One Man, One Vote, One UK Result on the EU

     Yesterday, former SNP leader Gordon Wilson raised the prospect of Scotland being ejected from the United Kingdom if it ends up providing the deciding votes for the UK to retain its EU membership in the referendum to be held on June 23rd. Specifically, he talked up the scenario in which England – with 85% of the British population – is “forced” to stay the European Union because of the potential for a strong pro-EU in Scotland cancelling out a narrow anti-EU vote in England in the overall UK-wide result, which is a scenario that the opinion polls have been consistently projecting.

     Such a scenario, said Wilson, would cause a “constitutional crisis” which may result in English agitation for a referendum on its own independence which would effectively dissolve the UK and cause Scotland to become independent regardless of whether the majority of its residents want to keep the Union going.

     This is total and absolute nonsense, just as is the long-running suggestion from his party that Scotland could be “dragged out” of the EU against its will if there is strong vote against the UK’s membership from the rest of the UK. Indeed, it follows in the vein of some in the SNP – as well as others, including English nationalists – to saber-rattle and stir up division amongst the people of the UK by hyping up differences and blowing them way out of proportion with suggestions of the different parts of the UK voting different ways on the EU issue and using it to suit their political purpose: the break-up of Britain.

     To be clear, Wilson has not stated his position on the EU and has warned independence activists against looking at the issue through “tartan glasses” in the hope that divergent referendum votes will result in a second referendum on Scottish separation from the UK, and added that the gaining independence as a result of the “Scottish remain, English leave” scenario would be “undignified.”

     Nonetheless, the fact that he brought it up fuels the fires of those whose mission it is to break up Britain and who would like nothing more than to play the grievance card by complaining about being “forced” to do this or being “dragged out” or “blocked” for that reason, all due to fact that Britons just happen to vote differently.  

     The SNP and those minded towards them have for years been trying to write off the EU question as the obsessions of Westminster, the Tories, UKIP, and the English. Not only is this cheek given their own constitutional obsessions, but it is a false premise given that around 60% of Scots are themselves “Euroskeptic” – slightly lower than the overall UK proportion – according most recent British Social Attitudes Survey. Nevertheless, it suits them to hype up the differences between England and Scotland, so as to further their independence agenda and claim that Scotland will be dragged out of the EU via English votes.

     However, it should not matter that England has 85% of the British population because this is a UK-wide vote. Indeed, if the result is a knife-edge, I would suppose that the half of England that voted for UK membership of the EU will be quite happy that the overall vote throughout the United Kingdom resulted in the maintenance of the country’s membership of the EU, if that is what it desires.

     In this binary referendum, just as with the Scottish referendum nearly two years ago, it’s all about one man, one vote, and everyone’s vote throughout the UK is equal to one another, whether they reside in Aberdeen, Liverpool, Swansea, Dover, Newcastle, Glasgow, Downpatrick, or Aberystwyth.

     Above all, it must be remembered that the question on the referendum ballot will be:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of
the European Union or leave the European Union?

     It will not say “Should Scotland remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”, nor will it say “Should England remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”, and still further, it will not say “Should Wales remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” or “Should Northern Ireland remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

     Why is that? Because, in the most respectful of terms, none of them have EU membership; the United Kingdom does, and it should be abundantly clear that whatever the outcome of the EU referendum vote in any one part of the United Kingdom – however defined – it is the overall vote throughout the United Kingdom that matters.

     This means that an overall UK result in which English “Leave” votes are strong enough to take the UK out without a majority of the other Home Nations is perfectly legitimate, and the same goes for a scenario in which the “Remain” votes of the other parts of the UK are enough to keep the UK in without a majority of the English. Both results, as well as several other combinations, are legitimate as they will represent the majority will of the British people in their totality, and should not cause resentment on the part of anybody so long as the vote is conducted fairly and held to the highest electoral standards.

     If the vote in England is split roughly evenly and means that the results among the rest of the UK in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales may be decisive in tilting the overall result one way or the other, then so be it.

     This is why David Cameron – as a British citizen and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom – has been and will be campaigning throughout the UK to press his case for keeping the UK’s EU membership (a position which puts him should-to-shoulder with Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP). This is why every vote in the referendum will count equally wherever it is cast throughout the United Kingdom, and this highlights the need for every eligible citizen to be registered for voting and then actually vote on the day that really matters. In this, the people of England will be voting alongside people who are not foreigners, but their fellow Brits and only the overall result matters. The same goes for the people of Scotland and everywhere else.

