open Democracy News Analysis - Devolution - Comments

joe.middleton on "Review: Breaking up Britain"

joe.middleton — Mon, 25 May 2009 17:29:33 +0100

I think what is coming across from this article is that Mr Hassan does not understand the SNP and his past allegiance to Labour has left him with an irrational hatred and fear of all nationalism.

I also don’t recognise the description provided of the book ‘Eclipse of Scottish Culture’. This in fact argued that Nairn was to an extent viewing Scotland unfairly through a British/Marxist prism of understanding while still agreeing with his ultimate conclusions that the British state deserved to break up.

The SNP are a principled left of centre party. In UK terms they and Plaid Cymru are considerably to the left of Labour as indeed are Sinn Fein.

Isobel Lindsay (who has been a member of both Labour and SNP) in the current issue of Scottish left review analyses the SNP programme in office and comes to this overall conclusion.

The few right wing twitches which she does identify are very few and far between. The position on the 48 hour week (not advocating the cut off in working hours) is unfortunate and is a fair example.

If this issue was discussed at a party conference however I have little doubt it would be adjusted the other way and I suggest that insufficient internal debate have allowed the SNP's MEP's to take such a stance.

Finishing off an uncompleted motorway is not an betrayal of leftist values however but a logical end to a half done job! The reduction in rates for business is an attempt to equalise an area where Scots business had been paying a traditionally higher rate. It has been party policy for ten years to do this so it is not a change in direction.

Overall the SNP as a minority Government have did the best they can despite a unionist opposition which has worked together when required.

Labour in London denied them funds with a lower than normal block grant and Labour, Tories and Lib Dems all banded together to force through the expensive Edinburgh trams project. This has left the SNP vulnerable to attacks that they have not fulfilled their entire manifesto by those same parties who deliberately denied then the funds to do so!

Nonetheless they did remove Tuition fees and have taken what progressive measures they can within a restricted budget.

I am looking forward to reading the full book but certainly the chapters I have read have been a valid and indeed important contribution to the ongoing debate. Kev's concentration on the culture of nationalism is I think a lot more important and relevant than any person within the current British establishment would like to admit.

It is a cultural fight and onslaught we face with a constant stream of British flag waving entertainment (much of it trivial but the underlying jingoism is there) and a deliberate campaign to ignore Gaelic and our other national language, Scots.

Those who have championed the Scots language like Kelman and Welsh have therefore engaged Britain at a level where it is most vulnerable and the cultural connection is extremely important to understanding the state we are in today. It is also crucial to providing the confidence to vote us out of it.

naldo on "Review: Breaking up Britain"

naldo — Mon, 11 May 2009 23:49:05 +0100

Gerry, you're at it again:

"It is a complex beast Scottish nationalism and we need to acknowledge that – as it has reshaped Scottish politics these last forty years - while paradoxically being a very conservative and very British form of nationalism."

What is very conservative and very British about Scottish nationalism?

The people i know who support Scotish independence do so out of a desire to break away from the conservative two party state that the UK has become and they genuinely want to change the whole of the UK, for the better not just Scotland.

I don't know what you mean by a British form of nationalism (and maybe you'll enlighten me) but it sounds far more sinister than the cause of Scottish independence.

Gerry Hassan1 on "Review: Breaking up Britain"

Gerry Hassan1 — Mon, 11 May 2009 00:30:58 +0100

Thank you Mark for your comments and responding acknowledging the relevance of some of them.

However, you have misunderstood significantly what I wrote in one respect in my recent post. At no point or place do I talk about the ‘party line’ of one-quarter of the book in my post. What I am talking about is the sense of an ‘official story’ or more accurately the perceived wisdom of the ‘counter official’ perspective.

As I said this comes across very powerfully in the Scottish chapters which are defined by this account of the story of ‘official Scotland’ and the ‘counter-stories’ we know so well. This is a much deeper issue than ‘party’, but about an inability to go beyond conventional wisdoms – either sometimes of the mainstream, or of the supposed alternatives.

