The Lemmings Revisited

Just before the madness exercise in democracy that was the referendum of 2016, I penned a whimsical little piece to summarise my feelings at the way the Brexit campaign seemed to be going. Tonight Parliament votes on the cunning plan to lower ourselves gently over the cliff  withdrawal agreement negotiated by the hapless minority Government led by Mrs May, a plan that is disliked by pretty well everybody and yet the only one on the table. The alternative, the dreaded no-deal, may well be the exact equivalent of the lemmings hurling themselves blissfully into oblivion while being reassured that this is far far better than staying precariously alive on the cliff-edge.

The real alternative, of course, is to remain in the EU until a deal that is generally acceptable can be agreed; failing which we remain on the grounds that the alternatives are so much worse.  Apparently this cannot be done because it would be a "betrayal of democracy". We have the paradox that those who argued passionately that Britain should "take back control" are now paralysed with fear about using that control in accordance with the constitution. We have a second paradox in that a further vote is also seen as a betrayal of democracy; does this mean there can be never again be a referendum on EU membership? If so what about the democratic result of the 1975 referendum? And why must a referendum be a Yes/ No decision? Suppose there are several options? How do you then reach a conclusion?

The British way has been to have elections to the House of Commons and to rely on the interactions between the MPs to produce an outcome that is both responsive to the wishes of the electorate and aligned with reality. Please can we get back to this?

Brexit and Parliamentary Democracy

Funny thing, your Johnny referendum. Supposed to be the ultimate expression of the people's will. Overrides parliament. And yet in the vexed case of Brexit, the total lack of detail about what is to replace our membership of the EU demands the utmost involvement of parliament. The government grudgingly suggests that maybe there will a debate at the end of the negotiating process. The government, voted into power in 2015 on a platform of supporting British membership, not of leaving, now claims to have some sort of direct mandate. So a handful of MPs, nearly all of whom stood behind our membership of the EU, are now going to decide how we exit and parliament will get a chance to rubber-stamp it. And it really is a rubber stamp for the government has made it clear that parliament may not change anything that is negotiated.

Oh, and we are not allowed to know what it is that is being negotiated because that would jeopardise our bargaining position. Umm, we've already done that, fellers. We've given unconditional notice that we are out. We don't really have a negotiating position.

Maybe Mr Johnson, our make-it-up-on-the-spot Foreign Secretary can sort it all out. Or should we all invest in Irish citizenship while the going is good?

Bye, Dave

A year ago David Cameron stood triumphant amidst the electoral wreckage of his opponents in the General Election. Today, having lost the referendum, he announced his own departure within the next three months.

How will he be remembered? As the man who kept things running after the financial turmoils of 2008? Or the man who rashly and needlessly forced the UK out of the EU, triggered the breakup of the UK, provoked other countries to consider leaving the EU, enormously encouraged its enemies and strengthened those with contempt for democracy on the right?

I suppose I can revisit this one in about ten years and answer the question. Assuming we still have a functioning power supply, internet and I can afford the bills.

Staggering Up To The Finishing LIne

A referendum is not the same as a general election. With an election we know that in five years we have another chance to express our views; in the meantime the MPs themselves reflect and express the views of their constituents. With a referendum we are bound to a single decision and may never, or at least, not in our lifetimes, have the chance to change it. If the result of an election returns a government whose policies fill one with dread, there is always hope to reverse them. There is little hope of that with the EU referendum, especially if the result is to leave. For a reversal would require the EU to let us back in as well as a change of heart at home. On the other hand, if the vote is to remain there is nothing to stop the leave campaign from firing up again in a few years. This one-sidedness about the vote is a very good reason to ditch such exercises altogether, except where they are genuinely reversible for both sides.

The arguments are going on right up to the wire but I made up my mind a long time ago and have heard nothing to change it since; indeed, the vicious anti-immigration line taken by the leavers  (subtext: anti Black, anti Brown, anti Irish, anti Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/Sikh, any recognisable minority really) has only confirmed my views and even persuaded some on the leave side to switch. Listening and watching the news is now a form of agony; one is waiting for it all to be over and to know where we are. The don't-knows are so numerous that no opinion poll has any value. What sort of world will we wake up to on Friday?

Don't let foreigners tell you what to do.

