open Democracy News Analysis - ourkingdom - Comments

Alex Buchan on "Conservatives 'comfortable' with Scottish independence?"

Alex Buchan — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:26:00 +0100

Tom, neither O’Neill’s nor your explanation rings true.

Dealing with O’Neill first. The two options can be seen as setting out the two poles between which Tory candidate’s opinions are likely to be found. Both contain ambiguities. ‘At all cost’ could imply acting with violence, as O’Neill suggests, but it’s stretching it to say that this would be assumed in the case of an internal political issues in a Western Democracy. The use of the double negative in the second option suggests it could encompass a range of attitudes, from being happy to see the back of Scotland to having only mild regret at it’s leaving. So the question seems to really be asking "in which general direction do you lean?" It’s spinning a unionist line to suggest it amounts to "At all costs [including violence]" yes or no?

Your own suggestion, that it is part of a strategy towards countering Scottish nationalism sounds far too calculating. The fact that most, if not all, of them are likely to be contesting English constituencies suggests that, even if we were to assume a calculating element, the implications of their answers can be seen in an entirely different light. They are far more likely to be reflecting a growing sentiment in England. Any cursory glance at the comments to items on this issue in ConservativeHome will show that readers of that site are split on this issue with the majority prescribing to the position of ‘good riddance’. There may here then be evidence of something going on in the Tory grass-roots. There is certainly an attitude common in journalistic and political circles in London that Scotland is freeloading and I’ve also read that such an attitude is common amongst Cameron’s existing back-bench MPs.

It seems more likely the response to this survey is a genuine reflection of the tension within the Tory party between its traditional support for the union and a growing sense that the union is already broken by the creation of the Scottish Parliament. The lack of a strong unionist message from Cameron and Goldie may be undermining unionist support within the Tory party itself. Defending a union where Scotland is perceived to be feted at England’s expense may not be a policy many feel able to take to the public. The Tory party is increasingly Janus-faced when it comes to Scotland. To appeal in Scotland they are trying to be seen as fully accepting devolution while in England they are more likely to be found citing the iniquity of Labour’s wanton vandalism in relation to the constitution.

Alex Buchan

alex_buchan on "The devolution dilemma ten years on"

alex_buchan — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:21:18 +0100

Brian Taylor programme was a waste of the licence fee, it lacked any historical analysis. If this programme had related to the governance of England during the last 10 years it would have been rightly ridiculed in the London press. It is a measure of just how lacking in seriousness both BBC Scotland and the Scottish press are that this can be passed off as even tolerable, it is also testimony to the moving south of talent as it affects Scottish journalism.

Devolution did not come about because of the existence of Scottish culture as the programme purports. Rather it was one of the inevitable results of having territorial departments of state. These acted in areas of domestic policy as quasi governments headed by someone drawn from the majority party at Westminster, regardless of that party’s standing in Scotland or Wales. In Scotland’s case, this system dated back to the late 19th Cent. This arrangement was itself due to the archaic nature of the British State. Such an arrangement, which was always double-edged, being seen at the same time as special treatment and as an insult, only could withstand challenges so long as the post war consensus persisted.

The end of empire and the rise of the cultural and economic power of London and South East led to the emergence, in Thatcherism, of a kind of radical English Free-Market Nationalism posing as British. The extent to which this was an English phenomena can be seen reflected in the fact that it wasn’t just Thatcher’s economic and social policies that were anathema in Scotland and Wales, the Falkland War also had little resonance in these countries. In the end Thatcher represented a parting of the way between Scotland and England. With this the consensus that underpinned the acceptance of the territorial departments as an acceptable compromise broke down, which is why going back to that is now totally unthinkable.

In summary, the Secretaries of State of Scotland and Wales were more like Governors. This system became untenable when the ruling party at Westminster lost all legitimacy in Scotland and Wales. In bringing in devolution, Labour was reacting as much to the latent danger they perceived in this crisis of legitimacy of Tory Secretaries of State, as something that could be transformed by the SNP into a crisis of legitimacy of the Westminster system in general.

This is why it is so difficult for the Tories because any going back would have to be a return to the period before the establishment of territorial departments, or a move on to a modern state. In the bloggesphere the suggestions for the replacement of the present asymmetrical constitution can be seen as falling into two types, either something resembling the French model of universal citizenship with no variations in entitlements across the UK, or something like the German federal model with looser ties. The reference to France and Germany shows why both of these models are far too risky for the Tories because they represent an abandoning of past tradition and would entail a stripping out the existing objects of legitimacy and replacing them with new ones. But it is just these existing archaic objects of legitimacy, such as the Monarchy and the protection of Scotland’s ancient privileges that the Tories cite as arguments for the continuance of the union.

