25 September 2014

The party of Scottish self-government

"Absolutely no one will run the affairs of this country better than the people who live and work in Scotland." 

The words are Alex Salmond's, but the sentiment resonated throughout the Yes campaign. We lost on the 18th of September. Scotland will not be an independent country any time soon. But as we take stock, and the SNP doubles in size with inflocking new members, reassembling its leadership around Nicola Sturgeon, it seems to me that we should pin this statement to the wall in bold, bright letters. In black and gold, if you like.

"Absolutely no one will run the affairs of this country better than the people who live and work in Scotland." 

That cause endures. It is not a statement of principle for an independent state alone: it is the red blood of the argument for Scottish devolution within the United Kingdom. During the referendum, in proprietorial mode, the Labour Party would occasionally trot out the line that the SNP don't believe in devolution, keen to erect a wall of fire between aspirations for a separate Scottish sovereignty and the demand for greater autonomy within the United Kingdom. In one, very limited sense, they were right. Independence is, in some important respects, categorically different to devolution of power within a larger state. In international law, states are a distinct sort of entity. They do things which a region within a greater polity - forgive the term - cannot do. States sit at tables which Scotland will not now be invited to. That's beyond dispute.

But this pettifogger's distinction obscures more than it illuminates. The broader claim that seeking greater Scottish self-government has no connection to ideas of independence -- that's poppycock. Anybody who has been paying attention during the last two years cannot but have detected the overlapping logics of devolution and independence. The connecting tissue of the two arguments is a belief in greater self-determination. The difference, really, is one of degree. Certainly, full-fat home rule is different from the semi-skimmed version now available to us, but the idea that the pro-indy bod has nothing in common with the devo-thusiastic has the distinct ring of pish to it.

It is now up to the SNP to be the party of Scottish self-government, making the case for the greatest level of Scottish autonomy within the United Kingdom. Marco is absolutely right. Put all talk of future referendums from your mind. Give it a rest. That battle is over for the foreseeable future. We must win the peace declared by the two million people who voted to remain in Britain last Thursday.

We must be constructive but critical, ambitious but realistic, holding the covenanted people of the No campaign to their undertakings with ferocious tenacity. After the sapping ennui, the activity. We don't have the time to mope or to stand still. And we must take heart. In many respects, we remain in a remarkably strong position for a defeated campaign. And for this, we have the fretful temporising of our opponents to thank.

There are some times in negotiations when it pays to hold back and allow your opponents to show their hands. This isn't one of those times. The territory of aspiration for greater Scottish self-government, the gap between the promises of the Better Together parties and the impression they allowed to be cultivated, is up for the claiming -- but only if we're speedy. The initiative is there to be seized -- if we're quick. Will we get everything we want? Not a snowball's chance in hell. But better for the Tories, Labour and Liberal Democrats to dance to our tune, than to wait for them to fluff the melody.

This commitment is not at odds with the logic of the Yes campaign, but simply its application to our new circumstances. The case for Scottish independence was not rooted in national identity, but in the virtues of national self-government. It was not a case from romantic feeling, but of practical concerns of democratic control of our affairs. It was an argument not for separateness, but for finding new, more satisfactory ways to work together in these islands to realise the political aspirations of the Scottish people. The people have chosen to continue that work within the United Kingdom, and they are never wrong.

That work may initially be contemplated by Nationalists with little enthusiasm, and with a good deal of pessimism about Westminster's willingness and capacity to transform itself. But this founding axiom - maximising Scottish self-government - can carry us through and structure our engagements with this process. It is even a moderately exciting thought. As Nicola recognised in her statement launching her leadership bid yesterday, we can be disappointed, but we must not be discouraged. There's no good in us hanging back, waiting to be foiled, bathing passively in the embalming fluid of low expectations, met.

Smooth equivocations to the contrary, in the dying days of the No campaign, its movers and shakers gave out the distinct impression that Scotland could expect significantly enhanced autonomy if independence was rejected. Devo-max. Devo-super-max. Real home rule. Almost federalism. Everything short of the key functions which the UK needs to exist. Much greater autonomy or an end to the Union, went up the cry.