Rupert Murdoch, that well known non-British person wants us to leave. So your choice is clear.

The EU Referendum 11 - Don't believe forecasts, believe my, er, forecast

Interviewed on BBC's Today radio programme this morning, leading Brexiter Iain Duncan Smith dismissed a forecast about to be released by the Treasury. The forecast is another dire warning about the economic consequences of the UK leaving the EU. Mr Smith's justification was simple. They did not forecast the crash in 2008 so why should anything they say be taken seriously now?

One little problem. I don't recall Mr Smith forecasting the crash either. So if the accuracy of past warnings is anything to go on, why should his forecast, that the UK will be alright if it leaves, be worth any more than that of people who spend all day analysing economic matters?

The EU Referendum 10 - 2000 years of history vs B. Johnson

Boris Johnson's latest, headline-grabbing, intervention in the referendum debate has been to compare the EU's unifying ambitions with those of Hitler. He does not directly accuse the EU Commission of building concentration camps, nor has he claimed to spot Angela Merkel donning a sinister black leather uniform and pointing at maps overlaid with arrows. Indeed, he was at pains to distinguish the methods of those running the EU and the Nazis. What makes them comparable, he says, is the aim of unifying Europe which has always ended "tragically".

Humm. Hard to know where to begin on this one. Of course the purpose of his remarks was to make a headline and associate "Hitler" and "EU" in the minds of voters. This is such a disgusting tactic that it is hard to take him seriously any more. Sadly, as he is the MP for my constituency I am stuck with him.

I do agree that when military leaders have attempted to conquer large parts of Europe it has tended to end badly. Equally I assume that Johnson is not saying that all unifications achieved in part or whole by military efforts in the past are tragic and should be undone. If he is then goodbye UK, welcome back the patchwork quilt of tribal areas that predominated (as far as we can tell) for hundreds of years before the Romans knocked it on the head in 44 AD.  And the same goes for nearly all of France, all of Germany, great chunks of Italy, slivers of Spain, etc. These countries emerged often from a constrained merger of peoples speaking different languages and with different cultures. And the processes often were tragic - think of the massacres in Southern France of the Cathars or the expulsion of Moors after the conquest of Andalucia.

What Johnson is expecting us to recall is the attempts in modern times to stamp one authority over the continent. This started with Napoleon, was inherited as an idea by Kaiser Wilhelm I and reached its ghastly apogee first under Hitler and then Stalin. But all this bloodshed and destruction was the result of wars between nation states. In each case there was an immediate military conflict between neighbours which developed into attempts to create a continental system. The EU, in total contrast, began after a terrible war had ended and represented a genuine attempt between ex-belligerents to find a new way of living together. Nothing has ever been done like it before. Countries have gradually surrendered sovereignty deliberately to further the project. Whether it will ever end in a United States of Europe is impossible to tell - I suspect the language and culture differences across the continent are too great for that, and the levels of economic development too far apart to assume that the richer countries will happily subsidise the poorer. But the effort to keep the project moving is entirely worthwhile. It takes Europe ever further from the nation state system that has arguably been a catastrophe. It puts Europe alongside the other great powerhouses of the 21st century - China, the US, India (and perhaps Russia). These states are all sufficiently large and diverse to be equivalent to continents that have come together in unifying projects. China's started a long time ago, even before the Romans popped over the Channel, and India's was forced on it after independence from British rule; but this does not invalidate the main thrust of this argument.

We are perhaps half way through the unification of Europe, a process that started under Rome, fell apart around 410 AD and has been stuttering and stop-starting ever since. It has taken 1600 years for Europe's internal borders to be agreed - can you imagine a war starting now over where a border should be (Former Yugoslavian countries and countries bordering on Russia excepted)? Yet such activity was commonplace and regarded as thoroughly glorious no more than a hundred years ago.

I find it amazing that Johnson was unable to articulate any of this right up to the moment he declared his support for the No campaign. These issues are so fundamental that he surely must always have felt that the EU was similar to a fascist dictatorship. The idea that the EU would move in the direction of an "ever closer union" has been established for years. So why did he not say all this last year? Or if it really came down the details of the settlement negotiated by his colleague David Cameron in February, then how he can be so dogmatic about it? - waiting to see the reuslts of that process can only imply that there was a good chance he would have approved the results, and therefore that he does not in any way at all think that his historical parallels hold water.

