Scotland a chance to do things differently but the SNP’s plan to commit £2.5 billion to an annual defence and security budget as part of NATO completely undermines this opportunity. Clearly there is a role for national defence but this does not require membership of a cold war nuclear alliance and a budget running into billions of pounds. The last thing an independent Scotland should do is mimic the military posture of the UK, with the aggressive projection of power around the world and engaging in reckless overseas adventures.

We recognise that a smaller defence budget would affect communities heavily reliant on the arms industry and defence, such as Edinburgh, Fife, Moray and the area around Faslane. These communities deserve a just transition and the money diverted from military spending should be used to diversify their economies, redeploy their skills and technical expertise to, for example, the energy sector which is itself in need of more engineers.

Polling released by the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament found opposition to the replacement of Trident running at 75% demonstrating yet again the strength of feeling in Scotland. As you know we fully support the removal of Trident from Scottish waters and opposition to the replacement of these weapons of mass destruction but we must also take a different stance on military spending to let Scotland play a positive and fair role in the world.

Yours,

John Finnie, Patrick Harvie, Alison Johnstone, Margo MacDonald, Jean Urquhart

A poll by the Scottish Greens of 1,000 Scots reveals the prospect of a fairer and more equal society is a huge motivating factor in next year’s referendum on independence.

People were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with the statement: In reaching my decision about whether to support Scottish independence, the prospect of a fairer and more equal society is more important to me than whether Scotland as a whole would be slightly richer or slightly poorer.

The results were:

Agree Strongly 28%
Agree Slightly 30%
Neither Agree/Disagree 32%
Disagree Slightly 6%
Disagree Strongly 4%

In total 58 per cent agree that a fairer society is a more important consideration while a total of only 10 per cent disagree.

The survey also suggests those who have decided to vote Yes and those who have yet to decide attach more importance to a more equal society than those who have decided to vote No. Only 7% of Yes voters and 6% of Undecideds disagree, compared to 15% of No voters.

Patrick Harvie MSP, Co-convener of the Scottish Greens, said:

“To date the economic arguments for and against independence have mainly focused on the prosperity of the nation as a whole, the performance of business and the extraction of oil. What our poll shows is that people are more attracted by a fairer society, where wealth is shared instead of hoarded by the few.

“Scottish Greens want to engage with those Scots who haven’t yet decided how to vote next September, as we believe our approach offers a positive vision that rises above the arguments they’ve heard so far. Our vision has at its core the need to put the common good back at the heart of our politics. We see independence as a means to that end, not an end in itself. As long as we remain tied to Westminster we risk those efforts being stymied.

“Margaret Thatcher famously declared society does not exist. It’s quite clear Scots value society highly and next year’s referendum is an unprecedented opportunity to start shaping the fairer society we want to live in.”

Notes

The online poll of 1,002 Scots was carried out at the end of March by Panelbase.

For a full table of the poll results, see the Greens website here.

Glasgow MSP Patrick Harvie is calling on the City Council to reject plans to build 90 flats on North Kelvin Meadow, accusing the local authority of engaging in hypocrisy over the environment.

Speaking ahead of tomorrow’s demonstration in support of North Kelvin Meadow (11.45am, George Square, Greens attending), he highlighted the hypocrisy of bidding to be Green Capital of Europe, while hampering the efforts of the community to make the city more sustainable. In a video for the bid, Bailie Cameron calls on people to be ‘green activists’ in their communities.(1)

Glasgow has been shortlisted for Green Capital of Europe 2015, but the Council has a record of hostility towards North Kelvin Meadow, taking community volunteers to court in 2009. (2)

Patrick Harvie MSP said:

“The Council has said they want the people of Glasgow to become ‘green activists’ as part of our bid to become Green European Capital in 2015. If this ambition is to mean anything, the Council must support the endeavours of the people of Glasgow to renew their local landscape, and block this development.

Martha Wardrop, Green councillor for Hillhead said:

“Local residents have put in the hard work to transform land that the Council let fall into disrepair, and a wealth of community activity has sprung up around North Kelvin Meadow as a result. If the Council lets this development go ahead, it will be utterly disheartening for local residents, and send a pretty negative message to other people in Glasgow who are considering investing time and effort in improving their local area.”

