This has been growing in my thoughts for a while, and I've posted lots of similar sentiments over on Facebook, but I'm going to put it all together now. What follows is an open letter to the Yes Campaign, one that I am asking people to consider putting their support to. If that strikes you as cheeky, apologies in advance!
Dear Yes Scotland,
We are greatly encouraged to see that you have appointed Denis Canavan and Blair Jenkins to head up your campaign, but We would like to urge you to go a step further than this in ensuring the relative neutrality of the campaign. We believe in an Independent Scotland passionately, but we have great reservations about the political balance of the campaign. It is currently accepted that the SNP government will be responsible for post Yes vote negotiations and for the creation of the constitution, but we do not think that this is truly the democratic way forward. We would like for the Yes Scotland campaign to commit to holding an election to create a separate, elected, body of people from all walks of Scottish Society to negotiate the settlement with the rUK and to write a new constitution in consultation with the people of Scotland. In this way, Scotland can truly live up to the "beacon of progressiveness" that Alex Salmond has called for. We only need to look as far as Iceland for an example of such a process in action.
Much has changed in the world over the last ten years - much and at a great deal faster pace than in previous decades. To keep up with this fast changing world we must use all the tools it offers and build with flexibility and equality in mind. We believe this can only be achieved with as inclusive an approach to re-building our country as possible.
Finally, as was declared in Scotland's most enduring constitutional document, we the people of Scotland are sovereign and it is our right to seize upon the possibilities of modern life to exercise this sovereignty in a truly meaningful and enduring manner.
Signed
Angela Kerry Miller
To add your own signature please follow the link to the petition
Thursday 28 June 2012
Wednesday 20 June 2012
Let the people seize the agenda.
So we're well off the starting blocks and on our way, the campaign has started and it's a mere two years until the referendum. With the No campaign (or however they are choosing to style it) launch this coming Friday, all of Scotland's political parties are ramping up for the fight of their lives and the rhetoric is already feisty as they compete for our attention and our opinions. The line has been drawn in the sand between the sides, and all oblivious to the rolling of eyes and heavy sighs of the electorate they are trying to charm, because I think that everyone can see, that in spite of the fact this Referendum is unprecedented in UK history, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the political parties have only one mode of campaigning. They have to persuade us, they have to gain our vote, they have to do as they have always done and "get their message across". What they don't realise is that we are in completely new territory altogether and this is not going to be they way to win the Referendum from either side.
The Referendum may be about politics, but it most certainly is not about political parties. The SNP can't win the Yes vote, only the people of Scotland can, because an Independent Scotland is our prize, not theirs. While the Unionist parties continue to attack Alex Salmond and try to conflate the idea of an Independent Scotland with some kind of notion of perpetual SNP government in Holyrood they are showing quite blatantly their inability to slip out of the game of party politics (which is like the Game of Thrones but a little less bloody and a lot less sexy). It's almost sickening to listen to them as they play the man and not the ball continually and has me wishing for a red card in my pocket so I can send all of them off the field. Apologies now for all the mixing of metaphors!
The SNP, in their desperation to be seen as positive and whiter than white in the campaign are walking into their own trap too. The slickness of presentation is amazing, but it lacks humanity. The careful massaging of their message is understandable, but comes across as borderline control freakery. The recent fracas over the alleged threat of the Greens to walk out of the Yes Scotland campaign, while it was greatly exaggerated by the media and not the whole truth by a long stretch, illustrates an underlying problem with the campaign as it stands. Perhaps it is time for the SNP to learn to let go of their cherished ideological baby and let it grow up for itself?
Illusions by Richard Bach opens with a parable about creatures clinging to the rocks in a river. They are safe, comfortable but inexperienced with the larger world. One of the creatures decides it's going to try and let go as it wants to experience what lies down river. The other creatures plead with it not to, but it goes it;s own way none the less. It gets battered and bruised on it's journey, it learns and experiences much, and comes out of the process a much wiser creature than it began.