It is desperately sad that Mr Johnson, forever looking backwards at some glorious imagined past, has not got the imagination to look ahead and visualise a better future for us all, and has used his fine talents as a genuinely popular and charismatic politician to distort history for a short-term political cause that he does not really believe in.

The EU Referendum 9 - The teams line up

Having trouble making up your mind about the EU Referendum. Why not judge the issue according to the stated views of those seeking to sway our opinions?

Yes	No
David Cameron	Michael Gove
Jeremy Corbyn	George Galloway
Nicola Sturgeon	Iain Duncan Smith
Gordon Brown	Nigel Farage
George Osborne	Boris Johnson
Hillary Clinton	Donald Trump
Barack Obama
The CBI
The TUC
Unison
The NFU
Bank of England
Madeleine Albright1
George Shultz2
Head of MI5
Head of MI6
The EU3
The NIESR4
5 former NATO chiefs5
The IMF

¹US Secretary of State under Bill Clinton
²US Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan
³ Well they would, wouldn't they?
⁴National Institute for Economic and Social Research, a highly respected think-tank even when I was an economics student
⁵ Source: Daily Telegraph 09/05/16

The EU Referendum 7 - Obama puts his oar in

President Obama, currently visiting the UK as part of his final year in office farewell tour, has come out firmly in favour of the UK remaining in the EU. He emphasised that the USA would give preference to dealing with the EU with the UK being "at the back of the queue".

Leave campaigners have been scornful of his intervention and Boris Johnson accused him of hypocrisy in that he was advocating policies for us that that he would never apply to his own country.

Boris is wrong on the biggest issue here. The US is itself a federation of states, each of which has chosen to join. From the other side of the Atlantic, it looks as though the EU is slowly moving down the path the Americans took more than two hundred years ago. Obama takes for granted the benefits of such a union and is therefore only voicing the obvious when he relates his own country's policies to ours.  Whether he should have intervened at all is another question. Let us answer it with a simple analogy, one that the Americans themselves have made. I see my friend about to drive off, having drunk more than enough to impair judgement. Do I say something or do I say "No, I must not interfere with his right to injure or kill himself and others?". No-brainer.

Finally, consider that Obama will say whatever he thinks is right for America. In other words, his comments are based on a hard-headed assessment of US interests. So do their interests and ours coincide? In general, yes they do. We want to trade freely with the US and we want US investment here. Our cultures and histories are closely aligned. We are military allies. Would Obama want us to undertake a course of action that would weaken us? Clearly not. When he advises us to remain in the EU he is not trying to make his country better off at our expense - he is trying to do the best for us both.

The EU Referendum 6 - How much more exciting can it get?

The following leaflet dropped through my letterbox the other day, as it doubtless did in many million households in the UK. It's a snappy title, is it not? Leaving aside the fact that, as several Cabinet ministers and many junior ones are opposed to remaining and therefore the leaflet cannot really claim to speak for "the Government", it is the sheer length of the thing that baffles.
 

I mean, it doesn't actually trip off the tongue. They can never make a film out of it, there wouldn't be enough room on the posters. Referendum - this time it's political, perhaps or Cameron - road to redemption.

The contents of the leaflet are a few pages of simple assertions about the importance of the EU to our trade, and a lot of play with the uncertainties of leaving. And, in the section describing the impact on the cost of living, there is a full page picture of a shopping basket, so those of you desperately unsure about what prices and household goods and shopping are, can see for yourselves. I don't think this is good enough. I want a picture showing two men. One, strong, well-dressed, perhaps with some fashionable tinted glasses, should be looking confidently out toward a rising sun over a beautiful rolling landscape. He can be captioned "Mr Yes". The other, scruffy, unshaven, with one dangling earring and half a rollup in the corner of his mouth would be staring unhappily at a dustbin in a dark alley. He would bear the title of "Mr No". This would make everything totally clear and end all possible arguments.

(note to commissioning editors for HMG: I am available at a surprisingly reasonable fee for consultations on Government publications.)