Notes

1. In a promotional video for the Green Capital bid, Bailie Cameron says “we need our own people to be fully engaged, and to know how much the city is committed to greenness and to sustainability. We need them to be working on this in their own community, to be green activists if you like, and to help change the spaces and places so they can be given back, truly sustainable, to the people.”
http://www.greenglasgow.com/
http://www.youtube.com/

2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8209737.stm

3. Details of the garden and the campaign can be found at http://northkelvinmeadow.com/

Last week a few eyebrows were raised at the idea of drawing up underground heat from below Glasgow’s streets, and the prediction that this could meet up to 40% of the city’s heating needs. I can understand why some people were sceptical; even in this relatively mild winter, it’s hard to believe as we trudge about the streets in February that there’s a ready supply of warmth under our feet.

But the study under way at Caledonian University will be looking at the disused tunnels and mineworks under the city’s streets, which stay warm throughout the year and which could be tapped for cheap energy. Glasgow wouldn’t be the first city in the world to use geothermal energy in this way, but it would be a unique example in Scotland or the UK, and the benefits could be huge for a city where around a third of households live in fuel poverty. That statistic is only likely to get worse as energy prices rise, unless we can do two things; cut down our costly waste of energy, and develop new sources of green energy.

Achieving those vital goals, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and using energy more efficiently, will require a real transformation of our energy system. But it must be done in a way which creates a social benefit too, and I think that means much more than just changing the technology. We have the chance to change the ownership structure too. Right now we’re almost all completely dependent on a handful of vast multinational energy companies, and the sad truth is that they will always put profit ahead of public interest. The global factors driving up energy prices can’t be wished away, and it’s not all the fault of these companies, but their primary function is to make bigger profits for their shareholders, not to serve their customers’ best interests. Right now we’re in danger of missing the chance to change that.

I think there will always be an important role for the private sector, but we certainly don’t need to leave these few huge companies so utterly dominant. Some European countries have successful publicly owned energy companies too, putting the profits from the industry back into serving the public good. Some of them are even developing renewable energy in Scotland, and while I’m happy to welcome their investment I can’t understand why we shouldn’t take the same approach ourselves, and reap the rewards for the public purse. Creating a Scottish public energy company would be a tremendous legacy to leave for future generations.

We could start building it right now, if local authorities used their borrowing power to invest in profitable sources of green energy. Different technology would work in different places, and in Glasgow those underground heat pumps could be a great way to start. In other areas wind, solar (yes, even in Scotland!) and hydro power would be options. The income generated could be invested in public services, or in the housing stock to cut down on energy waste and save even more money. Ultimately, if Scotland votes for independence, we’d have the chance to put a national energy company in place.

There’s a real chance we could make green energy the people’s energy, and I don’t think it’s a chance we can afford to miss.

The words we use in politics really matter. They can change the way people perceive ideas, and even how we perceive one another. The way we name ideas and policies can make all the difference between popular approval and outright defeat.

The UK Government’s welfare changes for example, can be described by supporters as necessary reforms to simplify the system, or by opponents as an assault on the poorest people in society, even the death of the welfare state. Most people won’t be surprised that I tend to the latter view.

Very soon hundreds of thousands of households will be hit by what the Tories and their LibDem allies describe as “under-occupancy rules”. Everyone else in the country has adopted a punchier name; the bedroom tax.

Slashing up to 25% from housing benefit for people in council or housing association homes, on the basis that they have one or more “extra” bedrooms will mean huge numbers of the UK’s poorest people losing out, some by nearly £100 a month. When this policy begins in April we’re likely to see increased poverty, debt, evictions and homelessness. This isn’t an accident; it’s the deliberate aim of the policy.

It’s by no means the only brutal aspect of the Tory/LibDem welfare agenda. Many other changes will come in at the same time, mostly uncosted, untested and unjustified. So how are they getting away with this? Why aren’t we seeing a wave of public outrage? Again it has a lot to do with the words being used.

Debate about welfare has become dominated by words like “scroungers” and “skivers”, to contrast with “strivers” and that old favourite, “hard-working families”. This language is designed to undermine the compassion people feel for one another, it sets “us” against “them”. It’s the opposite of the purpose of a welfare state where everyone contributes to social protection, and everyone benefits. Where we really are all in it together.

This government wouldn’t be finding it politically possible to pursue this agenda if they hadn’t used such divisive language to change the way people see one another. Once upon a time, not so very long ago, a battered and indebted country fought for and won a welfare state to be proud of. It’s now being dismantled in front of our eyes, and this generation must summon up the same determination and win that same battle all over again.

Patrick Harvie, MSP for Glasgow and Co-convener of the Scottish Greens, said:

“I very much welcome this contribution to the debate about a written constitution for Scotland. The Scottish Green Party has long supported a written constitution, and we adopted support for a constitutional prohibition of weapons of mass destruction last year.

