Letters: That Jim Sillars vs Jim Taylor debate in full

Fact 1: we lost the 2014 referendum. Fact 2: the Vow was a temporary expedient from the Unionist side which was never intended to be implemented. Fact 3: unfortunate it may be, but the majority in Scotland voted in 2014 to retain the status quo, that is S28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 enshrining the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. Fact 5: the Scottish Government foolishly threw away any possible leverage over the legal status of Sewell by going to the Supreme Court, where it was dismissed as a convention, not law (some of us warned them not to go there).
There are others. Fact 6: none of the present powers held at Holyrood are being taken away. Fact 7: a large number of additional powers are being given to Holyrood. Fact 8: the repatriated powers retained at Westminster, and how they are shaped within the single market of the UK (to which Scotland exports 64% of goods and services) and the timing of transfer will be subject to negotiation between the two governments.

Fact 9: while the SNP leadership has sought to whip up grievance and sabotage Brexit, in the north of England, competitors for investment, they have been pre-planning seven free trade zones, with investment of £9 billion and a job-creating potential of 150,000. Our government here, with its anti-Brexit posturing, has taken its eye off the ball, and made no similar pre-planning.

Two assets are essential for a successful free-trade zone: an airport and a deep water port. We have Prestwick airport and, up the coast at Hunterston, one of the best natural deep water ports in the world. An ideal combination. There is also oil in the Clyde, the licensing of which is now controlled by the Scottish Government, with no action taken despite it being a key issue in the 2014 referendum. Fact 10: there is no record of Mrs May seeking to trash Scottish devolution. It was the Scottish Government, not hers, who took the Sewell case to the Supreme Court.

Carolyn should stop worrying in case I am becoming a fan of Mrs May. Like many others who voted Leave, I can only stand in astonishment as she has put a £39bn offer on the table to the EU, and got nothing back except insults.

May I finally turn to your report of Ian Blackford having an “open ear” to a second EU referendum (SNP have an ‘open ear’ on new EU vote, June 25). This shows a lack of ability to think before launching hostages to fortune. If a second EU referendum is OK for the SNP, why would it not be OK for the Unionists if they lose up here next time?

Think forward. In Brexit, the EU is negotiating with the UK, the fifth-biggest economy in the world, with which it has a huge balance of trade surplus. Detailed negotiations are difficult; there will be compromises. The size difference and trading factors will not be the same with Scottish-rUK negotiations. Scotland of five million will be negotiating with a country of 60 million, with whom we have a 64% trading reliance, very different from the UK’s with the EU. If the Unionists use the SNP tactics over Brexit, they will encourage the UK Government to be very difficult, and to offer the worst deal possible on border control, nationality, rights of residence, division of national debt and assets, technical standards, trading standards, our entry into external trade agreements made by them, and the length of a transition – just a few of the issues we shall encounter in negotiations. All to create demand for a second referendum.

That is why the principle of accepting a referendum result as final is so important. If it is abandoned, using the case of not knowing the deal when the decision was originally made, then we shall have handed the Unionists a stick with which to beat us if they lose next time. Don’t think they have not locked the SNP sabotage methodology away in their files for future use. It’s time to stop clapping the leadership, and time to start thinking and correcting the mistakes they are making.

Jim Sillars
Edinburgh

PERHAPS Jim Sillars’s “facts” would benefit from a few balancing truths.

Truth 1: Doesn’t “losing” a referendum based on half-truths, lies and hyperbole say more about referendums as a democratic instrument than expressing the will of a people?

Truth 2: The Vow being a “lie never intended to be implemented” is full justification right there for re-running a plebiscite, should we want one.

Truth 3: The majority of the electorate, 54%, did NOT express any will to retain the status quo and Westminster’s sovereignty over us. Given the Westminster government’s shambolic mishandling of the Brexit process, surely the imperative now is to test Scottish will again? In any case, even by Mr Sillars’s political standards, Scotland voted to remain within the EU; our will fettered by Westminster and ignored.

Truth 4: The Sewell legal challenge to the Supreme Court was a gambit in an attempt to halt a grievous political mishap. Its failure has no effect on the legitimacy of the campaign for self-determination through independence.

Truth 5: Whether Scotland’s currently devolved powers are not being removed is irrelevant. The Scotland Act 1998 clearly provides for all powers not specifically reserved in the Act to be devolved. To unilaterally retain repatriated powers, even for a proscribed period, must be inherently illegal. With these powers retained by Westminster to develop the UK’s internal market framework, once that framework is established – the Scottish Parliament having had no say in its formulation – those powers will effectively have been lost forever as long as Scotland remains within the UK Union.