The EU Referendum 5 - A big shout from the quiet man

Much to everyone's surprise, Iain Duncan Smith resigned from his high ranking post in charge of Work and Pensions, citing differences over how to implement welfare cuts following the Budget on Wednesday. Smith, who described himself as the "quiet man" way back when he was struggling to assert himself as leader of the Conservative Party, is conventionally seen as a right-winger and disciple of the blessed Margaret. Yet he has chosen to go out in defence of welfare spending that favours some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in Britain. This either

• Marks him out as a genuine "one-nation" Tory, as distinct from the Cameron/Osborne brand of "soak the poor and pander to the rich" politics; or
• is a cunning plan to split the party even further in advance of the EU referendum; or
• both of the above (?)

It seems a little strange that someone opposed to membership of the EU should espouse views that chime in well with the broad strand of welfare/worker support that underpins much of EU social policy. Be that as it may, Smith did not need to resign in order to campaign for the No vote - Cabinet responsibility has already been waived in this regard. But a resignation will shake the confidence of the party in its leaders. Will this therefore strengthen the Nay-sayers? I shall watch developments with great interest.

The EU referendum 4 - Waiting for Rupert

Although he is not British and does not live here, has recently married an American and appears to love little but money, it seems that Mr. R Murdoch, owner of The Times, The Sun, great chunks of our television and as much of the rest of the world's media as he can manage, is now about to intervene in our referendum.  According to The Guardian, (a newspaper owned and managed by British citizens not by a weasel Australian who changed his nationality to comply with US laws about media ownership), Mr. Murdoch will decide which way his organ of popular opinion will go.

The editors of The Sun always used to insist that they did not shape opinion, they voiced what their readers were thinking and wanting. How strange that they are not doing so on this occasion. Perhaps the difficulty in which  they find themselves is that their readers are divided into those who want in, those who want out, those who are trying to make up their minds, those who would are waiting to see what their favourite actors/sportsmen/celebrities say and those who, when asked, will reply "European union mate? Blimey, it's bad enough with the trade unions over here" before ordering another pint and turning back to scrutinise the runners at Chepstow. So, baffled by the lack of steer from their readers, and with the Conservative party split down the middle, the poor editors, unable to make up their own minds, (poor dears, they only produce the most popular newspaper in the country; now we expect them to form reasoned arguments all on their own), are asking Dad.

Dad of course has his own problems. He wants to take control of all of UK television. He needs a friendly face at number 10 to let him in. If he backs the loser he might fail.So this is a high stakes decision for the American gentleman, who now has the chance to change the shape of the British state to suit his own short-term interests.

When I become king no person who is not a British citizen residing and domiciled here for tax purposes will be permitted to own any media outlet above a certain size. I give you my pledge.

The EU referendum 3 - Who is allowed to speak?

Grilled by MPs on a select committee, the Governor of the Bank of England expressed his views that a UK withdrawal from the EU would have worse consequences for the economy than if we remained. He then added that he was not in any way trying to influence anyone's views.

These comments have drawn a storm of protest from those who believe the UK should leave. Mr. Carney has been accused of speaking when he should, as a public official remain silent. Indeed, one MP, Mr. Rees-Mogg, has said his remarks were beneath the dignity of the Bank.

In truth, the poor man (Mr. Carney, not Mr. Rees-Mogg) was going to get it in the neck no matter what he said. Keep schtum and he will be told that he is failing in his duty, as one of the highest-placed financial experts in the country, to advise the Government and the public. Speak a view and be blasted for having partisan ideas. Put up a measured and balance argument that favours neither side and everybody will have a go at him for sitting on the fence and failing to provide leadership.

What he said is really not that objectionable. People making long-term decisions in business need a degree of certainty. Leaving the EU would create an enormous uncertainty about the future of this country. Investors would shy away, the pound would fall in value, financial markets would be shaken. Perhaps the longer-term advantages would outweigh these immediate consequences. I do not believe so, and I suspect Mr. Carney does not; Mr Rees-Mogg probably thinks a heavenly choir of angels will give everyone a bar of gold on the day we close the entrance to the Channel Tunnel and he is entitled to his opinions, but I hope his voice is drowned out.

The EU Referendum 2 - Boris votes for Boris

After an "agonising decision", my MP Boris Johnson has opted for the UK to leave the EU. Did it really hinge on an exhausting examination of the terms of the weekend deal? Or a cynical political calculation which goes like this.

