Caroline Lucas, the MP for Brighton Pavilion and the Green party's only representative in the House of Commons, was challenged on Twitter a few hours ago on why she had voted against Full Fiscal Autonomy for Scotland on Monday night. Perhaps surprisingly, she didn't attempt to make the case that FFA would somehow be bad for her own constituents, but instead indicated that she was consciously voting in line with the views of her colleagues in the Scottish Green Party. I've since seen two people who previously intended to campaign for SNP supporters to vote Green on the list say that they will no longer do so.
That's just a straw in the wind, but my guess is that they won't be alone. If so, the Greens may have just undermined a key part of their own strategy for next year's election. We've seen fairly clear indications in recent weeks that they intend to woo SNP supporters by making some fantastical claims about how the AMS voting system can supposedly be "hacked" by voting Green on the list. A number of us have been trying to explain why listening to those claims would be horrendously dangerous for the cause of independence, and how "tactical voting on the list" is a contradiction in terms that could directly bring about an anti-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament. But that's a very complicated argument to make, and thankfully the Greens have just supplied us with a much simpler one - there's not an awful lot of point in trying to "hack" the system if the aim of the exercise is to elect Green MSPs who are not on the same page as you on the constitutional question.
Now, to be fair, it's perfectly possible to oppose Full Fiscal Autonomy for Scotland within the UK while remaining in favour of full sovereign independence when the opportunity next arises, and that appears to be the Greens' position. But this episode does clearly demonstrate the limits to the idea that we are all part of a cohesive "movement", and that switching votes back and forth between different component parts of that movement can never dilute the impact of your voice on the constitutional issue.
Showing posts with label Devo Max. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Devo Max. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Are we fast reaching the point where it will be untenable for the SNP not to put radical constitutional proposals in their Holyrood manifesto?
You might remember that in the early days after September 18th, some people on the moderate wing of the SNP were shooting down anyone who even dared to raise the topic of a second independence referendum. Although I didn't agree with Yes supporters being told what they should and shouldn't say out loud, there was a big part of me that did feel the SNP were just going to have to "take their medicine" for a prolonged spell. It seems quite strange in retrospect, but I even suggested in an International Business Times article that the party should categorically rule out pushing for independence for two full Holyrood terms, unless something drastic happened, such as Britain leaving the European Union.
So what has changed since then? Just about everything, actually...
1) The SNP membership has increased several-fold to 115,000. Most of those new members have not joined with a view to seeing the constitutional question neglected for the next decade.
2) The Smith Agreement has been reneged upon by the UK government in several key respects. That's not something that can simply be allowed to pass, given that the No option in the referendum was so explicitly tied to the Smith process.
3) The SNP's performance at the general election was in itself a game-changer. Nobody thought in late September or early October that anything even remotely close to 50% of the vote or 56 seats was a possibility. Sometimes you have to press forward when history beckons so obviously, regardless of the timetable you originally had in mind.
4) The UK government are going out of their way to act as if the general election changed nothing, and have rejected out of hand each and every amendment to the Scotland Bill that has been tabled by the SNP. Such utter contempt for the verdict of the Scottish electorate requires a firm response.
5) Brexit may still look unlikely, but it no longer seems quite as fanciful as it did last autumn, and there is now a clear route-map which might just take us there.
6) It seems that EVEL is about to be introduced, and in a manner which shows total disregard for the democratic and parliamentary process. This by definition will constitute a "material change" in circumstances, because it will alter the basic "deal" of the United Kingdom - henceforth Scottish voters will be second-class citizens. Remember that Westminster retains absolute sovereignty over Scotland, and can abolish the Scottish Parliament on a whim at any time - so the oft-heard line about English MPs having no say on domestic Scottish matters is absurdly inaccurate. But in future, Scottish MPs will no longer have a say on matters that have a direct financial impact on public services in their own constituencies. This new inequality is utterly intolerable, especially when an English parliamentary majority has just been used to veto Scotland's democratic will for Full Fiscal Autonomy.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these material changes are necessarily sufficient to warrant an unconditional manifesto pledge for a second independence referendum, but they do warrant something substantial. It already seems very likely that there will be a conditional commitment to a referendum in the event of Brexit, but I wonder if we might also see a move towards a referendum on FFA itself. Another possibility might be to use the Holyrood election to seek a mandate to negotiate FFA with the UK government - with an explicit indication of what the consequences will be if Cameron ignores that mandate.
So what has changed since then? Just about everything, actually...
1) The SNP membership has increased several-fold to 115,000. Most of those new members have not joined with a view to seeing the constitutional question neglected for the next decade.
2) The Smith Agreement has been reneged upon by the UK government in several key respects. That's not something that can simply be allowed to pass, given that the No option in the referendum was so explicitly tied to the Smith process.
3) The SNP's performance at the general election was in itself a game-changer. Nobody thought in late September or early October that anything even remotely close to 50% of the vote or 56 seats was a possibility. Sometimes you have to press forward when history beckons so obviously, regardless of the timetable you originally had in mind.
4) The UK government are going out of their way to act as if the general election changed nothing, and have rejected out of hand each and every amendment to the Scotland Bill that has been tabled by the SNP. Such utter contempt for the verdict of the Scottish electorate requires a firm response.
5) Brexit may still look unlikely, but it no longer seems quite as fanciful as it did last autumn, and there is now a clear route-map which might just take us there.
6) It seems that EVEL is about to be introduced, and in a manner which shows total disregard for the democratic and parliamentary process. This by definition will constitute a "material change" in circumstances, because it will alter the basic "deal" of the United Kingdom - henceforth Scottish voters will be second-class citizens. Remember that Westminster retains absolute sovereignty over Scotland, and can abolish the Scottish Parliament on a whim at any time - so the oft-heard line about English MPs having no say on domestic Scottish matters is absurdly inaccurate. But in future, Scottish MPs will no longer have a say on matters that have a direct financial impact on public services in their own constituencies. This new inequality is utterly intolerable, especially when an English parliamentary majority has just been used to veto Scotland's democratic will for Full Fiscal Autonomy.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these material changes are necessarily sufficient to warrant an unconditional manifesto pledge for a second independence referendum, but they do warrant something substantial. It already seems very likely that there will be a conditional commitment to a referendum in the event of Brexit, but I wonder if we might also see a move towards a referendum on FFA itself. Another possibility might be to use the Holyrood election to seek a mandate to negotiate FFA with the UK government - with an explicit indication of what the consequences will be if Cameron ignores that mandate.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Deafening cheers as Westminster celebrates using English votes to block Scottish Home Rule
Something extraordinary happened a few minutes ago in the House of Commons chamber. It wasn't the fact that MPs voted against the addition of a new clause to the Scotland Bill that would have paved the way for Full Fiscal Autonomy. It wasn't even the fact that they did so by 504 votes to 58 - that was expected, because we knew that Labour and the Tories would both vote against. No, it was the fact that the result was greeted by deafening cheers - which, by definition, came almost exclusively from non-Scottish MPs.