Thus, we have in the Scottish contributions two chapters seeing neo-liberalism everywhere and two which don’t take into account the battering of Scots social democracy by the onslaught of the last thirty years.

It is also true that none of these contributions really get to grips with the inter-relationship of Scottish nationalism to social democracy – although this is the explicit aim of one chapter, which just does not do it – and also – to neo-liberalism. It is a complex beast Scottish nationalism and we need to acknowledge that – as it has reshaped Scottish politics these last forty years - while paradoxically being a very conservative and very British form of nationalism.

Kevin Williamson on "Review: Breaking up Britain"

Kevin Williamson — Sun, 10 May 2009 16:26:37 +0100

It's always interesting to read Gerry's views on various matters but this time round it's difficult to ascertain exactly what his problems with this new book are.

The remit of the book is pretty clear. It attempts to shed some light on the subterreanean forces which are inexorably pulling apart UK plc into four separate entities. The book achieves this, as far any such book could. Bear in mind that this book breaks new ground, bringing these ideas into the public domain in all four countures simultaneously.

Lets be fair here. There's already a mountain of essays and articles which defend the Act of Union and all who sail in her. These can be found in every newsagent, library and bookshop. I dont doubt that thousands more lie on the intellectual (and non intellectual) production line.

Gerry's political outlook is mainly concerned with mainstream social democratic perspectives. Gerry believes that the Thatcher revolution - which put publicly-owned and publiclyfinanced industries into the hands of private shareholders - was in some way progressive because it was responsible for the break-up of the labourist state. Fair enough. He's not alone in that respect. I'll agree to disagree.

But on the national question he also seems to have a problem the wisdom or veracity of "lefties" like myself moving from the centrality of an economistic/statist position (my words) to one where national liberation is centre stage (also my words). Why? Surely a better response would be: "aboot time an aw".

For the progressive left to understand that democratic change and the decentralisation of power can lead to radical or profound economic changes - but not the other way round - will be what marks its maturity into a credible force capable of challenging the hegemony of neoliberal orthodoxies.

Reading Gerry's other concerns about the four Scottish essays in the collection - including my own - makes me wonder if he read them properly or simply glossed over them, perhaps while working on other projects, in a rush to write the above review.

I also suspect from his comments that Gerry's feels he should have picked the four contributors himself, and only then would they provide the necessary weight!

But who are these recognised influential people Gerry feels should have been included, those he feels have created the Scotland of today? Tom Nairn? Perhaps. But more so than, say, Alasdair Gray? This is a matter of opinion. In this case the book's editor. You pays yer money.

There was another misleading observation in Gerry's review. The main thrust of my own chapter was not raking over the embers of the SSP project as he implicitly claims - this only merited a few short paragraphs in mine and none at all in two of the other three Scottish contributors - but was to take a longer historical and cultural perspective and make the case for why Scotland's creative artists, writers and radical thinkers have been more influential (in my opinion) than mainstream politicans or political commentators and analysts in preparing the ground for Scottish independence.

After reading Gerry's contribution to Imagined Nation: England After Britain (a previous book also edited by Mark Perryman) I wonder too if Gerry is beginning to realise that his analysis of the process of Devolution-Independence may get the pace of events all wrong.

2010 and 2011 loom very large on the horizon. When the Scottish people are finally alowed to speak as a majority for independence - no matter how slim that majority may be - all bets are off. The Break of Britain will take on its own momentum. The timescale will not be determined by London.

Gerry concludes his review suggesting that "the sinking below the waves of the good ship Late Britannia could take a lot of us with it ". If, by this, he means unionist politicians, and political analysts who cant quite let go of the concept of the UK, then perhaps he's right. And we'll be the better off as a result.

However, if his complaint is regarding the lack of analysis of the specific constitutional problems that will be faced by the four new democratic spaces emerging from the wreckage of UK plc.... then that is surely outwith the remit of this particular book.

Have no fear, this a subject which will pre-occupy the thoughts of our country soon enough, once an Independence referendum in Scotland becomes a reality. Only a thin red, white and blue line of fearty anti-democratic LibDems are preventing this from becoming a reality in 2010. It's that close.

