I was passed a link to the follow set of videos on Facebook today. They’re certainly worth a look, giving a lighthearted view at independence and Scottish history.
Having not watched Newsnicht for a few weeks (or read the Herald or Scotsman), I was somewhat surprised when I turned it on this morning to hear that seemingly a majority of academics and business people support going beyond the recommendations of Calman. This is particularly significant given that Alex Salmond is putting the case to the Joint Ministerial Council that Scotland should be given considerably greater economic powers.
This represents a massive turnaround on the part of the Scottish public. Just a few months ago, devolution max and fiscal autonomy were options being pushed by a minority of academics and the SNP, with many of those who are active in the field of devolution politics advocating the Calman Settlement. As predicted by many, it would appear that the realities of Tory government in the UK as a whole have given people cause to meditate on Scotland’s constitutional future.
The motives behind this change are obvious. David Cameron’s rhetoric on cuts – decimating the public sector, changing our way of life, nothing off the table – don’t sit well in Scotland. Here is a country which still bares the scars of the Thatcher cuts, has high unemployment and too little external investment and we are told that we must destroy one of our main employers, with cuts of up to 30%. We are, potentially, looking at a scenario where the Tories do to Scotland’s public sector what they did to Scotland’s mining and steel industry two decades ago, decimating yet another workforce and creating a new generation lost to unemployment.
No-one in Scotland wants that.
We can see how we have benefited from a large public sector. We know how important the quality of education and the need for carers and nurses is. We have benefited immensely from having nearly 100% of the 4-18 education system in state hands, and while private healthcare is more common, we have also benefited from the absence of foundation hospitals and other part-private endeavours. We know that we still need to do a lot of work to deal with the legacy of the 1980s and that requires public investment.
This is not compatible with the guiding vision which the Tories and Lib Dems have outlined for their economic butchery. That’s not to say that there won’t be cuts in Scotland – there has to be – but at the same time we must focus on maintaining the things which make this country great and maintain our way of life, not hawking them off to the highest bidder, holding a ‘bonfire’ of government agencies on the basis of public perception or seeking to create “a new way of life” in “the Age of Austerity”.
The important thing now is for the SNP to capitalise on this. The independence referendum, which includes an option for devolution max, must be brought back on to the agenda soon. Labour and the Lib Dems face losing creditability over their opposition to the referendum as public support for the devolution max or full fiscal autonomy continues to grow. The iron must be grasped while it’s still hot lest the opportunity slip away and Labour gain too much from Lib Dem supporters it’s picked up.
David Cameron has spent the past few days trying to get Scotland to play the same ball game he’s playing. The opening salvo in this play for less then a tenth of the Westminster seats in Scotland was an interview with the Herald prior to the Tory conference at Perth Ice Rink, followed by his keynote speech and new remarks in today’s papers.
Yet Cameron doesn’t seem to really know what to do with Scotland. It was only a few months ago that he denounced Alex Salmond for trying to get in on the leaders debates, and only a few days ago that he lambasted Salmond as “fooling no-one”. It’s somewhat ironic that a man who’s manifesto is largely based on abstract and ill-thought-out aims should be claiming that a man who has always been open about his key policy is attempting to fool anyone.
It’s even stranger that Cameron should want to deal with this fool, claiming:
If elected, one of the first things I will do is come to Scotland and meet with the First Minister. That will signal the beginning of a new relationship, a fresh start based on mutual respect. It will be good for Scotland, good for Britain and good for the Union. [Source]
Strangely, Donald Dewar, Henry McLeish, Jack MacConnell and Alex Salmond have all led functional governments without the Prime Minister sitting over their shoulder. Indeed, Dewar, MacConnell and Salmond have all gained reputations for for not pandering to Prime Ministers. But lets read on…
It’s a disgrace that during one of the worst economic crises in our modern history…when the foundations of the Scottish economy were rocked…Gordon Brown didn’t meet Alex Salmond for almost a year.