Truth 6: Precisely what are the “large” number of additional powers that are being “given” to Holyrood which are not its own by right? Forgive my scepticism, but haven’t we all experienced Westminster’s “largesse” to Scotland? Scottish minority representation in Westminster is ineffective in protecting us from the historic “benevolence” of the diktats of UK Governments of all political persuasions.

Truth 7: If the Brexiting Tory government refuses to allow the devolved nations their rightful place at the Brexit negotiating table, how can we trust Mr Sillars’s belief that Westminster would agree to consult, far less pay heed to, Scotland’s government concerning the repatriated powers it retained?

Truth 8: Scotland is no stranger to being an “insignificant” part of a bigger union. The difference with the EU is that we will have an independent voice in the decision-making process, rather than being ignored by the UK. And it will herald a future of peace within Europe, comradeship and the platform for our children to venture forward and prosper, ambassadors for our Scottish identity; a fitting prospectus going forward for an ambitious nation.

Both the Scottish independence and Brexit referendums prove they are an inadequate democratic instrument. In both, the debates were an inaccurate nonsense, wrapped in a tissue of lies and exaggeration. Doesn’t it beggar belief that knowing this, an experienced politician like Mr Sillars could possibly accept their validity as a democratic instrument that should write in tablets of stone a course of action so fundamentally precarious and considered by so many to be detrimental to the economic wellbeing of our nation? The pound falling by 15%, the slowest growth of the top economies, and myriad large employers like Airbus etc giving clear warnings of loss of future investment that will cost jobs, just a few of the indicators.

Truth 10: Parliament is supposed to be sovereign in our “democracy”. Isn’t the real democratic deficit that a poorly constructed, discredited referendum is being allowed to emasculate the sovereign power of our elected representatives? How is this in any way democratic?

Doesn’t it seem that the only solution to the UK shambles is for all decisions about Scotland to be taken in Holyrood?

Jim Taylor
Edinburgh

JIM Taylor’s reply to me is a classic example of what is missing in parts of the Yes movement – intellectual rigour. He did not so much write “truths” as provide opinion, and muddled opinion at that, where the wish was clearly father to the thought. Most of his letter is not a reply to me, but a diatribe against Westminster rule, something I voted to remove in 2014, but failed.

Jim has allowed his animosity to the sovereignty of Westminster to cloud his judgment: thus failing to understand that Schedule 5 of the 1998 Act is inferior in law to S28(7), which states clearly that Westminster has the right to make laws for Scotland – the assertion of sovereign power which trumps all. Also, I think the Scottish Government, if it was foolish enough to go to the Supreme Court, would find it difficult to argue a breach of Schedule 5, when the powers are merely being delayed, not denied, on perfectly sensible public policy grounds that time is needed to produce all-UK standards for trading in a borderless state.

Our approach to those standards, and our final acceptance of them, will be important in the next independence referendum, because with 64 per cent of our trade with rUK, their existence will make it easier for the Yes side to tell business there will be no change or uncertainty in trading with their southern customers.

If I may, I would caution Jim and others about continuing to play the card that Scotland voted to Remain in the referendum, and that therefore renders the result invalid as far as we are concerned. Two can play at that game, and I can recall on several occasions in the past when Shetland was a card played by London in our referendums. The fact is that the question on the ballot paper was about the UK leaving or remaining within the EU, and Leave won, and having its win recognised is an important principle. If it is not, then we shall be wide open to the Shetland argument when we win next time. The lesson here is always think ahead, and don’t make a case to suit present purposes that can boomerang in future years.

I note that Jim places great faith in the EU attitude to Scotland. I wonder why, then, when we could have done with that organisation’s support in 2014, it lined up with the Westminster Government by telling us to get stuffed, with no possibility of seamless membership if we voted Yes? As for an independent Scotland having “decision-making” powers as a member state of the EU – not on fishing, or public procurement contracts, to mention but two issues of importance.

I could, but won’t, elaborate on the Viking and Laval judgments of the European Court of Justice which placed capital above labour, and dealt a blow to trade unions. Nor will I mention at length the disgraceful treatment of that small country Greece, where recently, with further austerity insisted upon by the EU, police tear-gassed pensioners protesting about another cut in their income.

Finally, it will come as a surprise to those in the majority in 2014 to learn, from Jim, they were not voting for the status quo, and the continued existence of a UK where sovereignty resides at Westminster. Any I met during the campaign seemed clear that is what they were voting for.

Jim Sillars
Edinburgh

THANKS to Jim Sillars for his reply, although mightn’t it have benefitted by not denigrating to the point of insulting both myself and the Yes movement in general?

