Image from Bella Caledonia
One should never really believe political promises, but ‘vote no for more powers later’ has to be one of the worst. Especially from the mouth of someone making that promise only because he feels he ought.
Last week, while speaking in Edinburgh, David Cameron offered Scotland more powers, but only if independence was rejected.
“I am open to looking at how the devolved settlement can be improved further”, he said. “And, yes, that means considering what further powers could be devolved.”
Offering voters what they might want through a different and delayed means of your own choosing strikes me as less political masterclass, and more desperate politician. Nonetheless, Conservative-supporting facets of the media have applauded Cameron’s move.
Writing in The Guardian, Conservative Home editor Tim Montgomerie has followed
Cameron’s statement with a call for him to “seize the momentâ€.
“By offering to extend Scottish devolution he can be the Conservative leader who saves the union. By promising to balance Scottish devolution with a commitment to new arrangements for the government of England, he can radically improve his own party’s electoral prospects. And through these changes – with the introduction of city mayors and greater localism – he can be the PM who replaces one of Europe’s most centralised states with a political architecture fit for the 21st century.â€
I’m a big fan of devolution. I think the best place for power to be is as close to the people as possible. For me devolution and the debate around independence isn’t just about territory or a binary discussion between what powers reside and why in Westminster and Holyrood, but how powers – democratic and economic – extend down to councils and to communities, and how those powers are used.
Montgomerie has identified the ill – the moribund institutions that can dominate sections of English local democracy. The cure he proposes will be interesting to watch – the 12 new city mayors to be elected, as well as police commissioners, will hopefully revitalise local democracy in England. And there is always a case for councils and communities across all nations of the UK to enjoy greater localism.
But Cameron’s jam tomorrow promise for Scotland is a hurried attempt to claw back ground gained by Salmond and the SNP, a ‘shush now, behave, and we’ll give you a treat’ attempt at cajoling voters using a strategy that ceases being effective once someone’s older than about six. Cameron and today’s Conservatives have scant interest in devolution – Montgomerie in the same piece notes it was Salmond, and not Cameron, that “[chose] to put Scotland’s relationship with the rest of the UK at the top of the political agendaâ€.
Cameron’s intervention in the independence debate is a self-interested salvo, an attempt to adhere to the role of UK Prime Minister and retain the power it brings, a role that he feels he must play, rather than a great passion or driving ambition on his part.
Cameron and the Conservatives seem likewise only interested in localism and English devolution when it stands to benefit their own grasp on power. You can’t argue for reducing the number of seats in Westminster in order to make everyone’s votes more equal, when you are also switching to individual voter registration despite warnings that up to six million voters are currently missing from the electoral roll. For others like Eric Pickles, localism and cohesion are being confused with ill-thought out assimilation. And slashing local public services, from lights to libraries, doesn’t inspire hope that Cameron is really interested in standing up for what’s happening on the doorsteps of England.
Any intervention by Cameron into the independence debate with pledges and promises will be regarded with bemusement by the majority of the Scottish electorate. We expect his thoughtlessness and hashed attempts at making do when it comes to the devolution debate. But he risks more by only being half-hearted and damaging about changes to English democracy, especially when his own party are arguing for him to be otherwise.
#1 by Allan on February 21, 2012 - 9:49 pm
Say what you like about Cameron, and I pretty much agree with everything you’ve said about his attempt to influence a no vote, at least he has said that more powers for Holyrood should be looked into.
From “Scottish” Labour we have heard nothing but carping – when what they should be doing is trying to define “Devo-Max”. There’s even a suggestion on “Labour Hame” that a “No to Seperation” group should be set up within the party. Too negative, they should be pushing a better message for the union and trying to provide an alternative to the rejected Calman proposals.
#2 by Don McC on February 22, 2012 - 7:45 am
Actually, according to Ruth Davidson on Newsnight anyway, Cameron said no such thing. He was merely referring to the extra powers already contained in the Scotland bill.
Sort of proves Kirsty’s point, now, doesn’t it.
As to LabourHame’s proposal that Cameron should decide what powers Scotland should have, not the SNP, not the Scottish Government and definitely not the Scottish people, well what more needs said.
#3 by ReasonableNat on February 22, 2012 - 12:23 am
100% in agreement here Kirsty. Cameron’s offer insults our intelligence utterly.
(Also, minor rant warning, is it just me that cringes at that ‘It is right’ phrase of his? As though saying so, in that patronizing parental tone of his, were enough to make it true.)
