Activate Labour Vote 2014

After weeks of shamelessly kicking Yes Scotland of having a plurality of visions for an independent Scotland, Better Together unexpectedly and spectacularly split over the course of a few days with no apparent hypocrisy at all. Have Labour just stuck a red rosette on the independence referendum?

In one brutal day, the campaign tagline “Better Together” was finally ruined. No longer will they pretend we are Better Together when they can’t stomach to stand together. In truth, the strain has been showing for months – ever since Tory-donor Ian Taylor’s contributions to the campaign became public, campaigners have struggled to find a coherent narrative that justified accepting the money, nevermind continuing to stand alongside Tories who have no problem with such money. And with an increasingly chaotic Tory party south of the border boxing shadows with the UKIP wide-boy, Scottish Labour obviously recognise that not everything is Better Together. Without any sense of shame or acknowledgement of hypocrisy, Scottish Labour now appear to accept that it is OK to have competing visions within the independence campaigns. We are “United with Labour”… presumably unless you are a member of Labour for Independence! (Note: it is quite unclear just how much influence UK Labour have on this initiative so expect much confusion when the UK party are pulled right in the months ahead and Scottish Labour are further isolated in the UK context.)

The smart money says that Scottish Labour are realising that the Better Together umbrella doesn’t resonate with their core vote. The branding, the language, the standing alongside Tories – not a single red rosette in sight. Like a modern-day, electoral Bat Signal, how else can Labour trigger that deep-rooted and oft-abused loyalty if they cannot deploy the core Labour vote? My guess, and I accept it just a guess, is that Labour are nervous. While the SNP were winning an historic majority in 2011, the Labour vote actually held up well, but all it was doing was holding. And just. It wouldn’t be a surprise if that vote was unlikely to hold up as well after a several years justifying and excusing the Tories, nevermind sharing a platform with them and their donors. Beyond 2014, throwing everything at Better Together also does very little for their brand identity or electoral fortunes, and the launch of United for Labour allows Scottish Labour to do what they increasingly always do – look after Number 1. Say Labour; say it often. Give it a rosette. Colour it red. Say No. Do not ask questions.

Expect to also see their online presence thin (or rather, don’t expect it to improve). From @2014TruthTeam to #500Questions, it is clear they have problems understanding social media and the internet, or the behaviour of people online. And narrating their call to the Labour vote online only encourages people to analyse and expose what is a shallow and vague campaign. Many of the core Labour vote don’t necessarily use or even have social media so it’s a double win that they might forfeit something they clearly cannot do and attracts ridicule. That this is the 21st century seems to escape Labour but that’s what happens when you treat an electorate like it’s still the 80′s and 90′s. The absence of a deep “United with Labour” narrative on Scotland’s future within the UK has meant their campaigners on Twitter are having to fill the social media void with the usual meaningless guff and vacuous soundbites on Twitter:

A union of social justice dominated by the principal of fairness – Gordon brown making the case for #unitedwithlabour—
Margaret Curran (@Margaret_Curran) May 13, 2013

#unitedwithlabour Gordon Brown "pooling & sharing resources we get the best result for everyone" #solidarity #bettertogether #indyref—
Stephen Curran (@curranstephen) May 13, 2013

#UnitedWithLabour: As part of UK we can share risks & pool resources for benefit of all, watch our video alturl.com/3bzxa #indyref—
Truth Team 2014 (@2014TruthTeam) May 13, 2013

A future where we unite behind common causes & values to dismantle barriers to opportunity .@AnasSarwar #UnitedWithLabour”—
Margaret Curran (@Margaret_Curran) May 13, 2013

.@JohannLamont 'We don't fight England, we fight Social Justice, I won't abandon solidarity' #UnitedWithLabour #Indyref—
Andrew Grant (@AJ_Grant) May 13, 2013

#unitedwithlabour @johannlamont "Why cut ourselves off from 400,000 Scots working down south? Why make Sir Alex Ferguson a foreigner?"—
Stephen Curran (@curranstephen) May 13, 2013

Are you “Labour”? Were you “Labour”? Are your parents “Labour”? If so, Labour are activating that vote – they aren’t taking it for granted by not actually giving you specifics or outlining how they’ll make things Better Together – but they hope, or even expect, you to fall in to line. Don’t ask too many questions, and trust Labour to do what they think is in their best interests. Ignore the debate, tick the box and do as Labour tell you in 2014.

