open Democracy News Analysis - Calman, shared social citizenship, and the defence of the union, Tom Griffin - Comments

Hendre on "Calman, shared social citizenship, and the defence of the union"

Hendre — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:21:59 +0000

In terms of shared social citizenship and devolution I think we all know one of the main sources of tension to date – policies with easily calculable financial benefits.

The Welsh Assembly Government has decided to bring all hospital cleaning in-house except where long-term commercial contracts need to be fulfilled. This has barely been reported upon outside Wales but when the Assembly Government extended the principle to hospital car parking this was immediately picked up by the London media and added to the CEP list of ‘discriminatory’ policies – people could calculate in pounds and pence what this divergent policy meant to them.

One of the earliest and most popular Assembly policies was the all-Wales bus pass entitling free travel throughout Wales for pensioners. I can recall a spokesman for the Department of Transport pronouncing rather sniffily in the Western Mail that the Welsh policy was ‘unsustainable’ but, lo and behold, a similar all-England bus pass has now been introduced. This policy didn’t become headline news probably because most councils in England had some sort of concessionary scheme in place and therefore the financial benefit was less obvious.

The Welsh decision to abolish SATS would have been noted in education circles in England but it took a god-almighty mess with the marking for there to be a greater public appreciation that only English school children were still sitting these exams.

The bans on hunting and smoking in Scotland were viewed with interest on the whole in England but the policy on student grants and fees with anger.

And what of free prescription charges? The Assembly Government has pointed out quite rightly that the list of exemptions hadn’t been reviewed in years and anomalies had arisen. The Assembly could have tinkered at the edges but decided on a bold policy of abolition. It has justified this by noting that Wales has higher levels of chronic sickness coupled with a low wage economy – removing the burden of prescription fees could help the chronic sick back into work. However most Welsh commentators would agree that the Assembly – or rather Welsh Labour – was having a bit of an ‘eye-catching initiative’ moment.

One question that needs to be explored is even if more equitable – in English eyes – funding arrangements were found would policies with calculable financial benefits still impinge on a shared social citizenship?

In Brian Taylor’s comments I think I detect a certain concern that the pendulum may swing too much against all forms of divergence – after all what is the point of devolution if we can’t do some things differently.

alex_buchan on "Calman, shared social citizenship, and the defence of the union"

alex_buchan — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:23:02 +0000

£500, 000 may seem a lot if Calman is merely stating the obvious, perhaps not so, as far as Brown is concerned, if Calman is laying down the intellectual basis for an about turn and a partial return to the old unionist verities.

But democratic collectivism as an ideology does not have the allegiance of Scots in the way it used to and might just stick in their throats. They've got used to the democratic republican spirit unleashed by the constitutional convention.

We shall have to wait and see what the repercussions are if Westminster tries to reverse devolution as Anthony suggest on the back of Calman. No doubt they will try to muddy the water with some ineffectual powers going the other way.

padav on "Calman, shared social citizenship, and the defence of the union"

padav — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:48:11 +0000

I’ve not had time to fully digest the Calman Commission’s initial output but one rather obvious fact sticks out.

Based admittedly on media interpretations, what does the
Commission’s apparent rejection of the principle of full fiscal
autonomy for Scotland mean exactly? For me the vital word in this
phrase is “full”

We already knew that the Calman Commission was unlikely to deliver
radical solutions simply because its terms of reference are based on
retaining the constitutional framework provided by the United Kingdom.

I have no problem with this underlining principle but what I
have to question is the unspoken assumption of a United Kingdom at ease
with itself.

The entire edifice called “The United Kingdom” also desperately
requires root and branch reform. This is patently obvious to all but
“those who will not see”. Unfortunately this latter enclave includes
the movers and shakers in Whitehall.

In the words of Brian Taylor, BBC Scotland’s political editor:
“Calman endorses the view of the earlier submission by Professor Anton
Muscatelli’s team that it is critical to decide what form of devolution
one wants then to design a funding system to suit.”

This immediately begs a question; If the entity from which devolved
governance is being considered, is itself in need of urgent wholesale
reform, what chance is there of an equitable outcome for the devolved
territory in question? No wonder the SNP boycotted the whole affair?

Within the context of an essentially unitary United Kingdom
framework, the Calman Commission’s output to date seems measured,
deliberate and ultimately quite sensible.

However, this merely sidesteps the wider issue so I return to that seminal word again “full”

In stark contrast, a Federal UK framework - perfectly compatible with
retention of the key policy portfolios specified by Calman;
Constitution, Defence, National Security, Foreign Affairs, Currency
& Coinage - at UK level, full fiscal independence for a
semi-autonomous Scotland also makes perfect sense.

