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.
Predictably and predicted, foreseeably and foreseen, by me, George Cunningham, and indeed Enoch Powell, during the Commons debates of 1977–79, a Scottish Parliament, once established, is going to ask for more and more, and will remain discontented until such time it has got it. It is in the very nature of parliamentarians to demand more powers and financial resources for the institutions in which they find themselves. It is absolutely par for the course that the parties – Labour, Liberal and Conservative – should have endorsed the Calman report before they can possibly have had time to read, let alone digest, Calman's tome and recommendations.
The Conservatives also opposed the creation of a Scottish Parliament in 1997, a position that David Cameron now says was a mistake. However, there are signs that the party's traditional stance is reasserting itself, with Scottish Tory leader Annabel Goldie rowing back from full support for the Calman Report.
Ms Goldie has had to acknowledge concerns from a rebel group of more than a third of her party's MSPs, who are sceptical about devolving more powers to Scotland.
David Cameron has been silent on the commission's report since its publication.
A spokesman for Ms Goldie said: "We have a duty to carefully consider the report, especially as it is likely that it will be a Conservative government in Westminster which has to deliver the changes."
However, there was anger from inside the commission. One member said: "The Conservatives should be careful what they do, because if they put this report into the long grass and just shelve it, they will become the anti-devolution party again."
The problem for the Tories is only likely to grow if they take office at Westminster, which in itself will drive another wedge into their relationship with Labour and the Lib Dems north of the border.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
I see a crisis with the current Scottish Labour Party who appoint a leader - Ian Gray - in autumn last year and immediately send in the Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy to 'handle business'. What's wrong with Gray - we've hardly seen him since his appointment. Thought I saw him yesterday when her majesty visited Holyrood. Is his role to be merely ceremonial ??
Post new comment