tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post2301351006984598616..comments2024-03-28T16:21:32.043+00:00Comments on SCOT goes POP!: The best of both worldsJames Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-84934258481455508372012-07-06T08:36:23.647+01:002012-07-06T08:36:23.647+01:00That's true, and this is exactly how I see thi...That's true, and this is exactly how I see things proceeding if we DO get that third option and we DO vote for it. After all, Devo Max is simply a non-starter in terms of actually implementing it, because unionist politicians simply do not want it, and it would see the rest of the UK demanding similar powers (well, Wales and Northern Ireland at least - on the whole England seems to be content with their lot). It would be somewhat of a crisis for MPs, not to mention the fact that they quite simply do not want Scotland to set its own levels of corporation tax and top-rate income tax, as well as the possible civil unrest it may cause in England if they saw Scotland repealing any cuts to welfare and pensions that were imposed by the Tories. Above all though, they just crave power.<br /><br />So a three-option referendum would almost certainly be quickly followed by a two-option one, with the NO campaign unable to use the bribe of "more powers" to try and win people over, resulting in independence with an overwhelming majority.<br /><br />But that's assuming a three-option referendum doesn't get stuck in the courts for years!Doug Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15017218581660887134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-13648954531402883112012-07-04T14:00:31.449+01:002012-07-04T14:00:31.449+01:00I half-agree and half-disagree, Doug. I certainly...I half-agree and half-disagree, Doug. I certainly think you're right that the beauty of bringing Devo Max to the forefront of the debate is that it leads the electorate to think about what specific powers they want to see transferred to Scotland and why, as opposed to closing down all thought as the No campaign would rather people do, and make a binary choice based on content-free emotional 'arguments' about "togetherness" and "separtion".<br /><br />However, I'm not convinced that a consultative Devo Max question isn't a runner. If the Scottish Government has received advice that it would be legally watertight, it's not difficult to see the advantages. The result wouldn't be binding on the coalition, but if they did completely ignore the Scottish people's democratic will, it's hard to think of a faster track to independence than that.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-3967348087029811442012-07-04T09:18:57.713+01:002012-07-04T09:18:57.713+01:00I find it incredible that so many people don't...I find it incredible that so many people don't understand the part devo max is playing in this, especially journalists who are supposed to be well versed in the workings of realpolitik.<br /><br />Devo Max won't appear on the ballot paper. It can't, because it would require backing from at least the coalition parties to agree the terms and to stand by them in the event of a vote in favour of it. But this isn't the point of Devo Max. Devo Max is a carrot being dangled in front of people to encourage them to think about more powers for Scotland. Without it, the debate is polarised between YES and NO, and it's easier for the No camp to make independence out to be some big, bad thing, thus stifling any debate about further powers. But throwing Devo Max in the mix gets people to think "hang on, I might not want full independence, but I DO want some powers."<br /><br />Politicians don't like it when people exercise their brains. It's dangerous, because people are unpredictable and it ruins their hegemony over the political process. A debate about what further devolution Scotland should have normalises the idea of Scotland getting powers over welfare, pensions, income tax, corporation tax etc. A Scotland with vastly enhanced powers becomes the new default position for people, and the status quo becomes as laughable as the idea of handing all devolved powers back to the Scotland Office. Then when people find out they can't vote for Devo Max, they think "well I can hardly vote for NO then, it's going backwards", and they vote YES instead. Giving the "Holy Grail" powers like defence and foreign affairs to Edinburgh becomes less of a scary prospect, and more like a compromise to get the powers people DO want in Edinburgh. That's before considering the domino effect of people thinking "well, I've already conceded Scotland should have fiscal powers - what exactly is stopping me thinking we should have defence too? It's the only way to get rid of Trident, after all..."<br /><br />This is why the unionists utterly reject the idea they should be telling us what further powers they would devolve in the case of a NO vote. Doing so encourages people to think about not only which powers should be devolved, but also why certain powers should be reserved. What exactly IS the argument for keeping defence and foreign affairs at Westminster? There isn't one, and this would become self-evident if people start considering the pros and cons of devolving or reserving each power.<br /><br />Quite simply, the only way the NO camp can win is by turning NO into the Devo Max option. The fact they refuse to do so tells us all we need to know about how serious these "devolutionists" (not unionists, apparently) are about handing powers back to Scotland.Doug Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15017218581660887134noreply@blogger.com