Jon Bright (London, OK): So what was said on The Politics Show today? I don't know, to put it simply - apparently it was only on in Scotland and the BBC's website, where you will be able to see it eventually, is still only carrying the edition from last week (at the time of writing).
However the BBC has posted a further article on the subject. Apparently, Brown said:
Now the question is, just as local government has to raise some of its money through council tax, just as many other areas in the world where there are devolved administrations have to raise money through assigned taxation, is there a case for doing so?
I admit calling the previous thread "revenue raising powers to go to Holyrood" was misleading (unintentionally, I assure you!). Brown has guaranteed no such thing. However, to put something on the table is a big step - if the convention finds that devolution of fiscal power to Holyrood is appropriate, then to ignore that call would be to destroy it. Conversely, if the convention decides this is unnecessary, it will undermine Alexander's attempt to shoot the SNP fox. While, on the whole, Brown and the rest of the parties involved are not pro-independence, the fact that they have decided to talk about fiscal devolution shows, for me, the difficulty of keeping control of such a process once it starts.
A final note - Brown also said that the review was not a "one-way street" and could consider returning some powers to Westminster. If it tries to do so, on any genuinely meaningful points, I imagine there will be many people in Scotland who feel more than a little conned by it.
Comments
"The SNP has arranged a process (the National Conversation) where it is judge, jury and executioner."
This is an oversimplification. The National Conversation is not quite what it could be, but it is a public consultation of a kind that Labour never offered us in Scotland about devolution (pre-referendum) or other issues (smoking ban etc).
As a result, the National Conversation has a wider range of commentary on it than usual.
The Constitutional Convention is a good idea, but no doubt it shall veer away from independence at some point, as its predecessors have.
I hope sincerely that the Scottish Constitutional Convention will work with non-partisan organisations such as the Scottish Independence Convention, Independence First and the Celtic League, as well as the usual unionist suspects.
Chris is right except on one point. Gordon Brown HAS commented on the Constitutional Commission we formed a year ago. On 23 July 2007 he wrote to me
"I am aware of the recently formed Constitutional Commission, and read with interest your piece in the Sunday Herald on 15 July. The Commission will have an important part to play in contributing to the wide ranging debate the Government initiated ,.....
I would encourage you to participate to ensire the Commission's and your own considerable experience is brought to bear"
Kenyon Wright
I find this post a little odd. To the best of my knowledge, Gordon Brown has never commented on the Scottish Constitutional Commission, which was established at the beginning of 2007. The Commission was set up largely because we anticipated the situation that has arisen today where, because Scotland is part of a larger unit that has no written constitution, politicians feel free to make it up the constitution as they go along, which is exactly what has been happening in recent years. It also means they are tempted to see themselves as the source of all constitutional knowledge.
Scotland deserves better than this. Unfortunately that’s not what’s on offer from Scottish politicians. The SNP has arranged a process (the National Conversation) where it is judge, jury and executioner. And the other parties have set up the “Wendy commission”, apparently run by the Scottish Parliament, but in practice run from Westminster. Both are paid for by the taxpayer.
The Scottish Constitutional Commission (www.constitutionalcommission.org) – not to be confused with the "Wendy commission" - has been arguing since it was set up in January last year that the process of deciding Scotland’s constitutional future has to be independent of any party political agenda, inclusive of all options including independence, and fully participatory. The Commission, founded by Kenyon Wright, John Drummond, myself and others, aims to meet all three of these criteria, and it is currently exploring all the possible constitutional options for Scotland and the implications of each one of these.
The Commission will put all this information to the people of Scotland, so that they are in a much better position to make an informed decision, because it is the people of Scotland as a whole who must decide their constitutional future. This is the strong implication of the “right of self-determination” under the UN Charter, and it is what the distinctively Scottish principle of “sovereignty of the people” means in practice.
We in the Constitutional Commission urge politicians and all other interested parties to support and join an independent, inclusive, participatory process of the kind that we have already set in motion. Let us unite in one body with the above principles and break the current deadlock.
There's a link to the interview on the right of this page.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7249002.stm
It's not up on the politics show yet.
Post new comment