Also thanks to him for revealing to us that Scotland is NOT a devolved nation after all, based on his assertion that S28(7) of the Scotland Act allows Westminster to retain full law-making powers – including in devolved areas.

So, Scots were sold a pup and should allow Westminster’s political abuse? Or should we test Mr Sillars’s view and ask the Supreme Court whether it was parliament’s intent at the time to autocratically intervene in devolved matters, and whether that intent was fully and openly described to Scots during the devolution process? Tell you what, let’s go for it.

Mr Sillars relies on 64% of our trade being with rUK to justify staying in the UK Union. Yet 54% of the UK’s trade being with the EU doesn’t have the same weight to encourage remaining in the EU? If the UK thinks it can still trade successfully with the EU after Brexit, why couldn’t independent Scotland continue to trade with rUK?

I don’t accept plebiscites like Brexit, legally only advisory, have any legitimacy other than to “guide” elected representatives. My democratic standards are higher than those of Mr Sillars. When a majority in the Scottish nation vote for parties advocating independence which form a Scottish government, then Scotland should declare independence, rescind the infamous 1707 Act of Union, negotiate a “deal” with rUK and leave with the “best deal possible, no deal if necessary” (seem familiar?).

Westminster has no intention of voluntarily allowing such a vital national resource as Scotland to leave the UK; every former dominion or territory seeking to break away from Westminster was forced to struggle for it, none of which have ever returned to Westminster’s sovereignty over them.

Just as Scottish independence is a matter for Scots, so must Shetlanders determine their own future. I’d hope they’d consider an independent Scotland superior to Westminster sovereignty and remain with us. Wouldn’t that be their choice?

Does Mr Sillars know how the EU operates? The UK is the EU member, which is all the EU is empowered to deal with. It also has a duty not to become politically involved in its members’ internal affairs, which Scottish independence is to it, just like Spain and Catalonia. However, we know the EU will welcome an independent Scotland applying for membership, should Scots vote for it.

The EU places capital above labour? Yet it’s the EU that’s delivered the better working conditions Westminster singularly failed to.

Mr Sillars mentions Greece, which the anti-EU brigade rely on heavily to disparage the EU. Greece’s parlous financial situation was indisputably caused through mass tax evasion and poor central government handling of the economy. The EU, through the Central Bank, instituted necessary financial strictures to heal the economy; measures essential to the future financial wellbeing of Greeks and not dissimilar to those prescribed by the IMF on Britain during Labour’s tenure after 13 years of Tory government in the 60s. Would Mr Sillars’s alternative be Greece leaving the EU and being an economic wasteland and financial pariah?

Yes, last time those like me were voting for the status quo. But that meant we had control over all devolved powers, not just when it suited Westminster; we’d still have a future in Europe, and not leave because media fuelled immigration xenophobia and an internal Tory party struggle demanded it; and we believed the lies from supposedly reputable exponents of the Remain campaign which dissipated as soon as the dust settled, and which Mr Sillars seems to think is perfectly acceptable.

Perhaps this is the reason why, like me, Mr Sillars is now commenting on the side-lines, venting “opinion”, and no longer a serious political player?

Jim Taylor
Edinburgh
 

I COULD not help a wry smile when I read the Long Letter written by Jim Taylor on Thursday, which attempted to rebut an earlier offering by Jim Sillars.

Mr Taylor’s letter reflects an increasing trend on the part of ultra-Remainers to depreciate the value of constitutional referenda. Coming from a nationalist, the contradictions are comic.

In his Truth 1, Mr Taylor asks Jim whether “a referendum based on half-truths, lies and hyperbole say more about referendums as a democratic instrument than expressing the will of the people?” Later, Jim states that: “Both the Scottish independence and Brexitreferendums prove they are an inadequate democratic instrument ... doesn’t it beggar belief that Mr Sillars could possibly accept their validity...?”

It is Mr Taylor’s reasoning which “beggars belief”. The far-seeing, knowledgeable, elite Mr Taylor has no respect for the vulgar, ignorant will (Jim Sillars, Willie Ross) of the people expressed at the ballot box. Mr Taylor knew that Project Fear was a total lie in 2014 and the total truth in 2016 even though both “Project Fears” were run by the same George Osborne, and supported by the same battery of establishment institutions such as The Financial Times, CBI, the EU, the IMF and the US President.

But Mr Taylor is not even consistent in his own cause. In his Truth 2, he argues that since the “Vow” was an admitted sham, surely this is “justification right there for re-running a plebiscite”. So here we have a proposal for a new referendum which will hopefully deliver the right result (in Mr Taylor’s eyes) and will thus qualify as a “suitable democratic instrument”.

