ourkingdom: all articles

Tom Griffin (London, OK): The SNP may not yet have the votes to get their planned independence referendum through the Scottish Parliament next year, but the proposal is certainly creating waves among their political rivals.

The Liberal Democrats announced yesterday that MSP Ross Finnie is to review their opposition to a referendum and report back to a special session of the party's Scottish conference on 30 October. 

Scottish Lib Dem leader Tavish Scott has staunchly opposed a vote up till now, but there was notable pressure for a change of stance from some Scottish activists at the UK Lib Dem conference last month. 

Tom Griffin (London, OK): It's now official. The Scottish Government will bring forward plans for a vote on independence in 2010. Alex Salmond announced the Referendum Bill in Holyrood today as the centrepiece of the SNP's new programme for government.

On the face of it, this was something  of an empty gesture, as Salmond's minority government does not have the votes to get the bill through the Scottish Parliament. Yet wise heads like the BBC's Brian Taylor and Slugger's Brian Walker believe there is more to the story than that.

Even if it falls, the referendum bill is likely to keep the constitutional issue on the agenda until the next Holyrood election.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): Is there a fundamental flaw at the heart of the Calman Commission's  proposals for devolution of tax powers to Scotland?

Economists Jim and Margaret Cuthbert believe the plans would have some perverse effects that could leave Scotland caught in a deflationary trap, as The Scotsman reports: 

the Cuthberts warn that under Calman – set up by Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats – growth in Scotland's economy could also disproportionately benefit the Treasury, rather than the Scottish Government, because Holyrood would get to keep only 10p out of every tax band. 

For every 1p cut in income tax, Scotland would need to raise an extra 5 per cent income from the basic tax payer, an extra 7.5 per cent from those in the 40p bracket and an additional 8 per cent from those in the top 50p bracket, which will be brought in next year.

The Herald carries a Labour reaction:

"This is Alice in Wonderland economics. It is right that if the Scottish Parliament used tax-varying powers that would have consequences for the budget of the Scottish Government - that is the point. It's barmy to argue that the Treasury should make up the shortfall."

All the major parties in Scotland would agree that part of the point of devolving tax-raising powers is to strengthen the incentive for the Scottish Government to manage public spending responsibly and to grow the Scottish economy. If the Cuthberts are right, Calman may not achieve this. They foresee circumstances where tax cuts could boost the Scottish economy and swell UK Treasury receipts yet leave Scottish finances worse off. Conversely, they think Holyrood might well be forced to raise taxes at the expense of economic growth to maintain revenues.

The Cuthberts argue that these effects can be avoided if the Scottish Government receives a fixed percentage of all income tax in Scotland, on the model of a revenue-sharing system currently used in Canada.

That would mean that while decisions made at Westminster would continue to affect Holyrood's revenue,  Holyrood's decisions would also start to have an impact on Westminster's revenue from Scotland:

Successful operation of such a system would require that the UK and devolved governments are willing to operate in a collegiate manner – being appreciative of, and respecting, the impact that their own actions will have on the revenues of the other parties. The implication is that a successful tax sharing system would have to involve a more federal way of working than is the current practice in the UK. It would be very unfortunate if the Calman Commission had been forced towards its flawed proposals on tax sharing because it was unwilling to countenance the implication that a proper system of tax sharing would inevitably involve a more federal aspect to the operation of the UK constitution.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams spoke at Westminster last night on the latest leg of an international tour intended to build support for a united Ireland. In the event, it was a remarkably open-ended occasion, one much more about canvassing ideas than about presenting a finished strategy.

That tone is also reflected in Adams' piece in Comment is Free today:

To achieve all of this requires those of us who share these goals to find ways in which we can work together. Is it possible to put in place a formal structured broad front approach to campaign for a united Ireland? Or would it be better to opt for an informal, organic and popular movement based on core principles?

One definite proposal is for a major conference in Britain next February: 

Of course this conversation, this dialogue, with people here in Britain or in the US or elsewhere will not in itself achieve a united Ireland. That is a matter for agreement between the people who live on the island of Ireland. But British policy toward Ireland is key to unlocking the potential for this change to occur. So, we need the active support of people in Britain.

We need to reach out to the widest possible public opinion, to the trade unions, the business sector, the community and voluntary sector, to the political class, as well as with those of other ethnic minorities who have experienced a similar history of colonisation and immigration. 

