Thread: whither Scotland Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029158
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
Wondering if any intelligent commentators on here, hopefully Alan Cresswell maybe, can tell us where we're going.
We've got a Tory UK government with unassailable majority (the DUP will vote with the Tories on austerity matters, they say, so the Tories can pursue austerity, privatisation of NHS etc unhindered.
TheSNP fought on the basis of a Scottish presence at Westminster to fight austerity. They have their presence but no numerical basis (and questionable democratic basis) to challenge austerity.
Will Cameron grant full fiscal autonomy to hold back the inevitable demands for a further independence referendum which will come after the SNP landslide at 2016 elections to Holyrood? Would he be able to resist demands for a second referendum if the SNP win 2016 on a manifesto to demand a referendum? Cameron knows that the outcome of a second referendum might well end the Union.
Does the SNP want FFA just now? There is talk from them to working towards it over several years, meantime the Barnett formula to continue. Funny, they were ready to lead us to complete indepence in 18 months if they'd won the referendum.
Cameron will want to keep Trident (and its replacement) on the Clyde for ever. Will this be a sticking point? Presumably FFA will mean that Scotland will not have control over defence matters and SNP will have to concede Trident to remain. Will this be a problem?
These are just a few of many questions.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I think there's a lot of dust to settle before things become clearer. We've an interesting few months ahead to see how things pan out.
But, given a certain amount of clouded vision, here are some initial thoughts (no particular order).
- I don't expect 2016 will be the massive SNP landslide that would be expected from a repeat of last weeks vote. I think a lot of the desertion of Labour was a reaction against Westminster and the UK Labour Party, and I expect a return to Labour of quite a few of those who voted SNP on Thursday. I also expect the LibDems to do better than they did on Thursday - they've blown their reputation as a Westminster party, but they have a good track record in Holyrood.
I don't think the people of Scotland actually want a massive majority for any party in Holyrood. But, if Nicola isn't FM with a very comfortable majority after the 2016 election I'll be very surprised.
- What can the SNP do in Westminster to moderate the effects of Tory austerity, dismantlement of health and welfare services etc? It's going to be a tight rope walk. Any changes in national services is going to affect Scottish constituencies (that would be true even if we had independence, it would just be that we'd have no option but to live with it). Therefore, the SNP MPs (and the three other Scottish MPs) will be well within their role representing their constituents to engage in the debates and discussions, and votes, of the House. But, everytime they do what they've been elected to do, represent their constituents, there will be shouts of "English votes for English matters" with the right-wing rags baying for blood. Inevitably our MPs will come off balance (they're only human after all), sometimes being too involved in matters that only indirectly affect their constituents and being blasted by the right-wing rags, other times not taking a strong enough stand and being criticised by the Scottish people.
What they can do is constantly point out what is happening in Scotland. Which, with increased fiscal powers will hopefully demonstrate how to run a health and welfare service, schools, and other governmental services with financial and environmental responsibility, fostering economic growth and general well-being, and without the full force of austerity. The problem being that we've not had the chance to do that very well with the spending restrictions imposed by Westminster, and it will take time for the impact of enacting Scottish policy to become apparent. Which will be further delayed without introducing further devolved powers promptly. That may be too late to prevent the Tories from putting their axe to the base of the tree.
If, along with members of other parties in Westminster, they can make a good case against government policies there are still a large number of perfectly decent Tory MPs. If enough of them can be convinced that the Act under discussion is not good for their constituents, and the country as a whole, it won't take a massive rebellion for the government to struggle to get some legislation through.
- Trident will be interesting. I suspect that Holyrood, and local authorities around the Faslane base, could make it difficult to obtain planning permission for base upgrades to accommodate new subs. But, I think you're right that there will be little direct say in defence from Holyrood. It will be very unpopular in Scotland, and doesn't seem to have much in the way of popular support in the rest of the UK, but I suspect sometime in the next three years Cameron will start sinking great wads of cash (which he claims he doesn't have to fund the health service, welfare etc) on four new boats. The one anti-austerity policy no one really wants.
- A further referendum. I don't see any appetite in Scotland, beyond the die-hard Independence campaigners, for another referendum at the moment. The majority attitude is to a) find out what further developed powers Westminster will give Holyrood and b) then see how they work out before making any hasty decision on going further. Thursday's result may have shifted the balance a little bit towards another referendum but not that far.
I strongly suspect the SNP are as aware of that as everyone else. They'll put aspirational comments in their 2016 manifesto about building the groundwork for a further referendum, about independence as a long term aim. But, at the moment, a commitment to seek a referendum in the next 5 years will not be a vote winner for them. An in/out referendum on the EU may be the tipping point though - holding such a referendum turns the No Campaign promise that Scotland can only be assured a place in the EU within the union into a stinking great lie. If there's a moment of collective insanity and the result of a referendum is "out" with Scotland strongly in favour of remaining in then all bets about independence are off.
- FFA. I don't think anyone thinks that can be implemented overnight. In some ways it's more complicated that managing the finances of an independent nation, so if it was estimated to take 18 months to sort out independent financial structures, a similar timescale for FFA is not unreasonable. At the moment FFA doesn't appear to be on the table, Cameron has promised further devolved powers, it's not entirely clear exactly what they will be. But, it makes sense to work on getting the best deal from what's on the table, and then getting those powers bedded down and producing good results for the people of Scotland. Then going for something more - either FFA or independence depending on how the country is swinging at the time.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I certainly think one very strong line of attack for the SNP will be simply: "You have no mandate to do that north of the border."
They'll be right - a sort of reverse West Lothian question. It'll make things very awkward for the Tories.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
On the subject of the Barnett formula, the problem is only in part the formula as it exists but what should replace it. It was devised by Joel Barnett (then Chief Secretary to the Treasury) to cater for devolution in 1979, taking into account the services to be devolved to the four parts of the United Kingdom. It never took account of varying needs as separate studies by the Treasury investigated.
Barnett said in 2004 that "it was never intended to last this long", but despite (or because of) widespread shortcomings and criticisms in Westminster and within England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, a revision let alone a permanent statutory arrangement is someway off.
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
On the subject of the Barnett formula, the problem is only in part the formula as it exists but what should replace it. It was devised by Joel Barnett (then Chief Secretary to the Treasury) to cater for devolution in 1979, taking into account the services to be devolved to the four parts of the United Kingdom. It never took account of varying needs as separate studies by the Treasury investigated.
Barnett said in 2004 that "it was never intended to last this long", but despite (or because of) widespread shortcomings and criticisms in Westminster and within England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, a revision let alone a permanent statutory arrangement is someway off.
