open Democracy News Analysis - ourkingdom - Comments

Toque on "Bring Westminster lobbying into the open - My idea for Power2010"

Toque — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:02:37 +0000

Sounds like a good idea to me Tom, I'm sure the big beasts on the Tory frontbenches will already be renegotiating their contracts with tobacco firms, missile manufacturers and hedge funds.

I've been up in Yorkshire, so sorry for not coming back to you sooner. As I think you may have guessed I don't really have much to add to David's "Game Changer" post, but I've given Power2010 a late plug here.

Dougthedug on "Referendum rethink - The Liberal Democrats and the future of Scotland"

Dougthedug — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:52:54 +0000

Clarinda:

Oops, never spotted that one.

The full quote in the Herald was,

Herald wrote:

Asked if he would call a referendum if he were returned as First Minister Mr Gray said it would “depend on the circumstances at the time” and that the question should be a straight yes or no on independence.

I'll have to watch where I select when I cut and paste next time.

Clarinda on "Referendum rethink - The Liberal Democrats and the future of Scotland"

Clarinda — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:07:43 +0000

A typo surely Dougthedug, when you say "First Minister Mr Gray" as your link to the Herald article? Your deductions on the LibDem flim-flam are pretty close though!

Nice photo of the Knuckle Brothers on the beach at Brighton all the same.

Toque on "Referendum rethink - The Liberal Democrats and the future of Scotland"

Toque — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:34:43 +0000

An independence referendum in Scotland in a win-win situation for the SNP, even if they don't expect to win it, because it legitimises the Scottish nationhood/statehood and in a strange way it would do much the same for the watching England and Wales.

I wouldn't expect the SNP to win an independence referendum, but a multi-option referendum would surely result in the Scottish people demanding even greater powers for the Scottish Parliament.

Dougthedug on "Referendum rethink - The Liberal Democrats and the future of Scotland"

Dougthedug — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:54:04 +0000

Quote:

...who (Stephen Glenn) retorts that a referendum will call the SNP's bluff.

Calling someone's bluff only works if the hand they've got is weak and they hope you'll fold before they have to put their cards on the table. It's a common and perhaps desperate wish in Scottish Unionist circles that the SNP don't really want a referendum or independence and a referendum is something they want to avoid.

Tom Griffin wrote:

...revives their distinctive federalist vision

The Lib-Dems don't have any distinctive vision. Their "federalist" plan is indistinguisable from Labour's, "Nations and Regions", plan for devolution. The Lib-Dems want parliaments/assemblies in Scotland, Wales, NI and various regions of England just the same as Labour.

Calman is a dead duck because Labour have abandoned Calman and indicated that they only want a two option referendum, First Minister Mr Gray said it would "depend on the circumstances at the time" and that the question should be a straight yes or no on independence. In any case Labour are not going to form the next government while Cameron has said that he doesn't want to do anything with Calman till after the next plus one General Election. In other words, never.

A referendum is the only way the Lib-Dems will get any chance at all of the Calman recommendations being implemented before the heat death of the universe but since two of the three parties involved in Calman have already gone cold on the mess of recommendations that it produced the Lib-Dems may be doing the same thing or they may have always treated it as a distraction and anti-SNP tactic as Labour and the Conservatives did.

Of course, in the light of their backing down over a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty the Lib-Dems are intrinsically opposed to referendums where they don't like the question and since their constitution is based on keeping the union I'd be surprised if they would ever willing go along with the idea of an independence referendum.

Tavish will prevail this time and it's more of an excercise in being seen to do something than a direct challenge to Tavish.

It's a moot point if the Scottish wing of the British Lib-Dem party actually have authority to call a referendum without Clegg's say so as article 5.1 of their constitution says:

Lib-Dem Constitution wrote:

The Federal Party shall determine the policy of the Party in those areas which might reasonably be expected to fall within the remit of the federal institutions in the context of a federal United Kingdom.