The Tories are left having to react to events rather than fashioning them. The real crisis is not a crisis of Tory or Labour policy but a crisis of the state which, due to its previously advantageous circumstances, put off the radical changes that would have made it possible to claim legitimacy in a modern era. Those advantageous circumstances no longer pertain. My own view is that the Tories will revert to constitutional immobilism and will back away from major changes either to Scotland’s or England’s constitutional arrangements in the false hope that something will turn up, for instance that the decline of North Sea Oil will see a waning of the SNP’s fortunes.

Mike Small on "The devolution dilemma ten years on"

Mike Small — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:18:58 +0100

Thanks Tom. By the way can anyone imagine a BBC tv programme entitled "Will the English Ever be Satisfied"?

We pay a licenece fee too.

Tam Dalyell, Enoch Powell and George Cunningham, what an unholy trinity.

alex_buchan on "The devolution dilemma ten years on"

alex_buchan — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:14:41 +0100

Brian Taylor based his argument on a wrong premise, which is why the programme lacked any sense of reality. Devolution did not come about because of the existence of Scottish culture, it was the inevitable result of having territorial departments, something which dates back, in Scotland’s case, to the late 19th Cent. These were themselves due to the archaic nature of the British state. Moving on to the modern era, the end of empire and the rise of the cultural and economic power of London and South East led to the emergence of the very different rhetoric of Thatcher’s radical nationalism. This not only alienated labour’s traditional support in Scotland but gradually those elements that made up the Scottish establishment came to see her as a threat. With this the consensus that underpinned the acceptance of the territorial departments as an acceptable compromise broke down, which is why going back to that is now so unthinkable.

The Secretaries of State of Scotland and Wales were more like Governors. This system became untenable when the ruling party at Westminster lost all legitimacy in Scotland and to a lesser extent in Wales. In bringing in devolution, Labour was reacting as much to the latent danger that the crisis in legitimacy of Tory Secretaries of State could be transformed by the SNP into a crisis of legitimacy of the Westminster system in general.

This is why it is so difficult for the Tories because any going back would have to be a return to the period before the establishment of territorial departments or a move on to a modern state. Such a state would have to be based either on the French model of universal citizenship, or the German federal model. Both of these are far too risky because it would entail stripping out the existing objects of legitimacy and replacing them with new ones. But it is just these existing archaic objects of legitimacy, such as the Monarchy and the protection of Scotland’s ancient privileges that the Tories cite as arguments for the continuance of the union.

The Tories are left having to react to events rather than fashioning them. The real crisis is not a crisis of Tory or Labour policy but a crisis of the state due to its previously advantageous circumstances, which meant that radical change could be deferred. Those advantageous circumstances no longer pertain. The present impasse will persist but, because we are locked in a stalemate where moving forward is more dangerous than staying put, no one is likely to feel satisfied.

Mike Small on "Calman report calls for 'Scottish income tax'"

Mike Small — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:07:51 +0100

"How about introducing accountability for spending decisions relating to England only in the Westminster parliament by excluding Scottish, Welsh and N. Irish MPs from taking part in them?"

What like the 'javelin' train that we contribute to but that stops at Birmingham?

Calman is a Unionist stooge not a Scottish sap. Stop branding people acording to nationality. The 'asymmetry' he's referring to is for your ears only, not the 40% in Argyll who voted elsewhere last week.

I am not defending devolution nor disputing the problems with the current settlement.

Where's the sop? Who's the drain?

You can look at costs in multiple ways. I'd start by taking out Iraq and Trident which the Scottish people dont want. For more on Calman Freakonomics go here: http://bellacaledonia.wordpress.com/

britologywatch on "Calman report calls for 'Scottish income tax'"

britologywatch — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:45:15 +0100

Mike,

Well, I think it depends on the level of tax revenues from North Sea Oil and how you apportion them (maybe 2002 was a particularly good year), and on overall taxation by nation. I've come across plenty of analyses that say the opposite: that England both contributes more in tax per capita (which makes sense, given that average incomes are higher) and receives significantly less per-capita public expenditure. That last bit is an undisputed fact, and it's generally thought not to be a fair reflection of social need given the existence of significant pockets of social deprivation across England.

Mike Small on "Calman report calls for 'Scottish income tax'"

Mike Small — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:25:05 +0100

Britology three facts.

1. The SNP already excludes itself from English matters. However the arithmetic of Westminster means Scottish and Welsh MPs makes there voting or not voting irrelevant in practical terms.