And it’s shameful that during one of the most emotionally-charged moments in our recent history…when the Lockerbie bomber was released from jail to return home to Libya where he still is today…the Scottish Government and British Government refused to cooperate. [Source]
Given the importance of the Banking Sector to Scotland, it probably would have been good to see more agreement between the two Governments during the fall of HBOS and RBS. However, by acting independently of each other Brown and Salmond were able to accomplish different tasks – Brown made provisions to ensure the banks didn’t simply get wiped from the face of the Earth, while Salmond worked with bankers in Scotland in an effort to ensure that jobs wouldn’t be lost and Edinburgh would remain a banking centre. Neither accomplished their goals fully, but with Brown approaching from the reserved, Treasury angle and Salmond approaching from the devolved business angle, it worked quite well. Probably far better and quicker then if protracted negotiations between Brown and Salmond had taken place.
As regards the Lockerbie Bomber, there was no need for the Scottish and British Governments to cooperate. There was no issue between Westminster and Holyrood. The Scottish Justice Minister made a decision about a prisoner in his custody, and Westminster has no more right to have a say in that then the Scottish Government has to have a say about the release of Ronnie Biggs (held in an English Prison and released by Home Secretary Alan Johnston).
This is starting to get a big worrying. It does look rather like David Cameron wants to interfere with the process of Government in Scotland. We’d better read on…
It should be natural for us to want devolution to work. Not just because it is a weapon against the Nationalists’ obsession with independence. But because devolution should be central to our whole political approach. [Source]
Oops. Clearly no-one told Cameron that he’s not actually meant to remind us that we only got devolution because of the SNP “threat”. A bit of an arrogant slip up, given that the first and last sentences in that quote are common sense. Does it possibly hint at the long awaited devolution for England?
Today we are the party that passionately believes that local is best, the party that knows that the more power people have, the more responsible they become, the more fulfilled they are…we are the party of decentralisation. [Source]
It’s nice of Cameron to acknowledge that Scotland has become more responsible. The decentralisation rhetoric will very likely come back to haunt him however, with it forming the perfect basis for an Alex Salmond speech. “David Cameron says the Tories are the party of decentralisation, well you don’t get much more decentralised then devolution max.”
Whoever is Scotland’s First Minister, I would be a Prime Minister who acts on the voice of the Scottish people and works for consent and consensus. And whenever the precious Union between our two countries is under threat, this party – the party of the Union – will rise to the challenge and defend it with all our heart and all our strength. [Source]
Party of Union the Tories may be, but this is one of the most contradictory portions of Cameron’s speech. Surely, if the people of Scotland want Independence, he has no mandate to stop them. Especially when you consider that he wants to…
[give] people the chance to make change happen through local referendums, giving neighbourhoods the right to run parks and public places. [Source]
But Scottish people won’t get the right to vote on their constitutional future?
Overall, Cameron doesn’t say much other then this hypocritical grandstanding. The one policy which is mentioned in the coverage is:
Councils will get “unprecedented freedom to do what they think is right for their area” [Source]
Given that Local Authorities are a devolved matter, this policy will have no effect in Scotland what so ever. It is mentioned in one of the other articles linked to that Cameron discussed the NHS in a speech at a Scottish press event, but this, likewise, is nearly entirely devolved. Cameron isn’t even able to come up with campaign issued which will affect the Scottish people.
Cameron doesn’t even try to hide his blatant hypocrisy. Despite the previous apologies for opposing devolution and the claims that devolution is part of British Politics, it seems clear that Cameron wants to interfere in a country where he has little support and no mandate to rule. With luck, he will find himself opposed by the three-headed hydra of the SNP, Labour and the Lib Dems, because if there is one thing which will bring these three parties together for the good of Scotland, it’s the threat posed by David Cameron.
-
It is worth noting that Cameron has also waded into the debate over Nicola Sturgeon, although he at least does so from a far more even manner then then Iain Gray and his cohorts. He even goes so far as to admit that he’s done similar things for constituents. It’s rather bizarre, given he’s spent two days lambasting Sturgeon’s superior.
Edit: Jeff at SNP tactical voting has commented further on Sturgeon and Cameron.