#4 by Doug Daniel on February 22, 2012 - 8:43 am
Yes, that irritates me immensely. Everyone seems to do it, but it just sounds that little bit more annoying when he says it. It’s a horrible phrase, trying to suggest that what they are saying is so blatantly correct that there’s no need to provide reasoning, as if they’re just following common sense, and anyone who disagrees with it is clearly playing games or just wrong.
I mean, I could just as easily say “it is right that a nation should make its own decisions”.
#5 by Doug Daniel on February 22, 2012 - 9:04 am
There are three main problems with Cameron’s new position:
1. He’s not actually promising anything, it’s merely a suggestion that he might possibly think about maybe considering looking at what extra powers we could have. Once we’ve voted no, there’s nothing to stop him going “yeah, I’ve thought about it, and actually you’re fine.” Or even worse, “yeah, we’ve realised the problem is devolution itself, so we’ll stop that now.” Unlikely perhaps, but then, probably more likely than Scotland getting anything approaching FFA, which is the bare minimum we need.
2. This is a tacit admission that the current Scotland Bill is not good enough, which begs the question “why continue with it?” You don’t continue with bad legislation if you’ve identified that it is bad. That would be, err, bad.
3. Since people like Anas Sarwar are so keen to tell us that independence and devolution are two distinct things, then why are these extra powers predicated on the result of the independence referendum? Why wait? There are good reasons for the delay in holding the referendum, but the mechanism already exists for transferring more powers to Scotland, so why not do it now? Indeed, as Wings Over Scotland suggests, the Scotland Bill is still at a stage where amendments can be put in, so why not utilise that as a vehicle for providing the extra powers that everyone has suddenly decided Scotland needs? That solves the previous problems too.
It’s particularly bizarre that the Scotland Bill includes a measure to fiddle with income tax, when Alistair Darling has used income tax as a prime example of something that can be wholly devolved without much trouble. Well in that case, let’s get on with it! I suspect I would be right in assuming that Captain Darling made no noises about including income tax being fully devolved while the Scotland Bill was going through Westminster, even though he has stated live on TV that the current devolved set up is no longer fit for purpose?
If these politicians were serious about recognising the need for Scotland to have more powers, they would be devolving them ahead of the referendum, thus removing a massive chunk of the support for independence. There are going to be people who vote for independence not so much for foreign affairs, defence and the EU, but more for the tax-raising and spending powers. If the status quo suddenly represents what they want, then there’s less chance of them voting for independence. This is an obvious way for unionists to win the referendum, so the fact they’re not taking it can only mean one thing: they don’t want further devolution. But then, of course they don’t, because it means giving power away. When they say “we’ll look at it after the referendum”, what they really mean is “we’ll look at it after you’ve come to your senses and stopped electing the SNP, you naughty Scots, because there’s no way we’re giving them more powers. Fall into line and we’ll give you a reward.”
And of course, they don’t like the idea of public debate on which powers to devolve, as this would mean admitting that there are some powers that are complicated to devolve because of the existence of the union, as well as there being no guarantee that the debate won’t spiral into people wanting more and more powers and suddenly realising the union is nothing but a hindrance. They need to be in control of the debate, which is why they choose to put it in the hands of unelected commissions, rather than actually asking the public what we’d like our government to control.
(Most of which I’ve said at Bella Caledonia)
#6 by Iain Menzies on February 22, 2012 - 9:07 am
Total nonsense. All your saying here is that you dont like Cameron. Im just amazed you didnt bring up Lord Home….
There is nothing new from Cameron here what he is saying about more powers is totally in keeping with the Localalism agenda that is being pushed down south.
On more powers its quite simple, he said, that if its a no vote, and there is a demand for more powers then he, and by extension HMG will approarch such suggestions with an open mind.
Debates on greater devolution are a separate issue from independence.
#7 by Doug Daniel on February 22, 2012 - 9:19 am
Right, well we already know there’s an appetite for more powers, so if it’s separate from independence, what’s stopping us from amending the Scotland Bill right now?
Also, what’s to stop the Tories interpreting the “no” vote as a lack of demand for more powers?
#8 by Iain Menzies on February 22, 2012 - 9:52 am
I have no objection to amending the Scotland bill. I dont see any great point in it mind, but i have no objection.
After Camerons intervention, whats to stop the Conservatives from using a No vote as proof of a demand for more powers?
#9 by Doug Daniel on February 22, 2012 - 10:21 am
Why don’t you see the point in amending the Scotland Bill? If we need greater devolution than currently offered, and everyone agrees on this, then if anything is pointless, it’s passing a bill that everyone agrees doesn’t go far enough. Seems daft not to make it better.
