Salmond, the millionaires and the historian.

I was going to do a rant about Trump, but the guy kind of satirises himself with the likes of "I am the evidence" and so self-evidently deluded, what's the point of saying any more.

Instead I'm going to offer a few thoughts on the current woes of Alex Salmond. Usually the SNP spin machine is quite literally second to none in Scotland in terms of controlling and manipulating the stories. However, things haven't been running all their way in the last few weeks.

The Millionaires 

First there were the headlines about millionaire SNP donor Brian Soutar having bought Big Eck's recommendation for an honour with his donation. (Although a more interesting question, given the policy u-turn on bus regulation shortly after the donation, was whether he also bought their transport policy).

Then this week we have the twin barrels of Mr Murdoch and Mr Trump. Murdoch's advisor tells the Levenson enquiry into phone-hacking that basically Salmond offered to speak to Jeremy Hunt (who has his own heap of woes to deal with) whenever they (news international) needed him to. Then in wades Mr Trump with his claims of assurances offered to him that no wind farm would be built...

Now here's the thing, I don't trust Salmond, I certainly don't trust Murdoch and I my opinions of Trump are probably best not put in print, but his attempts to effectively blackmail a democratic institution are not welcome here! I'm also not altogether convinced I care who is the wrong or right here, it's a bit sordid whichever way you look at it. The things is that Salmond has gone out of his way to court support (financial or otherwise) from these millionaires and to play in the big boy's game. Maybe now he's realising the true cost of that.

The Historian

The other story that caught my attention was the "historian" David Starkey making comments comparing Salmond to Hitler. Now that's not really what I want to get into - comparisons to Hitler are always crass and hardly ever justified (certainly not in this case), but let's face it Starkey has never been shy about stirring up controversy for the purposes of promoting his own ego.

What interested me was the response from Salmond's office, which included the phrase that this was"an insult to Scotland and the people of Scotland". Er, no it wasn't! It was an insult (and a nasty one) to Salmond individually but not to Scots in general. This isn't the first time I've noticed Salmond and the SNP using this kind of rhetoric - and it's dangerous. A criticism or questioning of the SNP is not a criticism or questioning of Scotland, but too often they make it out to be. It's a habit that they need to break before the real independance debate begins otherwise any real debate on the merits or otherwise will be impossible if the response to any query is an accusation of anti-scottishness. All that will serve to do is enflame English-Scottish tensions and stifle real debate and that is a dangerous game to play!

The Independance Referendum Phoney War

So, the Referendum is the big story this week and the opening shots in the battle are being fired. Except that they're not really. Behind the sensationalist headlines, what is really happening is the start of a process towards agreement on how the referendum will be carried. Sure, there's some jockeying for the best negotiating position in that, but really there is more agreement than might be supposed from the headlines. Yes, both sides are trying to position themselves (or more accurately the other side) where they want them, Salmond is trying to paint the coalition as unwelcome interferers in Scotland and Scotland's business, whilst the unionists are trying to make Salmond out to be headstrong, petty and reckless. Truth to be told, there's probably some accuracy in both accounts, but neither will have much bearing on the overall outcome.

So what are the issues being discussed at the moment:

1. There will be a referendum. This is now beyond dispute. The Westminster government has acknowledged that the SNP have a democratic mandate to hold one following the results last May. Holyrood does not currently have the legal authority to carry this out, but Westminster is willing to devolve the powers. The question will be what conditions come attached to that devolution of powers. This is the current battleground.

2. The Timing Noises from the coaliton were of trying to force it in the next 18 months. They forced Salmond to set a date of Autumn 2014. Noises from Westminster now indicate that this should be acceptable to all.

3. Who will Oversee the Referendum? The coalition want the Electoral Commission to be in charge. Salmond objects that they are directly answerable to Westminster and therefore unacceptable. In my view, Salmond's on weak ground here - any body set up by a Nationalist adminitration in Holyrood without cross-party support would have questionable legitimacy to oversee such a referendum. I would also question how far Salmond can push the objections to the Electoral Commission given that they oversaw the elections that put him in power - there would come a put where he would, in effect, be questioning his own legitimacy. Personally, I would be surprised if the Electoral Commission wasn't involved in overseeing the referendum.

4. What will the Question be? The coalition are adamant that it must be a simple yes-no for independance. The SNP seem keen of including some kind of option or second vote for further devolution (devo-max). The coalition say that that is not just a matter for Scotland as it would have implications for Wales, Northern Ireland and other parts of the Union. Back come the SNP, butt out, this is none of your business. Well, that's the gist of it. The arguments on both sides are rather weak - as far as I'm aware there was no mention of devo-max in the SNP's manifesto, therefore there is no mandate for it to be included in the referendum. Again, I'm not sure how far Salmond can push this without it looking like we know we're going to lose the independance vote, but... On the coalition side, devolution was totally uneven under the last government and it was only the Welsh referendum last year that brough things anywhere near being consistent. The coalition might well argue that this is a new government doing things differently, but its hard to argue against Scotland having had a different relationship to the rest of the Union for hundreds of years. It might well come down to which side has the best negotiating team.

Politically speaking, Labour has the most to lose from devo-max as they are likely (especially with the proposed boundary changes) to need their Scottish MPs in order to govern at Westminster and devo-max would throw the West Lothian question into even sharper perspective. For the SNP, it would obviously allow them to claim some kind of victory in the case of losing the referendum. For the Tories, there is a careful balancing act - as committed unionists they can't stomach the idea of an independant Scotland and even devo-max is probably loosening the bonds of the union too much. On the other hand, there is an argument that they wouldn't want to see the SNP humiliated and a spent political force 6-9 months before the next General Election. They're not going to be making any advances in Scotland any time soon, the LDs could well still be feeling the coalition backlash north of the border and the Tories need some kind of buffer against Labour up here, even if its only the SNP rather than Labour taking seats off the Liberals. Winning the referendum but allowing the SNP to continue arguing about the option they weren't allowed maybe allows the SNP to continue as a challenge to Labour into 2015.

5. The West Sheppey Question* Who gets to vote? Salmond wants 16 and 17 year olds to have the vote? Should Scots living outside Scotland get a vote? How about Scots living outside the UK? What about Scots serving in the armed forces elsewhere in the UK and therefore registered there? And how do you define who is Scottish in this context anyway? After all, we don't (yet?) have Scottish citizenship and surely you would need something tighter than the current rules on who's eligible to play football for Scotland (anyone whose Great-grandmother once visited Edinburgh Castle). Solved all that. How about non-Brits living in Scotland - currently for the General Election Irish and Commonwealth citizens can vote, whilst for Holyrood and local elections any EU national resident in Scotland can vote. Should they get a say on whether Scotland should be an independant country. These are possibly the most difficult questions about the process and nobody has even begun to really provide answers yet.

*  This term was coined on an online forum after Gordon Henderson, the conservative MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, asked in the Commons whether his grandfather, a Scot living in England, would be eligible to vote.