1) Johnson placed himself to replace Cameron if the Tories had failed to win the 2015 general election.
2) Cameron's unexpected victory wrong-footed all of his rivals and his announcement that he would stand down before the next election shut them up pro tem.
3) Cameron's mate George Osborne is the obvious replacement, the man who can undertake to carry on Cameron's policies.
4) So Johnson's hopes of becoming leader of the party and next PM rest on Cameron & Osborne getting a severe setback.
5) Such a setback can only now be if they commit to a Yes result in the referendum (which I assume they will) and the nation votes No.
6) Ergo, Johnson has to be seen as effectively heading the No vote, although given the various parties already committed to that cause, he is unlikely to be the titular leader of any of them.
7) If Cameron wins the referendum then Johnson has not lost much; he will have got a lot of exposure and he can continue to place himself as the alternative to Cameron/Osborne when the time comes. If he loses then Boris can put himself forward as the voice of the people, or something similar.

So I suspect the "agonising" was about whether the above line of reasoning was valid. Because if Boris was really convinced that the UK should not be in the EU he could have made that known a long time ago.

It's a shame that such a charismatic political figure should have opted for a very short-term political judgement on a matter that will be of great importance to the country, and to Europe, for maybe the next thirty years. In my opinion he should have made the long term judgement and for such a scholar of classical history, the lessons from two thousand years of splintered and fractious European nation-states ought to have been learned.

The EU Referendum 1 - Vote Yes for positive reasons

Somewhat to my surprise, Mr. Cameron secured a deal at the EU summit on Friday, gaining the total support of all the member states. Now he has to sell it to the country. There will be a referendum at the end of June, not on the question of whether the deal is acceptable or should be renegotiated, but whether Britain should continue its membership of the EU.

I suppose I will have to examine the arguments as they become clearer in the coming months but for now, let me state my position. I am not interested in whether I am a bit better off or a bit worse off in the EU. I am not interested in whether the "sovereignty" of the UK government is enhanced or diminished by membership. What am I chiefly concerned with is the long term future of this country. I believe that our prosperity and security require a prosperous and secure Europe, especially the countries on the fringes that are currently under the greatest pressure from the economic slowdown and the refugee crisis. In addition there is a real threat of the revival of the Russian empire which may destabilise the Baltic bloc and other bordering countries, and we can expect no particular favours from the other world economic superpowers.

Britain is a vital part of the EU and the EU is a vital contributory factor to our future. It's a no-brainer. I want our government to be at the heart of the European project, standing up for sensible and tolerant policies, opposing extremism and excessive bureaucracy. I don't think a European super-state is feasible right now (but it might be if constructed on genuinely democratic lines with the full consent of everyone) and I am suspicious of "ever-closer union" and glad the UK is exempt from it. Whatever happens in the EU the British voice can be and should be heard loud and clear.

To exit the EU now would force Britain, which does most of its trade with the rest of the EU) to conform to the economic policies made in Brussels but without a say in them. It would gladden those hostile to liberal democracies, be they in the Kremlin, the Middle East or further afield. And it would lead directly to the smashing up of the UK as the Scots would seize their chance for another referendum on independence.

There has never been a world project like the EU, in which many independent nations opt for a single trading bloc (and most for a shared currency), with a tier of political institutions that override their own. It has delivered peace and stability across much of Europe for over 50 years. It is in our interests that it succeeds and the best way we can make sure that it does is to be part of it.

A spot of the balmies

It seems fair to follow up my previous, meteorologically-themed post, with an update. There may be record-breaking blizzards in North America but we enjoyed positively spring-like conditions today in beautiful Ruislip with the temperature reaching an amazing 14c. The unceasing storms and rain of December and the first part of this month have give way to a bit of cloud here and bit of drizzle there, sufficient to keep the back of my garden slightly flooded (and by slight I mean just a bit of standing water that refuses to go away), but nothing whatsoever to worry about. We did get some real snow the other day but it lasted barely the morning. That might be it this year but of course there's a fair way to go yet.

Speaking of balmies, there are barmies on the horizon as the British Government pursues its quest to renegotiate the terms under which the UK is a member of the EU and we have the fascinating prospect of the Conservative party about to rip itself apart. Several leading members of the Government have declared themselves against it, no matter what Mr. Cameron may achieve in his exhausting and seemingly endless jaunts around Europe trying to drum up support. The latest news is that he might go for a referendum in the early summer, thus irritating the Scottish Nationalists because it will overshadow elections there. But if he delays till the autumn then the split in his party will be revealed in full at the party conference because no elections can ever be held between mid-June and the end of September.

