The negotiations on the fiscal framework have become a game of chess - both sides would prefer a deal, but both are trying to manoeuvre themselves into the most favourable position if a deal isn't possible. The London Tories want to be able to say -
"We tried everything possible to deliver The Vow, but the SNP sabotaged the whole process with ridiculous demands."
While the Scottish Government want to be able to say -
"The Vow has been betrayed. Nobody told No voters they would only get the new powers they were promised in return for a £3 billion cut in Scotland's budget."
As you can see, either way The Vow won't have been delivered, so this game is far more dangerous for Cameron than it is for Sturgeon. At best, he can find a plausible excuse for his own failure to keep his side of the most important bargain London has ever struck with the people of Scotland. At worst, the charge of a deliberate betrayal of The Vow will stick, thus bringing about one of the two obvious casus belli for a second referendum that we always knew were possible (the other being Brexit).
At the moment, the game seems to be moving decisively in the Scottish Government's direction. With six out of the ten members of the Smith Commission (including representatives of four of the five parties involved) saying they broadly agree with the Scottish Government's interpretation of the 'no detriment' principle that was at the heart of the Smith package, it's going to be almost impossible for Cameron to establish a narrative of The Vow being sabotaged by the wicked SNP. He now has two choices - make a more credible compromise offer, or accept the consequences of his government's double-dealing.
For my own part, I actually take a different view from the majority of independence supporters on social media - I very much want a deal to be struck, even if it involves some compromise. I want the Scotland Bill to come fully into effect, so that we have something tangible to show for the success of the Yes campaign. But even I accept that we can't take that at any price, and at the moment the price looks far, far, far too high.
SNP and the Scottish goverment have nothing to loss, in the next referendum what will that vow consist of, oh yes we got it wrong give us another chance to get it wright. It's looking good for the Indref2 and Cameron it's thanks to you.
ReplyDeleteWhy the assumption that the Tories would prefer a deal?
ReplyDeleteIt looks like they see a chance to backtrack from last minute promises of the referendum. Promises they didn't really want to make.
And they can try to blame it on the SNP.
IMO they don't want further devolution at all, because it is more likely to lead to independence.
Good deal: People get used to paying taxes to Scotland. Independence a closer step.
Bad Deal: Independence becomes essential to stop our economy entering a spiral of decline.
For clarity : I think the Tories want a deal, but not a fair deal. I think they imagined they could bully the SNP into accepting something that wasn't in Scotland's interests.
DeleteTo be honest, I now think they would prefer no deal at all. An unfair deal is just as risky for them - as the demand for independence will surely increase as the flaws become clear.
DeleteWho will Gordon Brown blame? Tory party(PM stitched him up well EVEL)
ReplyDeleteSNP(ho hum)
The wheels are coming off just about all of the Tory's ill conceived policies and Cameron is desperate to get the contoversial ones out of the way before he departs the scene.
ReplyDeleteWhat is most important to him is his place in history and not being remembered as the English PM who presided over the break up of the UK state and retreat into Little England splendid isolationism.
He will not want the "Scottish problem" to continue into his final days in power so I would expect a settlement sooner rather than later.
"With six out of the ten members of the Smith Commission (including representatives of four of the five parties involved) saying they broadly agree with the Scottish Government's interpretation of the 'no detriment' principle that was at the heart of the Smith package, it's going to be almost impossible for Cameron to establish a narrative of The Vow being sabotaged by the wicked SNP."
ReplyDeleteWho are the four members of the Smith Commission who don't agree?
Does anyone have links to neutral articles about the various methods of calculating the Barnett Formula wrt the Scotland Bill?
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have links to neutral articles about the various methods of calculating the Barnett Formula wrt the Scotland Bill?
ReplyDeleteIf you go to the Centre for Constitutional Change page here http://centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/papers/adjusting-scotlands-block-grant-new-tax-and-welfare-powers-assessing-options?dm_i=2MQP,MWX0,3KRVGI,1HNRT,1
Deleteyou'll find a link to a (rather long) paper by David Bell.
I personally couldn't give a toss about the shoddy Scotland Bill. It isn't in Scotland's interest end of! It is crooked pure and simple. It doesn't come close to the "Vow" and it doesn't even come close to the watered down Smith Commission Proposals. The Scotland Bill is nothing less than a vile Brit Nat attempt to stick the boot into us pure and simple, only a drooling dribbling self flagellating Brit Nat would think otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThe APD and Crown estate devolution is worthwhile.
DeleteThe income tax proposal less so - unless we have a fair no-detriment principle.
However, an weak deal would inevitably lead to a better deal or independence. It would have to. No deal bears the risk of no change, and it doesn't exactly make independence any easier to achieve either.
thus bringing about one of the two obvious pretexts for a second referendum that we always knew were possible
ReplyDeleteRather than make a meal out of what is probably an innocent mistake, pretext is possibly not the right word for what you meant to say there.
Perhaps I have a habit of using 'pretext' more loosely than its strict dictionary definition, although I think the meaning was clear enough. To avoid any potential confusion, I've changed it to 'casus belli'.
DeleteAn excellent choice, and thank you for taking the comment in the spirit with which it was intended.
DeleteIt was to be a £7.5 billion cut, Cameron et al try to pretend they are now offering £4.5 billion 'more'.
ReplyDeleteInstead it is still a £3 billion cut.
I'm interested that the unionist trolls don't seem to have a lot to say about this
ReplyDeleteWell it looks like everything need to be said has been,and an agreement at the last minute? no deal.
ReplyDelete