On any register, this patter was calculated to leave the impression that there would be a significant advance on the proposals set out by the Tory, Liberal Democrat and Labour devolution commissions. Now that independence is safely defeated, the sleekit are attempting to reverse ferret, and to insist that these modest proposals were always the be all and the end all of their devo-something offers. 

That won't do. They know it won't do. Britannia, once again, finds herself between Scylla and Charybdis. Remarkably, the No parties have worked themselves into a position where they may well deliver on their plans for enhancing Holyrood's powers, but where they are more or less predestined to disappoint not just the Yes voting 45%, but the wider community who believe in "significantly enhanced" Scottish autonomy within the Union. As political achievements go, it is a beezer.  Mugged by the sea monster and kicked in the teeth by the scowling beast of the rocks. That's our opportunity. 

So, in these negotiations, let's use Gordon Brown's criterion. He told us that we could expect the maximum devolution compatible with continuing Union. Cameron and Miliband gave him the nod.  Let's take them at their word. In discussing the new settlement, the critical question cannot be "why should that power be devolved?" but "why should this power be reserved to Westminster?" Let's go through schedule 5 of the Scotland Act. Foreign affairs, currency, defence, imports and exports, immigration and extradition - sure, they must remain at the Westminster level. But misuse of drugs? Control of the Crown estate? Firearms? Elections? Equal opportunities? Elections? Insolvency? Energy? Embryology and the cutting edge of medical research? Are they the glue holding the state together? I struggle to see it.

Applying Brown's test, where no reasoned or compelling case can be made for a power's retention, going to the heart of the Union, the power should be devolved. That's our opening gambit. In some areas, the SNP has a snowball's chance in hell of achieving consensus. This, it should frankly be admitted, is the key limitation of the all-together-now structure set up under Robert Smith by the Prime Minister.

And to be franker, our key problems is the stubborn dunce in the room, wearing the big red jacket. What if the best consensus capable of being formed excludes the Labour Party? Which value do you privilege? Are we to proceed at the pace of the slowest student in the class? Must we dawdle as we wait for the Labour Party to recover any kind of ambition for Scotland or coherent idea of why it supports devolution? Will the parties formerly known as Better Together privilege their own coherence, and a united front, or aspire to the greatest level of self-government possible?

In the current atmosphere, it is difficult to say for sure. Smarter sorts in the Labour Party might regard it as a kind of relief: a rare opportunity to pry themselves from off the wretched hook they spiked themselves on with their pitiful and incoherent devolution plans. Nobody will even gloat about it.  But we owe it to ourselves, and all those across this country who voted for greater autonomy, to bash on, undiscouraged. 

Any process which involves the Labour Party will almost certainly not achieve anything like "extensive" new autonomy for Scotland in welfare and social security. Their instrumental case for the Union, and (largely unconvincing) disavowal of British nationalism sets Labour precisely at odds with any such devolution of power. That before we've factored in the universalising ambition behind Iain Duncan Smith's consolidated UK universal credit, which makes hiving off particular strands of social security particularly challenging. To my mind, the Strathclyde Commission proposals represents the minimum floor beneath which the Better Together parties cannot fall without ratting on their vows. But they must be encouraged to go further. 

The challenge for the Westminster parties is to explain to the Scottish people why, in the fields of tax, welfare and social matters, they're better placed to take these choices, to explain why the Union's life depends on excluding them from the Scottish Parliament's sway. But Scotland expects, vows have been uttered, and the SNP has a good answer: "Absolutely no one will run the affairs of this country better than the people who live and work in Scotland." 

Prove us wrong.