The formula will be history for Scotland if FFA comes along.
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
Alan, there are rumours that Cameron is going to offer FFA next week ( the offer next week, not FFA next week).
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
On the subject of the Barnett formula, the problem is only in part the formula as it exists but what should replace it. It was devised by Joel Barnett (then Chief Secretary to the Treasury) to cater for devolution in 1979, taking into account the services to be devolved to the four parts of the United Kingdom. It never took account of varying needs as separate studies by the Treasury investigated.
Barnett said in 2004 that "it was never intended to last this long", but despite (or because of) widespread shortcomings and criticisms in Westminster and within England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, a revision let alone a permanent statutory arrangement is someway off.
The formula will be history for Scotland if FFA comes along.
I expect there will be some arguing about that! One of the problems raised is that of the extent to which public expenditure in place A affects economic activity in place B when B is in a different tax raising territory. It occurs all over the continent but it's something e don't have, except in Ireland.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An in/out referendum on the EU may be the tipping point though - holding such a referendum turns the No Campaign promise that Scotland can only be assured a place in the EU within the union into a stinking great lie. If there's a moment of collective insanity and the result of a referendum is "out" with Scotland strongly in favour of remaining in then all bets about independence are off.
This. I think the EU referendum constitutes the Conservatives handing Scottish nationalists an absolute gift.
Given that a Scottish referendum is about fairly basic governance arrangements, they're not going to feel terribly constrained about having a 2nd one if Westminster goes about changing the governance arrangements.
I'm not even sure that an vote to leave the EU is what it would take. A strong "leave the EU" campaign in England coupled with a Scottish desire to stay in the EU could well be enough to motivate a second Scottish independence referendum.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I certainly think one very strong line of attack for the SNP will be simply: "You have no mandate to do that north of the border."
They'll be right - a sort of reverse West Lothian question. It'll make things very awkward for the Tories.
But last week's election was to form a parliament for the entire UK, not its constituent parts. How can such a cry be raised legitimately as long as it applies evenly across the entire country? Certainly, Holyrood as it sees fit can legislate within its remit, but the SNP cannot raise a cry along the lines you suggest in respect of uniform legislation.
As an aside, does the SNP really want FFA? It would then have to bear the brunt of raising the money as well as spending it. The history of the States here is while they like spending money, they would rather that the hard and often unpopular job of raising it be carried out by the federal government.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I'd like to see the SNP actually bite the bullet and use the Scottish Parliament's existing tax raising powers. Go to the electorate in 2016 saying "look, the tories are cutting too much from the budget. We need to protect public services and stop people starving to death. That means we're advocating 1p extra on the basic rate of income tax each year for the next 3 years". It might lose them some votes but it will make a clear distinction between them and both Labour and the tories. It would be line in the sand saying that Scotland cares about society, it's not "every man for himself" up here.
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
- I don't expect 2016 will be the massive SNP landslide that would be expected from a repeat of last weeks vote. I think a lot of the desertion of Labour was a reaction against Westminster and the UK Labour Party, and I expect a return to Labour of quite a few of those who voted SNP on Thursday. I also expect the LibDems to do better than they did on Thursday - they've blown their reputation as a Westminster party, but they have a good track record in Holyrood.
I think it depends to a huge extent on how Labour/Scottish Labour deals with the situation. There is the huge problem that Labour's opposition in Scotland is the SNP while in England it is the Conservatives - two entirely different animals. They may be able to tackle two very different games only by becoming two distinct parties. Personally, I think a genuinely independent Scottish Labour party retaining only a loose association with the main Labour body would be very good for Scotland, as the SNP will need a credible opposition rather sooner than later if it is to remain as fit and progressive as it is now. OTOH unless Jim Murphy, who is now morally shipwrecked in just about every way conceivable, is forced to stand down from his position as Branch Office Manager it is very difficult to see how Scottish Labour is going to dig its way out of its hole any time soon.
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
Why do you say that Jim Murphy is morally shipwrecked? True, Scottish Labour failed to convince at the recent poll but it wasn't a moral failure, certainly not a moral failure by Jim Murphy who is a decent man and fought a hard fight after taking the leadership last year. He may be a political failure but to question his morality is surely OTT.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Jim Murphy's morality has been in question since he was president of the NUS. In the light of what he did in that role, "decent man" isn't quite what springs to mind. "Treacherous bastard", on the other hand...
He is also a renowned warmonger and exploiter of the parliamentary expenses system.
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on
:
He was for one involved in expenses scandals at Westminster.
For twos he apparently abstained from voting on fracking, later claiming he voted against. There were similar instances on other policies.
For threes he has been caught telling whoppers, such as no austerity in Scotland, while every Labour member of consequence at London HQ did not even appear to know what he was on about.
For fours he adopted a shouty style which derailed every debate I watched by bringing in totally off-topic political soundbites.
And finally, he lost his seat. Clegg and Miliband faired better than that, but they still stood down. No party got annihilated more the Scottish Labour - and don't forget that he was claiming at one point that he would hold every Labour seat in Scotland. He failed abjectly.
And to get personal, what really did it for me were his cynical populist proposals such as reintroducing alcohol to football grounds. Get lost, man!
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on
:
Just to clarify: "Get lost, man" refers to Jim Murphy, and not anyone on this thread. (missed edit)
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
Just to clarify: "Get lost, man" refers to Jim Murphy, and not anyone on this thread. (missed edit)
Donna worry, I didn't take it personally.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
How can such a cry be raised legitimately as long as it applies evenly across the entire country? Certainly, Holyrood as it sees fit can legislate within its remit, but the SNP cannot raise a cry along the lines you suggest in respect of uniform legislation.
Of course they can. And they will.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
How can such a cry be raised legitimately as long as it applies evenly across the entire country? Certainly, Holyrood as it sees fit can legislate within its remit, but the SNP cannot raise a cry along the lines you suggest in respect of uniform legislation.
Of course they can. And they will.
They will complain and complain loudly, but without legitimacy. Can I complain when the federal government here introduces legislation against the platform of the party which won the majority in my electorate? I can complain about the legislation itself, but I can't complain about its operation in my electorate on the basis that the electorate supported the opposite. The same applies to Scotland. If the legislation is UK wide in operation, there can be no legitimate opposition to its application in Scotland on the basis that the majority of Scottish seats went to a party opposed to the legislation.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
Here's a little article about the three remaining non-SNP MPs in Scotland, who they are, and why they were able to retain their seats amidst the sea of yellow. It doesn't add much to the "Whither Scotland" question, admittedly, but it's good to know who the other ones are, and why it wasn't entirely a yellow-wash.