The problem here is, of course, that adoption of a Federal agenda
would provide Calman’s ultimate paymasters with an even bigger
headache. How to solve the perennial conundrum better known as “The
United Kingdom”?

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edg, NW.England

Toque on "Calman, shared social citizenship, and the defence of the union"

Toque — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:57:37 +0000

Oh I see, Marquand is arguing against collectivism. Thank goodness for that. It's beginning to sound like a book I might enjoy reading.

I read Calman last night through drooping eyelids. I can't believe that they spent £500,000 on something that states the obvious and then only offers an uninspiring list of possible hedge-your-bets solutions. It does seem like a step backwards, especially, if like me, you think the problem is with where sovereignty is located, rather than with the union itself.

Anthony Barnett on "Calman, shared social citizenship, and the defence of the union"

Anthony Barnett — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:09:31 +0000

Hi Toque - Marquand's is a critique (and description) of the statist approach of democratic collectivism. I've not read Calman but I'm pretty sure that there is now a Westminster desire to rein in and reverse devolution so that it is 'safely' domesticated into a Union politics. Maybe they should have asked Pandora to chair it.

Toque on "Calman, shared social citizenship, and the defence of the union"

Toque — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:10:39 +0000

I'm not sure that I entirely understand Marquand's democratic collectivism, but wouldn't all the citizens of the UK need to be similarly empowered in order for that to be the case; for each citizen to stand in equal relationship to each other and in their relationship to the state?

Or can Scotland embrace democratic collectivism on its own?

The national identity (which is the difference that drove devolution, and drives separatism and divergence) is collected, not collective. If the English and Scottish are to have a collective state identity- and I see no reason why that cannot be the case - rather than just their historic collected identities, then they must surely stand in equal relationship with the state, as citizens. To my mind that means federation and a codified constitution.

Unlock Democracy's press release is fairly on the money as far as I am concerened. There needs to be conventions addressing the national questions that then feed into a UK-wide convention that deliberates on how (and to what extent) we want a collective UK identity.

Calman has it arse-about-face because they start from the position that there should be a collective UK identity of shared citizenship and turn their attention on how to shoe-horn Scottish aspirations of nation-state-hood into that, without even complimentary processes occuring in England, Wales and NI, or even account being taken of the other national sensibilities. Doomed to failure.

Calman, shared social citizenship, and the defence of the union, Tom Griffin

Tom Griffin — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:45:43 +0000

Tom Griffin (London, OK): Over at Unlock Democracy, Deputy Director Alexandra Runswick warns the Calman Commission against considering Scottish devolution in isolation from the wider UK constitutional settlement.

Sadly the First Report suggests this may well happen. For example, it warns against greater financial autonomy on the grounds that it would lead to less ’shared social citizenship.’ That may be true in Scotland but the experience suggests that, if anything, the lack of financial autonomy is causing resentment in England and goes to the heart of Tam Dalyell’s West Lothian Question. Fundamentally, we believe this to be a false dichotomy; a fairer and more transparent financial settlement will be good for Anglo-Scottish relations on both sides of the border.

The BBC's Brian Taylor suggests that Calman's concept of 'shared social citizenship' is at the heart of an intellectual defence of the union.

Calman starts from the standpoint of backing the economic union, the defence union, the monetary union and the diplomatic union.

Of greater interest are the views upon a socially integrated Union.

The report asks whether social provision - pensions, welfare, health, education - should be broadly identical from Cornwall to Caithness.

If yes, then that would constrain the potential for further devolution. Essentially, Calman is asking: at what point does social policy autonomy start to place strain upon the Union, thus defined? With free prescriptions in Scotland? With health charges in England? With welfare autonomy?

As both Runswick and Taylor recognise, the concept of 'shared social citizenship' is at odds with the divergence in social policy across the UK that has already happened as a result of devolution. The logic of devolution as 'a process not an event' would suggest that the resulting imbalances should be dealt with by giving Holyrood greater responsibility for financing its own policies. One might have thought that Calman's remit was about finding ways to achieve this.

The Commission's shared social citizenship approach suggests an alternative possibility, that would reign in the divergence of the last ten years. Brian Taylor sees the prospect of a needs assessement that would reduce the scope for Scotland to pursue its more generous social policies in the long term.

If this is the path the Commission goes down, it would be, in David Marquand's terminology, a triumph of democratic collectivism over the democratic republicanism that created the Scottish Parliament.