     As the results trickle in on the night of the referendum, they will come from each local council or district throughout the United Kingdom (save for Northern Ireland, which will be treated as a single voting area) one by one; perhaps the result from Wiltshire will be followed by the result from Midlothian, which in turn may be followed by the result in Anglesey, before all being fed into regional and national results leading up to the ultimate UK result, so that the results have no respect for the internal boundaries within the United Kingdom.

     As former Labour MP Tom Harris said of Scotland in the Telegraph, the reality regarding the EU debate and referendum is this: “it’s not all about you, Scotland.” Indeed, having watched as a “significant minority of Scots took to the airwaves and the doorsteps to explain their desire for a divorce from them” during the two year long independence referendum campaign, their “English, Welsh and Northern Irish compatriots have displayed a patience above and beyond what might be required of fellow citizens.” Now that the UK is having a referendum on EU membership, it should be plainly obvious that this about the United Kingdom as a whole and not about any one part in isolation of the others. Again, this goes for England as well.

     In the end, the issue of whether the UK remains a member of the EU ought to be decided on its own merits alone and the result should not used as a vehicle for other purposes – certainly not for breaking it up. Hopefully, as the late Labour MP John Mackintosh said in 1975, most people throughout Britain will focus on the main issue of EU membership. They need to think about the vote and the implications for themselves, their families, and the country in which they live – the United Kingdom – and go forward together with the decision made together as one.

Dugdale a "Closet Nat"? Not Likely.

Image Credit: Scottish Labour via Wikimedia Commons cc

“I was genuinely really sad to read today that Alex Salmond has signalled his intention to sign up Scotland for its own Olympic team. It transpires that he’s not even discussed the plans with his own cabinet, let alone had the opportunity to debate it in the parliament and seek the views of the Scottish people with an open consultation process.

During the election campaign, Tony Blair made a keynote speech at the Edinburgh Corn Exchange to audience of local business men, party members and rather randomly, Scottish members of the British Judo Team. One of my friends took the opportunity to chat to them and find out what they thought about the election. They were first of all, so proud to be part of the British Olympic team. They argued that the high levels of competition to get into the team made them work all the harder and made the result all the sweeter. They’d made great friends and travelled all over Europe together. The[y] had grumbles about the amount of funding their team got and hoped that Scotland would win the bid for the 2014 Commonwealth Games so that additional cash came all the faster, but they didn’t want independence.

Winning the 2012 London Olympics was a British success, with tens of thousands of Scots demonstrating their support on the official website. I remember listening to the live result at work - 8 or 9 of us all hoarded around a computer screen struggling to hear the radio. We screamed and jumped with joy at the result. Such a fantastic achievement. I was proud to be British that day, just as I was proud to be Scottish just a few days before when the Make Poverty History march rode through the streets of Edinburgh.

Hosting the Olympics is a success that the whole country should celebrate. It will inspire the youth of today to become the champions of tomorrow and will also unite the whole country in a sense of community and sporting endeavour - I want to be a part of that as a British Citizen.

It’s not the colour of the sporting t-shirt that makes us Scottish, it’s the history, traditions, culture and beliefs that we share. I don’t need Scotland the Brave playing when we win to make me any surer of that fact.”

     This was written on May 24, 2007 by Kezia Dugdale on her personal Facebook page. At around this time, she was a member of the Scottish Labour Party’s policy forum, had recently served as an election agent for Labour politicians Sarah Boyack and Sheila Gilmore, was a Labour researcher at the Scottish Parliament, and would begin service as parliamentary office manager for Labour MSP Lord George Foulkes.

     The parliamentary elections had concluded just weeks before, and after eight years, the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition which had governed Scotland since the beginning of devolution had been dislodged by Alex Salmond’s SNP – with Labour as the largest party in that coalition falling behind the SNP by a solitary seat. A minority administration had been formed under Salmond as first minister, but Salmond was quick to put on a show that there was nothing cautious or minority about him, and among the first things he began talking up was the idea of a Scottish Olympic team separate from British one in time for the 2012 summer games.