We don't yet know the exact breakdown of the figures, but it's near-enough certain that the result among elected Scottish MPs was well over 50 in favour of Full Fiscal Autonomy, and only 3 against. Among non-Scottish MPs, there must have been almost 500 votes against Full Fiscal Automony, and probably less than 10 in favour (the only likely possibilities are the 3 Plaid Cymru MPs and Caroline Lucas, and maybe the odd Tory like Edward Leigh). In a nutshell, then, this was a straightforward battle between Scotland and the rest of the UK - and Scotland lost. We lost simply because there are far more of 'them' than there are of 'us'. The fact that this happened on an exclusively Scottish piece of legislation, at a time when we're constantly told that Scotland has no business having any influence at all on English laws, is nothing short of breathtaking.
What the hell did English Tory and Labour MPs think they were cheering about? Did they persuade the Scottish electorate of the case against Full Fiscal Autonomy? No. Did they persuade Scotland's elected representatives? No. Scotland said Yes, but the London parties said No, and they presume to decide on our behalf. If I'd been in their shoes, I wouldn't have been whooping in those circumstances, I'd have been sheepishly looking at the floor and hoping that someone would change the subject as a matter of some urgency. By logical deduction, it can only be that they were consciously cheering the fact that they'd just overruled a democratic election result and got away with it.
Or rather, they think they've got away with it. Over the last few weeks, they've been demonstrating the case for independence more eloquently and effectively than the SNP ever could, but they don't even seem to have noticed. Hell mend them.
We don't yet know the exact breakdown of the figures, but it's near-enough certain that the result among elected Scottish MPs was well over 50 in favour of Full Fiscal Autonomy, and only 3 against. Among non-Scottish MPs, there must have been almost 500 votes against Full Fiscal Automony, and probably less than 10 in favour (the only likely possibilities are the 3 Plaid Cymru MPs and Caroline Lucas, and maybe the odd Tory like Edward Leigh). In a nutshell, then, this was a straightforward battle between Scotland and the rest of the UK - and Scotland lost. We lost simply because there are far more of 'them' than there are of 'us'. The fact that this happened on an exclusively Scottish piece of legislation, at a time when we're constantly told that Scotland has no business having any influence at all on English laws, is nothing short of breathtaking.
What the hell did English Tory and Labour MPs think they were cheering about? Did they persuade the Scottish electorate of the case against Full Fiscal Autonomy? No. Did they persuade Scotland's elected representatives? No. Scotland said Yes, but the London parties said No, and they presume to decide on our behalf. If I'd been in their shoes, I wouldn't have been whooping in those circumstances, I'd have been sheepishly looking at the floor and hoping that someone would change the subject as a matter of some urgency. By logical deduction, it can only be that they were consciously cheering the fact that they'd just overruled a democratic election result and got away with it.
Or rather, they think they've got away with it. Over the last few weeks, they've been demonstrating the case for independence more eloquently and effectively than the SNP ever could, but they don't even seem to have noticed. Hell mend them.
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Is J K Rowling embarrassed by her broken promise?
Just for a moment, let's leave aside the details of J K Rowling's latest disgraceful attempt to smear the SNP with wild allegations based on zero evidence. Am I the only person to recall that, during the referendum, she said something along the following lines : "I will back No in the referendum, and then I will back any party that offers Devo Max at the general election"?
Anyone would think she was trying to ludicrously smear the SNP as racists to give her an excuse for breaking her solemn promise, because of course there was only one major party offering Devo Max at the election, and it sure as hell wasn't Labour. What more could the SNP have achieved in May with the backing that Rowling reneged upon? Perhaps we could have turned her own city 100% Devo Max Yellow. Such a wasted opportunity, J K.
I've been trying to avoid making the obvious point that the party Rowling actually supports issued an anti-immigration mug during the election campaign. But she certainly must have been purring with pride last night when Andy Burnham said "the party always comes first", and Liz Kendall sanctimoniously butted in with "er, the country always comes first". So narrow British nationalism trumps party tribalism in Continuity New Labour - that's reassuring. I was willing Jeremy Corbyn to sniffily add "I think you'll find humanity comes first, Liz".
Heaven only knows how I would vote if I was a Labour member/registered supporter. I would probably give my first preference to Corbyn (even though he achieves the impossible of being a Labour leadership candidate who is even more left-wing than I am), but it's the second preference that would really matter, and there I'm stumped. Maybe I would plump for Yvette Cooper on the basis that she has a marginally less irritating personality than Burnham, but it's murderously difficult to see much (any) difference between the two of them politically.
And what would be best for the SNP? In contrast to 2010, I don't think there's an ideal outcome this time. All of the three leading candidates are poor, but all of them - simply by virtue of who they are - bring something to the table that might be of assistance to Labour in these parts. The SNP will lose one of their USPs (in the Westminster arena, I mean) if Labour elect a female leader, but Burnham's northern accent may be of some appeal as well.
* * *
There must have been something in the water since election day - I seem to have spent half my time arguing with fellow independence supporters on this blog. If it isn't tactical voting, it's irresponsible dog owners, and if it isn't irresponsible dog owners, it's the House of Lords. On the latter subject, and without any wish to start yet another argument, you might find this article from the Plaid Cymru website interesting - it's about how Lord Dafydd Wigley will take the case for Devo Max to the Grand Committee Room of the House of Lords this very afternoon. That doesn't sound to me like a man who has gone native - and of course it's the sort of thing the SNP can't do themselves for as long as they are completely unrepresented in the upper chamber.