Comonspace - "How Scotland's Three Unionist Amigos Survived the SNP Tsunami".
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
How can such a cry be raised legitimately as long as it applies evenly across the entire country? Certainly, Holyrood as it sees fit can legislate within its remit, but the SNP cannot raise a cry along the lines you suggest in respect of uniform legislation.
Of course they can. And they will.
No, because FPTP means you get to make laws for the whole country even though you only got elected in part of it. That's one of the rules of FPTP. The SNP can claim that FPTP is illegitimate, of course, but there isn't any other system that would get them 56 seats.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Here's a little article about the three remaining non-SNP MPs in Scotland, who they are, and why they were able to retain their seats amidst the sea of yellow. It doesn't add much to the "Whither Scotland" question, admittedly, but it's good to know who the other ones are, and why it wasn't entirely a yellow-wash.
Comonspace - "How Scotland's Three Unionist Amigos Survived the SNP Tsunami".
I live in the only Tory constituency left. Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale is a solidly traditional farming area, and fairly recent boundary changes have made it even more so. I grew up in a community that could be described as 'old Tory', in favour of stability and tradition, and which never did understand why Margaret Thatcher did not support the farmers more. Even so, to vote Labour was unthinkable, as they were too urban. (And the Labour MP we lived under for many years before the boundary changes was a boor, and told the farmers directly during the BSE crisis that he didn't care, because he didn't need their votes.) Somehow the Lib-Dems never made inroads here like they did in other farming areas. So Tory we were and are and shall be for the foreseeable future.
Also, David Mundell is a local boy. Mind you, Emma Harper for the SNP is also a local girl with a farming background, which makes her a canny choice - and she nearly did it. But Mundell, for all I disagree utterly with his policies, is an excellent constituency MP. He goes round the local agricultural shows, keeps in good letter contact with his constituents, and when I emailed him once (about the Tory policy on the European Convention on Human Rights) replied promptly and individually. He also came out of the expenses scandal well, and seems to be an honest man.
Another reason he held on is that the closer to the border with England you get, and the more anxious the locals are about independence. That border is very porous, with youngsters from the Dumfriesshire side popping over to Carlisle for their further education, plenty of people commuting in both directions (but mainly Scotland to England), and many 'mixed marriages', so to speak. Demographically, I believe this is also the oldest region in Scotland, with a disproportionately high number of retirees: a group of which 73% voted against independence.
Re. the Edinburgh South constituency. I used to live there, and a friend who still does informs me that Neil Hay of the SNP is 'not a nice man'. She was therefore very torn as to how to vote. She wanted to vote SNP, but felt she could not give her vote to an individual whom she disliked so thoroughly. Ian Murray, by contrast, seems well liked, and also a good constituency MP. This combination of a popular incumbent and an unpopular challenger might explain the result.
So that's my analysis, for what it's worth. (I have no knowledge of Orkney and Shetland). But it suggests to me that if Labour and the Conservative parties want their votes back, then the way to do it has to be every bit as much via local politics and personalities as via credible leadership and policies. From the other side, the SNP could field a less problematic candidate in Edinburgh South; and Emma Harper could yet, by plugging away, close that 798-vote gap by the next election.
[ 11. May 2015, 17:02: Message edited by: Cottontail ]
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
That's interesting - good to hear a local perspective from two of the constituencies (what are the odds of that, you get a bit of everything on the Ship!). The Shetlanders i know all supported the Yes side in the referendum, and so all presumably voted SNP, so I don't know much about their constituency. The Shetlands and Orkneys are a rather different place from the mainland, so I wouldn't venture to offer an opinion on their local politics!
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
Cottontail, not sure I agree with your analysis re the way back for Labour and Lib Dem. The sitting MP in East Dunbartonshire was a local girl, Jo Swinson, who had held the seat since 2005. She was an upcoming star, holding ministerial office in the Coalition, and an exemplary constituency MP. Frankly, you couldn't get a better constituency MP. She still lost out to the SNP, even though the area was solidly No in the Referendum.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
But she very nearly held on. Relatively few of her votes went to the SNP - she polled about 19,000. It was the Labour vote that collapsed and handed the seat to the SNP with a majority of only a few thousand.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
Well yes, constituency work and personality are only part of it. They won't make up on their own for a poor campaign at national level or unpopular policies. But I think the days when the electorate in Lanark and Hamilton East would vote Labour 'if they put up a ferret' (to quote a friend) may well be over. And to my mind, the Edinburgh South example suggests that a party may struggle to win that seat without a credible candidate, even if everything else is in their favour.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
How can such a cry be raised legitimately as long as it applies evenly across the entire country? Certainly, Holyrood as it sees fit can legislate within its remit, but the SNP cannot raise a cry along the lines you suggest in respect of uniform legislation.
Of course they can. And they will.
No, because FPTP means you get to make laws for the whole country even though you only got elected in part of it. That's one of the rules of FPTP. The SNP can claim that FPTP is illegitimate, of course, but there isn't any other system that would get them 56 seats.
You seem to be confusing what is factually correct and the narrative that the SNP are going to use.
Bluntly put, the SNP will not care about constitutional niceties about FPTP and a whole-UK government when they can say to the Tories, "You have one MP in our country".
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
But she very nearly held on. Relatively few of her votes went to the SNP - she polled about 19,000. It was the Labour vote that collapsed and handed the seat to the SNP with a majority of only a few thousand.
Agreed. But she still got caught up in the rush to the SNP from Labour. Although the traditional Labour support is relatively small, it was still enough to unseat Jo. But I agree, her loss of seat was noticeably different from Labour losses to SNP. Another point is that the SNP candidate now MP, a smat ar*e media type, ran a nasty campaign against Jo. Hope he gets his comeuppance.
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on
:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
quote:
the SNP will not care about constitutional niceties about FPTP and a whole-UK government when they can say to the Tories, "You have one MP in our country".
Alex Salmond was reported as having said that 'the lion has roared across the country' Maybe true, but with 56 seats to 312 I doubt that the lion has got any teeth!
Even with support from the Labour MPs and all the minor parties (a situation I suspect would be highly unlikely!) they still couldn't succeed.
With regard to the Scottish Parliament election next year, am I not right in thinking that Scotland uses PR? If so, the SNP will not get the same overwhelming advantage. I'm not sure what this might mean about a call for a further referendum, however - always assuming that Ms Sturgeon was/is right to claim that the Westminster election was NOT about a referendum in the near future - a statement that Alex Salmond seems to disagree with!