     Such an idea was of course, ludicrous, not just because Scotland was (and still is) part of the United Kingdom, but because it came about only two years after the capital city of London had been selected to host the games, which effectively gave home field advanced to Team Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The whole country rejoiced – that is, except for the SNP, whom Hamish Macdonell of the Spectator described as “churlish and grumpy” with regard to their attitude toward the Games from the moment they were awarded to London, and further stated that it “took only one minute for the first snippy SNP press release warning that Scotland might not get its ‘fair share’ from the Games.”

     Now two years later, here was the SNP first minister of Scotland – thinking of nothing but stoking division and creating differences – proposing to break up Team GB at a time when most people were enthusiastically looking forward to a united British effort, including Kezia Dugdale.

     She is now leader of a Scottish Labour Party that has fallen on its knees – having lost a significant chunk of its traditional vote to the (losing) separatist campaign in 2014 and to the (winning) SNP in 2015. In last few weeks, she has come under criticism and even suspicion as she and her party head toward this year’s Scottish Parliament elections for what almost certainly appears to be another shellacking.

     Having already announced that the party is open to accepting members and parliamentarians who voted for independence two years ago, she recently said in an interview that it was not “inconceivable” that she could support separation in a hypothetical scenario where the United Kingdom as a whole voted to terminate its EU membership without a majority of Scots and if Scottish re-entry into the EU did not prove to be a difficult manner or otherwise unfavorable to Scotland. Then last week, it was leaked to the press that Dugdale had attempted to get a job working for an SNP politician whilst she was still a student at the University of Aberdeen in 2003. This, combined with the fact that her father Jeff is an SNP member has given credence to the notion that Dugdale is not strong on keeping the UK together and is perhaps even a “closet Nat.”

     Dugdale may be a lot of things, but I do not believe that she is a closet Nat or anything of that sort because of the influence of her father – who it must be remembered, was a Conservative long before he switched to the SNP, like so many others in the northeast who also abandoned the Tories for the SNP and turned once-loyal Tory bastions in Perthshire, Morayshire, Banffshire, Aberdeenshire, and Angus into the first SNP heartlands of the party’s modern era from the late 1980’s forward (and giving credence to the “Tartan Tory” jibe).

     For that matter, her flirtation with the SNP may have been nothing more than a student trying to get political experience with any party once she graduated from university. How do we know she did not apply for similar positions with the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, or Labour? The thing is, we are not supposed to know unless she wants us to know because such records of job applications are supposed to be private, which brings in the question of who leaked this information.

     That aside, it is also a possibility, as said by former Labour MP Tom Harris in the Telegraph, that “like most voters, she was briefly willing to give the other side a chance” before settling on her current party. Indeed, how many people have actually joined one party and stood for election with that party before joining and standing for election in another?

     David Mundell, the Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland and MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale, and Tweeddale was a Young Conservative as a teenager before switching to the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and serving as a Councillor for Dumfries and Galloway, and then switching back to the Conservatives in 1988. Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, the SNP MP for Ochill and South Perthshire, was a Conservative and stood for election in the Glasgow Govan constituency in the first Scottish Parliament election before having a brief stint with Labour and settling with the SNP. And of course, Winston Churchill went from the Conservatives to the Liberals and back to the Conservatives throughout his five decades as an MP. In America, Hillary Clinton was a Republican before she became a Democrat, and Ronald Reagan was vice-versa.

     So switching parties is nothing new, and in Dugdale’s case, it would appear that she has only ever been a member of the Labour Party. In that role and as an MSP, she was a forceful advocate of a No vote during the referendum to keep the UK together, and she has since repeated that Scotland was right to turn down separation because of the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom, which are ever more apparent because of the dramatic collapse of oil prices, and has ruled out another referendum if Labour forms the next Scottish Government. In fact, she made it clear in that interview that she would prefer for Scotland to remain part of the UK and for the UK to retain its EU membership, and implied that if in the event of the UK leaving with EU without a majority of Scottish voters, she would stick with Scotland being part of the UK if she believed the terms of re-entry into the EU were unfavorable for Scotland.

     This may not be the position of a convinced pro-Union person who believes that the UK ought to stay together in all circumstances, but we must remember that the majority of Scots currently do not fit this category and nor are they those who believe in separation in all circumstances. The majority supported keeping the UK together because they believed it was in their best interest and Scotland’s best interest to do so, as well as due to a sense of solidarity – in many forms – with the rest of the UK. Dugdale made this case two years ago because she believed it was the right case, and I believe she will make the case again if need be. After all, unlike Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP, her basis for supporting separation depends on very narrow circumstances, and it is likely that in the event of Brexit, keeping the UK together will still be the best option for Scotland.