2. Scotland has 8.6% of the UK population yet
raises 10.41% of all UK tax revenues. (Source Treasury Red Book 2002)

3. The Barnett Formula is little more than a device which gives
Scotland some of its own pocket money out of Scotlands pay packet which
is taken by England. In 2002, Scotland contributed £42.7Billions to the
UK Exchequer and received £18.1 Billions doled back in return via
Barnet. It would be a better idea to keep the £42.7 billion as an independent country.

alex_buchan on "Calman report calls for 'Scottish income tax'"

alex_buchan — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:29:18 +0100

The political problem for the unionist parties is that implementing these recommendations cannot but help increase support for the SNP. The Scottish electorate are well aware that the only reason the Calman Commission is proposing new powers and the only reason that Whitehall Departments are ready to cede further powers is because there is a threat to the union posed by the election of an SNP government. The unionist parties seem to hope that in having to raise taxes the SNP’s will eventually fall out of favour, but the clear message they are giving is that any political progress in Scotland depends on the existence of a SNP Goverment.

britologywatch on "Calman report calls for 'Scottish income tax'"

britologywatch — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:58:25 +0100

How about introducing accountability for spending decisions relating to England only in the Westminster parliament by excluding Scottish, Welsh and N. Irish MPs from taking part in them? Oops, can't do that because of the Barnett consequentials, which for the moment remain in place. And even without those, they'd find some excuse of an argument based on 'preserving the Union'. A Union - "Union", mind you, not "devolution settlement" - that Calman itself calls asymmetric; an asymmetry it says we should take pride in and which works. If only for Scotland (if that).

britologywatch on "A new politics? Move out of Westminster..."

britologywatch — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 02:14:34 +0100

"England too - for, yes, this must also be an English parliament". At this point, I issue the noise of breathing in while forming the sound 'f' with my lips, signifying that the author has just started to build his new parliamentary edifice on very shaky foundations, which might lead it to collapse in much the same way as Westminster itself!

What, err, brand-spanking new, inspirational UK parliament that doubles up as an English parliament, as an afterthought? I don't think so! This is a good suggestion in itself; but the most logical function the new building could serve would be as the parliament for a new kind of UK itself: a federal parliament dealing with reserved UK-wide government, while the Westminster parliament could be kept (and, yes, radically modernised, in spite of the Prince of Wales' inevitable objections) as the English Parliament that it historically was. That overcomes much of David Hume's objection that you'd have to move the government departments to the new UK capital, because the majority could remain in London - the English capital - as they would be England-only departments (as they already are in all but name). This solution would also allow Cornwall to have its own national / regional parliament to deal with its own devolved matters, if that's what the majority of Cornish people wanted.

My vote goes to Liverpool: about equidistant from all the national capitals and with close cultural connections to all the UK's nations; and a city that is on the rise and in need of further regeneration.

Gisela Stuart on "A new politics? Move out of Westminster..."

Gisela Stuart — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:36:58 +0100

All very good ideas... have we not forgotten something. If Parliament's role is to hold the exectutive to account - then sending MPs away from where the executive is won't solve the problem.
As a mere Member of Parliament.... may I suggest that we need to remind ourselves of what our basic function is; and the fundamental problem is Parliment has lost confidence in itself - the executive has too much power!

David Hume on "A new politics? Move out of Westminster..."

David Hume — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:16:36 +0100

I can see a few logistical problems with this proposal. The MOD, The Foreign Office, The Treasury and a host of other government departments are all located in London. Are you proposing that you re-locate these departments and there tens of thousands of civil servants to the new capital? If not, government ministers are going to have to do an awful lot of travelling between London and the new capital. Perhaps they will need a third home!

Personally I think London is the best place for the capital. It is easy to get to from anywhere in the UK, or anywhere in the world for that matter. I live 20 miles from Edinburgh and, if I time it right, I can get to the centre of London within 3 hours from my home. It's doubtful if I could get to any East Midlands or even Northern cities in that time, despite all the talk of high speed rail links.

Anthony Barnett on "A new politics? Move out of Westminster..."

Anthony Barnett — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:38:11 +0100

I was at a citizens jury organised by Demos on MPs expenses last week. One of the issues put to them was about second homes and London accommodation. By a large majority the groups thought that MPs should be housed in rented accommodation. At the table I was at one man suggested housing them in the Olympic village. The idea turned up in Private Eye as well. As the new stadium is not getting any takers, it could be dismantled and a new parliament built in its place, thus turning the whole Olympic site into a democracy legacy! Should I suggest the idea to Tessa Jowell?

Jeremy Gilbert on "A new politics? Move out of Westminster..."

Jeremy Gilbert — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:41:19 +0100

An excellent suggestion, which raises a host of crucial issues. The affective, aesthetic dimensions of politics aren't merely cosmetic or incidental to its workings, but fundamental, as this piece reminds us. Can we really imagine a 21st century democracy functioning effectively within that neo-gothic framework? No - and this maybe draws attention to the fact that a revived democracy might require not just a set of institutions and campaigns, but all of the artistic, aesthetic, yet wholly material elements of a new 'structure of feeling'.

The Cornish Democrat on "A new politics? Move out of Westminster..."

The Cornish Democrat — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:26:09 +0100

And what of Cornwall and regions of England that don't get a new Parliament?

What we need is radical devolution following regions decided by the people themselves not Westminster government zones or second capitals equally distant from the people.

The Cornish Democrat