The Referendum campaign needs to be freed from the clinging insecurities of all the political parties, and it needs to be allowed to run free among the people so that new ideas and ways of looking at things can be absorbed into the debate, both Independence and the Union. It will quickly become stale, if it isn't already, while both "sides" of the debate rehash and reiterate the same old tired notions and arguments. Do you think that a radical proposal that might actually save the Union will come from any involved political party? Of course not, they are already all far too well trained to step outside the boxes drawn for them by their political masters. Will truly radical ideas about how an Independent Scotland will work come from politicians? Not while Alex Salmonds softly, softly strategy remains in place.
Efforts are being made by the Yes Scotland campaign to be inclusive and non-party political, but this is a false premise really, as it is still ultimately run by political parties. The website is very swish, designed with social networking in mind and struggling very hard to be inclusive, but facebook is already doing it better without trying because through facebook people are self-organising. The No campaign website suffered some leakage recently, as did the Tory campaign Friends of the Union prior to it's launch. It all smacks of them giving us the chance to talk about it while still trying to keep hold of the agenda for themselves, in truth, and that is a terrible shame really.
It's not necessary any more, from either side, to be so rigid and controlled in this debate. This is not a General Election where the parties are selling themselves to the people. It's not like any of them are going to lose seats come the morning after the vote this time, it's not like any party will gain new power or authority the next morning either. This is not about them, it's about Scotland and where her people decide to take her.
So what can we do to seize control of the agenda then? How can we reign in our politicians and prevent them from putting the rest of us off the debate entirely? It's not really that hard. As I already said, groups are already self-organising on facebook, some of them with specific agendas and some of them as general discussion and news groups. Being that we are mostly geographically close enough, it isn't much of a leap for these groups to start working together offline too. Of course, it's not all about facebook - that's just what I am personally best at. The blogoshpere has long been host to a nation of Cybernats and can also be a source of alternative debate on the referendum. We are slowly learning how to bypass the mainstream media that is often so closed minded and restrictive about the referendum, and we can learn to bypass the politicians too by organising our own events, media and discussions that will allow a truly diverse range of voices to be heard
We no longer need the politicians to talk to us, we can start talking to each other and take control of the debate for ourselves. We don't need to be given different options by either side of the debate, we don't even need them to listen to us, so long as we are listening to each other, because the political parties need us - they need all of us - to make this decision for them. We can turn around and dictate to them what terms it will take for us to vote either yes or no. If we want, for example, control over the process of writing a new constitution, we have the power now to come together online and in our towns and villages and tell them this is what we want and this is what it will take for us to vote yes in the Referendum. We can force these issues because in post-referendum Scotland all of the political parties will be scrabbling to re-align themselves with the new landscape of Scottish Politics. For the political parties of Scotland there will be a whole load of new powers suddenly available to them, but they must ask us to grant those powers to them. That's where the true power in Scotland lies, now and in 2014.
The Referendum may be about politics, but it most certainly is not about political parties. The SNP can't win the Yes vote, only the people of Scotland can, because an Independent Scotland is our prize, not theirs. While the Unionist parties continue to attack Alex Salmond and try to conflate the idea of an Independent Scotland with some kind of notion of perpetual SNP government in Holyrood they are showing quite blatantly their inability to slip out of the game of party politics (which is like the Game of Thrones but a little less bloody and a lot less sexy). It's almost sickening to listen to them as they play the man and not the ball continually and has me wishing for a red card in my pocket so I can send all of them off the field. Apologies now for all the mixing of metaphors!
The SNP, in their desperation to be seen as positive and whiter than white in the campaign are walking into their own trap too. The slickness of presentation is amazing, but it lacks humanity. The careful massaging of their message is understandable, but comes across as borderline control freakery. The recent fracas over the alleged threat of the Greens to walk out of the Yes Scotland campaign, while it was greatly exaggerated by the media and not the whole truth by a long stretch, illustrates an underlying problem with the campaign as it stands. Perhaps it is time for the SNP to learn to let go of their cherished ideological baby and let it grow up for itself?
Illusions by Richard Bach opens with a parable about creatures clinging to the rocks in a river. They are safe, comfortable but inexperienced with the larger world. One of the creatures decides it's going to try and let go as it wants to experience what lies down river. The other creatures plead with it not to, but it goes it;s own way none the less. It gets battered and bruised on it's journey, it learns and experiences much, and comes out of the process a much wiser creature than it began.