Isn’t it about time Scotland asked why?

Scottish Pound For Another Day

Today, there has been much discussion on the proposed monetary union of an independent Scotland, as the Treasury (and more specifically, George Osborne) look to dissuade, or even block, a Sterling monetary union should Yes Scotland win next year. The Yes campaign should encourage the UK to make this threat over and over again.

To understand why this is nothing more than a cold, hard pre-negotiation stance, you only have to imagine the days following a Yes vote in 2014. On securing a mandate to negotiate the transfer of powers to Holyrood and a carving up of the UK asset book, rUK are forced to confront the harsh realities of a political union that is ending. Can it be reversed in the short-term? No. Does it serve rUK well by being obstructive to a quick and stable independent Scottish state? No. Does it serve rUK well by encouraging undue fiscal pain on Scottish and rUK businesses? No. The safe money goes on rUK accepting that it’s best interests are served by promoting stability and confidence across rUK. For our part, it is clear a newly independent Scottish state will enter discussions to constrain certain fiscal policy decisions such that Sterling is not only stable, but strong. And there endeth today’s lesson in common sense.

Today’s (and probably tomorrow’s, and the day after’s) “debate” on currency is nothing more than political sabre-rattling. Both sides are publishing their own opinion’s skewed by their own political stance. It has been, and ever will be, thus. What is important, is how either side respond to the on-going debate.

For Better Together, their campaign is clearly built, not on The Positive Case for the Union ^TM, but on uncertainty and obfuscation of the Yes proposals. The latest currency contributions from UK parties don’t so much make the case that UK economic and monetary policy is great (because it quite clearly isn’t), but that the SNP (and by the usual extension, Yes Scotland), are in disarray on monetary policy. The fact that SNP are stubbornly resolute on currency seems not to matter – they more they repeat, the more they hope it sticks in the mind of the electorate. As today’s contribution from George Osborne demonstrates, it clearly isn’t a strategy that is working or one that they have confidence in: threatening Scotland that rUK are unlikely to enter a formal monetary union with Scotland is probably the most provocative and bold political move yet in the #indyref debate thus far. This goes somewhat further than previous attempts to introduce uncertainty to the debate – it’s not a far cry from indicating some certainly; that monetary union is not an option. For a campaign that wallows in uncertainly, why have the No campaign suddenly tried to assert some clarity in the monetary debate?

In actual fact, the underlying philosophy of the UK parties in this debate is alive and well. A monetary union is the one option that represents continuity and therefore confidence, and it is in the No campaign’s interest to undermine it, or remove it as an option which is the tactic George Osborne hinted at this morning. That respected economists have underlined a monetary union as being in the best interests of Scotland and rUK in the short term at least, suggests this is a clear political strategy and nothing more. Furthermore, such a blatant threat is designed to encourage and emphasise splits (of which, there clearly are) in the Yes campaign on monetary policy. We are Better Together if we are split, confused, uncertain and indecisive.

If these are the desired outcomes, what is the correct response? It would seem reasonable to surmise that the weight and noise coming from the UK parties indicates that they would like the perceived position of the Yes campaign to move somewhere they would much prefer it to be. If monetary union is a genuine weakness of the Yes campaign, there is absolutely no way the UK parties would be attempting to slam that door shut. It would be subtly encouraged and gently teased along with any other undesirable monetary policies that can easily be undermined and confused in the voter’s mind.

For these reasons, it is important to hold steady on monetary policy as it proposed by the SNP for the short term. It does the Yes campaign no good to increase calls for an independent Scottish currency, regardless of it’s merits. If anecdotal evidence is required, there are several key demographics that are proving sympathetic to a Yes vote but are burdened by the risk and lack of confidence in radical change, and any reasonable deviation from the current proposal is a disaster the No campaign wish to lure us toward. Our message must be simple and it must be coherent. If the UK government wish to reject monetary union as an option, they should be made to reiterate the threat over and over again. It is a political threat and political threats should be heard.

A case for a new Scottish currency is there to be made, but it must be made outside of the #indyref pressure-cooker along with Europe, the Monarchy and the Welfare State. To do otherwise, is exactly what George Osborne wants us to do.