Handing the Labour Party advice on how to defeat my party of choice is not something which I am in the regular business of doing. However, when Labour MP Tom Harris posted his semi-tongue-in-cheek Predictions for 2010, I couldn’t resist rising to the one intended to bait the Cybernats.
- The SNP’s independence referendum Bill will fall. Hooray!
Right now, I have to agree that it does look likely that the Referendum (Independence) Bill will fall, with only the SNP, the Greens and Margo McDonald likely to support when it comes to vote.
Should the bill fall due to Labour, Tory and Lib Dem MSPs, the SNP have two years worth of election material based around the idea of being Scotland’s only genuinely representative party, the only party which was willing to give the Scottish People a say in their constitutional future. A hearts and minds campaign based on this, led by Alex Salmond, would almost certainly end up winning the SNP a second term in Holyrood.
On the other hand, if a referendum went ahead, with three or four options, one or more of which had been drafted by the opposition parties, it remains likely the SNP would loose, with support for independence remaining between 30 and 35%. They would probably loose reasonably well. Assuming a First Past The Post style vote (which would seem to make the most sense rather then 3 separate questions), then I suspect that independence might manage to muster between 40 and 45% of the votes thanks to swing voters, just behind a majority for the Calman settlement.
Such a result wouldn’t be entirely bad for the SNP, given they support further devolution, but it would effectively bury the issue of an independence referendum for ten years or so. Even the SNP have conceded that it’s a “once in a generation” referendum and that they would not press ahead with another referendum if defeated. It would also force the SNP to fight on Scottish and British issues rather then on independence. This is exactly what Wendy Alexander saw when when she put forward her support for the referendum in 2008 (shortly before she was removed from office).
So, Labourites, don’t celebrate the failure of the referendum bill. It’s failure is only going to damage the Labour Party in Scotland.
Tomorrow, St Andrew’s Day, is the first time in 70 years that the SNP have seriously had the goal of independence within their sights. For the party and the activists, it will be a long remembered day, despite the likely outcome of the bill falling in Holyrood.
However, Jim Murphy has made a rather bizarre last ditch attempt to prevent the publication of the White Paper on the Independence Referendum. From PoliticsHome:
“For Scotland’s sake just shelve the plans, we can have this debate another time.”
“Even if we had a referendum it would not stop the SNP being the SNP. They’d just start again and Scotland would be so much worse off.”
Now, given the comments made about Murphy in recent days, I am loath to simply lambast him, lest I end up on the wrong side of a certain Sunday paper. However, I feel comfortable enough to say that I get the impression that Jim Murphy has little respect for his opponents and seems to execute his job with a level of zealotry that would be worthy of the SNP back in the ’90s, otherwise I doubt he’d have felt able to make such a plea. The man very clearly loves his country and despises the thought of the SNP or the Tories running it. He, of course, also has a long-standing reputation as being ‘a party man’, toeing the Downing Street line and is no doubt an astute politician.
Murphy has already handed both Scotland and the SNP a carrot to vote Labour – the promise of more powers should Labour be re-elected to Westminster. This last plea looks a lot more like the stick – if the SNP go through with this then bad things will happen to Scotland and the SNP. Of course, the carrot and stick don’t really line up. The SNP has no real incentive to drop the referendum bill – it’s likely failure to pass through parliament will give them extraordinary political capital come May by allowing them to position themselves as Scotland’s only genuine voice. This can, and will be used against Labour – this is why Wendy Alexander supported the referendum and why Jim Murphy and the Unionist party leaders are quite so annoyed about it. They’ll be even more annoyed in 2011 – if Labour are out of government, having failed to capitalise on the Calman Report, the SNP campaign materials write themselves.
If Labour wanted to stop the referendum, then they could have gotten round the table before now. The SNP has taken a lot of heat off them in the last year, being heavily criticised over the Year of Homecoming and defending the Labour plan, continuing with the Curriculum for Excellence and taking the blame for releasing Megrahi when that decision could have been passed off to London, avoiding a lot of flak. .