(Thanks to Helen Ross for drawing my attention to the story.)
Anyone would think she was trying to ludicrously smear the SNP as racists to give her an excuse for breaking her solemn promise, because of course there was only one major party offering Devo Max at the election, and it sure as hell wasn't Labour. What more could the SNP have achieved in May with the backing that Rowling reneged upon? Perhaps we could have turned her own city 100% Devo Max Yellow. Such a wasted opportunity, J K.
I've been trying to avoid making the obvious point that the party Rowling actually supports issued an anti-immigration mug during the election campaign. But she certainly must have been purring with pride last night when Andy Burnham said "the party always comes first", and Liz Kendall sanctimoniously butted in with "er, the country always comes first". So narrow British nationalism trumps party tribalism in Continuity New Labour - that's reassuring. I was willing Jeremy Corbyn to sniffily add "I think you'll find humanity comes first, Liz".
Heaven only knows how I would vote if I was a Labour member/registered supporter. I would probably give my first preference to Corbyn (even though he achieves the impossible of being a Labour leadership candidate who is even more left-wing than I am), but it's the second preference that would really matter, and there I'm stumped. Maybe I would plump for Yvette Cooper on the basis that she has a marginally less irritating personality than Burnham, but it's murderously difficult to see much (any) difference between the two of them politically.
And what would be best for the SNP? In contrast to 2010, I don't think there's an ideal outcome this time. All of the three leading candidates are poor, but all of them - simply by virtue of who they are - bring something to the table that might be of assistance to Labour in these parts. The SNP will lose one of their USPs (in the Westminster arena, I mean) if Labour elect a female leader, but Burnham's northern accent may be of some appeal as well.
* * *
There must have been something in the water since election day - I seem to have spent half my time arguing with fellow independence supporters on this blog. If it isn't tactical voting, it's irresponsible dog owners, and if it isn't irresponsible dog owners, it's the House of Lords. On the latter subject, and without any wish to start yet another argument, you might find this article from the Plaid Cymru website interesting - it's about how Lord Dafydd Wigley will take the case for Devo Max to the Grand Committee Room of the House of Lords this very afternoon. That doesn't sound to me like a man who has gone native - and of course it's the sort of thing the SNP can't do themselves for as long as they are completely unrepresented in the upper chamber.
(Thanks to Helen Ross for drawing my attention to the story.)
Monday, June 8, 2015
The SNP should be taking an "everything including the kitchen sink" approach on maximising devolution
I've just been reading through the Daily Record's latest periodical outbreak of "I Can't Believe It's Not The Vow" coverage, and there was one bit that made me laugh out loud -
"In some areas Labour are going further than the SNP by including demands to devolve welfare from Holyrood to councils, starting with the Work Programme."
So Labour are going further than the SNP on devolution...by taking powers away from the Scottish Parliament. Be sure to let us know if they ever propose taking more powers away from Westminster, won't you?!
Staying on that theme, I followed a link on the Record's website to a story I missed a few days ago, about the SNP supposedly "backing down" on the call for abortion law to be devolved. Of course it's dangerous to take any story in the Record at face value, but a quick search failed to find anything that contradicted it. If there's any truth in that, I must say I find it incomprehensible - the only road-block in the Smith Commission on this topic was Labour, and Labour's influence is now at its lowest ebb. There should be no remaining obstacle to an agreement with the Tories (and Lib Dems) on the swift devolution of abortion law, and the SNP should seize that opportunity with both hands.
Setting a measured timetable for full fiscal autonomy is one thing, but on all other matters we should be taking an "everything including the kitchen sink" approach to maximising devolution. A party that believes in Scottish self-government should not be deprioritising anything at all - the presumption should always be that any given power should be held at Holyrood, unless there is a very good reason for that not to be the case. I hope there's no underlying squeamishness about abortion being a "grown-up" issue. If we don't believe that Holyrood is a grown-up parliament capable of taking these decisions, what are we actually fighting for?
Labour's argument last autumn was that they would never allow women's rights to be inferior on one side of the border, which is a complete nonsense. When Rhoda Grant attempted to criminalise the clients of sex workers in Scotland, she claimed (wrongly) that it was about "equality" and "ending violence against women" - so wouldn't that law have meant, according to Labour doctrine, that women would have had their rights protected better on one side of the border than on the other? Labour didn't seem to have any problem with that notion, so how exactly is abortion different? The reality is that any responsible parliament would always take into account the danger of "abortion tourism" before making any changes - a new law wouldn't be introduced frivolously.
As some people have called me an "SNP tribalist" for simply pointing out that tactical voting on the regional list can't work, let me just acknowledge that on this specific issue, if the reports are to be believed, the Greens are pushing harder for self-government than the SNP are. That's not a position the SNP should ever be allowing themselves to get into.
"In some areas Labour are going further than the SNP by including demands to devolve welfare from Holyrood to councils, starting with the Work Programme."
So Labour are going further than the SNP on devolution...by taking powers away from the Scottish Parliament. Be sure to let us know if they ever propose taking more powers away from Westminster, won't you?!
Staying on that theme, I followed a link on the Record's website to a story I missed a few days ago, about the SNP supposedly "backing down" on the call for abortion law to be devolved. Of course it's dangerous to take any story in the Record at face value, but a quick search failed to find anything that contradicted it. If there's any truth in that, I must say I find it incomprehensible - the only road-block in the Smith Commission on this topic was Labour, and Labour's influence is now at its lowest ebb. There should be no remaining obstacle to an agreement with the Tories (and Lib Dems) on the swift devolution of abortion law, and the SNP should seize that opportunity with both hands.
Setting a measured timetable for full fiscal autonomy is one thing, but on all other matters we should be taking an "everything including the kitchen sink" approach to maximising devolution. A party that believes in Scottish self-government should not be deprioritising anything at all - the presumption should always be that any given power should be held at Holyrood, unless there is a very good reason for that not to be the case. I hope there's no underlying squeamishness about abortion being a "grown-up" issue. If we don't believe that Holyrood is a grown-up parliament capable of taking these decisions, what are we actually fighting for?