Scottish Social Attitudes: 2013

I’m no psephologist, but there is much to be gained from exploring the latest “polling” data on the Scottish constitutional question. I say “polling”, but the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey is, as the title suggests, a survey. That won’t stop the #indyref campaigns calling it a poll and unsurprisingly, one campaign will milk these results along with the mainstream media. What is there to learn by scratching beneath the surface?

The Numbers

Shallow analysis of the survey paints the picture currently being painted by Better Together and the mainstream media: support for Independence sitting at a lowly 23%. Extrapolation (see notes on context below) of the other options summarise opposition to Independence at a whopping 72%, with 5% Undecided. Them’s the numbers; disappointing for Yes Scotland however you cut them.

However, further exploration does highlight some inconsistencies and contradictions when compared with the headline figures:

• 64% think the Scottish Parliament should set the “levels of welfare benefits”.
• 56% think the Scottish Parliament should set the “level of taxes”.
• 67% think the Scottish Parliament should have all powers less defence and foreign affairs.

These figures clearly point to the ambition for a Scottish Parliament with far greater powers, most probably in line with DevoMax.

The survey underlines this by highlighting the disparity between the level of government that HAS most influence over Scotland (34% ScotGov, 41% UKGov), and the level of government that SHOULD have most influence (63% ScotGov, 24% UKGov): a clear desire for the Scottish Government to have more influence, albeit with a curious reduction in support compared to previous years (which turns out to be a recurring theme).

In turning to the expectations of Independence, respondents suggested there may be a little more pride in Scotland, with a slighter stronger voice in the world, but were evenly split on the prospects for the Scottish economy. However, in all cases, confidence appears to have suffered in the context of year on year results.

One curious result, that appears to be a new question for 2012, was the response to whether the gap between the rich and poor in an Independent Scotland would be bigger, smaller or no different. The results suggest there would be no difference in the gap between rich and poor, and if anything, a slight leaning toward the gap increasing. This is very slight, and might fall into margin of error territory, but it does not agree with the Yes Scotland message of Independence bringing us a more even and fair society.

Context

Those are the numbers; what is the small print?

• The survey was carried out between July and November 2012, so is now rather dated.
• This was a survey, not a poll. There is a considerable difference.
• There was no question close to that which might be asked in 2014.
• There have been some significant changes since the poll, including the Benefits Uprating Bill at Westminster and major developments on the EU.

So what might this all mean for the respective campaigns?

Better Together

As with all polling data, when the going is good, campaign teams milk it for every penny it’s worth. If ever there was a poll that would be used to influence rather than reflect public opinion this is it. However, while the raw headline figures are uncomfortable reading for Yes Scotland, the wider results do pose some awkward questions for the Better Together team once they’ve finished celebrating. Results like this are only as good as the last poll, and this survey was old news before it was published with a more result poll reporting Yes: 28%; No: 48%; Undecided: 24%. On the actual survey findings, Better Together will need a concrete devolution proposal before the vote, but it’s highly unlikely they’ll agree on a proposal that comes close to satisfying the respondents. DevoMax will absolutely not happen, DevoPlus has struggled to find any clear support at all and the latest offering of DevoMore is well short of expectations, most notably in terms of the Welfare State. This survey was also before the capping of benefits in the recent Westminster Bill and the complete farce that has become the EU debate. Don’t be surprised if this survey encourages Better Together to expand their “scaremongering” programme – some figures do suggest confidence in the prospects for an Independent Scotland has taken a little hit, so  don’t be surprised if they look to take advantage of this fact.

Yes Scotland

For Yes Scotland, they should take the bitter pill and smile. The headline figures, while disappointing reading, offer nothing new, and to react or panic to a survey like this would be the worst possible move. 2012 was almost a perfect storm: year of the Olympics and the SNP under significant scrutiny. The campaign team will have their own polling data that will paint a more accurate picture, but a little digging does offer some encouragement. There is a still a desire for far greater powers, a level of which is nowhere near to being offered by UK parties. DevoMax looks like the winner in the survey, but in more precise terms, much greater power over taxation and control of welfare appear top priorities – expect the latter especially to be of increasing importance. As noted above, there have been significant developments since this poll was carried out and is quite clearly an outlier in terms of wider  polling, but there is some work to do in visualising what an Independent Scotland will look like and how it might prosper.

In summary, both campaigns would do well to avoid placing much faith in the headline figures. The nature of such a broad survey paints an extreme view when reduced to binary or tuple form. Wake me up when the Electoral Commission reports on the draft question, the Scottish Parliament respond, and we get consistent polling on the question that’s going to be ask.

