An OurKingdom symposium: see also articles by Gerry Hassan, James Mitchell and David Torrance
It seemed unlikely that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling would be hounded out of office by the English mob, like Brown's predecessor Lord Bute, but for a moment in 2006 Alan Duncan looked like he might be a modern day John Wilkes. He was quickly slapped down. Since that time there has been a grumbling English discontent - articulated most forcefully by the likes of Simon Heffer, David Starkey and Kelvin MacKenzie - but the Tories themselves have resisted the temptation to play the English card and have not made an issue of Gordon Brown's Scottishness, or more specifically his lack of mandate on English domestic issues.
Soon though, baring divine intervention, the boot will be on the other foot; soon it will be Scotland that is ruled by a man they have not elected, who is not one of theirs, and who to them has no mandate. Step forward David Cameron to deliver the acid test of devolution. It was the democratic deficit of the Thatcher and Major years that provided the unionist rationale for Scottish devolution: Why should Scotland put up with a right-wing Tory government, and an English one at that, when Scotland consistently voted left-of-centre? If the devolution theorists are correct then the devolved Scottish Parliament should buffer Scotland from the worst excesses of English Conservatism and mollify the nationalist impulse. But there's a fly in the ointment, some Scots, most Scots in fact, are saying that devolution doesn't go far enough. They want a referendum and more powers, especially enhanced fiscal powers, and David Cameron doesn't want that. Respect, yes; powers to tax and spend, no! At least not yet, not now.
David Cameron is English, he's posh, he only has one Scottish MP, and he's a Tory. On paper he's an easier quarry for Alex Salmond than Gordon Brown is. But Salmond is a wily character, and he doesn't want the SNP to be the nasty party, so just as the Tories refrained from attacking Brown on grounds of his Scottishness, the SNP will most likely refrain from attacking Cameron's Englishness and class. This leaves Cameron's 'Tory-ness' and his lack of a Scottish mandate as the best grounds for attack, but then an attack on Cameron's Tory-ness may sound too much like the class-warfare and anti-Englishness of old, and may well alienate the Scottish voters that the SNP most wants to attract - those looking to cast their vote tactically against Labour. So Salmond's best tactic will be to point to Cameron's lack of Scottish support. Taking the best possible Conservative case-scenario that has presented itself so far (YouGov, 8th - 9th October 2009; Lab 34%, SNP 28%, Con 22%, Lib Dem 10%) the Conservatives could capitalise on the collapse of the Labour vote by picking up 7 Scottish MPs in 2010. However, this really is a best-case-scenario, for all their superior resources the Tories will find it tough campaigning in Scotland where they have failed to sanitise the Conservative brand to the extent they have in England and Wales.
George Osborne's proposed cuts in public spending will hit Scotland disproportionately hard, and hard hit too will be Scotland's representation at Westminster, delivered a double whammy of cuts through boundary changes and then enfeebled by English Votes on English Laws. "Vote Tory at the General Election and I won't be able to vote at Westminster" is not necessarily a good election slogan for doorstepping Tory candidates. On English Votes on English Laws the Tories may find that they have an ally in Alex Salmond, a man keen to see Scots side-lined at Westminster, though they may also find that it is Salmond who is the unlikely champion of England's cause. Worst of all, the Tories in Scotland have to explain their position on the Calman Commission, and they're not too sure what that position is. And the Tories in England don't particularly want the English to read in their papers about more Scottish devolution, lest they begin asking their own 'English Question'.
The issue of Scottish (and English) sovereignty will be useful political football for Salmond because he knows that none of the answers that are constitutionally coherent are politically acceptable to his opponents. In regard to his upcoming tete-a-tetes with Cameron, it is not so much the formal legal sovereignty of independence that should concern Salmond; it is popular sovereignty, the will of the Scottish people, a political force that could be used to devastating effect against an English Conservative government. The Panorama programme "Will the Scots Ever be Happy?" contained an exchange between Salmond and Cameron - a foretaste of the battles to come between Holyrood and Westminster? - and illustrated how I think Salmond will play his cards (Mr Reasonable vs Mr English-Arrogance).
David Cameron: "Just as I respect the ability of the Scottish Parliament to say on tuition fees, or whatever, "we take a different view", likewise the argument goes the other way; that if the government at Westminster has a mandate to deliver issues to do with nuclear deterrents or the size of the army, or whatever, then they should be able to do that without the Scottish Government trying to obstruct them.
My party, for instance, supports Britain having a nuclear deterrent that is independent, that's important, and that's a mandate, if elected, that we will have to deliver."