Labour's argument last autumn was that they would never allow women's rights to be inferior on one side of the border, which is a complete nonsense. When Rhoda Grant attempted to criminalise the clients of sex workers in Scotland, she claimed (wrongly) that it was about "equality" and "ending violence against women" - so wouldn't that law have meant, according to Labour doctrine, that women would have had their rights protected better on one side of the border than on the other? Labour didn't seem to have any problem with that notion, so how exactly is abortion different? The reality is that any responsible parliament would always take into account the danger of "abortion tourism" before making any changes - a new law wouldn't be introduced frivolously.
As some people have called me an "SNP tribalist" for simply pointing out that tactical voting on the regional list can't work, let me just acknowledge that on this specific issue, if the reports are to be believed, the Greens are pushing harder for self-government than the SNP are. That's not a position the SNP should ever be allowing themselves to get into.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
If Cameron isn't lying about "the most powerful devolved parliament in the world", Scotland will have to be given fiscal autonomy that at least matches the Basque Country and Navarre
Just a short post, because this is a very simple point. In the immediate aftermath of the Smith blueprint being published, the UK government and the unionist parties said that the proposals would give Scotland "one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world", or more specifically "the third most powerful devolved parliament in the world". There was a very good reason why the claim was not "the most powerful". I draw your attention to this summary of the powers held by the devolved parliaments of the Basque Country and Navarre -
"The four Basque Provinces which are part of the Spanish State enjoy considerable fiscal autonomy, comparable to that of any EU Member State."
Self-evidently, the Smith package does not clear that bar. So when David Cameron changed his language after the election, and explicitly started promising "the most powerful devolved parliament in the world", it was impossible not to reach the logical conclusion that he must have decided to go considerably further than Smith. Curiously, though, David Mundell insisted yesterday that Smith was the right package for Scotland.
Something doesn't add up here. Either we're going to have the most powerful devolved parliament in the world, or Smith is the right package for the Scotland. There's no possible way in which both of those statements can be true.
Incidentally, the Spanish autonomous communities have powers over broadcasting as well.
"The four Basque Provinces which are part of the Spanish State enjoy considerable fiscal autonomy, comparable to that of any EU Member State."
Self-evidently, the Smith package does not clear that bar. So when David Cameron changed his language after the election, and explicitly started promising "the most powerful devolved parliament in the world", it was impossible not to reach the logical conclusion that he must have decided to go considerably further than Smith. Curiously, though, David Mundell insisted yesterday that Smith was the right package for Scotland.
Something doesn't add up here. Either we're going to have the most powerful devolved parliament in the world, or Smith is the right package for the Scotland. There's no possible way in which both of those statements can be true.
Incidentally, the Spanish autonomous communities have powers over broadcasting as well.
Monday, December 29, 2014
Sorry, Kenny Farquharson, but your wish-fulfillment fantasy looks like a non-starter
Somewhere, deep down, we all have our own tailor-made wish-fulfillment fantasy. Maybe it's that your ex who ran off with your best friend eight years ago will turn up at your door sobbing, and beg to be given a second chance. Or maybe it's that your mysterious dinner guest will turn out to be the managing director of Hovis, and will find your home-made bread so irresistible that he'll offer you£250,000 a year to take over as head of quality control.
In the case of Kenny "Devo or Death" Farquharson, the long-nurtured fantasy seems to be that next autumn's SNP conference will turn out to be a Clause 4 moment, with Nicola Sturgeon confronting her party with the painful truth that it must grow up and forget about the idea of a second referendum over the next five-year parliamentary term, and instead get on with that blasted wonderful (not to mention mature) devo thing that has always been Scotland's manifest destiny. There was a Scotland on Sunday editorial along those lines yesterday, and although it was anonymous, it bore all the classic Farquharson hallmarks.
As with almost all wish-fulfillment fantasies, I fear Kenny is going to end up bitterly disappointed. Both Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond have laid so much groundwork for the argument that impending "Brexit" would re-open the debate on early independence, that I find it inconceivable that they even want the SNP's 2016 manifesto to totally exclude the possibility of a second referendum. The most likely outcome is conditional language that makes clear that a referendum is only ruled out if certain circumstances persist - most obviously that Scotland remains part of the EU, and possibly also that sweeping powers are devolved to Holyrood. There's also a chance that a consultative referendum on Devo Max, rather than on independence, will be proposed.
At any rate it's not hard to think of a range of options for the 2015 conference to choose from, all of which the gradualist and fundamentalist wings of the party would find little difficulty in uniting around, and certainly without the need for any gladiatorial blood-on-the-carpet theatre. This is going to break Kenny's heart when the realisation dawns, but there's actually no need for Nicola Sturgeon to "slay the dragon of independence" in the way that Kinnock and Blair slayed the trade unions - not least because independence is even more popular than the SNP at the moment. When did the SNP last get 1.6 million votes in an election?
In the case of Kenny "Devo or Death" Farquharson, the long-nurtured fantasy seems to be that next autumn's SNP conference will turn out to be a Clause 4 moment, with Nicola Sturgeon confronting her party with the painful truth that it must grow up and forget about the idea of a second referendum over the next five-year parliamentary term, and instead get on with that blasted wonderful (not to mention mature) devo thing that has always been Scotland's manifest destiny. There was a Scotland on Sunday editorial along those lines yesterday, and although it was anonymous, it bore all the classic Farquharson hallmarks.
As with almost all wish-fulfillment fantasies, I fear Kenny is going to end up bitterly disappointed. Both Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond have laid so much groundwork for the argument that impending "Brexit" would re-open the debate on early independence, that I find it inconceivable that they even want the SNP's 2016 manifesto to totally exclude the possibility of a second referendum. The most likely outcome is conditional language that makes clear that a referendum is only ruled out if certain circumstances persist - most obviously that Scotland remains part of the EU, and possibly also that sweeping powers are devolved to Holyrood. There's also a chance that a consultative referendum on Devo Max, rather than on independence, will be proposed.
At any rate it's not hard to think of a range of options for the 2015 conference to choose from, all of which the gradualist and fundamentalist wings of the party would find little difficulty in uniting around, and certainly without the need for any gladiatorial blood-on-the-carpet theatre. This is going to break Kenny's heart when the realisation dawns, but there's actually no need for Nicola Sturgeon to "slay the dragon of independence" in the way that Kinnock and Blair slayed the trade unions - not least because independence is even more popular than the SNP at the moment. When did the SNP last get 1.6 million votes in an election?
