Backing for Jim Murphy as Scots Labour Leader

The major weakness in the Labour Party in Scotland in recent years has not been the enthusiasm and commitment of ordinary Labour Party supporters or the strength and solidarity of the support of trades unions but it has been the deep seated antagonism between the parliamentary parties at Westminster and Holyrood. If Labour is to rally from its current internal problems and help save Scotland from further constitutional turmoil, if the SNP were to get more Westminster seats than Labour in the general election of May next year, then it needs a leader who can bridge that divide. Jim Murphy is  the only candidate who has demonstrated wide support in both parliamentary parties - getting substantially more nominations from both sets of parliamentarians than the other two candidates due to his far seeing, articulate and renewed vision for an invigorated Labour Party in Scotland. The other two Lothian based candidates, Sarah Boyack and Neil Findlay, are able and competent and would make good cabinet ministers but I fear that they lack the vision, experience and projection that is needed to unite the Labour Party across Scotland after the referendum and after what should have been a victorious aftermath for the party.

A worrying concentration of power if Scotland votes 'yes'

If Scottish voters decide on Thursday to endorse the view that Scotland should be an independent country there would be a worrying concentration of power in the new state. The present arrangements at least disperse power between elected members in Westminster and Holyrood and appointed members in the House of Lords. A newly independent Scotland would have an unprecedented concentration of power with the majority SNP Scottish Government at Holyrood - there being no other house to check the power of that body. Sure there are aspirations to plan a new constitution for the independent state but this would take several years to be achieved. Meantime Scotland would be governed by a small nationalist elite whose power could be enhanced by a further majority victory in the Scottish Parliament elections of 2016. I fear for democracy when a small group controlling the SNP can have such power. Already we are seeing attempts to intimidate the BBC and threaten businesses who do not agree for with the policy of separatism. When they cast their vote in the referendum Scots need to be alert to the dangers of the concentration of power in Scotland that will flow from a 'yes' vote.

Gender gap grows - Canny Scots women far less likely than men to vote in favour of independence - women play safer than men

The latest IPSOS-MORI poll shows that while Scottish men are equally split between men who support a vote in favour of Scottish independence on 18 September and those who do not, women are overwhelmingly against independence by a margin of 46 per cent against independence and 28 per cent in favour.
For more information visit  http://slidesha.re/1rGL1eN

How is this gender gap to be explained?
This is probably due to women being less likely to engage in risky behaviour than men.
A research  paper on the topic of gender differences in risk behaviour summarises the research as follows;

Many studies have noted that young human males are more prone than females to
take risks in relation to conflict (Campbell, 1999; Daly and Wilson, 1988; Wilson and
Daly, 1993,) and sexual behavior (Clift, Wilkins, and Davidson, 1993; Poppen 1995), as Sex differences in risk-taking well as in such situations as car driving (Chen, Baker, Braver, and Li, 2000; Flisher,
Ziervogel, Charlton, Leger, and Roberston, 1993; Harre, Field, and Kirkwood, 1996),
accident risk (Fetchenhauer and Rohde, 2002), drug-taking (Tyler and Lichtenstein, 1997),
gambling and financial decisions (Bruce and Johnson, 1994, Powell and Ansic, 1997) and
outdoor activities (Howland, Hingson, Mangione, and Bell, 1996, Wilson, Daly, Gordon,
and Pratt, 1996). Indeed, psychological studies have found that females find risky
situations more stressful than males do (Kerr and Vlaminkx, 1997).

'Sex Differences in Everyday Risk-Taking Behavior in Humans' Pawlowski B, Atwal R, Dunbar R 2008
http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep062942.pdf

Indyref 'yes' vote would lead to years of division and turmoil

The Scotsman reports (7 May) that the Church of Scotland is to have a major debate at its annual Assembly in Edinburgh later this month about September's independence referendum. There is no doubt that this will be a significant and dignified contribution to the democratic debate. It will, however, be tempered by the fact that the Church itself , which claims to be the national church, will not commit itself one way or another on the most important issue ever to have faced electors in Scotland.

Representatives of the Church have also stated that the it will attempt to contribute to a healing and unifying process after the conclusion of the referendum. It should not underestimate the task that it would face in this respect if there was an affirmative vote for independence. In that case years of turmoil will follow. For two or thrree years after a 'yes' vote there will be extremely challenging negotiations over the terms of independence. There is bound to hard bargaining with the continuing UK over all the familiar issues of the currency, nuclear weapons, armed forces, membership of the EU and NATO, the future of the BBC and numerous other matters. 