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
But they don't need teeth. They just need to make a nuisance of themselves and portray themselves as being brutally crushed under the heartless Tory boot.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It will be interesting to see Cameron's approach, will it be demonization of SNP and extolling of English nationalism, or a more respectful approach? And how will right-wing Tories react to the Tartan hordes?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You seem to be confusing what is factually correct and the narrative that the SNP are going to use.
Ah, fair enough. I thought you meant 'can' in the sense of 'can legitimately'.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
With regard to the Scottish Parliament election next year, am I not right in thinking that Scotland uses PR? If so, the SNP will not get the same overwhelming advantage.
There are 129 seats in Holyrood. 73 of them are constituency members elected under FPTP (obviously with each constituency slightly different, and smaller, than the 59 Westminster constituencies). The remaining 56 are regional seats, 8 regions returning 7 members each. The regional seats are produced by an Additional Member System, which is semi-proportional rather than PR per se. The number of MSPs for the region (constituencies and regional) is calculated based on a PR type calculation, regional members are then taken from the lists for each party to bring their representation in the region to match, as close as possible, the number they would have under PR.
The effect is to slightly moderate the constituency effect that can produce what we saw last week, a 50% vote getting all but 3 of the seats. So, in 2011 the SNP got 45% of the constituency votes giving them 53 of the 73 constituency MSPs. They got 44% of the additional member regional vote, which because of the MSPs they already had only gave them an additional 16 seats (rather than the approximate 25 they'd have had under straight PR for the regions). That still gave them 69 MSPs, 53% of the total, a comfortable majority above their actual share of the vote but not as outrageously greater than their share of the vote as 95% of the seats from a 50% share of the vote (as they got last week) or even 51% of seats from 37% of the vote (which is what the Tories got).
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You seem to be confusing what is factually correct and the narrative that the SNP are going to use.
Ah, fair enough. I thought you meant 'can' in the sense of 'can legitimately'.
Which is why i deliberately included "legitimately" in my original post. But it will be an easy cry for the SNP, will get newspaper headlines, and may ultimately get them a few more votes. Besides, it saves the SNP spokespeople the trouble of thinking.
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
But they don't need teeth. They just need to make a nuisance of themselves and portray themselves as being brutally crushed under the heartless Tory boot.
Which might play well north of the border, but will hardly have any impact in the House, or endear them to English voters - not that the latter will probably worry them.
Thanks, Alan C, for your detailed explanation - talk about complicated...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
But they don't need teeth. They just need to make a nuisance of themselves and portray themselves as being brutally crushed under the heartless Tory boot.
Which might play well north of the border, but will hardly have any impact in the House, or endear them to English voters - not that the latter will probably worry them.
It's impact north of the border that they want. If Cameron is sufficiently strong in ignoring/dismissing SNP views, he will be handing the Scottish independence movement a gift. The SNP narrative will become all about England v Scotland, and how out of touch Westminster is with Scottish values.
I doubt that they care that much about the precise content of UK legislation passing through the UK parliament, when the longer game is simply not to be part of the UK.
Cameron will have to play the game very carefully indeed if he wants to avoid being written into the history books as the PM who lost the Union.
[ 12. May 2015, 03:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Not a problem if the SNP angers enough English voters to give Cameron the political cover to let Scotland walk. The SNP wants independence. The Conservatives want to stay in power for decades. Labour will have a hard time winning enough seats to govern without Scotland being in play.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Not a problem if the SNP angers enough English voters to give Cameron the political cover to let Scotland walk. The SNP wants independence. The Conservatives want to stay in power for decades. Labour will have a hard time winning enough seats to govern without Scotland being in play.
It's a problem if you genuinely want to preserve the Union. And in fact most Conservatives actually do want to preserve the Union.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Not a problem if the SNP angers enough English voters to give Cameron the political cover to let Scotland walk.
I think losing a third of the country you are supposed to be governing might impact a teensy bit on your popularity. 'You're taking the oil and gas? And the hydro? But we can have these nuclear weapons back in exchange? Whatever. See you around.'
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
But it will be an easy cry for the SNP, will get newspaper headlines, and may ultimately get them a few more votes. Besides, it saves the SNP spokespeople the trouble of thinking.
In fact, the SNP will have a good deal of thinking to do. The hung parliament scenario was the one in which they could actually demonstrate relevance. If Cameron locks them out of influence, they will have to think carefully how they can achieve tangible results with which to go back to their constituents in five years time - or even in time for the Holyrood elections next year. As for the press - the SNP and particularly Sturgeon ("Most Dangerous Woman in Britain" yaddy yadda) have not been given an easy ride in British nationwide broadsheets, whose coverage of events in Scotland has actually been quite shocking. So they will have to operate beyond simple headline-grabbing.
Posted by Badger Lady (# 13453) on
:
One other consideration is how the SNPs in Westminster and the SNP led Holyrood government will work together.
One particular area that springs to mind is the proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act , renegotiate/pull out of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Notwithstanding that legal and international complexities of this move, the devolved governments pose particular problems.
This is probabably the best analysis of them. In summary the Conservatives need the consent of the devolved regions.
The SNP have already indicated they would not agree to such a proposal. The Government could push ahead (in defiance of convention) but then it would be open to Scotland to have its own HRA.
This is also an issue where some Conservatives backbenchers (such as the former Attorney General!) do not support the policy and one could see them uniting with the rest of the opposition to try and defeat the government.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Thanks for your post and the link, that's very interesting.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Not a problem if the SNP angers enough English voters to give Cameron the political cover to let Scotland walk. The SNP wants independence. The Conservatives want to stay in power for decades. Labour will have a hard time winning enough seats to govern without Scotland being in play.
It's a problem if you genuinely want to preserve the Union. And in fact most Conservatives actually do want to preserve the Union.
They do NOW.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
I'm really not sure what you're getting at Beeswax Altar.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
Unless you mean that the SNP will make such a nuisance of themselves that Conservative voters will eventually be glad to see them go. But what I meant is that Conservatives like David Cameron want to preserve the Union. So it's a problem for him if the price of political dominance is the destruction of the UK. He would see it as far too high a price to pay.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'm reasonably certain that Cameron pulled out all the stops in the last few days of the referendum campaign, in an attempt to keep the union.
Rightly or wrongly, it was a matter of huge importance to him and, even it wasn't, I can't imagine any PM enjoying the audience with Her Maj, post-break up. That thought alone will probably keep most Westminster politicians in line.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
But what I meant is that Conservatives like David Cameron want to preserve the Union. So it's a problem for him if the price of political dominance is the destruction of the UK. He would see it as far too high a price to pay.