46 comments :

  1. Great stuff,a dn I'm glad you've been able to pull together a coherent response to the current situation, I'm afraid I personally am going to mope a bit longer. Below is the question I was hoping to ask at the radio 4 world tonight show a week before the vote. I didn't get that chance, but I'd still love to hear an answer from the unionist parties; https://www.flickr.com/photos/84249751@N00/15210031922/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Short answer: it seems logically impossible to reconcile parliamentary sovereignty with the entrenchment of Holyrood's powers. That's a no brainer. On the other hand, however, many Nationalists seem to overlook the extent to which we've been the clear beneficiaries of the UK's flexible constitutional structure. In Ireland, for example, if you wish to amend the constitution, you have to have a national referendum on doing so. So on the one hand, if Holyrood's powers were locked into a written UK constitution - they'd be difficult to change. And that cuts both ways. We were able to hold the independence referendum because politically, Westminster felt obliged to concede that power to Holyrood. That would be much harder in a codified and entrenched constitutional system. The gradual salami-slicing of more powers for the Scottish Parliament would also appear extremely difficult in that context. So yes, Westminster could tomorrow abolish Holyrood - at least in law - but it could also devolve almost any domestic power you care to name tomorrow too. Both are a feature of our unentrenched, uncodified British constitution.

      Delete
  2. "Put all talk of future referendums from your mind. Give it a rest."

    I only half agree with that. The chances of a second referendum within the next decade or so are slim (unless the UK leaves the EU), but if the SNP are asked the question "do you completely rule it out?", it would be foolish in the extreme to answer "yes", this side of any negotiations. They need every bit of leverage they can get.

    Once we actually get to the run-up to the 2016 election, there will have to be absolute clarity, and that clarity will probably involve saying something like "we will not legislate for a second referendum over the coming five-year term unless Britain leaves the EU". But to do that sooner than necessary would be counter-productive if we're serious about pushing for something as close to Devo Max as humanly possible.

    (I somehow managed to post this comment on the wrong thread earlier - apologies for that!)

    ReplyDelete
  3. It may yet be too soon to say"We lost on the 18th of September. Scotland will not be an independent country any time soon". We must see if those that offered something approaching full federalism are true to their word and if the sovereign peoples of this land accept what is eventually the detailed offer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone who voted Yes voted against any new powers.... Logically you should now oppose whatever was on offer...

      Delete
    2. Sorry. Logic. Kryptonite to Nats.

      Delete
  4. Bill, James,

    It is to some extent reiterating a point, but future referendums must not only be a low priority for the SNP now, but it must look and sound like a low priority. We lost. We
    lost just a few days ago. Folk will have no patience with us, and rightly so, if we sound as if our eye is fixed on the near horizon instead of here, now, and the political world the majority voted for. By no means am I suggesting that last week was our one and only shot at independence - that remains to be seen. But we have other, much more urgent priorities. It should sound like it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely - it must sound like a low priority, and that was the tone Nicola Sturgeon rightly struck. But we must never forget how utterly impotent the Constitutional Convention parties were in the 1992-97 parliament, in spite of having won a clear electoral mandate for their devolution blueprint. That's the fate that could await us if we throw away leverage needlessly.

      Delete
    2. If a referendum is a low priority, and I agree it should be, what does the SNP stand for?

      Delete
    3. The 40,000 new members don't seem quite as befuddled as you on that point, "Braveheart".

      Delete
    4. I wouldn't bet on that. Can you tell me James, if a referendum is a low priority what does the SNP stand for?

      Delete
    5. Is this seriously a Labour councillor complaining that ANOTHER PARTY doesn't know what it stands for anymore? I think you've just killed irony.

      Delete
    6. Avoiding the question James? Not surprised...... In case you forgot it was: if a referendum is a low priority what does the SNP stand for?

      Delete
    7. It's difficult to know whether to laugh or cry when you try this innocent act, "Braveheart", but OK, I'll humour you. The SNP stand for independence. For as long as Scotland is not independent, they stand for as many powers being devolved as can possibly be negotiated. They also stand for social democracy, and for good governance within any constitutional settlement.

      Now I think that's quite a comprehensive answer. Your turn. What in God's name does Labour stand for these days?

      Delete
    8. So if the SNP stands for independence and there's no referendum in the offing, what is on offer?