Mark Perryman on "Review: Breaking up Britain"

Mark Perryman — Sun, 10 May 2009 15:47:34 +0100

Gerry makes two good points and two not so good ones. Tho' all are most helpful in terms of the debate.

First good one, the enduring electoral presence of the Greens in the Scottish Parliament. This is briefly referred to in the book, but not enough. Tho' on the green dimension to civic nationalism Gery might have mentioned Leanne Wood's excellent chapter on this which is available as a free download here>

http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/books/archive/Breaking_up_Britain_wood.pdf

Second good point, the process of the break up has to be made not assumed. It will be subject to all sorts of stops n starts and the outcome to be certain will be bitterly contested, particularly in England. However the point of the book is a wake up call to that section of the Left, again particularly in England, which has scarcely noted the consequences of ten years of devolution for a 'British' politics and remans blithely unaware of the potential of acceleration towards the break up in the next ten years. This isn't the politics of asumption, its the politics of preparedness.

First bad point. There is no obsession with the SSP, it is Gerry who appears obsessed with the fact that the SSP gets a mention. What is noted is the momentary fusion of nationalism and hard left politics which combined with the charismatic leadership of Tommy Sheridan secured six MSPs. Living in England this is a breakthrough we can only dream of. With a similar PR electoral system for the Greater London Assembly not a single outside left candidate has ever been elected. The SSP scarcely merited a mention in the London-centric media so that imbalance is corrected in this book, nothing more, nothing less.

Second bad point. Gerry describes the book once again as carrying too much of the 'party line'. Readers will have to make up their own mind on that but I find the point unfair, I would I'm the collection's editor! But the point of the collection was a meaningful 4-nation dialogue, to somehow bypass nationalist politicians would be perverse, pleasingly they all wrote innovative and original pirces rather than the party line Gerry accuses them of, including Gerry Adams' speech. Sinn Fein's Ard Fheis is barely covered outside of Ireland, Adam's speech is an interesting document, in large measure providing the kind of definition of social-democracy Gerry demands of the book.

Mark Perryman

Gerry Hassan1 on "Review: Breaking up Britain"

Gerry Hassan1 — Sun, 10 May 2009 14:08:13 +0100

I going to try and respond to as many of the comments on my review as possible.

First, on Sinn Fein Tom Griffin makes a good set of points about developments in the party and I agree with him. There is however something off with Adam’s contribution coming from a speech: an air of the official, unreflective and tribalist.

Second, this takes me to a wider problem with many of the contributors: how there is a strange feel of ‘official perspective’ or more accurately received wisdom ‘counter-official’ perspective. This comes across fundamentally in the Scottish contributions – which articulate a very tired, not very subtle set of assumptions about ‘official Scotland’ and that ‘counter-story’.

Let me explore this briefly. In the Scottish contributions, there are two discernable strands. One goes on about a romantic leftdom and seeing neo-liberalism everywhere along with their approved ‘red shoots’ of resistance (SSP etc): Williamson, Gall. Another identifies a social democratic politics which has reshaped Scotland without defining this centre-left politics and how it has been corroded by neo-liberalism: Riddoch, Thomson.

Now there are good points in all of the chapters but these approaches: a romantic leftdom seeing neo-libs everywhere and an unreflective social democracy oblivious to how burnt out and damaged it is doesn’t get us very far. They don’t explore the subtleties and nuance of Scottish politics: the negotiation between social democracy and neo-liberalism in all the main parties, or the SNP’s attempt in government to develop a ‘neo-liberalism with a heart’ while winning centre-left plaudits.

Where is ‘pseudo-leftism in Scotland justifying right-wing politics’? Some of the most right-wing Labour politicians: Brown, John Reid, Brian Wilson, have invoked Scotland’s radical traditions going on at points about various struggles (UCS, Highland radicalism) while selling the family silver. And there is a bit of this in the SNP’s advance of neo-liberalism. Similarly, left romantics who overstate the reach and significance of some of these struggles as Williamson and Gall do in their chapters, do no service to a radical politics challenging this conservative sentiment.

