Lies, Damn lies…and the SNP!

“Yes to the UK” is a blog dedicated to keeping the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland together, ”run by a passionate (Scottish) unionist as a forum for presenting the case for Union.  It is intended to highlight the many benefits of continued unity and to highlight the many flaws in the separatist argument.

Our thanks to “phantom” for allowing us to crosspost the following from “Yes to the UK”:

I must begin tonight’s missive with an apology.  During a recent post, I was critical of the practise – seen frequently in the Scottish constitutional debate (and in politics in general, if we’re honest) – of tackling the player rather than the ball; that is, to attack the opponent rather than his or her argument.

It’s a tactic that sees many grassroots unionists heap personal insults onto SNP members, while even the most senior members of the separatists campaign (amongst whom, it would seem fair to say, it’s a MUCH more endemic trait) concentrate their efforts almost exclusively on character-assassinating their opponents.

It’s a tactic I have very little time for, believing as I do that it does down the importance of the topic under discussion while simultaneously being a considerable insult to the intelligence of the thinking Scot; the group that I feel will be casting the deciding votes come 2014.

Recent events, however, compel me to abandon even this deeply-held belief for the purposes of this post.  Tonight, I direct the full force of my ire (as a unionist, a taxpayer and a voter in Scotland) towards the SNP government.

For this I can only apologise and assure you that, in the absence of further obscene provocation, I will stick resolutely to this principle of fair and positive debate.

And so to the meat of the matter, which I’m sure barely a soul in the land has missed.  I’m talking, of course, of the unbelievable comments from the SNP this week.

 

In a statement in Holyrood, Nicola Sturgeon made the following comments in relation to the EU issue:

“Presiding officer, in light of the Edinburgh Agreement by which both governments have agreed the process for Scotland to achieve independence, I can confirm that the government has now commissioned specific legal advice from our Law Officers on the position of Scotland within the EU if independence is achieved through this process. 

The Scottish Government has previously cited opinions from a number of eminent legal authorities, past and present, in support of its view that an independent Scotland will continue in membership of the European Union – but has not sought specific legal advice. However, as the Edinburgh Agreement provides the exact context of the process of obtaining independence, we now have the basis on which specific legal advice can be sought.

The views of these other eminent authorities will continue to be highly relevant, but the Government’s position in the independence White Paper will be based on and consistent with the advice that we receive.

Given that my statement today answers the ruling of the Information Commissioner on the existence of legal advice, there is now no need for the government to pursue an appeal against this ruling in this specific case and I have asked our lawyers to advise the Court accordingly and to ask that the appeal be dismissed.

I should also make clear that, in confirming that the government has now asked for Law Officers’ advice, I have both sought and received the prior agreement of the Lord Advocate.  This statement is therefore consistent with paragraph 2.35 of the Ministerial Code and the longstanding convention on which that section of the code is based, both of which will continue to be vigorously upheld by ministers.  The confirmation that I have given today relates to the particular circumstances of this issue and does not set a precedent.”

Footage of this is, as of 23^rd October, available here.

The first thing to note immediately from this is that, FINALLY, the SNP government has admitted that it holds NO specific legal advice in relation to Scotland’s membership of the European Union.  Despite this, they have – for several months at least – asserted as FACT that Scotland would DEFINITELY maintain membership.

There is a fitting word, ladies and gentleman, for presenting assertion as fact: deception.  Our First Minister and his government have, for at least the last few months, been DELIBERATELY deceiving us.

One of the major sources of anger around this issue, of course, is that the SNP government has in effect revealed that, before today, they were prepared to spend at least £100,000 of OUR money to protect a secret that doesn’t actually exist. Opinions on this abound, and I for one subscribe to the notion that to pursue such a plan is to intend a blatant misuse of authority and position for party-political purposes.

To me, there is no escaping this allegation.  After all, since it’s now been revealed that NO legal advice exists, what POSSIBLE benefit to the public interest exists in keeping that fact a secret?  The answer, dear reader, is NONE!  The ONLY advantage to be gained from suppressing the fact that no legal advice exists would’ve gone to the SNP, who would’ve (at least temporarily) avoided the embarrassment of admitting it and the resultant damage it would do to their pet project.

Indeed, the ONLY justification I could see as remotely applying to the public interest would rely on one taking the view that separation is in the public interest (the logic then being that there is a public interest in keeping this a secret because revealing it would make us less likely to vote for separation).  However, I’m fairly confident that applying one’s own political views to such matters is exactly what the office of Information Commissioner was created to avoid.