I am not seeing much evidence that he thinks it would be far too high a price to pay. Up to a point, you shouldn't attribute to nefarious purpose what can be attributed to utter incompetence, but past that point utter incompetence and nefarious purpose become indistinguishable.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
I certainly think his "shock, horror" approach to the SNP has not helped the Unionist cause. But I think this is just because he is really shocked and horrified by the prospect of a Scottish breakaway. He just can't see what to do about it.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
But it will be an easy cry for the SNP, will get newspaper headlines, and may ultimately get them a few more votes. Besides, it saves the SNP spokespeople the trouble of thinking.
In fact, the SNP will have a good deal of thinking to do. The hung parliament scenario was the one in which they could actually demonstrate relevance. If Cameron locks them out of influence, they will have to think carefully how they can achieve tangible results with which to go back to their constituents in five years time - or even in time for the Holyrood elections next year. As for the press - the SNP and particularly Sturgeon ("Most Dangerous Woman in Britain" yaddy yadda) have not been given an easy ride in British nationwide broadsheets, whose coverage of events in Scotland has actually been quite shocking. So they will have to operate beyond simple headline-grabbing.
Agreed, but are they up to it? It's a lot easier for them to lapse into the simple cry that Scotland voted against it and therefore Westminster has no power to legislate.
You're right about the press - thinking issues through seems beyond virtually every paper. Over the last dozen years, even the Guardian has fallen from the days of an ability to analyse and discuss to the limitations of a quick knee jerk reaction.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Unless you mean that the SNP will make such a nuisance of themselves that Conservative voters will eventually be glad to see them go. But what I meant is that Conservatives like David Cameron want to preserve the Union. So it's a problem for him if the price of political dominance is the destruction of the UK. He would see it as far too high a price to pay.
Maybe Dave isn't as cynical as I am.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I certainly think his "shock, horror" approach to the SNP has not helped the Unionist cause. But I think this is just because he is really shocked and horrified by the prospect of a Scottish breakaway. He just can't see what to do about it.
One thing he could do is not suddenly raise the question of English Votes for English Laws immediately after the independence referendum results were announced, and announce that he was linking the promises he'd made late in the campaign to the English Votes question.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I'm not sure if Cameron was shocked or not by the growth of SNP, but he had the nous to exploit it for his own ends. They became the bogeyman, and English nationalism the useful drum to beat. Maybe he will now become emollient, but would SNP trust that? As much as a man trusts the rope supporting him round the neck.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The spectre of English Nationalism has been raised. It will be interesting if that can be directed into a healthy and progressive movement, or whether it will descend into the thuggery of the fringe organisations that have until now had an almost exclusive use of the term. I really, really hope that it can develop into something really positive, much as Scottish Nationalism is.
Though, such a development may result in an "English Nationalist Party" which could be a big vote loser for the Tories (but unlikely for the next few elections).
Posted by Wet Kipper (# 1654) on
:
Perhaps Nicola should have created the ENP as branch of the SNP with the same General Election pledges/manifesto and stood in English seats - would have given somthing to all those people in the rest of the UK who were saying "why can't we vote for her?" after that 7-way debate
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
but are they up to it? [SNP]
That I think is a legitimate question. In their favour, they have a wide variety of political talent which was not born, bred and fed with a silver spoon in its mouth and reared for political careers. This could make it difficult for the political establishment to read and manage them. On the other hand, it is exactly this inexperience which could, at least for an initial period, let them fall prey to some of the more savvy political animals in Westminster. The SNP will also have its work cut out in that it must at once be seen to be a constructive force, and a force that will oppose and check the Tories at every turn. Since the Tories are in government, that is not going to be an easy act to pull off.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
They have another point in their favour, which is a straight-forward nationalist narrative that they represent the soul of Scotland, being a country that is more egalitarian and enlightened than the Other Place.
There are striking similarities between their image in Scotland now and Blair's in 1997, ie, a tendency to believe that they are one thing when their policies are another. In each case, it is the belief - almost religiously held in some quarters - that they are further to the left than they actually are. The SNP are very careful to make sure their rhetoric plays up to this. They say they help the poor buy abolishing tuition fees, whereas the reality is that their higher education policy has been regressive. Their tax policy has been even worse: they have in the recent past advocated slashing corporation tax, and they have never used Holyrood's powers to raised taxes in Scotland. A truly left-wing party would have done this. I think that Sturgeon and Salmond before him know that the Scots won't like it.
The SNP are merely a tartan version of New Labour, however, it will clearly be some time before anyone figures this out.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
...and also very, very close to Rupert Murdoch.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I really, really hope that it can develop into something really positive, much as Scottish Nationalism is.
I never did reply to your comment on the other thread, so I will do so now.
My view (based on my own experiences and observations of the referendum) is that Scottish nationalism is deeply hypocritical and wilfully blind, to the extent of believing its shit doesn't stink. There is nothing exceptional about this: it is something common to all nationalisms.
I posted something of my own experiences in Scotland, which were basically negative enough to disincline me to continue living there. Here is your reply, which I intended to comment on, but other commitments got in the way.
quote:
As another Englishman in Scotland, I've not met abuse either. And, I'm much closer to the big cities where it's supposed to be worse. I do get a few "it's the fault of the bloody English" comments, but since what's clearly meant is the English dominated Westminster Parliament, English dominated financial institutions, etc. rather than the English people in general I usually agree.
It does depend on the person too, of course. If you move to Glasgow from England and start making a big thing of how things are better in England you're going to get less pleasant comments. But, you'll get the same anywhere if you move there with that attitude.
Now, I was brought up in England, however, I have spent the second half of my life outside England, in Scotland and in other countries. My wife is not English (or indeed from the UK or NZ) and I have been settled here for well over a decade. So I don't think I can be accused of insularity or tactlessness. I also think that if I had an attitude as to "how things are better in England" I would probably not still be living here, or be married to my non-English wife (although I don't think you were suggesting I was like that).
The point to note is that I simply have never received any of the sort of nonsense I got in Scotland elsewhere. Yes, one gets the odd remark and plenty of ragging, particularly when the cricket or rugby is on. It is always in very good humour. I can only think of one genuinely unpleasant remark in the decade I have lived here. You do not see graffiti saying "Fuck the English" here, nor have I ever been threatened with violence on account of my ethnicity (these were experiences I had in Scotland). In fact, my ethnicity isn't really a talking point here. Nor is nationality. You will not walk down a New Zealand street and see national emblems at every turn except in gift shops. Institutions are not inevitably prefixed with "Kiwi-" or "NZ". The magazines are not full of articles about who Kiwis are or what their national characteristics are. There will soon be a referendum on whether the national flag should be changed. I don't know what the result will be. However, it is clear that most people think it a complete waste of time and money. New Zealanders will very occasionally comment like my accent or want to tell me in great length about the UK tour they had last year. That's about it. And it is not the case that New Zealanders are particularly Anglophile. Apart from the sport or a royal visit, England is not part of their consciousness, and frankly that's how I like it.