Dougthedug on "Salmond puts independence on the agenda"

Dougthedug — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:24:36 +0000

Tom Griffin wrote:

On one level, Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats are well prepared for this debate, with a clear alternative to offer in the shape of the Calman Commission's proposals.

The Calman Commission proposals are something that none of the big two and a half, Labour, the Tories and the Lib-Dems want to talk about. David Cameron has already said that they're not going to be discussed in Westminster till the GE after this one and Labour and the Lib-Dems have been very, very quiet about them here in Scotland. Not a peep in fact. The Calman proposals come down to changing the never used 3p in the pound variable tax rate to a 10p in the pound variable tax rate via the bureaucratic and administrative nightmare of assigned taxes.

That's why you get it right with the next quote:

Tom Griffin wrote:

Yet it seems that none of the opposition parties are likely to take up Salmond's offer of a multi-choice referendum that could include a Calman option.

Alex's quite happy to offer a multi-option referendum because the Lib-Lab-Con Alliance will not be able to offer one and the Megrahi affair has already shown a nationalist/unionist split.

Tom Griffin wrote:

they have effectively congregated around one end of what is fast becoming the major cleavage in Scottish politics, boosting the SNP's status in the process.

Which is something I've said before, politics in Scotland are moving towards a unionist/nationalist split.

The SNP are offering a referendum to the Scottish electorate and the Libs, Labs and Cons are trying to stop it. That is not going to play well for them.

Toque on "Salmond puts independence on the agenda"

Toque — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:42:50 +0000

I can't really see how the unionist parties can do well out of this scenario. What was the point of the Calman Commission (which was bloody expensive) unless they intend to put some choices to the Scottish people?

If they deny the people a referendum - and there appears to be demand for one - then they will just look deeply cynical and self-serving. Running scared, people will say.

The unionists may never get to put a referendum on their terms (without the option of independence) because the Scots will probably return the SNP with more MSPs at the next general election.

Lawrence Efana on "England, Britain and multiculturalism: an OurKingdom exchange"

Lawrence Efana — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:09:51 +0000

The days' larger debates in British politics are a fair proof that "writers" are able to sense and write for the future. All the sentiments that went with this 'book review-like' article might have been issues in 2008. I am an enthusiast of current mode of 'active society' culture in Britain, because of weight of efforts put in: to understand, rationalize and also work to pave a more sustainable way for the change everyone wants. Both 'writer-figures' and various persons taking part in the book review-related comments, alike do Great Britain an enormous service. The general election to take place soon in the country will draw much benefits from all 'win-win' arguments of the sort come across - even if the reviews and debates thereof nearly assumed a chaotic character!

Motivations of both writers have their 'individual' and 'collective' rational and irrational grounds, on themes of 'multiculturalism', 'Britishness' and 'unionist' sentiments hence paradoxically right though, is still relatively hard too to evade. "Culture": a term - if you like, perceived corrupted by "multi" - loaded meaning for 'pluralism'; and "ism", tending terminologically to qualify as an ideology in this typical and other relative/similar cases], is: dimensional even though overlapping also. In state structure arguments, especially - "unionist or federalist", in which the burdens of 'cultural pluralism' are outspokenly evident, it seems the role of culture as a catalyst is extended with unionist and federalist arms, either because of the politics of the day, or any other reason, sensitized to conceive it a threat for own interests.

In both forms of state, cultural nationalism - the way we have seen or read of the effects: healthy at times], could also be relatively uneasy for states beyond the nation-ideas. Comparative politics in its different phases help understand and appreciate hence learn more from. Canadian examples are also introduced to enrich the British, though other instances are richly found in many parts of the world: Central Europe, Balkans, also North America - USA], Africa and Asia, each differentiated though in contents and magnitudes! All are worthwhile to welcome in understanding the 'particular' and or the 'whole' - general]. Here the bold attempt to actualize the British case is in itself our mark of the particular.