The Referendum campaign needs to be freed from the clinging insecurities of all the political parties, and it needs to be allowed to run free among the people so that new ideas and ways of looking at things can be absorbed into the debate, both Independence and the Union. It will quickly become stale, if it isn't already, while both "sides" of the debate rehash and reiterate the same old tired notions and arguments. Do you think that a radical proposal that might actually save the Union will come from any involved political party? Of course not, they are already all far too well trained to step outside the boxes drawn for them by their political masters. Will truly radical ideas about how an Independent Scotland will work come from politicians? Not while Alex Salmonds softly, softly strategy remains in place.
Efforts are being made by the Yes Scotland campaign to be inclusive and non-party political, but this is a false premise really, as it is still ultimately run by political parties. The website is very swish, designed with social networking in mind and struggling very hard to be inclusive, but facebook is already doing it better without trying because through facebook people are self-organising. The No campaign website suffered some leakage recently, as did the Tory campaign Friends of the Union prior to it's launch. It all smacks of them giving us the chance to talk about it while still trying to keep hold of the agenda for themselves, in truth, and that is a terrible shame really.
It's not necessary any more, from either side, to be so rigid and controlled in this debate. This is not a General Election where the parties are selling themselves to the people. It's not like any of them are going to lose seats come the morning after the vote this time, it's not like any party will gain new power or authority the next morning either. This is not about them, it's about Scotland and where her people decide to take her.
So what can we do to seize control of the agenda then? How can we reign in our politicians and prevent them from putting the rest of us off the debate entirely? It's not really that hard. As I already said, groups are already self-organising on facebook, some of them with specific agendas and some of them as general discussion and news groups. Being that we are mostly geographically close enough, it isn't much of a leap for these groups to start working together offline too. Of course, it's not all about facebook - that's just what I am personally best at. The blogoshpere has long been host to a nation of Cybernats and can also be a source of alternative debate on the referendum. We are slowly learning how to bypass the mainstream media that is often so closed minded and restrictive about the referendum, and we can learn to bypass the politicians too by organising our own events, media and discussions that will allow a truly diverse range of voices to be heard
We no longer need the politicians to talk to us, we can start talking to each other and take control of the debate for ourselves. We don't need to be given different options by either side of the debate, we don't even need them to listen to us, so long as we are listening to each other, because the political parties need us - they need all of us - to make this decision for them. We can turn around and dictate to them what terms it will take for us to vote either yes or no. If we want, for example, control over the process of writing a new constitution, we have the power now to come together online and in our towns and villages and tell them this is what we want and this is what it will take for us to vote yes in the Referendum. We can force these issues because in post-referendum Scotland all of the political parties will be scrabbling to re-align themselves with the new landscape of Scottish Politics. For the political parties of Scotland there will be a whole load of new powers suddenly available to them, but they must ask us to grant those powers to them. That's where the true power in Scotland lies, now and in 2014.
Sunday 3 June 2012
Our best shot at reform by the people.
A yes vote will be a major chance to put in place important reforms needed in our politics that have been repeatedly fudged rather than addressed by Westminster. Four main issues, House of Lords reform, MP's expenses, issues of surrounding the lobbying of politicians by corporations, and Political Party funding reform. These are all fundamentally important to the health of our modern British Democracy.
When the Scottish Parliament was reconvened, rules were put in place to make a greater effort at Governmental transparency. Rules on MSP's expenses were much stricter than at Westminster. Lobbying rules were tighter and funding rules were tighter. We were not given a second chamber - devolution doesn't require it, so the problem of political appointee-ism that the House of Lords currently represents (notwithstanding the inclusion of the CofE Archbishops in the Lords) doesn't apply, yet.
Has anyone really forgotten the expenses scandal now that it's been pushed back from the parapet by other, more up-to-date events? Of course we haven't, it's filed at the back of our minds as yet another reason not to trust politicians. Are we aware that it's supposed to be fixed? Of course we are, but the real question is do we trust the fix? No, we are all well aware of the idiom about Turkey's not voting for Christmas.