In fact, even here, the only people who do automatically make anything of my ethnicity are Scots. It is as if they are constantly scratching an itch. An example: my office recently took on a new (Scottish) hire. The person makes constant remarks. We're like this, you're like that. The English are evil. Their rugby team is evil. They stole our oil. They are mean spirited. They hate the poor. They oppress everyone and colonised and raped the world. Now, I don't particularly mind the comments. I like this person, and I don't for a second think they mean to offend. The comments are just a bit boring. However, I guess I would think about them a bit differently had I been back in Scotland and just come out of the politics lecture, having listened to a professor making rather similar points but in a more erudite and serious way. The reason is clear: in Scotland, that bilge is taken seriously by enough people to matter.
When I left Scotland, I formed the view that there was indeed anti-English racism, however, there was no genuine interest in tackling it. I reckon plenty of non-Scots in Scotland don't speak up, but are quietly uncomfortable. Of course I have no evidence for this. I doubt there is any, chiefly because no one asks. But here is an interesting fact. Opinion polling suggests that over fifty percent of ethnic Scots voted for independence in last year's referendum: this would suggest the remainder (ie, the non-Scots) overwhelmingly voted against given that Scotland demographically is overwhelmingly white Scottish.
When the EU referendum comes round, I expect the battle lines will be similar to those in 2014. In one camp there will be the establishment together with big business warning of the ramifications of a Yes vote and the disruptions it would cause. In the other camp, there will be those who say the UK will be free, we can govern ourselves, we can look beyond Europe, vote for hope over fear. Yet I very, very much doubt you will describe this as "positive". Neither would I, in point of fact.
And finally, in response to this:
quote:
is the English dominated Westminster Parliament, English dominated financial institutions, etc. rather than the English people in general
This is simple scapegoating, with an unexamined logic that it's all the fault of those people south of the Border. A fair-minded person might consider the following: the "Scottish Raj" remains a recent phenomenon, the current PM's father was Scottish, the previous PM was Scottish and the PM before him had Scottish parents and was educated in Scotland, and the most salient financial issue in the UK was as a result of (disastrous) decisions made in Scotland by Scottish institutions, made possible by removal of regulation done by a Scottish chancellor. So it appears that for better or for worse Scotland is overrepresented in British political and commercial life, and its representatives prone to behaving in precisely the same way as those from other parts of the UK. Which is hardly surprising as, if one removes the emblems and the national sentiments, the English and the Scots are culturally identical.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I posted something of my own experiences in Scotland, which were basically negative enough to disincline me to continue living there.
And, we exchanged anecdotes. My experience has been very different. I experienced (and, I put that deliberately in the past tense since all those experiences are in the past) some anti-English comments - some of the worst were actually in a church I subsequently left when it became clear that the "welcome to all" had a list of exceptions that was larger than just a few members views on the English. By anecdote, people from England moving to Scotland are more likely to experience negative comments in Glasgow than Edinburgh, and out in the less populous parts of Scotland there is considerable local variation (probably reflecting population density - getting a negative comment from a few people in a city of millions is easier to dismiss than a similar comment from a few people in a town of thousands).
My conclusion from the anecdotes? That there is anti-English racism in Scotland. And, of course, that has fed into some of the Scottish Nationalist support. But, also that it isn't as prevalent as some people (and, I'm mostly thinking about what I've seen in English 'newspapers' here) would make out. It's a problem that the SNP need to address, and have been doing so (they did, after all, manage to convince a lot of non-ethnically-Scottish voters to vote 'Yes' to independence and actively support their campaign).
In contrast, English nationalism has a massive image problem with a very prominent racist element. In the context of the election result where my comment was originally posted, what I was saying was that England needs a nationalist party that isn't based heavily on racism and ethnicity. Which probably means that the people in England need to develop an understanding of identity that is "people who live in England" rather than "people who are English".
I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but time's running out ... I'll get back to it later today.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
I'll look foward to it ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
In fact, my ethnicity isn't really a talking point here. Nor is nationality. You will not walk down a New Zealand street and see national emblems at every turn except in gift shops. ... The magazines are not full of articles about who Kiwis are or what their national characteristics are.
Well, of course, New Zealand is a very different country than Scotland (or, in many ways, than anywhere else in Europe). The vast majority of the population are recent immigrants, and they know it. So, for them, I can see nationality and ethnicity not being big issues. I had assumed that there would be some residual national identity like you get in the US (with American-Irish, American-Italian etc) but from your post that was a mistaken assumption.
I would suggest that it is very likely that the remaining Maori population would have very different views on national identity, ethnicity etc. And, if those views aren't being reported in the media then perhaps there is something seriously wrong and the apparent "ethnicity isn't an issue" feeling you are getting is hiding a bigger issue. I can't imagine NZ is free of the hypocrisy and willful blindness to the true smell of the nations shit that characterises any other human society.
But, that isn't really central to my point. We're here to discuss Scotland.
quote:
When I left Scotland, I formed the view that there was indeed anti-English racism, however, there was no genuine interest in tackling it. I reckon plenty of non-Scots in Scotland don't speak up, but are quietly uncomfortable. Of course I have no evidence for this. I doubt there is any, chiefly because no one asks. But here is an interesting fact. Opinion polling suggests that over fifty percent of ethnic Scots voted for independence in last year's referendum: this would suggest the remainder (ie, the non-Scots) overwhelmingly voted against given that Scotland demographically is overwhelmingly white Scottish.
I don't know of anyone who would deny there is anti-English racism in Scotland, or indeed bigotry directed at other minority groups. Nor do I know anyone who doesn't think that that is an issue that needs to be addressed. That seems like a massive straw man to me.
Yes, the polls (both before and after the referendum) clearly showed greater support for independence from those who identified as Scottish than those who didn't. I'm not sure why anyone would find that surprising. I don't know if any of those polls took residence into account - ie: how many of the "non-Scottish" respondents who said they were/did vote 'no' considered themselves permanent residents of Scotland, rather than people on short term employment contracts expecting to move elsewhere in a few years? But, I'm sure most people not expecting to live permanently in Scotland would be more inclined to vote 'no', or probably join the 15% who didn't vote at all. Also, the polls showed that support for independence was weaker among more affluent social groups, and again I expect that a large proportion of the not-ethnic-Scots in Scotland would be in those social groups, they are often in Scotland because they got a job there, usually one that was paying better than whatever job they could get in England (or wherever). Again, that would somewhat skew the poll results.