There is a sense of controversy for where ideas of 'a main' culture, to which multiculturalism attaches best accentuating the British argument, going by the review sources. The picture of the nation: Britain] and those of its unionist arms compete - with in England - an arm long centrally supreme in history: growing now to see the other arms - one of which is Scotland, dynamically encroaching on. Political significance of growth and evolution in British politics lie above all here! Multiculturalism would seem an "ideology": one hiding behind immigration policies defined also by integration, assimilation and desegregation, etc., values making the lives of aliens and: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, ..... generations of the kind, enjoy the fruits of democracy as British citizens - even if "2nd order as such]. The ideology is generous at this level, in spite of numerous "outer" cultural differences, which one of the writers: Vron Ware, rightly articulates!

Paul Kingsnorth is neither too reactionary nor anti Ware, though it does appear that much is fixed contextually on his part in Britishness with a bend on England and perhaps at the risk of 'misunderstanding' for "political geography", "language" hence the mainland boundaries in British "ethnic" politics, vis-a-vis the specific "status" of culture: not its meaning per-se in the politics! This is, a controversy useing multiculturalism to come in the back way to articulate normal problems of ethnic politics in face of challenging needs for political and economic re-evaluation and modernization - the central themes now that Britons are up for a forthcoming turning age national election. Kingsnorth is intriguingly academic and diplomatic on these, but he is hard to see not counterbalanced by Ware and literary elements found in the books exposed in different ways by commentators. Both books are sufficiently explicit on what they describe or articulate to the extent that it seems unwarranted to ask for excessive definitions of 'basic' types. Both books, in spite of the interests shown for survey materials to give a higher scientific outlook, are more or less "freelance" in styles after all?

In one way or the other comments driven by reviews tend to settle now and then on "English culture", its refinement and or its rethinking as a function of the rise of Scotland, Wales, Isles of Man and Northern Ireland as 'modern' elements in the British nation. That is to say, the foundation to now and then snick in with unionist rationality, to in that way strengthen rather than work for separation - we see framed in phases of some most recent papers in Our Kingdom under open Democracy. A key issue of political significance in twists and turns seen is to also work avoiding to make any of its units a sub-culture in which multiculturalism as ideology is to complicate in other unwanted or unwarranted senses or ways. When assessing the scope of most civil liberties 'discourses' in Britain for 2009, relevant threads are seen to run in a variety of ways through a range of the many major interconnected and disparate issues.

Whatever its other purpose as a thread running through, it is appealing to 'adapt': Anthony Barnett said: Monday, 2008-06-23:09) "... Hmm, nothing very 'British' about that, except that he has left out democracy" - to interconnected or disparate situations, depending on how they are detected and focused on sensibly. Many would agree on interconnected and disparate characteristics thesis. Thus a good sense to see the quote:
"If the peddlers of British multiculturalism understood that the pluralism of Britishness comes in the first instance, from its multi-nationalism, they might understand that that pluralism relies on the pluralism of the four national identities that underpin it. If English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish can all find civic plural expression then Britishness becomes, by default, pluralist. Doug's accusation, that Britishness is a debate on Englishness wrapped up in the robes of Britannia, is, I think, a fair one"; see: 'Touque said': Mon, 2008-06-23 11:33).

This is larger part of the issue, though all need not be reduced to it, thinking of certain realities of immigrant populations amidst both authors' positions, which even though not too diverse, still carry with them tangible nuances as elements of value differences on the issue as a whole. The task to separate or pin down on themes is relatively blurred also - a part of reasons for the protracted comments, quotes and re-quotes in and out - with little comparative insights except 'Canadian' and other purely minor cultural references: shallow on political lessons, so leaves them constructed by certain reader-commentators! For 'causally' dysfunctional and functional arguments across a range of settlement issues: immigration, etc., Enoch Powell - in British history has been a lesson: like in the many of those in early post-colonial days, for example, in Kenya, when Tom Mboya went too far to make issue of 'nationalism' front theme in 'multicultural' struggles: to counter-pose using the expression "Sons of the soil", read of as the search thereof to separate them from the "non-such". He failed so that the evolutionary path we see on living together is given the chance to work on lessons for the benefit of human survival and "togetherliness". Racism as a multicultural discursive phenomenon stands to "free" itself thus.