The problem with this left romanticism can be seen in the present day obsession with the SSP, a totally spent force, They were a fascinating force to write on in 1999-2003 when I published a survey on them which Mark Perryman approves of and destroyed themselves in 2004-5. The current story of multi-party politics in Scotland beyond the Westminster established parties isn’t the SSP, but the fascinating story – completely unexplored in the book – of the permanent fixture and real influence of the Greens.

Finally, Tom Griffin makes the point that you don’t have ‘to be a unionist to see the significance of the pan-UK strategic dimension’. Despite what Tom then says this book sadly completely ignores this, assuming we are heading for a politics of Balkanisation and fragmentation. This argument has to be made not taken as given, and the nature of fragmentation and remaking will be influenced by the British state and how Britishness evolves across the four nations, This book does not acknowledge or advance those kind of conversations and dialogues.

Mark Perryman on "Review: Breaking up Britain"

Mark Perryman — Sun, 10 May 2009 06:16:05 +0100

Like you I'm confused by that comment of Gerry's. The Scottish contributions are wide-ranging including BBC Radio Scotland broadcaster Lesley Riddoch and former SNP Head of Campaigns Richard Thomson.

Gerry and I disagree on the scale of the importance of the SSP 'moment', I happen to think the biggest electoral breakthrough by an outside left party since the CP in 1945 merits some consideration including the reasons for the subsequent implosion, Gerry doesn't. Which is rather strange since the best analysis I've read of the SSP's electoral growth was in a book Gerry himself edited.

I can only think he is referring to Kevin Williamson's superb review of the revival of a Scottish cultural nationalism. You can read Kevin's chapter as a FREE download here>

http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/books/archive/Breaking_up_Britain_Williamson.pdf

naldo on "Review: Breaking up Britain"

naldo — Fri, 08 May 2009 16:17:30 +0100

I haven't read the book myself but am surprised at some of your assertions in the review, the most glaring of which is:

"There is a deep and powerful pseudo-leftism in Scotland which this kind of romanticism validates: invoking ‘Red Clydeside' and ancient battles while upholding some of the most mean spirited, right-wing politics anywhere in the UK."

Can you explain what these mean spirited, right-wing politics are?

Tom Griffin on "Review: Breaking up Britain"

Tom Griffin — Thu, 07 May 2009 17:01:08 +0100

I can't imagine I am the only one feeling a tad uncomfortable at the inclusion of Gerry Adams. Dialogue and engagement are necessary, but there is something profoundly nasty and nauseating at the heart of Sinn Finn's politics which is vindicated in some way by being included.

There's no doubt that Irish republicans face profound and unresolved questions over their role in the Troubles, but that is true of unionism and of the British state as well.

Clichés about the dark heart of Sinn Féin risk shoring up the kind of rigid essentialism which has characterised the most hardline narratives on both sides and closing down any deeper analysis of why people in the North made the various choices that they did.

Some of the recent writing from people like Eoin Ó Broin suggests that Sinn Féin is beginning to develop a more critical reassessment of its own past. http://tinyurl.com/dz76ns

Those developments aren't really reflected in Adams' contribution which is based on his speech to this year's party conference. That speech was largely around domestic economic issues in the Republic, and attempted to reposition the party as an alternative to neo-liberalism after a period in which the Celtic Tiger had been seen as a key driver for Irish unity. (There are significant parallels with the dilemmas which Gerry has identified facing the post credit crunch SNP. http://tinyurl.com/dy94aq)

It isn't however a direct engagement with the overall argument of the book, which is a particular pity given that Sinn Féin is supposed to be launching a campaign in support of Irish unity in Britain next year.

I'm not surprised by that given that Sinn Féin is a relatively small organisation facing some big political challenges in both parts of Ireland.

Perhaps similarly parochial priorities elsewhere prevent the conversation from gelling more as a whole, and maybe that's in the nature of the various nationalisms.

I don't think however, that you have to be a unionist to see the significance of the pan-UK strategic dimension, especially not with the prospect of a Conservative Government to concentrate minds on the left. In that respect, this is a very timely book.