Now, from personal anecdote. I wasn't in Scotland in the weeks running upto the referendum, but had been there for most of the campaign. Much of my interaction with people at the time was via social-media, including threads here on the Ship, by necessity. I know several English-born people who were activists in the 'Yes' camp, and many who voted 'Yes'. And, that's where a lot of the English-born people I know are in academia, and academia in general was less supportive of independence (the questions asked in the conversations in the lab included UK research council funding, which was largely ignored in the campaigns). Now, I know it's anecdotal, but a lot of English-born people in Scotland saw independence as a good thing, which if they saw it motivated by anti-English racism would be an odd thing to do. I'm one of them, if you hadn't realised.
So, I'm not really disputing the evidence you present. I just don't see it as convincing support for the argument you are presenting. I don't think anti-English racism dominated, or even significantly influenced, the referendum result.
And, of course, the Better Together people had "support" from bigotted idiots too. I don't know of anyone in that camp who were not wishing the Orange Lodge would just shut up.
quote:
When the EU referendum comes round, I expect the battle lines will be similar to those in 2014.
The issues in a referendum on the EU will be different. At present the lines being drawn appear to be business in favour of staying in for economic reasons, and the likes of UKIP in favour of leaving for what mostly (to me) seem motives related to fear of losing British cultural identity. But, I suspect that a lot of the characteristics of 'prject fear' will be deployed in the campaign, and some of the visionary rhetoric as well - it's just that at present both sides are in a position to do both.
quote:
And finally, in response to this:
quote:
is the English dominated Westminster Parliament, English dominated financial institutions, etc. rather than the English people in general
This is simple scapegoating, with an unexamined logic that it's all the fault of those people south of the Border. A fair-minded person might consider the following: the "Scottish Raj" remains a recent phenomenon, the current PM's father was Scottish, the previous PM was Scottish and the PM before him had Scottish parents and was educated in Scotland, and the most salient financial issue in the UK was as a result of (disastrous) decisions made in Scotland by Scottish institutions, made possible by removal of regulation done by a Scottish chancellor. So it appears that for better or for worse Scotland is overrepresented in British political and commercial life, and its representatives prone to behaving in precisely the same way as those from other parts of the UK. Which is hardly surprising as, if one removes the emblems and the national sentiments, the English and the Scots are culturally identical.
Yes, you are right about the "Scottish Raj". Though I wouldn't want to get ethnic about things (eg: is someone born and raised in England, within the English public school system, 'Scottish' just because that's where his father was born?). Also it seems unreasonable to blame the current economic depression on the failure of one financial institution headquartered in Scotland - it was one of several financial institutions to fail, as part of an international financial crisis, and though RBS is headquartered in Scotland it is a UK-wide, and beyond, bank.
But, seriously, who ever claimed that being born in Scotland or having Scottish ancestry makes someone perfect and invulnerable to making stupid mistakes?
Regardless of where MPs are from, Westminster as a Parliament is still dominated by English, indeed SE English, issues and concerns. The UK financial institutions are still centred around London (even those headquarted elsewhere are enthralled by the square mile). There is an idea that what's good for London is good for the UK, and I think that's false. I would welcome anything that weakens the power of Westminster, with corresponding increased powers to the regions in the UK - which, of course, includes Scotland.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
In fact, my ethnicity isn't really a talking point here. Nor is nationality. You will not walk down a New Zealand street and see national emblems at every turn except in gift shops. ... The magazines are not full of articles about who Kiwis are or what their national characteristics are.
Well, of course, New Zealand is a very different country than Scotland (or, in many ways, than anywhere else in Europe). The vast majority of the population are recent immigrants, and they know it. So, for them, I can see nationality and ethnicity not being big issues. I had assumed that there would be some residual national identity like you get in the US (with American-Irish, American-Italian etc) but from your post that was a mistaken assumption.
I would suggest that it is very likely that the remaining Maori population would have very different views on national identity, ethnicity etc. And, if those views aren't being reported in the media then perhaps there is something seriously wrong and the apparent "ethnicity isn't an issue" feeling you are getting is hiding a bigger issue. I can't imagine NZ is free of the hypocrisy and willful blindness to the true smell of the nations shit that characterises any other human society.
Ethnic identity is very important to Maori (and this country's media's reporting of it is fairly accurate). However, it is never overweening nor does it (leastways in my experience) prevent them taking people as they find them.
Hypocracy and racism exist here too of course - but IMHO at a lower level due to there being less nationalist sentiment.
quote:
I don't know of anyone who would deny there is anti-English racism in Scotland, or indeed bigotry directed at other minority groups. Nor do I know anyone who doesn't think that that is an issue that needs to be addressed. That seems like a massive straw man to me.
My point is that racism in Scotland is higher than it would otherwise be precisely because of nationalism. That is what nationalism does, and so I find my own experiences unsurprising. Accordingly I dislike the tendency to describe Scottish nationalism as a purely positive force by ascribing it attributes such as civic nationalism, political engagement, political renewal and so forth. This view of it sets up an interesting variation on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy by setting up the pretence that "true" Scottish nationalism does not countenance the darker side of all nationalisms.
Scottish nationalism is often described as "civic" rather than "ethnic". At best, this is what (I'm sure) many nationalists genuinely wish it to be. At worst, it is nothing more than a sales pitch. American nationalism can genuinely be described as "civic" as it coalesces around an idea. By contrast, Scotland is a country with a history stretching back over a millenium, with very clearly defined borders, history and ethnicity. Nationalist identity in Scotland coalesces around those things instead. The independence debate would not be happening but for this history. Were Scotland to become independent, it would immediately become an old-fashioned nation state. Its values would in reality be defined by its single dominant ethnic group. It makes no difference whether or not this group did so on explicitly racist grounds: the effect would be the same. When Alex Salmond refers to Glasgow as "freedom city" or makes a "freedom declaration at Arbroath Abbey, he is deliberately referencing key events in the history the state that was previously ruled by that ethnic group. Everyone knows it strikes a chord, but no one really wants to consider precisely what notes the chord contains.
So hardly a straw man. But there is another reason why this matters so much.
Over the last twenty to thirty years political discourse in the UK has become increasingly nationalistic. From the 70s, the Scottish nationalists. In the 80s, Thatcher and her British nationalism. Since the 90s, increasingly English nationalism. I think this has had a disastrous effect on political debate. It has prevented constructive British engagement in the EU and, right now, is preventing a proper discussion on the pros and cons of EU membership. For left-wingers it has caused an enormous distraction as one of their traditional powerbases (Scotland) turns in on itself. The quality of the debate on the independence referendum has been praised to the skies. I actually found it shrill and of rather lower quality than one would find in the average GE. The Better Together camp fought a relentlessly negative campaign. However, more troublingly to me at least were the claims made by the Yes campaign concerning Scotland's use of sterling and its membership of the EU. They were ludicrously, factually wrong, but the febrility of the debate allowed an awful lot of people to be misled. Given that they were based on the White Paper (produced by the SG) I think the SNP deserves severe criticism.