I do not hide my love for Britain, else I would not comment on the revealing paper. With colonialism a burden, that country has demonstrated the human part: "it can never be as perfect but worth working to perfect in the way many would wish as they openly speak and also continue to write about. The scarce commodity we call democracy is at work and we see in British debates now. That makes Britain beautiful in my mind! Its nations have their own interests and they feel should be protected in one or other ways, so all set to re-study and assess effectiveness of their own democratic ethics practices and tolerance, institutional frames the legal qualities, etc. In totality these serve all peoples, arms of the larger state and its units - working towards informed cultural belongings: one race - hence a "global or [one] world". Election of President Obama is deeply "iconic" in the senses: it is a good cementing ground for example, and hope too for most of the interconnected and disparate issues. "Change" and the interest this commands in the language of politics played out presently must be seen to anchor inspirations thereupon. Many battles remain to be won on the front in the US and elsewhere: Happy for current mutations in British political landscape including multiculturalism as an issue. You may not know that you are doing a very good work: building the 'road' for a future - many others might find worthwhile to trek!

Mike Small on "Calman's Catch-22"

Mike Small — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:46:13 +0000

Its worth reading Owen Dudley Edwards piece in the Scottish Review of Books where he systematically takes Calman to pieces for its historical, political and constitutional lack of judgement: "There is always the risk that the UK Govt may salvage something from the wreckage., notably the Commission's supremely ridiculous demand for the return of Charities back to their unwieldy British supervision. Charity control in Scotland works very wll righ now but the Calmanics true to the days of Thatcher, follow their principle that if it isnt broken, mend it anyway."

He goes on to catalogue fundamental errors and falsehoods including a couple of corkers, quoting Calman: "The Commission on Scottish Devolution was established by the Scottish Parliamewnt and the United Kingdom Govt. The remit was agreed by the Scottish Parliament." Edwards charitably calls this 'disnegenuous'. Again quoting the report he notes: "The 'Commission is independent of any political party' when it owes its existence to three and includes two members from each, the Commission would seem to have a remarkably low estimate of the collective imagination of its readers, Scottish or otherwise."

Toque on "Calman's Catch-22"

Toque — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:33:36 +0000

Scotland cannot be given significant power to raise taxes because although it would increase accountability in Scotland, such a scheme would decrease the accountability of Scottish MPs at Westminster.

Although unstated, the Calman Commission report is as much about England as it is Scotland.

Lawrence Efana on "Calman's Catch-22"

Lawrence Efana — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:23:17 +0000

If a sideline enthusiast on debates ongoing in Britain is tolerated to have the joy and love to take part in some "case-specific" issues of 'political' and 'economic' significance there, then "Our Kingdom" should be sure of appreciation for weight placed on change. Current economic meltdown lessons have implications, which Britain like many other countries, are working on in attempt to 'live' that change.

Alex Buchan makes extremely good and pertinent arguments in contribution to the issue of this paper as a "case-specific" one. Lifting "...doesn’t serve their raison d’être: namely, maintaining the union", is worth re-examination! Arguments driving willingness to operate in a 'collegiate' manner, are also well connected - whatever the model: 'federalist' or 'unitary'!

Appealling too is “… the balance between these conflicting principles and the combination
of funding mechanisms to be used should be determined not by the
technical considerations of funding mechanisms, but by the
constitutional objectives that the funding system is designed to support.”

The much larger picture here: "constitutional objectives" - must appeal due to ongoing focus also on "reform" at all levels [though]. For those who interest themselves in these ongoing efforts to wake the civil society positively hence carve out the space for political participation and greater awareness for issues, to in that way groom voters for forth-coming general election, what seems 'salient' criticisms of the report are 'healthy' rather than 'destructive'.