Sean Mac Bradaigh on "Review: Breaking up Britain"

Sean Mac Bradaigh — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:16:57 +0100

Re the review of Breaking up Britain. The sweeping assertion that "there is something profoundly nasty and nauseating at the heart of Sinn Finn's politics" is not backed up by any examples or evidence. It is a disgraceful, arrogant and unnecessary comment that is an insult to the hundreds and thousands of people in Ireland, North and South who vote for Sinn Féin.

Mark P on "Review: Breaking up Britain"

Mark P — Thu, 07 May 2009 13:19:13 +0100

I have a huge amount of respect for Gerry's writing but in responding to Breaking up Britain I feel he has three points more than a shade wrong.

First on Gerry Adams. I hold no brief for Sinn Fein but the point is they are the majority nationalist party in Northern Ireland, a significant political force in the Republic and their politics are now essentially social-democratic. Gerry's chapter is prt of section which examines the politics of civic nationalism from the SNP, PLaid and from England Salma Yaqoob examing the potential for a cross-community politics out of Muslim community activism To dismiss the place of Sinn Fein in such a dialogue in the way Gerry does takes us back to an era I have no desire to return to.

Secondly on Scotland. One contribution, which admittedky Gerry for some reason doesn't likem is about the SNP, a second examines the causes of Labour's defeat in the 07 Scottish Parliament elections. A third examines cultual nationalism and a fourth the role of trade unions in any independence settlement. And Gerry characterises this as narrow? Yes there is plenty on the Scottish Socialist Party, precisely because thy for a period fused nationalism with a leftist politics, something unheard of on this island, this surely makes them of interest for any progressives committed to the Break-Up.

Thirdly on Britishness. No its not extensively covered, hiugh at least two contributors doubt its passing, Charlotte Williams and Arthur Aughey who you can read here on this site. But the point of the book is to consider the shape of a politics after the Unio, its not an effort to shore up Britishness.

Gerry doesn't believe the book is a dialogue? I would disagree, has anybody attempted such a collection before? Its the beginning of a conversation that has hardly started yet.

Mark Perryman

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.

Dougthedug on "Calman issues first report on future of devolution"

Dougthedug — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:20:09 +0000

Alex Buchan wrote:

It is clear now that it does not see its role as restricted to merely considering which extra powers could be devolved, but is far more concerned with what it sees as the proper balance between devolved and reserved powers as the following extracts show.

I agree with most of you post Alex but the Calman Commission was never about considering extra powers. If you go back to the remit of the Commission which is in para. 1.1 it says:

Calman Commission wrote:

To review the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 in the light of experience and to recommend any changes to the present constitutional arrangements that would enable the Scottish Parliament to serve the people of Scotland better, improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament, and continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom.

In simple terms the Calman Commission is about improving the functioning of the Scottish Parliament within the Union and making the Scottish Parliament in some way responsible for raising the money it spends. It is nothing to do with any Scottish aspirations of more autonomy and all about ensuring that Wesminster has full control of all important economic, energy and planning policies to defend the Union and to remove any potential flashpoints.

Under the Section "Financial Accountability" in the Summary it says in para. 9.17:

Calman Commission wrote:

The balance between conflicting principles should be determined not by technical considerations, but by the constitutional objectives that the funding system is designed to support.

In other words, the financing of the Scottish Parliament is not to be the best system for Scotland but the system which causes the least problems for the Union.

The Liberals are finally coming to the conclusion that most others came to at the inception of the Calman Commission, that they are a bunch of suckers and Labour and Brown have hooked, played and landed them.

Their cherished pipedream of, "Financial Autonomy", within the UK has just been shot down and what's left is a Commission to return powers to Westminster.

The SNP avoided the Calman Commission like the plague as they saw through it from the start, the Conservatives are quite happy to see powers returned to Westminster and Labour set it up with the express purpose of ensuring that Westminster had all the real levers of powers.

Only the Lib-Dems marched in with happy smiles and empty heads and thought the Calman Commission was set up to give more powers to Scotland.

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