One interesting moment last night highlighted some of the dilemmas of building a broadbased campaign in Britain. Adams remarked that there may yet be an independent Scotland before there is an independent Ireland.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): ConservativeHome has today published a survey of 144 Tory candidates in the 220 most winnable seats for the party at the next general election.

One particularly eye-catching detail: 54 per cent say "the Union should be defended at all costs", while 46 per cent would "not be uncomfortable about Scotland becoming independent."

On the face of it this is a remarkable result for a party whose unionism traditionally has been a core value. 

Tom Griffin (London, OK): Will the Scots Ever Be Satisfied? Panorama asks at 8.30 pm on BBC One this evening in a retrospective on ten years of devolution by BBC Scotland editor Brian Taylor.

Labour's Tam Dalyell staunchly opposed a Scottish Parliament because he believed it would never be satisfied short of independence. At the weekend, he pointed to the Calman Report's recent recommendation of greater tax powers as vindication of this view.

The Commission calls for income tax to be reduced by 10p in the pound in Scotland with a commensurate reduction in the block grant from Westminster. The Scottish Government would have the option to make up the difference by setting its own income tax. 

One limitation is that the Scottish variation would apply equally at all rates. Holyrood would not be able to raise the top rate while leaving the standard rate unchanged, or vice-versa. Such a power would threaten the UK's 'social union' according to the Commission.

This is one instance of a general theme in the report, the delicate balancing act between deeper and more accountable devolution, on the one hand, and the continued maintenance of the union on the other.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): Monday was the 200th anniversary anniversary of the death of Tom Paine, the man who, in Mike Marqusee's words, "inspired and guided revolutions in north America and France, and equally important, the revolution that did not happen in Britain."

As both Brendan O'Neill and Edward Vallance note, Paine's writings retain remarkable relevance to today's political crisis, not least because on his own terms, the British revolution he sought remains unfinished business.

Here is Paine's verdict on the House of Commons in The Rights of Man: 

With respect to the house of commons, it is elected but by a small part of the nation; but were the the election as universal as taxation, which it ought to be, it would still be only the organ of the nation, and cannot possess inherent rights. When the national assembly of France resolves a matter, the resolve is made in right of the nation; but Mr. Pitt on all national questions, so far as they refer to the house of commons, absorbs the right of the nation into the organ, and makes the organ into a nation, and the nation itself into a cipher.

 So Paine would not have been surprised by the expenses saga. He understood that even a parliament elected by universal suffrage would remain a gentlemen's club without constitutional reform.

His view of parliamentary sovereignty remains as applicable today as it was in 1791:

Constitution is now the cant word of parliament, turning itself to the ear of the nation. Formerly it was the universal supremacy and the omnipotence of parliament. But since the progress of liberty in France, those phrases have a despotic harshness in their note; and the English parliament has caught the fashion from the National Assembly, but without the substance, of speaking of a constitution. 

 Two centuries after his death, Paine's demand in The Rights of Man for a written constitution enshrining the sovereignty of the people remains the yardstick for any serious measure of democratic reform.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): The ongoing debacle in the House of Commons last week overshadowed an equally significant scandal in the House of Lords. A day after Michael Martin became the first Speaker of the Commons to be forced out since 1695, Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor of Blackburn became the first peers to face suspension from the Lords since 1642.

The latter landmark is in some ways more troubling. The Sub-Committee on Lords Interests looked at the conduct of the peers involved in the cash for amendments affair. It found that Truscott "was advertising his power and willingness to influence Parliament in return for a substantial financial inducement"and that Taylor displayed "his clear willingness to breach the Code of Conduct by engaging in paid advocacy, and by failing to act on his personal honour." This is a degree of corruption beyond fiddling expenses.

There is now a danger that a crackdown on expenses will leave some MPs and peers more susceptible to financial inducements from lobbyists. It is essential therefore that reform of Parliament includes measures to regulate lobbying.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): The Conservatives took another step in their nascent alliance with the Ulster Unionist Party today, with a visit to Northern Ireland by David Cameron in support of UUP European election candidate Jim Nicholson.

The previous evening, Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Paterson explained the thinking behind the alliance in a talk at West London's Hammersmith Irish Centre.

