I'm in a mad rush at the moment, but I'll jot down my thoughts on the Smith recommendations as and when I have time..
* I was spitting fury last night when Claire Stewart claimed on Twitter that there had been a U-turn on abortion law, which would remain reserved to Westminster. Fortunately, that turns out not to be true, and the report makes clear that the parties are minded to devolve abortion law, subject to further investigation. The cover story for this slight cop-out is that "women's groups" (code for groups with links to Labour) have expressed concerns.
Those "concerns" are completely absurd - they remind me of the Chinese government saying in relation to Hong Kong that they don't disapprove of democracy in principle, as long as they know the results of any election in advance. The overwhelming probability is that the Scottish Parliament would either keep abortion law as it is, or move it slightly more towards a "pro-choice" position. But in a parliamentary democracy, you shouldn't actually need to know that for sure - you just need to trust the voters and their representatives to make the right decision.
I'm not remotely squeamish about this, and I can't understand why any "devolutionist" in Labour would be. Abortion is a grown-up subject, and that's exactly why it should be devolved to the grown-up parliament we're supposed to have.
Much of the report is simply recycled Calman, with no guarantee they will even be implemented. With a minimum of 70% of taxation and 85% of welfare reserved, support for independence isn't going anywhere. Interestingly, the report has no mention of Labour's cynical more powers for local authorities.
ReplyDeleteAbortion should be a right, not something the state can deprive you of if the political winds happen to blow in that direction. It should be enshrined in the ECHR as far as I'm concerned. I don't frankly trust any government to deal with that subject - Scottish, British, whatever.
ReplyDeleteI did not expect anything of substance all at all and my expectations have been realised. Devo-zero.
ReplyDeleteIt's hardly the shock of he century that it's turned out to be a fudge. Saw it coming a mile off.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, that's the Calman Commission report out; all over the news. Wonder if it will impact the May 2011 election result? Give the unionists a boost? The election is less than six months away.
ReplyDeleteDevo Axed
ReplyDeleteI'm disappointed in Harvie and the Greens. They should have opposed the devolution of air passenger duty knowing full well that the SNP are now going to slash it. Instead they've meekly ignored the issue because they don't want to be seen to contradict the SNP. It's becoming pretty obvious that the Greens' entire electoral strategy is to try and shadow the SNP and hope to pick up some of the Yes vote (rather than actually standing on environmental policies). You can be pro-independence without being pro-SNP, but we're not seeing that at all at present.
ReplyDeleteAs James just said, the fact that you oppose the policy of the party that currently happens to have a majority in a parliament is not a reason to oppose the devolution of that issue to the parliament for all time.
DeleteOr perhaps you reckon the Greens should oppose the devolution of APD while the SNP advocate a cut, and then support it if the SNP change their minds. Later, if the SNP change their minds back, or another party takes office, the Greens would presumably have to support the issue being re-reserved to Westminster.
And anything that the Treasury lose out on, we have to compensate them....you gotta hand it to them. They really are treating us like shit.
ReplyDeleteI think the most important result of the Smith commission will be the backlash from English MPs and the English public. They will demand EVEL as some kind of political compensation. This will be a major step towards the ending of the union. I wonder if Labour MPs realize this?
ReplyDeleteSome Tory MPs have already reminded the prime minister that it is parliament which will decide what is devolved and what is not. It will not be Mr Cameron. It will not be Mr Smith of Kelvin.
DeleteRemembering that there are 535 English MPs to Scotland's 59, I have never imagined that Scotland would do well out of this, even if Labour wanted them to, and for their own selfish reasons, they do not.
I think the most important result of the Smith commission will be the backlash from English MPs and the English public. They will demand EVEL as some kind of political compensation.
DeleteI doubt it. If you ask them in opinion polls, I'm sure most English voters would agree with the idea of EVEL, but that doesn't mean it will be a priority for them. Everyone will have forgotten all about the issue in five minutes and I doubt that anybody will be paying attention to it during the general election.
Well, we've certainly established that apathy reigns on Planet Stoat, regardless of context and regardless of circumstance. However, the pressure for EVEL was always going to come from politicians rather than voters, so the point you're raising is an academic one anyway.
DeleteIt's not so much the English public's opinions on EVEL, it's the backbenchers, many of whom are spitting fury! This should be amusing to watch.
DeleteI think it is fair to predict, that if the Scottish public are satisfied that 'The Vow' has been delivered, as claimed by all and sundry, then the SNP vote for WM will recede accordingly, so, let's wait and see - will be keeping a keen eye on the polls.