The only sensible referendum would be one where voters could choose between a range of policies but we won't get that. Arguably only people who actually know what the EU is and have some idea about how it works, what it costs and how it is likely to be changed in future should be permitted to vote but we won't get that either. (This is not like voting for an MP, who you know you can chuck out in five years if you have to).  It will be a yes/no and much legal time will be spent on the precise wording. If Mr. Cameron has his way it will read
"Do you agree with the Government's very sensible terms that will guarantee a prosperous future for all within the EU?";
and if his critics win out it will read
"Do you agree that Britain faces utter ruin if it remains in the EU any longer no matter what those cunning foreigners might pretend to concede to us?".

In any case nobody will have the slightest idea whether we will be better off in or out because nobody can predict the future so the whole exercise is daft. I suppose I will have to continue commenting on it because the decision matters, not least because a No vote will inevitably lead to the breakup of the UK because, if one should occur, then sooner or later Scotland will have a second independence referendum, on the grounds that a majority of them wish to remain the EU so why the hell should they follow England out.

It is a cruel irony that the leader of what used to be the "Conservative and Unionist" party should be so keen to jeopardise the Union and his attempts to prevent it will of great interest.

After the vote, or, the Union saved

In the end it all went horribly wrong for the splitters. Gordon Brown rose from the dead to revitalise the union cause, the waverers wavered toward "No" and Alex Salmond fell on his sword. 55% was not as much as I would have liked but it is sufficient to put this issue to bed for a while. We still live in a United Kingdom.

Mr. Salmond is likely to be replaced by his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon. There seems to be a element of the piscine about the names of the SNP leaders but heaven forfend that anyone should make cheap jokes about it all being a bit fishy.

Mrs. Commuter and I heard the news in our hotel bedroom in Dijon, whither we had repaired on a short holiday to taste (and I mean that literally) the delights of Burgundy, a beautiful rural region of France that is home to many memorable dishes. Our final night's dinner of oeufs meurette, boeuf bourginogne and an assiette of fromages was not the sort of thing you eat every night, if you value your waistline, but we had done a fair bit of walking and felt justified in indulging.

Dijon has no underground system but trams run around (though not through) the historic city centre and though we did not travel on one, I know you'd like to see a picture anyway so here you are.

Sorry about the street sign but I think it adds a certain something to the picture [amateur naffness, perhaps?: Ed]

Scotch Mist - Occasional reflections on a referendum. No 7 – SNP and the destruction of the English language

I really was not intending to write any more about the referendum. But it is now the number one topic on current affairs programmes and inevitably one is drawn into the arguments. This morning I was idly listening to Today in bed, as one does when taking a day off. [He's been retired for a while but we don't want to shatter his pathetic illusions that the business world still needs him: Ed] I heard an SNP supporter using the phrase "this failed political union" and once again the blood rushed to my head, my eyes rolled and my writing fingers began to itch.

• Direct control from Westminster over all matters of Scottish life including allocation of housing, education, the police, investment, control over candidates for Parliament - that might signify a failed union.
  
• Scots unable to buy property in the rest of the UK, forbidden to travel, discriminated against when working south of the border, refused entry to pubs and hotels, singled out for stop-and-search by the police, kept waiting for many hours to cross the border - this would indicate a failed union.
  
• No democratic elections for many years despite continuous mass demands for them - that would show a failed political union.
  
• Arrests of anyone campaigning for independence, bloody suppression of demonstrations, secret police, disappearance of activists, English commissars with arbitrary powers including detention, torture and execution - that would indeed signify a failed political union.

And so on. Now you could say that some of these things did indeed take place following the battle of Culloden when the people of the Highlands were punished for support for the Jacobite cause. And you could counter-argue that even then the majority of Scots supported the union and were not Jacobites and that, within a generation, Scots were serving proudly in the British army, were represented in Government and were enjoying the full fruits of the economic boom accompanying the expansion of the British trading and political empire (as anyone who has wandered through the splendid Georgian streets of the "new town" in Edinburgh can witness).