      Other parties stand for many powers being devolved as can possibly be negotiated. Other arties also stand for social democracy, and for good governance within any constitutional settlement.

      So your answer amounts to: nothing really.

      Delete
    9. "Other parties stand for many powers being devolved as can possibly be negotiated."

      That's absolutely correct, "Braveheart". The Greens do. I presume the SSP do as well. But Labour don't. Nor do your Tory allies. So if you want to deprive us of the clear yellow water that has won us a mind-boggling 45,000 new members over the last ten days, you're going to have start moving in our direction as a matter of urgency.

      By the way, you wouldn't be trying to avoid my question, would you?

      Delete
  5. Diifference between devo and indy a matter of degree? I beg to differ. Without control / ownership of our own resources (and yes I mean oil revenues - among other stuff), the policies I wish to see will be very difficult to realise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is worth remembering: there's nothing written on tablets of stone that oil revenues couldn't, to some extent, be directly allocated to the Scottish Government's budget.

      Delete
  6. No doubt with a budgetary concomitant - a la tax raising powers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In discussing the new settlement, the critical question cannot be "why should that power be devolved?" but "why should this power be reserved to Westminster?"

    Aye, I've said for a long time that unionists should be taken through the list of reserved powers and forced to explain why each one should remain reserved. There's an assumption amongst some folk that the case needs to be made for devolving power 'X', and Labour activists in particular are fond of saying "but you've not used all the powers you currently have", as if we should fiddle with everything we possibly can just to prove some sort of point. But since the 1998 Scotland Act was written to specifically reserve powers - thereby giving the assumption that anything not listed would be reserved - then the default location of all powers should be Holyrood.

    If there truly is a positive case to be made for the union, then it shouldn't be difficult to explain why various powers must remain where they are...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doug I have to concede a point to you about turnout, which you said would be 'massive' and so it was. I was right about Glasgow - 75% - but overall very encouraging for us all.

      Delete
    2. Doug,

      Yup. It arguably just follows on from the logic Donald Dewar wrote into the Scotland Act 1998.

      Delete
  8. "Put all talk of future referendums from your mind. Give it a rest."

    I cannot agree at all, as to me this is the language of surrender. In my view, the message to Westminster should be "Give us the powers that people were led to expect after a No vote, or give us another referendum - and whichever it is, deliver it soon."

    The bargain offered was extensive new powers in return for a referendum outcome which would rule out independence for a couple of decades. If they renege on their side of the bargain, they should not expect us to be bound by it.

    If the SNP and others who support independence are willing to rule out the possibility of another attempt at independence for a 'political lifetime', we will not be settling for the extra powers promised, but for nothing, or maybe even less than nothing, because we will have given away the only bargaining counter we have. Remember what Andrew Neil said.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Les,

    In fairness, I chose my words carefully. Giving an issue a rest isn't the same as dumping it for all time coming. Cf my comments too to Bill and James above. I think it is imperative not to sound as if another referendum soon is our first priority. And more fundamentally, it shouldn't be our first priority.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree that talk of another referendum will be counter productive. There is more than enough for us all to do in the short to medium term. Starting as you say with making the case for the greatest level of Scottish autonomy within the United Kingdom. With this in mind I suggest that it is worth looking at the Canadian experience of self government. All Canadian provinces have very substantial economic and tax powers, while remaining part of Canada. I have written a brief outline of these powers here: http://abrutherford.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/nova-scotia-a-model-for-devo-max/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, I am surprised that the Canadian example isn't made more of.

      From my wee No peel tower here, I would say I am happy with the result but the powers must come. It is absurd that Nova Scotia should have more powers than Auld Scotia, if you like.

      LPW, you might yet well win the war. My take is it was lost on the fields of Buchan and elsewhere in the SNP heartlands - but Tam Dalyell was right - creating institutions creates its own momentum. It was a close call, but he may yet be proved right about Holyrood being a track to independence.

      I am struggling with a metaphor about Orwell and Corryvreckan, will save that one for later!