The outcome of these negotiations would be far from certain and not necessarily in line with Scottish Government pledges. 

And then, when Scotland achieved actual independence, there would be profound and deep debate and contention about the shaping of the new constitution that the Scottish Government proposes. Should Scotland be a religious or a secular state? Should the Scottish Parliament be extended in numbers to cope with its expanded workload? Should there be an upper house and if so how constituted? How will equality and human rights be protected in the new state?...and so on.

We can be assured that if there is a 'yes' avote on 18 September the long referendum debate will be followed by several years of intense campaigning and mobilising over the terms of independence and the shape of the new Scottish constitution. The Kirk and others interested in healing and unity after the divisions of the referendum campaign, which may only be the first chapter, should not underestimate the enormity of the task they would face in the event of a  'yes' vote.

Letter, Scotsman 9 May 2014

Independence threat to Scottish university research

I note that several Scottish universities have emphasised, by withdrawing from the Scottish CBI, that they are attempting to be neutral in the independence referendum. By taking such a stance they may be actually jeopardising the future of the research funding that is so central to their mission. Scottish universities benefit greatly from current UK arrangements for pooling research funds and allocating them on the basis of competition. Scottish universities currently earn 14 per cent of UK research council and charitable body research funding with only just over 8 per cent of the UK population. If Scotland votes 'yes' in the independence referendum on 18 September these arrangements will become part of a long list of negotiating matters. Why would a UK Government, in those circumstances, want to persist with arrangements that offer a net transfer of resources to an independent Scotland? And would it not prefer to retain them for universities in the rest of the United Kingdom?

I worry that leaders of Scotland's universities are so concerned not to offend their primary paymaster, the Scottish Government, that they are willing to jeopardise the research funding that is the basis of their longer term success. 

 Letter in the Scotsman 23 April 2014 

Scottish Cabinet Minister: Ignorance or misrepresentation? Claims religion and politics are separate in Scotland!

On Saturday 19 April (BBC radio 4 Question Time 1.10 pm- 2.00pm) Fiona Hyslop MSP,  Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs, stated that in Scotland there is no established religion and that religion and politics are kept separate.

Is she not aware that the monarch, upon accession, is obliged by the Acts of Union of 1707 to swear to 'maintain and preserve the True Protestant religion and Presbyterian church government n Scotland? In its independence plans the Scottish Government says that it will keep the monarchy on its present basis and will not change the legal status of any religion. 

And is Ms Hyslop not aware of the weekly 'Time for Reflection' in the Scottish Parliament when largely religious speakers address the whole Parliament in the debating chamber? And has she not heard of the separate system of state funded Roman Catholic schooling or of religious nominees on otherwise elected local council education committees?

It does not inspire confidence in those who seek to promote and constitute a separate independent Scottish state if they demonstrably do not understand how the current system operates.

letter in the Scotsman 21 April 2014

Referendum 'yes' vote would lead to years of a debilitating divorce

Alex Orr (letters 9 April),  in his response to comments about the international complications that might arise if Scotland votes ‘yes’ in September’s independence  referendum as outlined by 

George Robertson, former UK Labour Minister of Defence and NATO Secretary General, overlooks the latter’s observation that Scotland’s separation from the rest of the UK would involve a long debilitating divorce.

If people are already getting tired by the continuing politicking surrounding the referendum campaign they should prepare themselves for several years of further wrangling if Scottish electors do vote ‘yes’. The un-costed fantasy wish list that is the Scottish Government’s independence ‘plan’ (in the document Scotland’s Future) assumes that the government of the remaining United Kingdom will happily go along with its numerous demands.  As we have seen in relation to the currency union, the armed forces and weaponry, energy policy, banking regulation, pensions and more there will be continual hard bargaining on both sides with no guaranteed outcomes for Scotland or the UK.

With all such issues and others to be resolved the Scottish Government’s timetable

for independence in March 2016, eighteen months after the referendum, is also fanciful when we consider that it took much longer for the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament even to resolve the single issue of same sex marriage legislation.

People who vote ‘yes’ will, if they are successful, have to prepare for a bumpy ride with great uncertainty as to the future, for several years. Unfortunately if there is a ‘yes’ vote those opposed to independence will also have to endure the same consequences.

Letter in the Edinburgh Evening News 11 April 2014