One easily reads thus an implication of this "case-specific" issue, which might tend to "counterpoise" the relations between: fiscal autonomy, accountability at the Scottish Parliament's level, with what might appear 'all-time' key challenge: sound workable way "to enhance the ability of a Scottish government to introduce measures
necessary to improve Scotland's underlying economic growth rate, or to
balance the Scottish economy through good times and bad.” Give the time also to think of the other regions - making-up the unitary [federal?] state!

If one does not misunderstand, it seems that constitutional [reform] argument or rationality accentuates here, giving reasons to think of 'collegiate' arguments on the part of the "Kingdom" hence arguments for the Commission's report and or findings, not to be reasoned in practice ignoring larger notions of 'raison d’être'! It is even the opinion of this enthusiastic onlooker that Alex Buchan's comments should indeed count! Its contents are polite, positive and relatively well-meaning, not aimed to run down the marvellous works of the Commission in its challenges.

Dougthedug on "Calman's Catch-22"

Dougthedug — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:20:50 +0000

Since the Conservatives are likely to be the next government and since David Cameron has kicked Calman into touch for the next six years anyway the analysis of the Calman report is academic unless it's to demonstrate how crippled it was by its central aim.

Calman Comission Remit 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."

As Alex points out the overriding aim of Calman was to improve the inter-working of British government institutions and to avoid the break-up of the British State.

All other considerations such as the better governance of the people of Scotland and the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament to the Scottish people had to be fitted around that overriding aim and that's why Calman came up with the administrative and financial disaster that was the 10p assigned taxes proposal.

Alex Buchan on "Calman's Catch-22"

Alex Buchan — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:04:47 +0000

“Successful operation of such a system would require that the UK and devolved governments are willing to operate in a collegiate manner"

The important word here is collegiate. Collegiate implies equality of constitutional standing between the governments. This is not possible within the present system based on the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. Gordon Brown, soon after becoming Prime Minister, was asked about Calman in his meeting with the heads of the select committees. He reassured them by stating that devolution was not federalism. The fact that the Calman Commission was set up specifically with no remit to look at things in the rest of the UK meant that the Calman report was bound to produce an unworkable scheme. But I wouldn’t rule out it being used by either the present or next government to bring in changes to Scottish devolution. Its purpose for the unionist parties was always political.

Alex Buchan on "Calman's Catch-22"

Alex Buchan — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:28:35 +0000

From The Centre for Scottish Public Policy’s statement:

Our point is this: the entire report, particularly on financial matters, was arrived at through compromise. It is only by compromising that the Commission could speak with one voice. This need to compromise, it could be argued, had a detrimental effect on the financial recommendations of the report. But more than anything the single most important factor in only modifying Barnett is that:

“…the balance between these conflicting principles and the combination of funding mechanisms to be used should be determined not by the technical considerations of funding mechanisms, but by the constitutional objectives that the funding system
is designed to support.” (Underline added)

Here is conclusive proof that the report’s overriding aim is not to improve the Parliament’s financial accountability but to “secure the position of Scotland within the UK”. Of course this is no surprise to anyone - the report was a response to the rise in support for independence. Yet, one can still be surprised, perhaps even angered, that a document that was publicly funded subjugates any factor that doesn’t serve their raison d’être: namely, maintaining the union.

A salient criticism of this report was published in an open letter to The Scotsman by a group of seven respected academics. They conclude that the “fiscal reforms proposed by the Calman Commission are at best an opportunity missed and at worst a recipe for economic instability in the future”. The authors’ continue:

“Only under fiscal autonomy can the accountability of the Scottish Parliament properly be entrenched… The proposals will do little to enhance the ability of a Scottish government to introduce measures necessary to improve Scotland's underlying economic growth rate, or to balance the Scottish economy through good times and bad.”

nezavisimost on "Calman's Catch-22"

nezavisimost — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:09:31 +0000

The dogs on the street in Cambuslang know that Calman has ripped apart at the seams and will never be implemented. How could the Unionists be so so stupid?