      Delete
    2. Although there is good work out there about comparative federal politics internationally, it is striking how little of that seeps into the Scottish public discourse.

      Delete
  11. I'm stealing my partners identity for a second as I wanted to comment but don't have time to set up an account of some kind.

    I agree that future talk of a referendum is counter productive. I voted yes but to be honest I can't bare the thought of having to go through all that again any time soon. It was emotionally draining. I also worry about my constituency, which voted no but has an SNP MP and MSP, if talk of a referendum continues I will most likely be living in a Tory constituency (selfish I know). I also feel that it might put off a lot of soft yes voters, as it seems, to me, to ignore the fact 55% of voters have said no, it wouldn't go down well if days after a yes vote the unionist parties started declaring the need for another vote within the next few years.

    I probably wont be liked for airing my views, I understand that people are still hurt and angry. I am however completely behind the idea of fighting for as close to devo max as we can get.

    Natalie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Natalie, regardless of our thoughts on a second referendum, I hope we don't allow the view to take root that the contest we've just gone through was unbearable, as opposed to being an "inspiring festival of democracy" (as No-supporting English historian Tom Holland called it). As far as your own constituency is concerned, it's worth remembering that we now revert to first-past-the-post for the general election, together with anti-Tory tactical voting and all the rest of it. There are complex reasons why the SNP have been able to prosper in staunchly anti-independence regions, and those are unlikely to vanish overnight.

      Delete
    2. Oh I believe it was inspiring, so inspiring in fact that I have joined the Green party, it is the media onslaught and fighting that I have witnessed on social media that I don't think I could handle again quite so soon, the democratic side of it and the grass roots movement was indeed inspirational and I do not mean to and do not wish to detract from that.

      Natalie

      Delete
    3. Natalie,

      I don't think you'll be entirely alone in longing for a wee rest. Like all good hoolies, as the laughter fades and the folk slip away, recalibrating - and turning your eyes gently to the next thing - is important. There's a strain of hardline denialism among some independence supporters - understandable but in my view, wildly misplaced - that seems to think we'd triumph if we just re-ran the vote tomorrow. That kind of thinking needs nipped in the bud.

      Delete
  12. I should also point out that my daughter was picked on at school due to my voting yes, it has been a tough time for her due to my position on the issue which has made my experience a little more negative than it has been for others.

    Natalie

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm seriously worried about the motives of some folk.
    Independence is the aim, and we should never forget that. Obviously it can't happen right now, but no timetable should be gifted from our side.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Juteman,

      Nobody is, as far as I've seen, suggesting that we should deviate from that destination. Who knows how circumstances will change, in time? But what we do know is that another referendum cannot be and cannot seem like the Nationalists' priority now.

      Delete
  14. "Put all talk of future referendums from your mind. Give it a rest. That battle is over for the foreseeable future."

    I'm not so sure given that the NO Campaign may well have acted illegally. https://archive.today/ZO7Zq

    Ruth Davidson's admission - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcL69gUtPb0

    This calls the entire result into question and surely means at the very least there should be a re-vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I fear you are clutching at straws here. Any jiggerypokery should obviously be vigorously investigated and punished where warranted - but we lost by 380,000 votes. Or to put it another way, the whole population of Dundee twice over and then some. There is no realistic scenario in which we won. Period.

      Delete
  15. The 'devo-max' promises are our priority at present. We have to demonstrate what we, the electorate, understand by the term after two years of hearing the phrase used by many commentators and unionist politicians. Sadly our protestations may fall on deaf ears.

    The mood in England is important. The calls I have heard from the Indy side here in Scotland that Westminster is in some kind of devolution turmoil I can't agree with.

    The impression I have is one of resentment against our current set up, and rather than devolve significant new powers to Scotland (as stated to our understanding) I think we will see a drawn out, battle of constitutional red tape at Westminster. This will end up with an announcement that actually, these many of these powers cannot be delivered. Either that or the powers that are delivered will be hailed by all parties as 'significant' or 'this package is the greatest gift of new powers for Scotland that has ever been presented.' The press will deliver the Westminster verdict with glee.