All that was more than 200 years ago. To describe the current state of the British polity as failed is like a child who has not been picked to star in the class play (where there are only 6 main roles and 25 kids) screaming "It's not fair" and banging her head on the desk. Put it another way - the UK model is widely copied and respected around the world as an example of how to create a peaceful, representative, honest system of government. The very fact that the referendum is taking place and will be legally honoured if the result is for independence is testament to the strength of the system. Yet the SNP says it is failure, and sure the SNP are honourable men and women. [That's enough Shakespeare at this time of the morning, thanks: Ed]. Yugoslavia was a failed union. Pakistan was a failed union. When it all ends in militias, shelling of cities and slaughter of unarmed civilians, that's a failed union. The UK has been an outstanding success, despite the relative domination by the English over the rest, a domination that is acknowledged and is steadily being reduced as devolution increases, and the merits of the UK far outweigh its disadvantages. If this is failure, give me more of it.

Scotch Mist - Occasional reflections on a referendum. No 6 – The psychology of Yes

The referendum is reaching its final days. Politicians are scrambling to put over their messages to the undecided, who may amount to 10% of the electorate. Business leaders have made warnings about the penalties should the result be yes, others affirm their faith in Scottish robustness. The opinion polls have shown a sharp narrowing of the gap and there seems to be a new sense of urgency in the No campaign that was not there before.

A psychologist has pointed out the associations of the words Yes and No, one being positive and uplifiting, the other with negative associations. People like to say yes, to be part of something bigger and to feel they are making a contribution. Saying no is akin to isolating oneself and to go against the crowd, and humans are instinctively herd animals always uneasy about being out of the group. So to allow the referendum to be based on Yes or No was a clever tactic by the SNP. A better balance would have been to have two questions, viz:

• Should Scotland become independent?; or
• Should Scotland stay within the United Kingdom?

     Select one answer only.
     Write your answer on one side of the paper only.
     Do not use green crayon. Candidates expressing opinions
     about the parentage of the English,or
     the importance of loch-fulls of whisky
     or anyone threatening to play the pipes for non-payment
     of a gratuity will be the subject
     of tut-tutting and averted eyes.

Anyway, too late to change anything now. This column believes in the union. Small may be beautiful but the UK is in many ways fairly small anyway on the world stage. Let's not diminish it any more.

Scotch Mist - Occasional reflections on a referendum. No 5 –What is best for whom?

The first televised debate between the leaders of the opposing sides took place the other night. As it was on STV I was unable to watch (not that I necessarily would have, what with the build-up to the West Middlesex pro-am hopscotch first round relegation play-offs on Garbage) but gleaned the impression from the press coverage that Alastair Darling, for the “Naes” made a good case for the economic weakness that an independent Scotland would experience.  Predictably Alex Salmond for the “Ayes” continued to bluster that Scotland would remain in the sterling area with the full support of the Bank of England because this would be in the best interest of both countries. This line of argument has irritated me for a long time. The SNP have always campaigned, single-mindedly, that their policies were for Scotland and nothing else mattered. For them to now suggest that everything they do is best for everybody, even though their policies are contested by all of other the main political parties in the UK (yes, UK, there are other parties in Scotland), is confusing. Why should they care what is in my best interest?

Anyway, as I said in my last piece on this particular topic, what matters is the instinct not the endless batting back and forth of numbers. I believe that there is no conflict whatsoever between a healthy patriotism and the choice to join or remain part of a larger polity. Many of the North American states made this choice at a time when most of their residents identified with their state first and the USA second. Increasingly the citizens of Europe are moving this way, at least in part (Try driving from France through Belgium, Netherlands and Germany and see how many times you have to produce your passport). I believe that the UK can produce a better and safer quality of life for all of its citizens than if it breaks apart. The Scots have a flag, an anthem, a football team, a language (if they want it) and huge numbers of them prefer to live and work south of the border. Do they really want to see Prime Minister Salmond taking his place with the minnows at international conferences while Prime Minister Cameron (or should that be Johnson?) sits down at the top table? Do they really want to see their finest businesses relocate to ensure that they remain within the sterling area?

The vote is on 18 September. Five weeks before this business can be put behind us. It matters to me because I am a citizen of the UK and I continue to be frustrated that my views will not be taken into account on that day.