Monday, November 17, 2014
The alternative referendum
We're not there yet, because for now the only game in town is using next year's general election to hold Westminster's feet to the fire over The Vow. But at some point before the 2016 Holyrood election, the SNP are going to be faced with a crucial junction in the road. The moderate (for want of a better word) wing of the party will be pressing for the constitution to be put on the backburner in the 2016 manifesto, in order to demonstrate to people that we've accepted the referendum result, and that we're not just the party of independence but also the party of bread-and-butter issues and good governance. I believe that was broadly the message of the guest post Marco Biagi MSP wrote on Lallands Peat Worrier's blog just after referendum day. In the other corner will be people who think now is Scotland's golden opportunity to make a huge constitutional leap, and that to put off doing anything at all about it for seven years or whatever would be utterly crazy.
Nor can this choice really be averted by leaving a degree of creative ambiguity in the manifesto over whether an SNP government would seek to hold a referendum within the coming five-year term or not. There are two reasons for that. Firstly, for as long as there is legal ambiguity over Holyrood's ability to hold a referendum without Westminster's acquiescence, it'll be particularly important to secure an explicit and unambiguous popular mandate for any referendum that is proposed, as happened in 2011. And secondly, if there was one big lesson from this year's Quebec provincial election, it's that a lack of clarity over plans for a constitutional referendum can prove fatal.
Luckily, I think there may be ways of squaring the circle. Most obviously, the manifesto could make a conditional commitment that the SNP would seek an early second independence referendum if the UK voted to leave the European Union. Moderates might seek the insertion of an equally clear commitment that there would be no independence referendum over the five year term in any other circumstances. That would be a crystal-clear position that I think voters would see as reasonable.
But that can't be the end of the story, because the balance of probability remains that the UK will not leave the EU. And that brings me back to a possibility that we've discussed before, and that Kevin raised again on the previous thread - why not commit to a referendum on full Devo Max instead? That should be something that the moderates can accept, because there would be no question of it being a "re-run" of September the 18th. It would build on the popular will that has already been expressed, rather than seeking to overturn it. Fundamentalists in the party shouldn't have any great problem going along with it either, because it's not hard to see how it might bring independence closer - if there's a clear mandate for Devo Max established and the UK government ignores it, the next step is fairly obvious.
There are also legal advantages in making the next referendum about Devo Max rather than independence. Lallands Peat Worrier recently claimed that the Edinburgh Agreement had weakened the argument that Holyrood already has the power to hold a consultative independence referendum. I suggested to him that a Presiding Officer from a pro-independence background might use a generous interpretation of the law to certify a referendum bill as being within the parliament's powers, and then let the courts decide - an act which would in itself demonstrate that an exercise in Scottish democratic self-determination was being thwarted by London diktat. LPW dismissed the idea out of hand, and insisted that the Presiding Officer didn't have the discretion to act in that way. I'm not entirely convinced by that line of argument, because one thing you can be sure of is that any proposed referendum question will have been written by an ingenious lawyer trying to make it as indirect as possible in order to have at least a theoretical chance of being deemed to be in conformity with the law.
But luckily, all of this would be an academic point if the referendum was about Devo Max, because the Edinburgh Agreement had no effect whatever on the legality of consultative referenda that are not about independence (the word "independence" was specifically used in the Section 30 order). LPW has confirmed that a Devo Max referendum would be a runner in legal terms, subject to the correct wording.
What format could it take? The most obvious option would be a straight Yes/No question on the blueprint for maximum devolution that the Scottish Government submitted to the Smith Commission. But there would also be the opportunity to do something more imaginative. Why not do exactly what some of the polls do - give voters a shopping list of individual powers, and ask them to say in each case whether they think the Scottish or Westminster governments should be in control of them? (We could even be cheeky and add foreign affairs and defence to the list - that might be seen as an attempt to secure independence via the backdoor, but if nothing else it would force voters to think carefully about what their specific objection to independence really is.)
The recent Catalan consultation offers another potential way forward. It asked two questions - should Catalonia be a state, and should it be an independent state? In our case we've already had the answer to the second question, but we've yet to ask the first. You might wonder what a non-independent state actually looks like - well, it could be a sovereign state-within-a-state like a US state or a Canadian province, but a more interesting possibility lies closer to home, in the shape of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. Those territories are states, they are not independent of the United Kingdom, but they are not part of the United Kingdom either. It's been lazily stated by a number of people (and I'm one of them) that by rejecting independence we've chosen to remain part of the UK for the time being, but that isn't strictly speaking true.
* * *
Bobmidd left this comment on the previous thread -
"there's an opinion poll coming out tomorrow giving the SNP 50% in Scotland."
Obviously I can't vouch for whether this is true or not, but I just thought you might like to know. "50% in Scotland" might imply a subsample, in which case it wouldn't be quite so significant.
* * *
The second Scot Goes Pop fundraiser closes on Wednesday morning at 8am (UK time).
Friday, November 14, 2014
Where now for the Home Rule Alliance?
One of the biggest mysteries of the last few weeks has been whether the SNP leadership would say yes or no to a pro-Home Rule electoral pact that would encompass the broader independence movement, such as the Greens, the SSP, Business for Scotland, Women for Independence, and so on. We now seem to have a definitive answer to that question, and while it's not a "no", it's probably closer to no than to yes on a continuum. Non-SNP members will be able to stand with the party's backing in the general election next year, but they will have to be on the approved candidates list, and they will be standing under an overall SNP banner (albeit additional descriptions will also be allowed).
This isn't nothing - it means that people like Jeane Freeman will in principle be able to stand if they wish to do so (in fact Freeman will be a shoo-in to become a candidate if she's up for it). But it does more or less rule out the possibility of a joint ticket between the pro-independence political parties. It now looks almost inevitable that the SNP and Greens will be standing against each other in at least some constituencies. As I've said before, that's not ideal for either party, and it almost certainly extinguishes any possibility of the first Scottish Green MP being elected in May.