Tied up with the fix was Political Party funding reform, but that has become a problem unto itself. It urgently needs fixing, but still our Political Parties are having trouble agreeing with each other the niggling details of how they propose to do it. Again it is reminiscent of Turkey's voting for Christmas. How can Political Parties be left to decide how Political Parties should be funded? Why were only representatives of the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour parties attending these talks? Are we to be expected that they will abide by the standards of 'Fair Play' taught to them in their public schools?
Then when they finally manage to come to some sort of consensus, it will be dragged before the meritocratic House of Lords. How is a Lord made these days? By following the party line no matter what, judging by some of the newly elevated modellers of the old ermine robes. Jack McConnel? Michael Forsyth? George Foulkes? Failed politicians rewarded for losing their places in democratically elected Parliaments with a lifelong seat at the table of the Lords. Good luck getting Lords Reform past these people - those cushioned benches seem to be pretty comfortable and the ermine robes are very warm in winter!
The lobbying of Government by "interested parties" is an issue that really deserves more coverage. Earlier this year the Government published it's proposal for a register of lobbyists. The proposed register will cover just 5% of lobbyists, being only those who lobby on behalf of a third party rather than those who lobby for their companies directly. This is hardly radical reform.
And here we sit, in the midst of ongoing financial turmoil caused by piratical corporatism (or corporate piraticalism) being governed by a party that gets more than 50% of it's funding from the City of London. What chance of much needed reform from Westminster? I'll tell you what chance, fat chance, frankly.
So, we all know we can't trust our political parties to deliver reform in Westminster, but what about in Edinburgh?
My biggest fear about Independence isn't that Scotland will become Skintland, or that Alex Salmond will become our perpetual Dear Leader, but that Holyrood doesn't stick itself to a constitution reigning in it's power to make decisions without the consent of the people of Scotland. I fear, as I have said before, Westminster-lite sat in Edinburgh.
In Iceland, the recent constitutional reforms have taken on a new and radical direction. The recently re-elected President of Iceland went into a good bit of detail about it in an interview he gave earlier this year which is well worth a read, but the gist of it is this, taken from the article Why Iceland should be in the news but is not. 1
The beauty of the internet is that if we have an issue with one form of communication like this, we can simply plug in something in another format to fix it. If you want to have more static debates, you can go and build yourself a forum from any number of free sites, put together one that meets your needs and then link that to the discussions in your facebook group.
Of course, I'm not in any way advocating our constitution gets written via facebook and free forums, but these could provide a template for a site dedicated to the writing of the constitution. I am fully aware that the SNP already have a written constitution, but surely things have changed a great deal since it was written and it would be far more appropriate to write a new constitution for today's Scotland, and to do it in such a way as any Scot can have an input. There should be a constitution roadshow too, to bring the process to the people who cannot either access it online or make their way to the Parliament to take part.
This is what it takes to build a true democracy, this is what it will take to build Alex Salmond's "progressive beacon" and this is what it will take to reform our democracy so that it cannot be taken advantage of by wealth and privilege. Since the people were not consulted in 1707, then in truth they must be consulted in 2014, and not just in the ballot box.
1 I am aware of the mistakes in the cited article but feel the model provided is still an excellent representation of a model for the creation of the Scottish Constitution.
When the Scottish Parliament was reconvened, rules were put in place to make a greater effort at Governmental transparency. Rules on MSP's expenses were much stricter than at Westminster. Lobbying rules were tighter and funding rules were tighter. We were not given a second chamber - devolution doesn't require it, so the problem of political appointee-ism that the House of Lords currently represents (notwithstanding the inclusion of the CofE Archbishops in the Lords) doesn't apply, yet.
Has anyone really forgotten the expenses scandal now that it's been pushed back from the parapet by other, more up-to-date events? Of course we haven't, it's filed at the back of our minds as yet another reason not to trust politicians. Are we aware that it's supposed to be fixed? Of course we are, but the real question is do we trust the fix? No, we are all well aware of the idiom about Turkey's not voting for Christmas.