     All this means that those who wish for the Union to continue in the long-term must continue to put the best arguments forward for the Union to continue, for there will be many people who may reexamine their position from 2014 and decide on whether to retain that position or go the other way should there be another referendum (hopefully not for another 15 years at least). This is where organizations such as Scotland in Union and United Against Separation are going play significant roles in the coming years to ensure that pro-Union arguments are made and disseminated as effectively and convincingly as possible, alongside individual efforts.

     For now though, Dugdale supports the Union and until she actually states otherwise, she should be considered a supporter of the Union, even if this is not her main focus. Indeed, she and other pro-Union politicians and activists must do all they can to focus minds on bread-and-butter issues such as taxation, welfare, education, housing, transportation, health, etc., because the SNP would live nothing more than to keep Scotland perpetually in a pro-Union/anti-Union divide. This divide must be broken up as soon as possible so that debates on the constitution can be replaced with debates that matter to the everyday lives of Scots and all Britons throughout the United Kingdom.

     As for Dugdale, she made it quite clear in 2007 that she was proud to be British and was enthusiastic about Scotland taking an honored place as part of Team GB and sharing in the sporting success with the UK as a whole. As such, she has used the hashtag #BacktheBrits on Twitter when cheering on British athletes on several occasions. Along with many Brits (including Scots), I imagine she will do so again during this year’s summer games in Rio de Janeirio as Team GB, with athletes from all across the UK, competes under the red, white, and blue of the Union Flag once again.

Tunnock's Getting the Last Laugh

Image Credit: Derek E-Jay via Flickr cc

     At the beginning of this year, I admittedly knew little about Thomas Tunnock Limited – popularly known as Tunnock’s – the family-owned confectionary bakery company based in Uddingston, Scotland. My faintest memory of it up to that time were its famous tea cakes being featured as “dancers” in the opening ceremony for the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow.

     This changed dramatically as those tea cakes and the Tunnock’s company became embroiled in a Nationalist-induced firestorm not long after the new year had begun. Chiefly, there were Nationalists who became incensed that the best-known product of this Scottish company was now being branded as “Tunnock’s Great British Tea Cake’s” - inspired by the BBC's wildly popular and award-winning Great British Bake-Off - and photos of ads featuring this on the London Underground were widely shared on social media. In addition, it was believed (falsely) that the company had removed its iconic Lion Rampant – one of Scotland’s national symbols, featured on the Royal Standard – from the packaging of its products.

     For outraged Nationalists, this amounted to the 126 year old company rejecting its Scottish heritage and the visceral angst was on display to see via the good ole’ cybernats, many of whom voiced their vehement disapproval by calling the company “traitors” and saying that they would never purchase Tunnock’s products again, and indeed some went out of their way to throw out Tunnock’s products they already had and also plastered Nationalist slogans on such products on supermarket shelves.

     All of this would have been amusing enough to witness, but then came Scotland’s blessed freedom fighters, the Scottish Resistance! Led by their fearless leader James Scott, the so-called Resistance called for a national boycott of Tunnock’s and all of their products, and then they marched to Uddingston to take on the mighty company by staging a protest outside their factory and headquarters. The protest was attended by only a small band of the true believers, but that didn’t stop them employing over-the-top theatrics, such as man smashing a box of the marshmellow biscuits with a sledgehammer and speeches over a bull-horn condemning Tunnock’s for its “treachery” toward Scotland.

     Adding to the controversy was the fact that the current managing director Boyd Tunnock CBE – grandson of the founder and the creator of the tea cake – was a prominent supporter of keeping the United Kingdom together during the referendum campaign in 2014 and said in response to the criticism of his company: “The vote said we’re British. We’re Scottish; however, we’re still in Britain.”

     Three months following this stramash, it would seem that Tunnock’s is having the last laugh. The boycott campaign has backfired spectacularly as the Lanarkshire-based company reported that its sales have soared by 10% in the first quarter of this year. First quarters, according to operations director Fergus Loudon, are typically a “quieter time” for the firm, but in contrast, the beginning of 2016 showed a tremendous increase – a “real boost” – and Loudon attributes it to the publicity generated by the furious Nationalists and their failed boycott, further stating:

“It meant the Tunnock's name was being talked about all over the world and people are still talking about it. It prompted a lot of people to go out and buy tea cakes and has been fantastic for us in terms of sales. There was a definite spike.”