So I'm disappointed, but on the other hand I wasn't blind to the dangers of a formal electoral pact, which we can now stop worrying about. The biggest of those was that voters might have looked for the SNP on the ballot paper and then given up in frustration when all they saw was "Radical Alliance" or whatever.
This isn't nothing - it means that people like Jeane Freeman will in principle be able to stand if they wish to do so (in fact Freeman will be a shoo-in to become a candidate if she's up for it). But it does more or less rule out the possibility of a joint ticket between the pro-independence political parties. It now looks almost inevitable that the SNP and Greens will be standing against each other in at least some constituencies. As I've said before, that's not ideal for either party, and it almost certainly extinguishes any possibility of the first Scottish Green MP being elected in May.
So I'm disappointed, but on the other hand I wasn't blind to the dangers of a formal electoral pact, which we can now stop worrying about. The biggest of those was that voters might have looked for the SNP on the ballot paper and then given up in frustration when all they saw was "Radical Alliance" or whatever.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Academically speaking, it's the blunt truth
London School of Economics academic John Kay, quoted in the Scotsman after making the snide claim that Scotland doesn't need to worry about the devolution of welfare leading to "benefit tourism", because we won't have the money to increase benefits anyway...
"Bluntly at the moment there is a great deal of discussion of people wanting more powers in Scotland when what they really mean is they want more money for the powers that Scotland in large part already has. And bluntly that money isn’t coming either from a block grant or from taxes."
Bluntly, if Scotland was given control over its own natural resources, as it bluntly would be perfectly possible to do within a devolved system, it bluntly seems obvious that we would have more money to spend on welfare if we so chose. But bluntly, we know that we'll be getting income tax powers anyway, and to be blunt, that means it will be possible to tax the wealthy more and redistribute that money to the poorest via the benefits system. Let's be blunt, Professor Kay - for you to pretend that won't be possible, and to claim that our desire for democratic self-government is just a disguised squeal for extra cash, makes you look, bluntly, like a bit of a Thatcherite ideologue. Particularly as your sole reason for all this bluntness is to prevent welfare being devolved, which is bluntly a rather transparent agenda.
"Bluntly at the moment there is a great deal of discussion of people wanting more powers in Scotland when what they really mean is they want more money for the powers that Scotland in large part already has. And bluntly that money isn’t coming either from a block grant or from taxes."
Bluntly, if Scotland was given control over its own natural resources, as it bluntly would be perfectly possible to do within a devolved system, it bluntly seems obvious that we would have more money to spend on welfare if we so chose. But bluntly, we know that we'll be getting income tax powers anyway, and to be blunt, that means it will be possible to tax the wealthy more and redistribute that money to the poorest via the benefits system. Let's be blunt, Professor Kay - for you to pretend that won't be possible, and to claim that our desire for democratic self-government is just a disguised squeal for extra cash, makes you look, bluntly, like a bit of a Thatcherite ideologue. Particularly as your sole reason for all this bluntness is to prevent welfare being devolved, which is bluntly a rather transparent agenda.
Saturday, November 1, 2014
There's no hiding place, "Vow-makers" - YouGov poll confirms Scotland wants that 'Devo SUPER Max' thing you solemnly promised
The full datasets from the YouGov poll are now out, and they reveal a treasure-trove of information from supplementary questions. Most significantly, the exercise that Panelbase undertook a few weeks ago has been repeated, with respondents asked to say whether they think each of a range of administrative/legislative powers should remain reserved to Westminster or be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. In broad terms, the results are identical to Panelbase, with a clear desire for maximum devolution (or "Devo SUPER Max" as was so memorably promised by the No campaign's official representative in the TV debate at the Hydro). By a margin of 67% to 25%, voters want income tax powers to be devolved to Edinburgh, by 67% to 24% they want other taxes like corporation tax to be devolved, by an astonishing 71% to 22% they want working age benefits such as Jobseekers' Allowance to be devolved, by 47% to 45% they want the state pension to be devolved, by 60% to 33% they want the minimum wage to be devolved, by 60% to 32% they want health and safety regulations, consumer protection and competition law to be devolved, by an eye-popping 86% to 8% they want the running of Scottish elections to be devolved, and by 50% to 40% they want laws relating to abortion, embryo research and medicine to be devolved.
The only exception is that there is very narrow support - by 45% to 43% - for "broadcasting regulation and the BBC" to remain reserved to Westminster. That contradicts the Panelbase finding, and in my view it's somewhat misleading due to the question wording. By specifically bringing the "British Broadcasting Corporation" into it, some respondents are likely to be puzzled as to how a Britain-wide organisation based in London can be devolved to Scotland. My strong guess is that if the question had simply asked about broadcasting regulation, there would have been a similar result to the Panelbase poll, with a narrow majority in favour of devolving the powers to the Scottish Parliament. Having said that, the fact that the result is essentially level-pegging even when respondents are confronted with the sacred cow of the BBC is quite telling.
The other key finding from the poll is nothing short of devastating for Jim Murphy and the Labour party. Voters are asked how they would vote in the 2016 Holyrood elections on the hypothetical basis that Nicola Sturgeon is the SNP leader and Jim Murphy is the Labour leader - and the answer is no different to the headline Holyrood results, with the SNP maintaining a whopping 18% lead. Normally when a party is looking to be saved by a "king over the water" (such as Michael Heseltine in 1990), hypothetical "named leader" polls produce radically different results, so quite plainly voters do not regard Murphy as the game-changer that London bubble journalists have convinced themselves he is. And it can't really be credibly argued that voters will be more impressed by Murphy when they see more of him - he's barely been off the bloody television for months. By contrast, the SNP lead is reduced (albeit only to 13%) when voters are pointlessly asked to imagine that Gordon Brown is the Labour leader, although even then the SNP vote isn't affected - Labour's extra support is drawn from other parties.
* * *
SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS
This is the first Poll of Polls update we've had that has included two full-scale Scottish polls (from Ipsos-Mori and YouGov respectively), so it's the most credible one so far. It also factors in five Scottish subsamples from GB-wide polls - four from YouGov and one from Populus.