Alex Salmond: "The idea that you can base a new generation of nuclear missiles in Scotland and not talk or listen to the Scottish people about it is ridiculous...if the argument is to 'treat Scotland with respect', then it must be translated into more than just rhetoric, it must be reflected in deeds whoever is prime minister."
Pundits will inevitably focus on Scottish attitudes to Cameron, the Conservatives, England and the Union. But what will the English make of the power struggle between Holyrood and Westminster and the constant nationalist agitation to the north? Alex Massie, writing in the Spectator, believes that the strength of Tory Scotland will be an important factor:
12 years on from being wiped out in 1997, they [the Scottish Conservatives] need to make significant gains to remind English conservatives that Scotland - and the Union - remains worth fighting for. The party leadership seems to think so - Fox, Gove, Osborne and Cameron are all speaking here this week - but the English grassroots are not so sure. That being so, it would be useful if the Scottish Tories were able to do more to pull their weight...
If the Tories do fail to make gains in Scotland then they really are in trouble. It will be hard enough having to limp along with David 'Man Dull' Mundell as Secretary of State for Scotland, but if he is the only one, or if only a couple of Scottish Tories are added to his number, then overdue attention to Scottish sensibilities will be difficult for English Conservatives to sustain, and difficult for the English public to stomach. The tail must not be seen to be wagging the dog.
Comments
The territorial posts in Cabinet present a bit of a conundrum for the Tories. As you say, if they haven’t much talent to choose from amongst Scottish MPs, one wonders whether they would contemplate appointing an English-based Scot.
The fudge that is the Government of Wales Act 2006 is based on an enhanced role for the Secretary of State for Wales. I can’t see how the territorial posts can be abolished until such time as we move from Part 3 to Part 4 of that Act at the very least.
I suppose Cameron could give the Scottish post on a part-time basis to someone like Liam Fox and place greater emphasis on joint ministerial meetings with the First Ministers.
But that doesn't answer the question of what happens to England.
Gareth Young is surely right when he writes,"And the Tories in England don't particularly want the English to read in their papers about more Scottish devolution, lest they begin asking their own 'English Question'". One would never guess from the 'English' media or from the Conservative party's statements that policies laid out on education, health, transport and other devolved matters do not apply to 'Britain' but only to England. It will surely be difficult to keep the lid on rumours of devolution during the General Election. The promise of 'English Votes for English Laws' at Westminster, if it appears in the Conservative manifesto, will surely be in very small plrint or perhaps in a footnote about the Constitution wthat the Conservatives may hope that no-one will read.
Supposing the 'English Laws' proposal is included and that the Conservatives win a majority (present polls suggest a hung Parlliament), will they implement it? If not, it will be another abandoned manifesto commitment like those piously written into much-criticised Labour manifestos - referendum on the EU Constitution, anyone? If it is implemented, the Scottish MPs at Westminster will have even less to do than they have now (which is anyway mainly to act as lobby fodder for the Labour Govt). What will they do with themselves? Hang about the bars or go home? How long can this fix last?
And if Cameron does decide to call the SNP 'bluff' and hold a referendum on independence, how will he sell this south of the border? The English have never been offered a referendum on having their own Parliament. They have been tricked out of one on the EU. What will they say? So the Scots are to have another referendum? Again? Are the English not entitled to a vote on the Union? The English dog may not bark, even then, but it is very likely to get to its feet and growl, without wagging its tail. And it is quite possible that if the English were granted a say, while the Scots might say no, not yet, the English might say, yes, yes!
In other words if Cameron and Salmond sit down to a game of poker in 2010, Salmond may hold the best cards. The Cameron Govt (any govt), will be grappling with the necessity of cutting public spending by huge amounts. Cameron's might be tempted to put all constitution change 'on ice'.
Another issue they're anxious to hush up by referring to England-only policy areas as 'British' is the impact of public-spending cuts in England on the budgets for the devolved administrations. Basically, even if English public spending rises in line with inflation (e.g. Labour's pledge to protect '[English] front-line services' from real-terms cuts), the 'Barnett squeeze' means that the absolute increases in the DAs' budgets will be less than inflation - as increases to the budgets for the four nations are meant to be in proportion to real population, as opposed to the baseline and non-Formula 'UK' expenditure in the devolved nations that is allocated disproportionately to population.
In other words, increasing expenditure in England in line with inflation decreases the Barnett differentials faster than higher-than-inflation rises in English spending. So if English spending is cut in real terms, this really will bring about the need to make even more painful cuts in Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland.