     Not only this, but Loudon also said that in fact, the company is struggling to keep up with demand as it sells hundreds of thousands more of its snacks in the UK and throughout the world, with the firms order book “full to overflowing.”

Tunnock's HQ in Lanarkshire. Image Credit: Geograph © Copyright Lairich Rig and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence

     This has turned out to be quite well for company that is proud to promote its Scottish and British heritage, and a spokesperson went out of his way to say that the company was not ashamed of its roots in Scotland and further, that the change in branding was not meant to cause offense. He reiterated that the Lion Rampant remained on their packaging, and would always remain there, but also stated that in the end, the fuss raised by the Nationalists “has been good for us.”

     Indeed, it is very good for the family-owned firm, its 500 employees, as well as the local economy, and since January according to the Scotsman, they have:

“released a range of merchandise in the wake of the success of the marketing strategy, including teddy bears, mugs, clothing and key rings, which they hope people will purchase to show solidarity with the company.”

     My personal solidarity with the company began within days of the controversy coming to the fore and while the reaction on social media continued to play out for several days. As I was shopping at one of the supermarkets here in Savannah, I decided to take a look at the British section of the International products aisle to see if I could find the tea cakes at the root of the brouhaha across the Pond. They were not there for sale, but I did find the Tunnock’s Caramel Wafer Biscuits and purchased them.

     I must admit that I have a low appetite for sweets and candies, but I felt a need to lend my support for this company which had come under fire for its branding choice and for its owner – nicknamed the Willy Wonka of Tannochside by the Times – supporting the pro-Union campaign. So at home, I tried one out, and it was quite good; it was not too sweet and had refreshing taste.

     On Twitter early the next morning (early for me, anyway), I tweeted out this message:

“Couldn’t find #TunnockTeaCakes, but did find these tasty wafer biscuits from this great British company in Scotland.”

     The tweet contained pictures featuring the front and back of the wrapping. Sure enough, there was the famous Tunnock’s logo proudly featuring the Lion Rampant and the Tunnock’s Boy on the front, while the back prominently featured this for the home location:

PRODUCT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. MADE BY THOMAS TUNNOCK LTD.

34 OLD MILL ROAD, UDDINGSTON, GLASGOW G71 7HH, SCOTLAND

     This support for Tunnock’s was much-appreciated, and received positive attention from many people, and among them was a Twitter follower who offered to send some tea cakes my way.

     It took a while for them to get here as my friend was busy with things going on at home in Scotland, but they did finally get here in late February in a beautiful box which made me think it was my birthday. Indeed, the it really felt that way because the package contained a panoply of Tunnock’s products: Snowballs, Caramel Logs, Caramel Wafers, and of course, the “Great British Tea Cakes” – all of them with the Lion Rampant prominently featured on the packaging.  There was also a nice card with a tartan cloth and wooden thistle ornament. Inside card was a heart-felt and meaningful message which read:

Hi Wesley,

Sorry for the delay, life is quite hectic these days. Added a few more to help you get over the wait.

Enjoy

The special Tunnock's Treat I received from a friend in Scotland. Image Credit: Wesley Hutchins

     This was totally unexpected but greatly appreciated for the way that he went out of his way to do all this, for he did not have do, and I shall remember this token of friendship from across the Pond at an individual level, as well as part of the greater relationship between the US and the UK.

     As for the sweet treats themselves, I was very pleased to try out the tea cakes at last, and they did not fail to impress. The milk chocolate combined with the mallow on the inside and the biscuit base made for a delectable taste which cannot be compared to anything I recall having in the States, but which is popular and well-known in the Kingdom. Meanwhile, the Snowballs – which are much like the tea cakes, but with marshmallows covered in frosted coconuts – were pleasant despite my lukewarm taste for coconut. The same was true for the Caramel Logs, which are like Caramel Wafers with the addition of the coconut bits coating the outside, though still a nice treat.

     So thanks to the howl of the Nationalists, Tunnock’s is doing better, it has greater international exposure, and I have become a loyal patron of this great British company from Scotland, of which every Briton throughout the United Kingdom can be proud.