Indeed, it’s worth reiterating that the Information Commissioner ruled some months ago that it was in the public interest to release the information.  She did this with a FAR more comprehensive understanding of both the applicable legislation AND the Ministerial Code.  

But Eck knows best, of course.

Incidentally, it can be noted that the Ministerial Code also appears to make provision for the release of information under some circumstances.  For instance, section 2.30 notes (my emphasis):

“Ministers should always take account of the public interest in maintaining the right to confidentiality of communications between legal advisers and the fact that release of the content of legal advice is likely to be appropriate only in highly compelling cases.”

Like most of us, the Information Commission clearly considered this to be the kind of “highly compelling case” the Code alludes to, and indeed noted in her decision that “…the Commissioner considers there is a strong public interest in allowing the public to understand the process by which [EU] policy would be formulated.”

In any case, the relevant section of the Code that the SNP has thusfar hid behind is 2.35:

“The fact that legal advice has or has not been given to the Scottish Government by the Law Officers and the content of any legal advice given by them or anyone else must not be revealed outwith the Scottish Government without the Law Officers’ prior consent.”

This may well appear pretty airtight (even with consideration to section 2.30 above, which would appear to provide for an exception to this principle), but we must also remember that Nicola Sturgeon has today ended speculation by revealing the answer.  Moreover, she did this while noting that the Government had “…both sought and received the prior agreement of the Lord Advocate.  This statement is therefore consistent with paragraph 2.35 of the Ministerial Code…”

In light of this the question surely becomes, if this could be done in time for her statement on 23^rd October, why couldn’t it have been done months ago?

In any case, alongside the duplicity and underhandedness of the Scottish Government has been the still-unfolding saga of the First Minister’s own dishonesty in relation to this matter.  In particular, Salmond’s response to a question from Andrew Neil in relation to this issue has been seized upon:

Andrew Neil:  “Have you sought advice from your own Scottish Law officers in this matter?”

Salmond: “We have, yes.”

A link to the footage of this interview is included here, and shows Salmond CLEARLY responding to the direct question with “yes”.  Despite this, the First Minister has since claimed that his comments are being taken out of context.

In a choice between liar and incompetent, Salmond has clearly chosen to shut his eyes, go for option B and hope for the best.  Better to be seen as a man that cannot understand a clear and direct question than one that understands only too well, it seems.

Only time will tell.

Regardless of his claims, the footage is there, unchanging and incontrovertible.  Let the people of Scotland be the judge.  And, while they’re at it, let me remind them of a couple of well-known names:

Tony Blair – pilloried by many, including Alex Salmond himself, for allegedly lying about his reasons for invading Iraq.  Salmond was also VERY vocal on Blair’s use of the Ministerial Code defence (which may yet {one can hope} go down in history as “pulling a Salmond”).

Bill Clinton – actually impeached (which, for the uninitiated, means “booted out of office”) for lying about the Monika Lewinski scandal.  A PERSONAL scandal, remember; Salmond’s numerous lies in relation to STATE BUSINESS (this EU row being the latest, the fabricated backing of a referendum expert in the chamber itself being another) are, you would think, of considerably more concern.

If these men can be tried – be it by law or through the court of public opinion – for their actions, does our Dear First Minister deserve anything less?

Before signing off for the night, I want to make a brief return to normal service and consider some of the other comments made by Ms Sturgeon during her monologue yesterday.  I hope you’ll take this small retreat from the rank hypocrisy of the above remarks as my small gesture of amends!

But indeed, notwithstanding the headline EU issue, a number of Sturgeon’s other comments are worthy of some unionist ripostes.

For one, consider these:

“In light of the Edinburgh Agreement, by which both governments have agreed the process for Scotland to achieve independence…”

“…as the Edinburgh Agreement provides the exact context of the process of obtaining independence…”

Though it might seem innocuous enough, I suspect Sturgeon is being crafty here.  After all, the Edinburgh Agreement has NOTHING to do with “the process for Scotland to achieve independence”; it PURELY relates to the arrangements for a referendum on the subject.  It may well include what you might call a ‘statement of intent’ to respect the result, but this in NO way relates to what form any process of splitting the UK might actually take in the event of a vote for separation.