    We've heard it all before.

    Robert Peston is currently doing a tour of the UK for the BBC telling everyone that Scotland gets more public spending than any other region. True, but does he balance this by any mention of the taxes raised in said region for the Westminster coffers ?

    Of course not.

    The press is full of 'Scotland subsidy junky' stories, and this will carry the day. When we complain about being shafted over Brown's promises the media will simply trot out a host of unionist politicians, bitter citizens, economists, think tanks and the rest of their merry circus to tell us how lucky we are and more importantly, ungrateful.

    The General Election will take over news, as will Syria and Iraq and the latest series of Strictly (will Judy Murray be booed for her son's tweet ?)

    Have a gander at Peston's latest video and make up your own mind.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29372503

    ReplyDelete
  16. There are other things that can be done than spectate at the constitutional convention of whatever it will be called. There are unionist MPs to be, if not unseated all, then given a damn good dose of the fears. An army of Yessers well seasoned on the campaign trail descending on Labour held constituencies with RIC taking the meaner streets. I'm raring to go and am likely to be back on the streets of Dundee very soon.

    Initially we shall thank those who voted up to 74% for Independence and remind them we are still here. Then the work of taking Jim McGovern's seat begins. Tommy Sheridan has done a deal with Alex Salmond. Vote SNP says Tommy and that carries weight in the schemes which are really more socialist than Labour anyway. Also a variant of your cry:

    Who do you trust to represent you and Scotland at Westminster, a SLAB trougher or an SNP, Green or SSP person?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are other things to be done: Admit Yes lost and take an active part in the convention is one.

      Unite to fight the Tories is another instead of blaming Labour and aiming for deadlock and a pointless neverendum.

      Recognise that the Scottish people want schools and hospitals built, not endless stories of betrayal and vote rigging.

      Adult politics in other words.

      Delete
    2. Unite to fight the Tories?
      I think Muscleguy just said that he will be doing just that.
      We all know who the real Tories are in Scotland. The blue version was too toxic, so they simply changed colour.

      Delete
    3. You don't fight the Tories by attacking Labour and campaigning to break up the country.

      I've been fighting the Tories all my life. I'm not running away, hiding behind the constitution, like the SNP and their new recruits.

      Delete
    4. Labour are the Tories. The referendum opened the eyes of many non political folk to the true nature of the British Labour party.
      All the present members of the present Labour shadow cabinet would have had no problem accepting a position in Thatchers cabinet. In fact, she was probably not as far right as modern Labour.

      Delete
  17. Do you think we could get consensus and get a letter to Mr. Smith up on change.org for people to sign. The world was watching these promises be made perhaps the world will sign it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Stating the obvious, perhaps, but a consistent, unambiguous message is an issue for politicians and high-profile campaigners only. The rest of us are capable of demanding Devomax in certain contexts, while still working away for the indy cause in others, especially online but also IRL too.

    It would do no harm at all for ordinary Yessers *as a whole* (if not politicians and well-known bloggers) to keep sending out mixed messages, to keep applying leverage in both directions. Which is just as well, as that was always going to happen anyway after a No vote. (The other possibility, a collapse into despair and then apathy, has been gloriously absent).

    I understand the urge of opinion leaders to favour this approach or that -- that's what opinion leaders do, after all -- and agree that sometimes the troops staying on-message can helpful, but not necessarily in this case.

    So while I agree with much in OP and the thread above, let's not forget that at ground and web level we now have thousands becoming cannier by the day about strategy in general non-binary approaches in particular.

    This is as volatile a political environment as I can remember. Flexibility will be key.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm not a "Labour" activist, but I do wonder why the SNP aren't using the powers we already have. We have control of revenue from land and property so why haven't we implemented Land Tax, as recommended by the Land Reform Review in May? Do we not have the bottle to take on the big boys? Westminster (and Scottish Labour) are just their snivelling fags.

    ReplyDelete