Scottish voting intentions for the May 2015 UK general election :
SNP 45.8% (-1.4)
Labour 25.6% (+1.2)
Conservatives 13.8% (+0.9)
Liberal Democrats 5.0% (-1.1)
Greens 4.7% (-0.4)
UKIP 4.1% (+1.0)
(The Poll of Polls uses the Scottish subsamples from all GB-wide polls that have been conducted entirely within the last seven days and for which datasets have been provided, and also all full-scale Scottish polls that have been conducted at least partly within the last seven days. Full-scale polls are given ten times the weighting of subsamples.)
The only exception is that there is very narrow support - by 45% to 43% - for "broadcasting regulation and the BBC" to remain reserved to Westminster. That contradicts the Panelbase finding, and in my view it's somewhat misleading due to the question wording. By specifically bringing the "British Broadcasting Corporation" into it, some respondents are likely to be puzzled as to how a Britain-wide organisation based in London can be devolved to Scotland. My strong guess is that if the question had simply asked about broadcasting regulation, there would have been a similar result to the Panelbase poll, with a narrow majority in favour of devolving the powers to the Scottish Parliament. Having said that, the fact that the result is essentially level-pegging even when respondents are confronted with the sacred cow of the BBC is quite telling.
The other key finding from the poll is nothing short of devastating for Jim Murphy and the Labour party. Voters are asked how they would vote in the 2016 Holyrood elections on the hypothetical basis that Nicola Sturgeon is the SNP leader and Jim Murphy is the Labour leader - and the answer is no different to the headline Holyrood results, with the SNP maintaining a whopping 18% lead. Normally when a party is looking to be saved by a "king over the water" (such as Michael Heseltine in 1990), hypothetical "named leader" polls produce radically different results, so quite plainly voters do not regard Murphy as the game-changer that London bubble journalists have convinced themselves he is. And it can't really be credibly argued that voters will be more impressed by Murphy when they see more of him - he's barely been off the bloody television for months. By contrast, the SNP lead is reduced (albeit only to 13%) when voters are pointlessly asked to imagine that Gordon Brown is the Labour leader, although even then the SNP vote isn't affected - Labour's extra support is drawn from other parties.
* * *
SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS
This is the first Poll of Polls update we've had that has included two full-scale Scottish polls (from Ipsos-Mori and YouGov respectively), so it's the most credible one so far. It also factors in five Scottish subsamples from GB-wide polls - four from YouGov and one from Populus.
Scottish voting intentions for the May 2015 UK general election :
SNP 45.8% (-1.4)
Labour 25.6% (+1.2)
Conservatives 13.8% (+0.9)
Liberal Democrats 5.0% (-1.1)
Greens 4.7% (-0.4)
UKIP 4.1% (+1.0)
(The Poll of Polls uses the Scottish subsamples from all GB-wide polls that have been conducted entirely within the last seven days and for which datasets have been provided, and also all full-scale Scottish polls that have been conducted at least partly within the last seven days. Full-scale polls are given ten times the weighting of subsamples.)
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Hosie Hosie Hoo Hah, I said Hoo Hah Hoo Hah Hosie
I've just voted for Stewart Hosie in the SNP deputy leader election. I know that won't come as any great surprise to regular readers, because I explained my thinking at the end of last month. However, that was before Angela Constance's late entry into the race, which has given me severe pause for thought. Her passionate pledge to ensure that the SNP never takes its eyes off the goal of an independent Scotland, and to put the party in a permanent state of readiness for the next opportunity whenever it comes, is I'm sure what all of us want to hear. However, I think at moments like this we really have to put our faith in the basic nature of the SNP as a pro-independence party. As Winnie Ewing memorably said : "We are all fundamentalists." Each and every one of us is committed to full sovereign independence - the only disagreement is on the most effective tactics for getting us to the goal. And no-one has a monopoly of wisdom on that score. In many ways it comes down to gut instinct about what would be most likely to work.
My own gut instinct is that Stewart Hosie and Angela Constance are absolutely right to back the idea of a "Yes Alliance" at next year's general election (Keith Brown seems much less keen). However, I'm more impressed by the clarity of Hosie's vision for that alliance, which is to push relentlessly for the devolution of all powers other than foreign affairs and defence. If that's the path we follow, it will put the SNP in the unique position of being the only major party that has made its peace with the referendum result, and has declared itself as being on the side of the popular will as expressed on September 18th. Because that popular will was for Devo Max. Not for full independence (yet), but most certainly not for Labour's Devo Nano either, or for the Tories' Devo Bit More, or even for the Lib Dems' Federalism Lite. Imagine the moral authority of a nationalist party that is the only authentic voice for a large chunk of No voters who want a devolution settlement that goes way beyond what the anti-independence parties are prepared to offer. I gather J K Rowling said that she would vote No and then back any party that offered Devo Max - well, if the Hosie vision carries the day, we'll all be holding our breath for the inevitable £1 million donation winging its way to the SNP from Hogwarts. (Apologies if that joke doesn't entirely make sense - as you've probably gathered, I'm not a Harry Potter fan.)
None of this means that we lose sight of the goal of independence - far from it. Making a success of the current weak devolution model paved the way for a 45% Yes vote. Achieving Devo Max and then making a success of it (thus comprehensively destroying almost all of the scare stories about independence) could pave the way for a comfortable victory in a second referendum. Alternatively, if the mandate for Devo Max becomes stronger and stronger with every passing election but without any sign of Westminster acting upon it, that in itself will bring independence closer, because it will demonstrate to the electorate that the United Kingdom is utterly incapable of accommodating our legitimate aspirations for domestic self-rule.
There are two other advantages to Hosie being the deputy leader. The first is that he is, in my view, the most charismatic of the three candidates, and also the most effective debater. Above all else, the deputy leader is one of the party's key spokespeople - we've become used to the position being held by the most charismatic person in the party other than the leader, and I think we should probably aim to continue in that vein. In the literal sense that means Alex Salmond should be the deputy leader, but obviously he's excluded from the equation because he'll now be the SNP's equivalent of George Foulkes as a "senior" all-purpose media go-to man. (I know in one sense that does the First Minister the biggest disservice in history, but I'm also sure you know what I mean!)