(BTW, I seem to remember a shipmate who described himself as some sort of legal advisor to the SNP. He believed the UK had no constitution. Legally speaking, that's just a nonsense, so perhaps the Yes campaign were just poorly advised - but I would find that surprising if it were true).
Finally
quote:
But, seriously, who ever claimed that being born in Scotland or having Scottish ancestry makes someone perfect and invulnerable to making stupid mistakes?
Not me. The point I am attempting to refute is that people from Scotland had no involvement in these things. In fact they had a disproportionately large involvement. It is lazy to claim that All These Bad Things were Done to Us by Other People.
quote:
Regardless of where MPs are from, Westminster as a Parliament is still dominated by English, indeed SE English, issues and concerns.
England hardly presents a monolith of public opinion any more than Scotland. In each country they vary and mostly overlap. And I think it is more accurate to say that public debate tends to be dominated by London rather than the South East. London provides just over 10% of commons MPs, most of whom are in opposition. The rest of the HoC ought to be able to do something.
quote:
The UK financial institutions are still centred around London (even those headquarted elsewhere are enthralled by the square mile). There is an idea that what's good for London is good for the UK, and I think that's false. I would welcome anything that weakens the power of Westminster, with corresponding increased powers to the regions in the UK - which, of course, includes Scotland.
This I can agree with. It occurs to me that 100 years ago Scotland probably ran itself as just about everything government did was organised at the local level, apart from taxes and defence. Once again I draw a comparison with NZ - it is much easier for politicians in a polity of 4 or 5 million to keep in touch with what the public want than in one of 60 million. On that basis I imagine devolution across the UK, or the returning of powers to local authorities would deliver better government, all other things being equal. Furthermore, the UK has become overly dependent on a financial services sector that is not to be relied upon. Of course it should be remembered that this dependence has come about because that financial sector (including the disproportionately large financial sector in Scotland) have mostly been very profitable.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I certainly think one very strong line of attack for the SNP will be simply: "You have no mandate to do that north of the border."
They'll be right - a sort of reverse West Lothian question. It'll make things very awkward for the Tories.
But last week's election was to form a parliament for the entire UK, not its constituent parts. How can such a cry be raised legitimately as long as it applies evenly across the entire country? Certainly, Holyrood as it sees fit can legislate within its remit, but the SNP cannot raise a cry along the lines you suggest in respect of uniform legislation.<snip>
I wanted to pick up on this because I think it lies near the heart of what is in fact a UK wide issue, which also lies near the heart of some of the issues raised in the discussion between Alan and Cod.
My own impression, from a part of England that is about as far physically and culturally from London as you can get, is that there are many aspects of legislation where the primary shaping force seems to have been the broadly urban South East. Often it seems to have revolved around those whose business/work interests are in London, but who live in the home counties (indeed that name carries its own message, I think). This dominance is largely unconscious from the London/Home Counties pov, but that does not make it easier to live with.
The problem arises then when a government which has a UK wide remit passes 'uniform legislation' which is in fact detrimental to extensive areas of the country and disproportionately favourable to or focussed on those areas which form their electoral base. It is intensified when (since 1979) there has been an increasing move towards the centralisation of government power and the marginalising of local authorities.
With Scotland, historical factors, and a continuing sense of national identity have provided a focus around which this dissatisfaction has been able to coalesce. This has been harder for English regions to do - though it will be interesting to see what happens around the ideas of greater autonomy for places which agree to directly elected mayors.
Scotland has not as a whole always sat uneasily with the Union, and, even now, not all Scots are uneasy with the Union per se, but like a good number in the rest of the UK, they are uneasy with the London/Home Counties dominance. Linguistically (as a Scots-descended, English Home Counties born and raised resident of Cumbria - just to declare my biases) I find it interesting that (to go back a bit) Norman Tebbit's instinctive test for British nationality was support for the English cricket team.
This unconscious London/Home Counties dominance is not just about 'big' issues of national policy, but can be seen in much more detailed ways such as rules for schools admission policies (where schools in my area have to jump through admissions hoops which are irrelevant outside urban areas), and ideas for the sale of social housing (which take no account of the extent to which in our region the loss of council housing, and the restriction on house building in the national park has already led to a major problem of affordable housing for people who need/want to work in the area, and communities where it is common that a third of the housing is used for second homes or holiday lets).
So long as this shape of Westminster politics continues, and particularly where the governing party governs in a way which seems to show little or no concern for the regions in which it has no political stake, then the cry "You have no mandate to do that here" will continue to have resonance, and in Scotland that resonance will continue to strengthen a separatist nationalism.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
BroJames, being something akin to a Federal system is new to the UK, and will take quite some time before people* are accustomed to differing powers being exercised by Holyrood and Westminster. One course the UK may wish to consider is a change to a system such as operates in Canada, and the creation of separate provinces for the north and west of England as well as Scotland and Wales. But the idea that because Scotland returned only 1 Tory member to the UK Parliament, Westminster cannot pass legislation uniform across the entire country, is just plain wrong.
*It was a common complaint of the High Court Justices here, in the days before the Australia Act that the members of the UK Privy Council Judicial Committee had no idea of the concept of a federal system and this was apparent in the opinions the Committee expressed - see eg Philip Ayres biography of Sir Owen Dixon.
[ 29. May 2015, 11:41: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Of course, Westminster can pass UK wide legislation, except where it's devolved, but I think they will be treading carefully, as memories of the hated poll tax die hard. But surely so much is devolved now, and more is on the way. But Cameron will be wary of stoking the demand for another referendum.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, Westminster can pass UK wide legislation, except where it's devolved, but I think they will be treading carefully, as memories of the hated poll tax die hard. But surely so much is devolved now, and more is on the way. But Cameron will be wary of stoking the demand for another referendum.
My post was in general answer to the foreshadowed cry from the SNP that Cameron had no mandate from Scotland and therefore could not legislate for it (a bit of an exaggeration, I know). Cameron may need to tread softly to appease those who lost the referendum last year, but that is a political point. Legally, Westminster has the power to do so.
The poll tax is not seared into my memory as it may be to those in Scotland.
[ 29. May 2015, 21:28: Message edited by: Gee D ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0