Sectioned! Any 30 will do!

Quality debate is what we were promised; quality debate is generally not what we are getting, even when it is conducted entirely by one side. Having suffered a significant part of the “debate”, my judgement may be somewhat clouded, but if this was an example of why we are Better Together, end it now.

That the Section 30 Order was always likely to pass without much issue, meant we could have been spared the ordeal. The opportunity, however, was too good to resist, and what unfolded was an SNP hate-fest, who were largely innocent bystanders aside from an unnecessary walk-out stunt during Ian Davidson’s contribution.

It is worth noting that it wasn’t all bad. There were some lucid and thoughtful contributions, principally from Charles Kennedy, but this was dragged under by the over-whelming appetite for cheap political point scoring and more than a few completely ridiculous contributions, the best of which (that I can remember from when I tuned in) are summarised below.

Full Hansard report available here for those seeking an effective come-down or depressant.

Ian Davidson MP, Glasgow South West (Labour) and Chair of the illustrious and not-at-all-biased Scottish Affairs Select Committee:

“The referendum will be timed to take place after the anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn, which is celebrated mainly because Scots slew large numbers of English people.”

“The fact that those events will take place before the referendum gives people the opportunity to celebrate the politics of identity and ethnicity.”

Anas Sarwar, Glasgow Central (Labour):

“We have a majority SNP Government in the Scottish Parliament, but that is not a democratic place in the conventional sense; it is a dictatorship of one man.”

Jim McGovern, Dundee West (Labour):

“Does he find it somewhat odd that the former England football captain, Terry Butcher, will be entitled to vote in the referendum, but Sir Alex Ferguson will not?”

Ian Murray, Edinburgh South (Labour):

“What we have seen since 2007—although more so since 2011—is a party that has taken the wonderful institution that is the Scottish Parliament and turned it into little more than a talking shop for the ruling party.”

Eleanor Laing, Epping Forest (Conservative):

“If even I would answer yes, the facts speak for themselves: the question is enormously biased.”

“Scotland should be, is and always has been an independent country.”

Margaret Curran, Glasgow East (Labour):

“For many years I have argued with the SNP, which wants to say that the problem facing Scotland is the English.”

Rory Stewart, Penrith and The Border (Conservative):

“Independence will not cause the war between England and Scotland to start again. Those days of savagery, murder, pillage and rape—what we saw in Cumbria for 400 years—will not return, because the world has changed.”

Michael McCann, East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Labour):

“Does my hon. Friend share my concerns about the head of the Scottish civil service? It has been accused in the past by many people of being native.”

Jim Sheridan, Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Labour):

“Is it just the general public view that they are just big fearties?”

David Mundell, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (Conservative):

“I say to Alex Salmond, ‘Ignore the advice of the Electoral Commission at your peril.’”

Final word to Lord Forsyth, Conservative, who had this to say ahead of the debate on agreeing the Section 30 Order:

“It’s like ‘giving the key to the bar to the alcoholics’.”

Quite. Better Together indeed.

Time to Lead by Example

In the ongoing referendum debate, the facile argument swings back and forth between claims of a fabled land of milk and honey and a selfish nation abandoning fellow Brits to suffer the very worst of Toryism. As the Tory-LibDem coalition plunder the welfare state and society’s poorest, isn’t it about time guardians of the Union accepted that electoral solidarity in defence of the Union is protecting no-one, and allowing Toryism and LibDem impotence to inflict suffering UK wide.

In various debates, a common defence of preserving the Union posits that if Scotland prospers by leaving the UK, the rest of the UK will suffer:

If we would be better off, then the rest of the UK would be worse off. I’m not that selfish. I want to help the working and unemployed poor across the WHOLE of the UK.

It is not clear to me why this should be this case. The mythical argument that states Labour need Scotland in order to win a Westminster election has been roundly dismissed, so the suggestion that rUK needs Scotland to protect them from their own right-wing alter-ego is profoundly wrong and rather disrespectful. Of course, it will possibly result a in nudge to the right but it is a curiously Scottish arrogance that lacks the confidence to lead by example, yet somehow assert ourselves as more righteous and just.