The second advantage is that Hosie is a Westminster MP. The dream scenario next May is that the SNP will hold the balance of power with 15, 20 or even 30 seats, and will be able to negotiate a deal with Labour that would simultaneously get the Tories out and deliver Devo Max (or at the very least something much closer to Devo Max than is currently being contemplated in London). We would need a lot of luck for the cards to fall in exactly the right way, but it's not inconceivable. If it did happen, it would be ideal to have Hosie in Westminster speaking with the full authority of the deputy leadership position. And don't completely rule out the possibility of Angus Robertson as Deputy Prime Minister of the UK in a Labour/SNP coalition with Stewart Hosie as Scottish Secretary (or vice versa). I know most people in the SNP would at the moment dismiss that idea as utterly fanciful, but if it came to the crunch and there was an opportunity to deliver Devo Max, who would you trust to deliver it more than an SNP government minister?
To return to the proposal for a Yes Alliance, you might be wondering if there are any risks attached to it. There are indeed, and probably the best recent example of how an electoral pact (albeit an extremely informal one) can spectacularly backfire came in 2003. The SSP, back in the pre-split days when it was still led by Tommy Sheridan, decided not to stand candidates against Labour incumbents who were viewed as genuine socialists. But it had the opposite effect to the one intended, because the swing from Labour to SNP was actually bigger where the SSP didn't stand. It turned out that natural SSP voters were people who would otherwise gravitate towards the SNP, and not towards Labour. Most notably, this led to John McAllion losing his Dundee East seat to Shona Robison.
So there are things that can go wrong, but in my view it's definitely worth the risk. It's misguided to look at the SNP's current strength in the opinion polls and think that all we need to do is more of the same. If the rigged TV leaders' debates are allowed to go ahead as currently proposed, the lead could disappear in a puff of smoke overnight. We really need to think out of the box if we're going to do what we've never done before (with one partial exception in 1974) - make a telling breakthrough on "away soil".
For all those reasons, it's Stewart Hosie for me. But I was sufficiently impressed by Angela Constance's pitch to give her my second preference vote.
My own gut instinct is that Stewart Hosie and Angela Constance are absolutely right to back the idea of a "Yes Alliance" at next year's general election (Keith Brown seems much less keen). However, I'm more impressed by the clarity of Hosie's vision for that alliance, which is to push relentlessly for the devolution of all powers other than foreign affairs and defence. If that's the path we follow, it will put the SNP in the unique position of being the only major party that has made its peace with the referendum result, and has declared itself as being on the side of the popular will as expressed on September 18th. Because that popular will was for Devo Max. Not for full independence (yet), but most certainly not for Labour's Devo Nano either, or for the Tories' Devo Bit More, or even for the Lib Dems' Federalism Lite. Imagine the moral authority of a nationalist party that is the only authentic voice for a large chunk of No voters who want a devolution settlement that goes way beyond what the anti-independence parties are prepared to offer. I gather J K Rowling said that she would vote No and then back any party that offered Devo Max - well, if the Hosie vision carries the day, we'll all be holding our breath for the inevitable £1 million donation winging its way to the SNP from Hogwarts. (Apologies if that joke doesn't entirely make sense - as you've probably gathered, I'm not a Harry Potter fan.)
None of this means that we lose sight of the goal of independence - far from it. Making a success of the current weak devolution model paved the way for a 45% Yes vote. Achieving Devo Max and then making a success of it (thus comprehensively destroying almost all of the scare stories about independence) could pave the way for a comfortable victory in a second referendum. Alternatively, if the mandate for Devo Max becomes stronger and stronger with every passing election but without any sign of Westminster acting upon it, that in itself will bring independence closer, because it will demonstrate to the electorate that the United Kingdom is utterly incapable of accommodating our legitimate aspirations for domestic self-rule.
There are two other advantages to Hosie being the deputy leader. The first is that he is, in my view, the most charismatic of the three candidates, and also the most effective debater. Above all else, the deputy leader is one of the party's key spokespeople - we've become used to the position being held by the most charismatic person in the party other than the leader, and I think we should probably aim to continue in that vein. In the literal sense that means Alex Salmond should be the deputy leader, but obviously he's excluded from the equation because he'll now be the SNP's equivalent of George Foulkes as a "senior" all-purpose media go-to man. (I know in one sense that does the First Minister the biggest disservice in history, but I'm also sure you know what I mean!)
The second advantage is that Hosie is a Westminster MP. The dream scenario next May is that the SNP will hold the balance of power with 15, 20 or even 30 seats, and will be able to negotiate a deal with Labour that would simultaneously get the Tories out and deliver Devo Max (or at the very least something much closer to Devo Max than is currently being contemplated in London). We would need a lot of luck for the cards to fall in exactly the right way, but it's not inconceivable. If it did happen, it would be ideal to have Hosie in Westminster speaking with the full authority of the deputy leadership position. And don't completely rule out the possibility of Angus Robertson as Deputy Prime Minister of the UK in a Labour/SNP coalition with Stewart Hosie as Scottish Secretary (or vice versa). I know most people in the SNP would at the moment dismiss that idea as utterly fanciful, but if it came to the crunch and there was an opportunity to deliver Devo Max, who would you trust to deliver it more than an SNP government minister?
To return to the proposal for a Yes Alliance, you might be wondering if there are any risks attached to it. There are indeed, and probably the best recent example of how an electoral pact (albeit an extremely informal one) can spectacularly backfire came in 2003. The SSP, back in the pre-split days when it was still led by Tommy Sheridan, decided not to stand candidates against Labour incumbents who were viewed as genuine socialists. But it had the opposite effect to the one intended, because the swing from Labour to SNP was actually bigger where the SSP didn't stand. It turned out that natural SSP voters were people who would otherwise gravitate towards the SNP, and not towards Labour. Most notably, this led to John McAllion losing his Dundee East seat to Shona Robison.
So there are things that can go wrong, but in my view it's definitely worth the risk. It's misguided to look at the SNP's current strength in the opinion polls and think that all we need to do is more of the same. If the rigged TV leaders' debates are allowed to go ahead as currently proposed, the lead could disappear in a puff of smoke overnight. We really need to think out of the box if we're going to do what we've never done before (with one partial exception in 1974) - make a telling breakthrough on "away soil".
For all those reasons, it's Stewart Hosie for me. But I was sufficiently impressed by Angela Constance's pitch to give her my second preference vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)