However, the pressure for EVEL was always going to come from politicians rather than voters, so the point you're raising is an academic one anyway.
DeleteFair point, but there have always been some (Mainly Tory) backbenchers whining about the West Lothian question for decades now. It's just what they do.
Well, maybe not decades as the Scottish Parliament hasn't been around for that long. But you get my drift.
Delete"Fair point, but there have always been some (Mainly Tory) backbenchers whining about the West Lothian question for decades now. It's just what they do."
DeleteI think the difference this time is that the media seem to have decided that is an issue to be concerned with. Taking their lead from Cameron's speech on the morning of 19th September.
I think the difference this time is that the media seem to have decided that is an issue to be concerned with.
DeleteThe media has decided to that it's an issue to be concerned with for five minutes due to a desperate need of page filler. The media are fickle, they've raised the issue before they quickly forgot all about it. The media realise that EVEL is one of those arcane constitutional issues that only a few political anoraks get animated about so they're not going to want to bore their customers by banging on about it incessantly.
Stoat, EVEL is inevitable. The Tories would never have gone as far as they have on income tax unless they fully intended to introduce EVEL.
DeleteYou may be right James, but only time will tell. All I can say is that I've heard it all before. The UK political system has always been an inelegant fudge.
DeleteEVEL of course renders a vote for any unionist party in Scotland rather pointless. Your MP can't become part of the government 'proper', can't be a cabinet member, can't be PM etc..
DeleteBest vote not for a British MP (unionist), but for a Scottish MP (e.g. SNP) to withdraw Westminster mandate for governance of Scotland in chosen areas (all but foreign affairs and defence for now) and just take devo max. We don't have to ask, we can just democratically take it by electing the SNP on that mandate. If the rUK can't agree, then we need to part company.
EVEL doesn't stop a Scot being part of the British cabinet etc. They just can't vote on certain issues.
DeleteSurely with EVEL no Scottish MP could be appointed PM or to cabinet when they could not vote on their area of government responsibility? This would possibly only leave Defence and Foreign Office posts for Scots to 'aspire' to.
DeleteSo Scots MPs would be blocked from holding any cabinet posts because some votes involve only English issues? That would just create resentment, and obviously be unworkable.
DeleteWhat if a Scottish MP is elected head of Labour - could he/she not become PM? Course they could.
National is a good read today, well worth the 50p...
ReplyDeleteI also bought the independent, I liked the cover.
Since for the moment Scotland is staying within the UK, I don't really see the pressing need to devolve abortion law. As you state, it is most likely not to change anyway, and I don't see any particularly good reason to have a different law on abortion operating in different parts of the UK. This is the sort of thing that would be sensible to decide at UK-level for as long as the UK stays together.
ReplyDeleteThere already is different abortion law in different parts of the UK.
Delete"Women from Northern Ireland are not legally entitled to free abortions on the NHS in England, the High Court in London has ruled. The case was brought by a 17-year-old girl and her mother who live in Northern Ireland.
Unlike the rest of the UK, abortion is only allowed in very restricted circumstances in Northern Ireland. More than 1,000 women each year travel from NI to have an abortion in other parts of the UK. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27325363
"Since for the moment Scotland is staying within the UK...I don't see any particularly good reason to have a different law on abortion operating in different parts of the UK"
DeleteThat's a completely irrational argument. You might just as well say that, because Scotland is staying in the UK at the moment, we should have direct rule from London on every other policy area as well. What makes abortion so different? The two broad categories it falls under (health and criminal law) are both generally devolved. Its exclusion was a complete nonsense in the late 1990s, and it's even more of a nonsense now.
James
ReplyDeleteAny of the usual suspects doing a poll on whether Scotland is content with this Vow-light offering?
Probably, but I haven't heard anything yet.
DeleteIt'd be interesting to see what people's reactions are to the powers. I hope many won't fall for the media frenzy over them we all witnessed yesterday.
DeleteBBC Breakfast Time this morning pushing G Brown's speech calling for SNP to stop going on about constitutional issues and declare what their plans are to use the new powers. I think I missed the show's coverage earlier in the week of First Minister setting out her programme for the Scottish Parliament.
DeleteWith such bias and political hypocrisy dominating the media will the people form a discerning reaction to this reheat of the Calman Commission? Unfortunately, I don't think so.
"It'd be interesting to see what people's reactions are to the powers. I hope many won't fall for the media frenzy over them we all witnessed yesterday."