Yesterday Jim Murphy said: "The Scottish Government will have more money next year than they have this year. That is a remarkable benefit of the economics of the United Kingdom."
So I guess the cuts will hit Scotland a year later than England, or from whenever the spending review happens.
Increases in English Departmental spending are translated into increases in the non-English block grants via the Barnett formula. In theory, decreases are supposed to result in corresponding reductions.
In the only such example I know of however, this did not happen. As one of his last acts as Chancellor, Gordon Brown slashed the English NHS Capital Budget
by a third without passing through any cuts to Scotland and Wales.
The European Commission has just placed the UK on the "high risk" list because of our spiralling national debt. The next government will be forced by circumstances into making draconian cuts in public spending.
It will be interesting to see if the Barnett Formula will prove to be "Heads Scotland/Wales/NI win, Tails England lose". That might just be the spark for some serious unrest.
Perhaps I'm jumping the gun a little with this but I can't help feeling a successful referendum on Scottish Independence would be THE shake up of politics in these Isles and starting point for 'real change' that we all seem to want. The Cornish Democrat
On "English Votes on English Laws", you are repeating the spin put out by some in the Labour party such as the now reborn Alastair Cambell. It is not the case that for candidates for Scottish constituencies "Vote Tory at the General Election and I won't be able to vote at Westminster", as you put it, because under the Tory proposals no Bill, including one applying only to England, could pass without a majority of all the members of the House of Commons (including Scottish members).
I think there are some difficulties with the Ken Clarke proposals, but they are not the ones you mention.
Nothing but independence for England will do and return all these Scotch politicians to their own parliament. Brown has signed the Scottish claim of right but no media nor political party see's this as an issue, the right states that the sighner will always put Scotland's interests first, this Brown and Blair have done. get them out now, along with the rest of em. Speaker Martin is now a Lord, how does that work????
Unlike David Torrance I don't rate David Mundell. He's not particularly well-liked, respected or charismatic. And unlike Annabel Goldie he doesn't have much public recognition or force of personality. But they have to have one Scottish MP in Cabinet so I expect it will him as Scottish Secretary. However boring Mundell may be, he is at least preferrable to a politician elected outside Scotland like Liam Fox or Malcolm Rifkind, or unelected at all, like Lord Strathclyde.
"It is not the case that for candidates for Scottish constituencies "Vote Tory at the General Election and I won't be able to vote at Westminster", as you put it, because under the Tory proposals no Bill, including one applying only to England, could pass without a majority of all the members of the House of Commons (including Scottish members)."
Try explaining that to the general public. It's a confusing and shambolic enough plan for the constitutionally literate to understand. Not only will the Tories have to explain it to the public, they'll have to explain it to their own MPs, opposition MPs, and then get it through the House. I'll really enjoy that particular debate, if it happens.
All three main parties at Westminster do not make it clear that, when they are discussing domestic matters, they are invariably talking about England or England and Wales.Rarely are matters relevant to Scotland.
The Tories are as big offenders as New Labour and the Lib Dems.
I'm sure that many Scottish voters must be confused by this and the deceit could well backfire on Cameron in Scotland at the next general election.
Let's hope so.
This Scotsman is certainly confused!
http://crossofstgeorge.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25684
I find the spectacle of the likely coming Tory clash with Scotland and Salmond simply ridiculous in its lack of necessity. Cameron does have an easy way out via an English parliament ( already supported by Salmond ) and the resulting defusing of Scottish resentment at Westminster as being an "English parliament" which it never has been in reality.
If Cameron were to stride past all criticism and support an EP he would draw the sting of much of Scottish criticism and at the same time bring about a new logical political arrangement in the UK supportable by many who have opponents of its inbred political class.
He doesn't appear to be able to comprehend his opportunity. His present policy of just attemptiing to muff it out with what remains of the old order while concurrently trying to fend off Salmond is just asking for trouble and Salmond will oblige. Adding to the problem by converting the Westminster parliament into what will be perceived by the Scots to be an EP with the attenedent problem of increasing redundancy of non Englsh MP's just makes it worse.
Cameron appears to be seriously underestimating the problems ahead. It won't by just a matter of tackling the economic situation. The constitutional could well take over.
The next day the English Parliament enters, dissolution is inevitable. If English aren't British enough to understand it, and to behave properly, Disunited Kingdoms are the only reality - and I'm not sure that York or Cornwall aren't going to play independence card for a while (just as I'm not sure whether these independent units will be Utopias - or realities). AQ
Scotland want's independence, like a teenager wants to leave home. It's easier to talk about it than to actually do it.
Post new comment