As for your second point, absolutely nothing. But that’s the problem – there’s no safeguard making sure they interpret the result correctly. That’s why it’s not enough to say “yeah yeah, we’ll look at it after, honest. Just make sure you throw away your only piece of leverage first.”
#10 by Doug Daniel on February 22, 2012 - 10:26 am
Actually, your second point just highlights the daftness of waiting until after the referendum. If a no vote can be taken as proof of a demand for more powers – and a yes vote would certainly be proof – then there is demand for more powers regardless of the result. So there is no need to wait until after the result, because it’s completely inconsequential to proving demand for more powers.
Unless we rely on the turnout for proof, of course.
#11 by JPJ2 on February 22, 2012 - 10:26 am
Per Iain Menzies “Im just amazed you didnt bring up Lord Home ….”
Don’t worry-plenty of people will bring up Lord Home for the very good reason that his promise to Scotland of better devolution was much more solid than the weak and unconvincing effort from Cameron.
Crucially, no attempt whatsoever was made by the Tories to impliment Home’s promises-you will hear plenty more about Sir Alec, don’t worry about that 🙂
More importantly, it is entirely reasonable to regard independence (all possible powers) as lying at the end of a continuuum on which FFA/Devo Max (most possible powers) is the immediately preceding stopping point (if that were really not the case the SNP would not believe that achieving FFA would lead to independence and the unionists would not fear it to be so).
I noted how flustered Alistair Darling became when pressed on the BBC politics program last Sunday about how unsustainable is the idea of voting “no” in the hope of more powers to Scotland without those powers being defined.
If there were 3 weeks to go to the referendum, such a position might hold, with 3 years to go it will be utterly ridiculed and be unsustainable (unless the unionists wish to guarantee a “Yes” vote).
#12 by Indy on February 22, 2012 - 10:22 am
There is a letter from a chap in the Herald today saying this:
“In view of the recent contribution by David Cameron, could the wording of the referendum question not be changed to read “Should the Scottish Government have full fiscal autonomy and all the other powers of an independent government excepting foreign affairs and defence (that is, devo max)?”
This proposal would likely be supported by the great majority of Scots and could be put to the vote this year, leaving the question of full independence to be determined later in the light of experience.”
I think that sums up where a lot of people – who are currently unrepresented politically – actually are.
But it also highlights the expectations that have been raised.
It is a problem because – and I am really not saying this in a partisan way – there is no coherence in the “unionist” case. Are they arguing for the status quo? Are they arguing for something else? Is Devo Max – as defined by the gentleman above – something which is in any way a realistic prospect and could be supported at Westminster?
We just don’t know. Much more clarity is required on this.
#13 by gavin on February 22, 2012 - 2:14 pm
The Unionists surely cannot use the next two and a half years stonewalling on the future governance of Scotland and saying nothing except negatives. The obvious solution for them would be federalism, but that would seem to be a dirty word. I think that they will give no ground at all on timing, question or anything, force the Scottish government to get on with it, and will use the time to whine about process and “fixes”.
#14 by Barbarian on February 22, 2012 - 8:15 pm
On the other hand, surely the SNP cannot use the next two and a half years promising utopia?
The problem is that both sides are negative about the other, while being positive about their own side, sort of.
There is still no sign of a substantial middle ground vote, yet opinion polls consistently show a three way split. Until someone knocks the egos together, all we will get is constant ranting by both sides until the Referendum takes place.
#15 by Indy on February 22, 2012 - 11:17 pm
It’s not actually that complicated.
The SNP’s proposition – the question that will be put to the vote – is independence i.e Scotland becoming a fully self-governing state, recognised as an independent country by the rest of the world, meaning, as a consequence, that the powers which are currently reserved to Westminster e.g. pensions, tax and benefits, foreign policy, defence etc, would be exercised by the Scottish Government instead.
A great deal of the current debate revolves around what would be done with those powers – whether an independent Scotland would retain the monarchy, what kind of tax regime there would be, what kind of defence capability there would be, what the future relationship with the EU would be. All of which is interesting but also not strictly relevant because that is not what anybody will actually be voting on. What they will be voting on is whether the Scottish Parliament & Government should have the powers to make policy and legislation in those areas or whether it shouldn’t. The question of what policies an independent Scotland will follow will be decided in the general election which will happen after independence.