There is also no barrier that prevents an independent Scotland and rUK from both flourishing in their own way that does not seem possible while we continue to bind ourselves in Union for nothing more than a symbolic gesture in ballot-box solidarity. As yesterday’s vote has shown, what has Scottish solidarity done for the poor in England, Wales and Northern Ireland? Nothing. We all suffer equally.

There are alternatives to blind and symbolic solidarity. Autonomy, and I mean proper revenue and power autonomy, lends itself to innovation and competition where autonomous regions can make political choices, accepting the risks and enjoying the rewards, in isolation. Independence offers this opportunity. Just as we look on with envy at Scandinavian public services, and with horror at resistance to public health care in the US, we analyse competing models to understand what works and what doesn’t. The monolithic British state, with it’s pseudo-devolved scaffolding, desperately clings to a conforming political system where the facade of autonomy is projected but is actually regularly discouraged, resisted or undermined. Devolution is widely accepted as the suitable and sustainable process to satisfy diverging political beliefs – only to forfeit responsibility and accountability thanks to the blank cheque that is the block grant. Fiscal autonomy should be right at the top of Johann Lamont’s debate on affordability, but you’ll find it completely absent in favour of more taxation on student’s in higher education and a prescription system that will cost as much as it’s likely to bring in. This re-arranging of the deck chairs is typical of the superficial tinkering that has come to define politics in the UK – anything is fair game, as long as it is resistive to radical reform and autonomy. The end result is a system that encourages greedy or irresponsible spending in Scotland, at the same time as engendering doubt and resentment throughout the UK about how we can possibly afford it all. Quite clearly, the responsibility to spend taxes should come with equal responsibility to collect those same taxes, but you’ll find little conviction for Devo-Plus, never mind Devo-Max amongst UK parties.

No, the best thing Scotland’s unionist parties could do is resign themselves from their nauseating self-importance and realise that the best antidote to Toryism is not their preservation of the Union, but more autonomy, more risk-taking and more local, agile government. It is surely better to lead by example and demonstrate that different choices can and do result in different outcomes. It is about time we matured as a nation and that comes from learning the lessons of mistakes as much as it comes from learning the lessons of successes, and rUK would certainly look toward Scotland for new ideas as much as we would look south and beyond in a similar exploration of the choices before us. If Scotland genuinely believed in the principles of the welfare state, more independence would allow us to resist a cap on benefits to the poorest in society, deciding to bridge funding gaps by other means and demonstrating a clear and tangible reminder that there are alternatives to Tory-imposed austerity for the lower classes. Instead, we are all in this together. Suffering.

Yesterday, the Tory/LibDem coalition gratuitously plundered the unemployed and working classes and unionist parties in Scotland excuse it as some kind of unselfish, symbolic solidarity with the UK left. Independence provides a prime opportunity to lead reform and exploration of an alternative political path that rejects the very worst of privileged, elitist Tory Britain. It’s time to lead by example by voting Yes in 2014 and demand a better politik for Scotland.

Footnote: One of the most depressing comments that sums up just how fucked up we’ve become in this country comes courtesy of Liberal Democrat MP, Greg Mulholland:

This is a temporary measure, he says. It “can and will be reversed as the economy improves”.

Hit the poor, and hit ‘em hard. Justified because it’s a temporary measure. The wealthy are presumably spared until the deficit becomes a real problem. The spectacular fall from grace of the LibDems is a never-ending car crash.

As Good As It Gets

Happy New Year one and all!

It might not have been unreasonable to hope that the Better Together campaign could aim high this New Year and look toward a more positive vision for Scotland within the United Kingdom. The ink is barely dry on this year’s resolutions, and yet Michael Kelly has managed to scrape the parody barrel in putting us in our rightful place – that’s right, we should be thankful for the Union because this is apparently “as good as it gets“.

In an article full of questionable analysis, Kelly offers no exploration of such a poverty of ambition, and instead talks up a buoyant and confident Labour Party who are apparently energised by Lamont’s performances at FMQs and beyond. Nevermind Independence, if this is as good as Scottish Labour and Better Together get, I fear for Scotland beyond 2014 if the electorate return a “No” vote. If they are unable to present a simple and coherent message for the campaign they believe, what hope of them addressing many of the problems facing Scottish communities with radical, ambitious and imaginative solutions? Increasingly, Better Together are allowing their mindset and campaign to be defined in terms of limitations; of constraints; of what we can’t do; of low expectations and inability. This is not a Scotland I want to be a member of.