This is the first time in decades there is someone representing a national party as well as a local party in an election in Northern Ireland. And we intend to go on. We intend to choose joint candidates over the next few months for the general election. The way things are going we might have to accelerate that, and we will see how we we get on.

This is a long term project. There may be bumps on the way. We've seen a few this week  with Lady Sylvia's comments. It will not go smoothly, but I think it is a really worthwhile thing to try and do. If we could move Northern Ireland politics away from the age-old stale debate about the great dividing trench, just park that and concentrate on things that really matter to people on a daily basis, I think we would bring in people who've not been involved in politics before.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): Monday's Guardian carried an alarming report about safety at the Trident submarine base in Faslane: 

The worst breaches include three leaks of radioactive coolant from nuclear submarines in 2004, 2007 and 2008 into the Firth of Clyde, while last year a radioactive waste plant manager was replaced. It emerged he had no qualifications in radioactive waste management.

The repeated safety breaches, which have been revealed in documents released to Channel 4 News, are so serious that the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (Sepa) has warned that it would consider closing the base down if it had the legal powers to do so. 

This revelation comes at an obviously sensitive time, with the longstanding opposition to Trident renewal in the Scottish Parliament being compounded by growing questions about its affordability at Westminster.

Tom Griffin (London, OK):Does the Irish peace process have lessons for the Middle East? Many of the key players in the Good Friday Agreement seem to think so. Tony Blair has cited the precedent as cause for optimism in his role as Quartet Envoy, while Gerry Adams called for inclusive negotiations during his visit to Gaza last week. The analogy isn't universally welcome, however.

Two recent articles reflect the parameters of the debate. In the New Statesman, Blair's former chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, argues that the British government's engagement with Irish republicans provides a model for an Israeli approach to Hamas. In Standpoint, Douglas Murray reiterates a longstanding neoconservative critique of such suggestions, arguing that "the claims of the peace process in Northern Ireland itself are unproven - but they are also unhelpful to the point of uselessness."

This dispute is significant given the identity of some of the key actors now emerging on the Middle East stage. US envoy George Mitchell was a key mediator in the Good Friday Agreement, while Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is arguably more closely aligned with American and British neoconservatives than any other major figure in Israeli politics.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): The debate about reforming the Act of Settlement has prompted some interesting musings over at the Slugger O'Toole website:

I have known a number of unionist republicans: most would be fairly liberal, though still clearly unionists. However, there are also unionists, albeit fewer, from a more hardline view point who support what has recently been suggested as the United Republic rather than the United Kingdom. Others who hold sometimes surprisingly ambivalent views on the monarchy include some fundamentalists.

That might seem a unexpected admission from Turgon, a supporter of Northern Ireland's most hardline unionist party, the TUV, but as he points out such views are not without their historical roots:

It must be remembered that the idea of monarchy was not considered the ideal in The Bible (1 Samuel 8:7). In addition across Oliver Cromwell’s tomb it is said the inscription read “Christ, not man, is king.” Many fundamentalists may well owe significant allegiance to the UK and indeed its head of state; there is, however, another country to which they vow true fealty, as indeed is clear in the third verse of that hymn. (Best tune ever to my mind).

One 'unionist republican' from the more liberal end of the spectrum is the Ulster Unionist Director of Communications, Alex Kane. He wrote in January:

I have absolutely no objection to Her Majesty on a personal level. Indeed, I think she does a remarkable job. But as someone who regards himself as a democratic purist I have said that my personal preference---and it is only my personal preference---would be that we have an elected Head of State. Putting it bluntly, everyone in authority, from the humblest parish councillor to the Head of State should be both elected and removable. But that State would remain the United Kingdom...

...Believing in an elected Head of State doesn't make me an Irish Republican and it certainly doesn't diminish or undermine my sense of unionism or my British identity.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): My good friend Tom Nairn is back from his regular sojourn in Melbourne but has come down with the flu, whose symptoms this winter seem to be particularly vicious and lasting. Gasping down the phone he promised to write a piece about what he thinks Brown will do next. He is convinced that he will seek to win power without a proper election, by creating a government of national unity. If you will excuse the pun, this will cash in on the crisis. The inclusion of Vince Cable seems to be critical to the success of such a master-stroke, to be orchestrated by Mandelson, aka "Bobby". I was meditating this scenario when, blow me down, Vince wrote his pitch for just such a stitch-up in the Mail on Sunday. After he attacked David Cameron by name for "moral indignation several years too late", but sent a signal by not criticising Gordon Brown.

Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): Frank Capra’s classic Hollywood movie, It’s a Wonderful Life, is going the art-house cinema rounds.  It is a gloriously schmaltzy movie in which George Bailey (James Stewart), a thoroughly decent man is brought so low by a malevolent small town capitalist that he contemplates a Christmas-time suicide.  However a portly guardian angel intervenes and shows him how badly Bedford Falls would have turned out without his good deeds. 

The cinemas are trumpeting James Stewart’s performance in what they describe as a “sentimental testament to homely small-town moral values”.  Sentimental it is, but I think its values are rather more universal.  The film belongs to 1946 and is in a sense a reflection on America’s experience of recession in the 1930s and the public values that imbued the New Deal era. Out of duty George Bailey has taken over a mutual building society that builds decent homes for local people who would otherwise have to rent the capitalist’s unfit housing.  So here are values of mutuality and social concern.  The portrait of the town bereft of Bailey’s good works is a garish neo-liberal nightmare in which everyday goodwill is extinguished in a society driven by greed and suspicion.  I don’t want to over-egg the movie’s commitment to anything more than entertainment, and public policy in the US has certainly turned decisively away from the film’s values, homely or universal.  But there are themes here for the UK as well as the US as we both enter a recession that is going severely to challenge our societies and what remains of our postwar values.

Arthur Aughey (University of Ulster) reviews Irish Protestant Identities Edited by Mervyn Busteed, Frank Neal and Jonathan Tonge, Manchester University Press 2008 pp389 + xvii. In his careful response to the scholarly papers he concludes with a lesson for Gordon Brown that devolution, especially to Northern Ireland as it is now, has proundly altered what it means to be British - and that this can no longer be defined by the 'centre'. 

This book of twenty-five chapters is a selection of papers presented at a conference organised by the British Association for Irish Studies held at the University of Salford in September 2005. An additional commissioned chapter deals with the fortunes of the two major Unionist parties since the Belfast Agreement of 1998, in particular tracking the transition of the Democratic Unionists from opposition to the ‘Trimble-Adams Pact’ to miraculous support for a Robinson-McGuinness Executive. Appropriately, the book retains the diversity of the papers’ subject matter and, in keeping with recent academic convention, there is no attempt to identify either the ‘mind’ of Protestant Ireland or its ‘character’. It is not the singularity of tradition but the plurality of experience which the editors try to convey and they do so successfully. One of the merits of the book is that it deals with Protestantism in southern as well as Northern Ireland and also considers the impact of Protestant migration to North America and Great Britain, along with the influence of the Orange Order in Scotland and England. It cannot provide a complete picture, of course, but it does provide a more subtle and honest one. This is to be welcomed since Protestantism in Ireland and specifically in Northern Ireland has often been the subject of crude stereotyping. Irish Protestant Identities, along with John Bew’s new study, The Glory of Being Britons (Irish Academic Press 2008), will be an indispensable source of reference for anyone interested in the history, politics and cultures of Irish Protestantism.  

Tom Griffin (London, OK): Twenty years ago this month, the New Statesman published Charter 88. Today, Charter's successor organisation Unlock Democracy is publishing a series of essays looking back at what has been achieved and what still needs to be done.

Unlocking Democracy: 20 years of Charter 88 features contributions from leading campaigners, academics and politicians including the three main party leaders:

Anthony Barnett; Geoffrey Bindman; Gordon Brown; David Cameron; Douglas Carswell; Louise Christian; Nick Clegg; Deborah Coles; Simon Davies; Brice Dickson; Peter Facey; Zac Goldsmith; Katherine Gundersen; Nick Herbert; Simon Hughes; John Jackson; Helena Kennedy; Helen Margetts; Bhikhu Parekh; Trevor Phillips; Alexandra Runswick; Helen Shaw; Trevor Smith; Alan Trench; Stuart Weir

As Unlock Democracy notes, there have been major democratic reforms in the two decades since Charter 88, including Devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Human Rights Act, and the Freedom of Information Act. Yet the Charter's central goal of a written constitution remains unachieved, and the War on Terror has presented a new challenge to civil liberties.