DeleteI imagine the reaction from most of the No side will be mildly content, if they care much at all. The people who seem to care most about the vow are independence campaigners intent on spinning a folktale about No voters being duped into turning against independence. The rest of the country (myself included) are broadly in favour of more devolution, but are fairly flexible over the specific powers which are actually devolved.
Whatever anyone thinks of the actual conclusions, the SNP are trying to push two claims which aren't actually true:
1. That "the vow" turned the tide in the referendum (a claim for which there is zero evidence).
2. That "the vow" (rather than Gordon Brown) promised devo max/federalism.
The same people who believe both of these claims religiously seem to feel entitled to moan about the rest of society being brainwashed by the media.
"The rest of the country (myself included) are broadly in favour of more devolution, but are fairly flexible over the specific powers which are actually devolved."
DeleteHmmm. I do love a man (or woman) who casually claims to speak on behalf of hundreds of thousands of people, on the basis of zero evidence.
"1. That "the vow" turned the tide in the referendum (a claim for which there is zero evidence)."
Are you spotting the irony yet? The evidence that you claim doesn't exist is in the Ashcroft exit poll.
"2. That "the vow" (rather than Gordon Brown) promised devo max/federalism."
Ah, so Gordon Brown was free to lie with impunity? Was that mentioned in the small print of Better Together leaflets?
"The evidence that you claim doesn't exist is in the Ashcroft exit poll."
DeleteThat's beyond laughable. The Ashcroft poll shows precisely why your argument is ridiculous. The vow was published on 16 September. The Ashcroft poll showed 94% of No voters claiming to have made their minds up before the "last few days" of the campaign. Of those 6% who made their minds up late there's zero evidence in that poll to suggest they did so because of the vow (the pound/risk to the economy being the most commonly cited reasons for a No vote) or that they changed their view from Yes to No in the first place.
Even if you were to give an entire 6% of the No vote directly to the Yes side (which would be absurd) the No side would still have won by about 140,000 votes. How on earth does that poll back up your argument?
Because it shows that a total of 59% of voters either voted for full sovereign independence or for The Vow (which was merely crystallised on the Record front page - Gordon Brown had been selling it earlier than that). I'm glad that you're happy to treat the details of the Ashcroft poll with such religious reverence, because I'm afraid they demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that Scotland voted for a huge transfer of powers.
DeleteAlex Salmond, direct quote: "The offer over the last week that there was a way to offer substantial progress for Scotland without voting Yes was enough to persuade a key swing vote... It is my view that without it, Yes would have won."
DeleteNote the phrase "last week" not "Gordon Brown had been selling it earlier than that". Take every single No voter who stated they made up their mind in the last week in the Lord Ashcroft poll, pretend every single one was someone changing from Yes to No (even though the poll explicitly says that wasn't the case) pretend every single one did so because of the vow (again the poll says that isn't true, but let's go with it to show how ridiculous the argument really is) and No would still have won without the supposed game changing effect of the vow's new powers.
Yet seemingly you don't find anything objectionable in Salmond's spin on what happened. The question here isn't whether you can win this debate - the evidence is staring you in the face and anyone with basic arithmetic skills can work that out for themselves - it's whether you're honest enough to accept that the SNP are spreading a convenient bit of misinformation to try and bolster their support. I doubt you are honest enough to accept that, but go ahead and prove me wrong and I'll congratulate you for showing a bit of integrity.
I was being generous to your argument by following the logic of it literally - but of course we both know that voters are not particularly likely to be truthful when asked about when they made their minds up, so that part of the Ashcroft poll isn't especially meaningful. It's like asking people how much they give to charity - they'll exaggerate their generosity, or in this case their decisiveness.
DeleteI think Salmond's "spin" as you call it is exactly right - The Vow did swing the balance. But even if your touching faith in people's honesty in saying when they made up their minds is well-founded, it doesn't actually make any substantive difference - the Ashcroft poll conclusively proves that the No campaign couldn't possibly have won without the bogus pledge of huge new powers.
"the evidence is staring you in the face and anyone with basic arithmetic skills can work that out for themselves"
Indeed so. I might have expected a more gracious apology from you, but that'll do to be getting on with.
Did anybody else notice that AbiesTompkins has been absent from Cif while Professor Alba was working on the Smith bollocks? Pure co-incidence I'm sure.
ReplyDeleteAlso will somebody give Eve Muirhead a slap and remind her there's 10 ends where she can lose the match and not to rush into throwing it away in the 1st every time.
Gordon says press RESET button
ReplyDeletequotes Ghandi
what a guy