Call me a hopeless optimist; an un-realist; a political fantacist; call me whatever you want: I believe things can and always will be better. Even when the going is good. Furthermore, anyone stupid enough to suggest we’ve got it as good as can be expected when times are bad doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously. The welfare state is being dismantled and the Scottish Labour leader is advocating a return to tuition fees, prescription charges and a review of numerous universal policies – given the distance and speed with which we have regressed, it is quite clear this is nowhere near as good as it gets. We can and should expect better, and when it goes get better, we should expect it to keep getting better because we should aspire to a better and fairer society for everyone, not just some key voting demographic.

It is quite clear that this aspiration and hope is not evident in those who believe our future is best served in the United Kingdom. Michael Kelly and his ilk believe Johann Lamont and the United Kingdom are the best Scotland can achieve. I can think of nothing more demoralising. Independence is most certainly not as good as it can get, but it is surely the first step to correcting a debilitating and hopeless mindset in this country.

Scotland can and should expect far better.

Where Does it End?

The general dismay and mocking that greeted Johann Lamont’s speech in September, where she questioned the affordability of various expensive policy commitments in Scotland, has obviously not deterred the Scottish Labour leader and large sections of her party from losing sight of the most fundamental principles of the Labour movement. Declaring that free university tuition was no longer affordable, Johann Lamont is obviously determined to ensure there is clear daylight between her party and the SNP as we head toward the referendum in 2014, regardless of how ridiculous and harmful that position may be.

The general platform she is building has been roundly criticised here and here, but that she is now providing some detail demonstrates Scottish Labour are fully committed to this direction of travel.

Johann Lamont’s problem, and by extension the Scottish Labour Party and the Better Together campaign’s problem, is that their desire to destroy the SNP and the independence campaign at all costs, is only destroying their own principles and their own cause. To continue on down this path is to evaluate and penalise an individual’s burden on the state.

Is it fair to tax a university-educated worker earning £30,000 more than a college-educated worker earning the same £30,000? Or more than a school-leaver earning £30,000?

If this really is about ability to pay, surely the only discriminator is the taxable income. Nothing more.

Today, university students are fair game because they chose to be a drain on the general tax payer through higher-education, but tomorrow, those choosing to go to college might want to consider that they too will be asked to fund their further education. The fact that burden will be levied against future earnings mean’s you should ask no questions about fairness, especially when you already pay more tax through higher earnings – taxation twice is the price of success in a Labour Scotland.

No, it is far better that you avoid asking anything of society or the state. Aim low, cost less, and save yourself the indignation and scrutiny of a taxman waiting to tax you, yes YOU, more for being a greater burden than the “better” people who consumed less resources, were luckier, had more supportive parents and were generally all-round better “eggs” back when times were tough. We’ll punish you more, because you took more, and no point bleating that you needed more help than others, you deserve to pay more tax and then some.

In this depressing and personalised taxation system, it is probably unsurprising that Johann Lamont wants to re-introduce prescription charges, regardless of how much of costs to administer and has free personal care in her sights. In fact, the only thing we should be surprised about is the cherry-picking of specific policy areas. In these austere times, is free university tuition, prescription charges and free personal care really the front, and only, line is the budget debate? Why are the higher-educated and the sick and elderly being burdened with turning the balance sheet around? Why don’t we expect the college-educated to fund their education? Why aren’t we talking of the middle-class paying for their own health care? Why is there no alternative to the council tax? Why aren’t we advocating more private schooling for those who can afford it? If Scottish Labour really believe in ability to pay, they should expect that to apply to all sections of society.

Really, we know deep down why these fronts have been chosen. It’s a political decision rather than a principled decision, constrained by two facts: (i) it must oppose the SNP; (ii) it must not mention or question the current devolved settlement. There is no other way to explain a debate in which “nothing is off the table”, but must not mention Trident, must not question how Scotland is funded via Barnett, does not question more general taxation principles, must not question reform of local income tax, must not consider devolution-plus, never mind max and must not concede one inch in the constitutional debate to the SNP and Yes Scotland.

When the Scottish Press finally finish regurgitating utter nonsense on the EU and the Yes campaign in general, let us hope upon hope, that they shine a very bright light on the direction of travel within the UK. The debate we were all promised requires us to ask difficult questions of both campaigns, and right now, serious questions must be asked of the Labour movement in a United Kingdom.