At the end of his letter, Jim has a last whine against the Brexit referendum in these astonishing words: “Isn’t the real democratic deficit that a poorly constructed, discredited referendum is being allowed to emasculate the sovereign power of our elected representatives?” Ever since the Scottish Parliament was established it has been the position of all parties that Scottish independence can only take place through a majority vote in a referendum. Are we now departing from that in order to save the EU? How else does Mr Taylor propose to achieve Scottish independence?

If in fact direct election of a majority of independence-supporting MSPs (or MPs) were to be adopted as the only possible alternative route, such an election would turn into a referendum and Mr Taylor would be telling his unadulterated truth and the Unionists would be doing the converse. When Mr Taylor lost again he would no doubt be calling for a referendum...

William Ross
Aberdeenshire

THANKS to William Ross for his amusing reply to me in defence of Mr Sillars.

Decrying my reasoning as beggaring belief and lacking consistency, the hapless Mr Ross underquoted my assertion that the lies of the Vow in the 2014 referendum were justification for re-running it, by omitting my rider “should we [ie Scots] want one". Personally, as Mr Ross must now realise, I have no faith in referendums, which as we’ve seen through experience don’t have the same strict standards of debating or funding controls as elections; essential to deliver the balance of campaigning that would give merit to the result as fair.

So, let me say again, I do not consider referendums as a competent political instrument to self-determination and I regret that our political leaders have agreed that route to independence. However, I have no control over this, and I accept that putting the future of the nation into an election manifesto may be considered politically precarious. There again, there isn’t any shortcut to determining the true will of the electorate, necessary to achieve independence and ensure its success.

In the shambles of Westminster a Cabinet clique are running the show and our elected representatives are hanging onto its coat tails, the near two-thirds of the electorate who didn’t vote to leave the EU completely ignored by them. How is this democracy? How can a few Tories in a minority government completely negate all those who we elected to represent us? How can Mr Ross witness this and believe this procedural dictatorship is democracy in action and acceptable – a situation brought about by a “referendum”? Why shouldn’t the final say on our international relationships be in a free vote by those whom we’ve elected to protect our interests?

Finally, Mr Ross, even if an election with independence on the agenda did effectively turn into a single-issue campaign, like a referendum, at least it would be so with the controls I have mentioned. It would be a fairer campaign conducted to stricter guidelines, balance required in the media – the lack of which was such a key corrupting influence in the 2014 referendum, and no wealthy Arron Banks types to splash their cash to pollute the integrity of the campaign, as happened during the Brexit referendum.

Also, haven’t we known all along that the Scottish National Party has stood for independence from its inception, and haven’t we already elected them to majority government? And haven’t others like the Greens come on board? My question therefore is why isn’t Scotland independent already?

Jim Taylor
Edinburgh

JIM Taylor’s latest letter again shows his lack of intellectual rigour. The existence of S28(7) of the 1998 Act, in which Westminster asserts its sovereignty, in no way means that Scotland does not have a devolved parliament. It merely states the obvious, that devolution is power retained, not a division of sovereignty.

Jim doubts if Westminster sovereignty was “fully and openly described to Scots during the devolution process", and suggests that we were “sold a pup.” Fact: Westminster sovereignty was in the White Paper endorsed by the referendum, in which the SNP (Sean Connery and all) played a prominent part for the double Yes, and in the Act itself which SNP MPs helped to pass.

I abstained in the referendum because there was no division of sovereignty, which was consistent with my record: see Sillars v Smith SLT 539 1982, where, in the Appeal Court, I contested the sovereignty of parliament. It is absurd to claim that by pointing to 64 per cent of our exports going to rUK, I am endorsing staying in the Union. It is simply an important fact that we shall need to bear in mind when seeking a majority for independence, and in negotiating the deal with rUK afterwards.

Jim asserts that he doesn’t "accept plebiscites like Brexit, legally only advisory, have any legitimacy other than to 'guide' elected representatives"’ declaring this to be a higher democratic standard than mine. Really? Tell the people you are asking them to make a definitive decision, as did the Cameron official document we all received, then tell them when you don’t like the result that you didn’t mean what you said, and MPs can reverse it? I would call that duplicity, not democracy.

I note also that he advocates Shetland being able to exercise a different decision from the rest of Scotland, not seeming to realise how that would play into the hands of the No side. Why, they might ask, stop only at Shetland? Why not Grampian or the Borders as well if they vote No? With his generous attitude to Shetland, I hope Jim realises that he would be giving away a good slice of our fishing grounds, plus a good chunk of our waters which contain oil.