Tied up with the fix was Political Party funding reform, but that has become a problem unto itself. It urgently needs fixing, but still our Political Parties are having trouble agreeing with each other the niggling details of how they propose to do it. Again it is reminiscent of Turkey's voting for Christmas. How can Political Parties be left to decide how Political Parties should be funded? Why were only representatives of the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour parties attending these talks? Are we to be expected that they will abide by the standards of 'Fair Play' taught to them in their public schools?
Then when they finally manage to come to some sort of consensus, it will be dragged before the meritocratic House of Lords. How is a Lord made these days? By following the party line no matter what, judging by some of the newly elevated modellers of the old ermine robes. Jack McConnel? Michael Forsyth? George Foulkes? Failed politicians rewarded for losing their places in democratically elected Parliaments with a lifelong seat at the table of the Lords. Good luck getting Lords Reform past these people - those cushioned benches seem to be pretty comfortable and the ermine robes are very warm in winter!
The lobbying of Government by "interested parties" is an issue that really deserves more coverage. Earlier this year the Government published it's proposal for a register of lobbyists. The proposed register will cover just 5% of lobbyists, being only those who lobby on behalf of a third party rather than those who lobby for their companies directly. This is hardly radical reform.
And here we sit, in the midst of ongoing financial turmoil caused by piratical corporatism (or corporate piraticalism) being governed by a party that gets more than 50% of it's funding from the City of London. What chance of much needed reform from Westminster? I'll tell you what chance, fat chance, frankly.
So, we all know we can't trust our political parties to deliver reform in Westminster, but what about in Edinburgh?
My biggest fear about Independence isn't that Scotland will become Skintland, or that Alex Salmond will become our perpetual Dear Leader, but that Holyrood doesn't stick itself to a constitution reigning in it's power to make decisions without the consent of the people of Scotland. I fear, as I have said before, Westminster-lite sat in Edinburgh.
In Iceland, the recent constitutional reforms have taken on a new and radical direction. The recently re-elected President of Iceland went into a good bit of detail about it in an interview he gave earlier this year which is well worth a read, but the gist of it is this, taken from the article Why Iceland should be in the news but is not. 1
To write the new constitution, the people of Iceland elected twenty-five citizens from among 522 adults not belonging to any political party but recommended by at least thirty citizens. This document was not the work of a handful of politicians, but was written on the internet. The constituent’s meetings are streamed on-line, and citizens can send their comments and suggestions, witnessing the document as it takes shape. The constitution that eventually emerges from this participatory democratic process will be submitted to parliament for approval after the next elections.Internet technology actually allows for participatory democracy to become a reality. Look at the basic structure of a facebook group. Anyone can be allowed to post questions or points of argument, anyone can be allowed to post polls or respond to them. The polls have a useful tie-in between a user account and a vote on a poll, accurately preventing the problem of multiple votes which dogs most online snap polling. Admittedly, for something that requires a secret ballot this is not helpful, but for voting on issues in an open forum, it's ideal. The documents section allows for documents to be edited by a group of people together, and allows for a discussion on the contents of the document. Put all of these things together and you can have quite an effective forum for political debate and action. It's not perfect though, and good debates can get quickly lost as other posts displace them.
The beauty of the internet is that if we have an issue with one form of communication like this, we can simply plug in something in another format to fix it. If you want to have more static debates, you can go and build yourself a forum from any number of free sites, put together one that meets your needs and then link that to the discussions in your facebook group.
Of course, I'm not in any way advocating our constitution gets written via facebook and free forums, but these could provide a template for a site dedicated to the writing of the constitution. I am fully aware that the SNP already have a written constitution, but surely things have changed a great deal since it was written and it would be far more appropriate to write a new constitution for today's Scotland, and to do it in such a way as any Scot can have an input. There should be a constitution roadshow too, to bring the process to the people who cannot either access it online or make their way to the Parliament to take part.
This is what it takes to build a true democracy, this is what it will take to build Alex Salmond's "progressive beacon" and this is what it will take to reform our democracy so that it cannot be taken advantage of by wealth and privilege. Since the people were not consulted in 1707, then in truth they must be consulted in 2014, and not just in the ballot box.
1 I am aware of the mistakes in the cited article but feel the model provided is still an excellent representation of a model for the creation of the Scottish Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)