The position of those who oppose independence is what really needs to be teased out. Because the alternative to the proposition that people are voting on – i.e. independence – also needs to be clear. As things stand, the opponents of independence are by definition the supporters of the status quo. They are trying to muddy the waters by suggesting that if there is a no vote there can still be all kinds of amendments and changes to the devolution settlement. But they have made no specific commitments.
It is important to get this clarified so that people know what the choices actually are.
Is the choice independence or the status quo with no change? i.e change versus no change?
Or is the choice independence or an expanded devolution settlement or the status quo i.e. are people to be asked to choose between two different types of change or no change?
This is actually a pretty important point. We have a limited amount of time to decide so it’s really time for people to cut the crap and make their position clear. All the debate has been around what will be on the ballot paper but in reality it is more important that voters actually know what the heck people are arguing for!
The pro-independence position is actually quite clear. There will naturally be a fair bit of disagreement between different parties which support independence – the SNP, Greens, and SSP/Solidarity – about what kind of country an independent Scotland should be. But there is agreement that it should be independent.
But on the other side of the debate it’s about as clear as mud. I’m not being negative saying that, it’s literally true. If anyone has a clear understanding of the respective positions of the Labour Party, Lib Dems and Conservatives on continued devolution for Scotland they get a gold star because I don’t know, it seems to change from day to day and varies from spokesperson to spokesperson.
And it’s really not good enough because wherever you stand in the debate voters are entitled to some clarity on what options they are being asked to choose between.
#16 by Chris on February 22, 2012 - 8:53 pm
Sadly the political reality of the rejection of independence will put any further consideration of positive constitutional change back for decades. Look at the 18 years between the two devolution referendums.
Cameron may mean this in some vague way but he is not going to put any political capital into it. Re-negotiating powers will be painful and will lead to demands for re-opening the Barnett Formula. (Particularly if pro-independence forces have been argung for a share of UK debt on a per capita basis.) So is he going to fight with his own backbenchers to retain a formula that gives Scotland a greater than per capita share of UK income?
I can understand the SNP grabbing an independence referendum at the first opportunity, before they have won the popular argument, but like the AV referendum its defeat will put proper constitutional change with genuine popular support back decades.
#17 by douglas clark on February 22, 2012 - 11:48 pm
gavin @ 13,
I do not believe that a genuine federalism can be set up, given the constituents are as population imbalanced as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are when compared to England. That is not to say that four independent nations on the periphery of Europe couldn’t be a ‘power block’ in the EU, if they chose to be.
Barbarian @ 14
It appears to be that Scotland leaves the UK on almost equal terms in terms of it’s future. What the SNP are saying is that we can do better.
I think the economic arguement is an easy win for the SNP, but not instantly. We will not wake up on the morning of independence to mana from heaven. That would be, frankly, unrealistic. It is not what we are about us independanista’s. We are about letting us be all we can be.
Chris @ 15
Well, what’s to do?
The SNP have played a long game in terms of the referendum’s date. They have started that debate. Hopefully, as an SNP member, the time between then and now will be filled with a genuine information rather than falsehoods.
A positive campaign based on what you can be, and truthful information, will persuade people to our cause.
The SNP have to win that popular arguement. That is the whole point of a referendum. Persuading people.
We start on, near as dammit, on level terms, if some opinion polls are to be believed….
#18 by Chris on February 23, 2012 - 10:25 am
What to do?
Ditch the independence referendum and have a referendum on devo-max instead.
This will ensure that devo-max gets a proper airing rather than being a vague compromise. But it also means that the referendum will be on a question closer to the settled will (if you like) of the people.
And for the SNP to be explicit and recognise that the case for independence has genuine weak points and that devo-max would be explicitly a stepping stone towards an independence vote if devo-max won and could be shown to work.
I know this won’t happen. The SNP won’t do it and the opposition would ridicule it (maybe Greens and LibDems might go for it). It would mean putting the interests of the people ahead of the interests of their parties.
#19 by JPJ2 on February 23, 2012 - 11:24 am
Chris-Easy question, easy to answer. Do you want Devo Max or do you want independence?
#20 by Chris on February 23, 2012 - 2:10 pm
I would like more devolution so that the Scottish Parliament has full responsibility to raise and spend taxes. I don’t want independence not out of any love for the Union but because I am still waiting to be convinced.
I like the idea of Devo-Max in principle but if it means unnecessary duplication of the administrative functions of the British State (“the 2 DVLAa problem”) or create streams of benefit migrants between Scotland and England because of different benefit levels, etc then it looks more like Independence-Worse rather than Independence-Lite. So I won’t support a proposal that has many of the drawbacks of independence but none of the advantages. I’ll see what is on the table.