On the EU he seems to be labouring under the idea that I know nothing about it. Actually I know quite a bit about it, having been involved in the legislation that took us into the European Economic Community, and thereafter continuing to study its development up to the Lisbon Treaty. In addition I worked with EU officials on projects concerned with the Arab world, and have led a number of delegations to the Commission.

That experience is why I have been able to peel away Brussels propaganda which has sought to justify its crucifixion of the Greek people with its mantra, which Jim has swallowed whole, that they brought disaster upon themselves.

The so-called bailout was not to save the Greeks, but the French and German banks who had lent them billions. The bail out enabled Greece to pay the banks, while piling up more debt, forced to sell public assets and imposing punishing austerity, as Varis Varoufakis has explained in detail.

I am, as Jim says, now on the sidelines, but it is a good position from which to observe. What I see is disturbing. Much of the present demand for independence is fuelled by outrage, grievance, a belief in a malign Westminster, and abuse of those who do not agree with us. That combination will not take us to a majority. It is too narrow, too sour.

The case for independence will be won only if we leave off declaring Westminster the root of all evil, and in its place present a positive case: that whatever may be said and debated about the last 300 years, the Union manifestly does not now work for well for Scotland; that our potential cannot be released; that dynamic change in our society cannot be triggered, that devolution has been tried, but its restraints, inherent in the whole process, have shown it does not work.

Jim Sillars
Edinburgh

THANKS again to Jim Sillars for his albeit “confused” response to my latest letter.

Ignoring the root causes of Greece’s financial crisis, Mr Sillars cites the EU’s strictures on the Greek Government’s handling of their economy as “crucifixion”. Perhaps Mr Sillars could explain what he thinks the EU should have done, and also why it was wrong to take action in support of the banks who loaned their depositors’ funds to Greece? Given his apparent stance, should we have just let RBS collapse, sacrificing the jobs of thousands of Scottish employees and damaging the welfare of their families dependent on its continued existence?

Isn’t one of the least edifying aspects of politicians when they seek one rule for them and a different one for others? Mr Sillars would have Scots determine their future, but there it ends. No such equal right for others like the Shetlanders; another ex-politician lacking consistency and betraying double standards.

We know why though. Because Mr Sillars himself tells us that to lose dominion over the Shetlands would be to lose control of vast tracts of oil fields. Forget political integrity when money comes into the mix. Once independent, Mr Sillars and his ilk would wish to create the same conditions in Scotland that brought us to seek independence from Westminster and which would stimulate others’ desire to be independent from us. As I said, my standards are higher. Wouldn’t it be self-defeating to merely recreate the autocratic culture and failures of Westminster in Edinburgh? Isn’t independence about creating the better more inclusive government that Shetlanders would want to be a part of, by persuasion, not subjugation?

Doesn’t it ill behove the independence campaign to depend on using existing oil resources as the reason for independence? Whilst there could be a short-term revenue benefit, which would be an opportunity for the Scottish Government to invest wisely like Norway, the future of Scotland’s economic prospects is far brighter than a diminishing resource that new greener technology is already developing at a pace to render redundant. Our future is renewables; investment in the technology to design and build it here and export both for income, and the use of it to make Scotland a greener more pleasant place for Scots and our descendants to thrive in. Scotland’s future is bright without oil – that’s the message we need to convince wavering voters to choose self-determination.

In his confusion, Mr Sillars tells us that the independence campaign should not be about Westminster’s failings and that the message should be a positive one about Scotland’s future. Then he goes on to say that the reason we should be independent is because the UK Government has held Scotland’s development back. So, Mr Sillars, which is it?

For me, and I suspect many Scots, Westminster’s disregard for Scotland, almost to the point of political and economic abuse, is precisely the reason why independence has never been such an important political issue, much more so that in 2014. And nothing has highlighted this more than the Cabinet clique ignoring the Scottish Government in its autocratic handing of Brexit, and it emasculating Westminster MPs to drive it through regardless; “democracy” usurped by a political clique serving its own narrow interests and ignoring the rest of us.

I voted to remain in the EU, as did many Scots, the “majority” according to Mr Sillars’s own political standard. Again, once independent we may well have a subsequent vote to determine whether Scotland’s interests are best served in re-joining the European project. We will decide then.

Unlike Mr Sillars I have no need to brandish my “credentials” to prove myself the biggest schoolboy in the playground. I’m just happy to welcome opinion from all as commenting equals, basing our views on our own life experience, applied thought and the best legacy we can leave for those following us; the ideal platform they can thrive on and build their own future.

Jim Taylor
Edinburgh