Does it set out a timescale for a break?  No.

Does it set out any principles under which the break will be completed, such as on the division of assets and liabilities? No.

This may seem unimportant, but I suspect that the SNP are trying to set up the argument they intend to use (with the EU and elsewhere, no doubt) if they manage to win on the day.  I say this because it appears to be a prelude to a very particular distinction:

If the Edinburgh Agreement is taken for what it is – an agreement between the governments on the arrangement for a referendum – it would have NO bearing at all on any final divorce settlement.  In such a scenario, it would be easy for Westminster to argue that Scottish separation was a unilateral decision to break away.  Scotland would then be a nation that, legally speaking, could well be considered a new state (as opposed to a successor or continuing state).

If, however, the SNP could successfully argue that it WAS an agreement on “the process for Scotland to achieve independence”, they MIGHT be able to persuade an international court or the European Commission that Scottish separation represented a bilateral agreement – between Holyrood and Westminster – to divide the UK into two states.  In such a legal scenario, it would be easier to argue that BOTH resultant countries should be considered the same – either TWO new countries, or else TWO successor states. 

This is a subtle – but VERY important – distinction.  In effect, successfully convincing a judge that the Edinburgh Agreement is an agreement on “the process for Scotland to achieve independence” could neutralise FORCE Westminster to stop arguing that Scotland should be considered a new state, since doing so could mean rUK would ALSO be considered a new state.

A second section also caught my attention:

“Another central feature of the agreement, presiding officer, is that both governments are committed to work together constructively in the light of the outcome of the referendum, whatever that outcome is, in the interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the UK.  The Edinburgh Agreement itself was negotiated in that spirit, and it shows that governments can work together in everyone’s interests, while also firmly standing up for what they believe in.  That will be as true after independence as it is now and it points to the potential for a positive new partnership amongst the people of these islands.”

In arguing here that the Edinburgh Agreement proved that the two governments can work productively together, Sturgeon has alluded to a number of points.

Firstly, she has highlighted that her party’s government is, by and large, incapable of working constructively with others (witness, for instance, the almost instant departure of the Green Party from Yes Scotland, with their current readmission still young and by no means proven as resilient), and CERTAINLY proves consistently unable to work productively with Westminster.  This is to be expected, of course; a separatist party can in no way be trusted to make us of devolution’s full potential, since to do so would by default weaken their core argument.

There are any number of examples, one of which I alluded to in an earlier post: in their reflex-like opposition to proposed new borrowing powers, the SNP criticised the suggested limit to these powers and attacked the UK government for not providing more funding IMMEDIATELY.  That this may well be a very different set of circumstances – with perhaps a higher borrowing limit or more funding indeed found from somewhere – if the government at Holyrood did not pursue a religious policy of ‘Westminster bashing’ and instead chose to engage in productive negotiations is, naturally, omitted from their press releases.

Another point alluded to in Sturgeon’s comments is the notion that the current partnership between the nations of the UK is not “positive” as it is.  That we unionists disagree doesn’t even need to be qualified.

A last section that caused my eyebrows to again go skywards was this one, relating to the SNP’s “vision for Scotland”:

“We have an ambitious vision for Scotland as a prosperous and successful European country reflecting Scottish values of fairness and opportunity, promoting equality and social cohesion.

Full home rule will allow us to create an exciting new Scotland fit for the 21^st century.  We will have the responsibility to find our own solutions to the challenges we face, and to build a society based on fairness, confidence, innovation and prosperity.”

In making this statement, Sturgeon is alleging that Scotland is NOT prosperous or successful right now.  Clearly there are problems, but are these problems unique to the UK or Scotland within it?  No.

In making this statement, Sturgeon is implying that values of “fairness and opportunity, promoting equality and social cohesion” are uniquely SCOTTISH values.  Is this really a fair assessment of rUK, who (I can assure you from near-infinite experience) place just as high a value on such principles as the SNP claim to, at least for the people they deem worthy of such things.  Is this a fair assessment of our friends and neighbours in rUK?  Is this the kind of assertion – made against our closest allies, separation or not – behind which we should be throwing our weight?  I think, no.

And lastly, in making this statement, Sturgeon is implying that British society gives no regard to “fairness, confidence, innovation and prosperity”.  

On this – in light of our stature as one of the greatest and most successful countries on the face of the Earth – I would again, with respect, beg to differ.

Share and Enjoy