“The approach suggested by the Scottish Government will help voters and politicians alike to start considering the practical steps to be taken in the event of a Yes vote, and it will become ever clearer that independence will open up new opportunities to improve Scotland from day one.

“In any political or public debate about the constitution, we will also continue to make the case for a fully secular Scotland with an elected head of state.

“It remains unclear why the Government is proposing the transfer of sovereignty two months before the election of an independent Parliament, and I’m still concerned to ensure that the Parliament has the capacity to hold an independent Government to account from day one. However this is an important step forward for the debate about Scotland’s future, and there is a great deal to welcome in the document published today.”

Notes

Scottish Greens support Scottish Independence from the conviction that the urgent transformation needed in our society and our economy can best be achieved by Scotland as a small autonomous country. Bringing political and economic structures and decision-making closer to the Scottish people is a core Green principle and ambition.

Further background:
http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/

Scottish Government proposals:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/

A great roar had been predicted from the Tory benches at PMQs, and I gather that it was duly heard. I am relying on the reports from my office for this, as I was meeting with colleagues from PCS at the time, but I have no problem believing it.

David Cameron’s commitment that a future (mercifully as yet hypothetical) majority Tory government will commit to a referendum on membership of the European Union will be greeted with enthusiasm by his local constituency associations in every part of the UK where support has been leeching to UKIP. They know that the majority they seek in 2015, with which they hope to gain the power to finally consign the last ragged remnants of the welfare state to the dustbin of history, can only be achieved if those oily ticks out leafleting for Farage are sent packing. Never mind that they can’t get a single MP elected; they can drain support away from the true representatives of the loaded class in enough constituencies to thwart Tory aspirations.

But it is of course interesting to consider how this news will be greeted in Scotland, where we already have one referendum process to contend with, even if the debate is clearly yet to inspire many of the crucial “open-minded but unconvinced” voters who I am still confident can decide the outcome.

As David Torrance writes in an excellent piece on Newsnet Scotland, both Salmond and Cameron are winging it to a degree, asserting their ability to secure the negotiated outcome they want, in a vacuum of facts.

Jeff at Better Nation meanwhile warns of the danger for independence advocates in Scotland thinking of the EU vote as one which even involves us, given the work toward a Yes vote some three years before Cameron’s promised poll.

Tom Harris is amongst those pointing out that the Prime Minister has spent much of his limited attention span for Scotland claiming that a two-year referendum process is terribly long and will be awfully damaging. Hmm.

The SNP for their part… I’m currently watching the admirable Humza Yousaf on Newsnight Scotland giving not a whit more detail than Jackson Carlaw can muster on the actual terms of EU membership he eventually wants to see.

Few things seem certain to me as yet about how the long-anticipated debate on a European referendum will impact on the independence referendum here in Scotland. It seems possible that these two dynamic debates, emanating from Edinburgh and London political bubbles, will create chaotic interference patterns which disrupt the debate on both topics throughout these islands.

Good. It’s about time something did.

Certainly those who argue that we’re all ‘Better Together’ can no longer expect Scots voters to blink in fear at the prospect of uncertainty about our future relationship with Europe. But Jeff is quite right to argue that Scots’ involvement with the UK debate on Europe risks an implicit assumption that it’s through the UK that our relationship with Europe must forever be defined. It’s vital that we take responsibility in Scotland for our European debate. If those undecided voters, open to independence but not yet convinced, vote No in the expectation that they can then keep the UK in Europe and simultaneously put stronger home rule onto a constitutionally crowded UK political agenda, we will have missed a chance to shape our future relationship with both London and Brussels. I was already dubious that the UK parties would spare much mental space for further devolution if Scotland votes No, much less spend any political capital on it. The prospect of an EU referendum halfway through the 2015 Parliament (and don’t be surprised if Labour eventually offers something similar too) seals the deal. For Scotland, it’s 2014 or nothing.

One further point. These are not directly comparable choices being offered. David’s comparison of a renegotiated UK/EU deal with Devomax was clever, but a little misleading. Even the most enthusiastic Europhile would not argue that the EU is sovereign. It is generally agreed to be a pooling of member states’ sovereignty, whether viewed kindly or otherwise.

Scotland’s referendum is something different. It is an attempt to resolve the fundamental conflict between two models of sovereignty within the same state. Scotland tells itself that sovereignty lies with the people. In the UK, a very different story is told. What happens, as Elliott Bulmer put it, when the unstoppable force of Scottish popular sovereignty meets the immovable object of the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament? This is a question which must be resolved, and I am convinced that a Yes vote is the best chance – indeed the only chance – we will have to do so for a generation.