Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Holyrood

Labour’s choice: a whiff of power trumps the Union

Jan 12

Posted by James in Constitution, Holyrood | 62 Comments

Labour’s motion on the referendum being debated as I type is pretty thin gruel:

Johann Lamont: Scotland’s Future—That the Parliament recognises that the Scottish Government has a mandate to call a referendum on the constitutional future of Scotland and calls on the First Minister to hold immediate cross-party talks, including with leaders from all quarters of civic Scotland, to agree a timetable for the referendum, to ensure that the referendum provides a clear result on a single question and to ensure that the referendum is run in Scotland by the Electoral Commission so that the people of Scotland can have an early and rigorous debate on the future of Scotland.

It must again cheer SNP hearts to see the Scottish Labour Party sign up to chunks of the UK administration’s misguided intervention, and the call for cross-party talks on the timetable only will easily be brushed off by the Maximum Eck. A call for an open constitutional convention to involve the public and civic Scotland in the broadest sense would have been more constructive, notably if it was to consider what kind of independent Scotland the public wish to be offered, in constitutional terms, and whether there is indeed real public demand for devo max. But that call remains something only the Greens are making so far, unfortunately.

The “single question” aspect is the most critical part, though. This is perhaps the only part of the phoney war over process that Labour could have influence over. A clear and robust decision by Scottish Labour to set out a devo max option (or full fiscal autonomy, or indeed anything more coherent than the Scotland Bill) would surely have seen the SNP bring that forward in legislation. The Nats have issued enough press releases trying to provoke Labour into doing precisely that, and Ministers have essentially committed to offering the middle way if someone else comes up with it.

Why have Labour turned this offer down? Let us assume it’s tactical rather than some reference to party policy.

Lallands Peat Worrier has made a comprehensive and convincing case that a devo max option would reduce the chances of an independence victory. So if Labour were looking to minimise the risk of Scotland going it alone, surely they’d have set out some middle position, even if it didn’t go as far as devo max? Mere devo-plus would have sufficed. More powers is a form of pragmatic Unionism in the same way Holyrood itself was Unionist – an effort to head off independence at the pass.

Although the poll results showing support for devo max may largely be driven by people tending to pick the middle option, as LPW says, there would have been major media and political advantages to Labour if they had been the party to set out what that middle option would have been. They’d have owned a question on the ballot, they could have been virtually centre stage throughout the debate, they’d have had something positive to make the case for, and their option would have been quite likely to have won.

But devo max is also what would suit a personally ambitious set of SNP Ministers best. As I’ve argued here before, it gives them a moderate win, a step towards the holy grail, something to keep the activists happy, yet it also allows them to keep governing. It’s almost impossible to imagine an SNP devo-plus administration not being returned in 2016. Declining the offer to set out an extension to Holyrood’s powers suggests Labour are more afraid of seeing the SNP’s hegemony grow and strengthen than they are of an increased risk of full independence.

A Yes vote, however, would see the SNP achieve their only purpose while would also depriving them of it. It would make the contest for the first post-indy Scottish Government an open one, one which Labour no doubt feel in their secret heart of hearts that they would well placed to win. The constitutional question would for the first time (deep intake of breath) not overshadow the other issues politics urgently needs to deal with – poverty, public services, taxation, climate change, the rest. Indeed, one former very senior Labour figure once told a friend of mine they’d be fine with independence so long as the Nats weren’t running the show.

Conversely, an outright No vote sends the SNP activists back home in despair and puts the question on hold for a generation – unless the SNP didn’t notice what happened to the Bloc Québécois when they kept pushing it. There is no burning agenda for the SNP to deliver with the existing powers, we know that already, just some pretty right-wing tax proposals for an independent Scotland, and so again a No vote could well be followed by a Labour-led administration on the existing powers. A stronger prospect of returning to power at Holyrood looks more important to Labour than reducing the risk to the Union, whatever they say in public.

Devo max may be Unionism, but few on that side of the argument would be so foolish to regard it as likely to kill nationalism stone dead. In fact, if you want to kill nationalism stone dead there’s only one way to do it. Give it what it’s always said it wants: a clear yes or no on independence. Conveniently, that’s also the best sort of ballot paper for those of us who want independence but also want to see the back of this economically right-wing SNP administration.

Salmond attempts to wash Scotland’s hands of RBS exposure

Jan 12

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 50 Comments

The surprise news story today (on the front page of the FT with the First Minister doing his best Winston Churchill impression) is that Alex Salmond believes that the UK Government should still be liable for the full £187bn that is propping up RBS even if Scotland were to win independence. In what is surely a tactical move to paint the UK as having mismanaged the economy over the recent past, Salmond’s argument goes that given the “misregulation” took place at the London Treasury, then the London Treasury should carry the can. It’s a decent try, but I can’t say that I am altogether convinced.

The pre-emptive attempt to pin RBS’ woes on London is surely an admission from Salmond that he sees this issue as a millstone, a giant crack in his argument, and he will struggle to convince voters that it’s not Scotland’s problem to deal with.

For a start, the crux of RBS’ problems, the acquisition of ABN Amro for a vastly overinflated cash price, had the blessing of the First Minister, as this link shows. I don’t see how any would-be leader of a country can cherry pick which problems they will take responsibility for and which problems they won’t, particularly when they themselves went into the troubled period with both eyes open and having been an economist at the bank in question.

Another problem is the risk of pushing away one of Scotland’s economic jewels. RBS is constantly urged to move its Headquarters down to London, a move that would be a body blow to employment in the financial sector in Scotland’s Capital. The bank has always maintained that Scotland is part of its fabric, part of its name, and will not move down south. However, if independence takes place and one Government doesn’t want to help it through a tough time while another Government does, where will the bank’s loyalty, and HQ, prove to be then?

Perhaps that is what Salmond is after. HBOS is now part of Lloyds Banking Group, reduced to nothing more than a brand and RBS is deeply troubled. Maybe Salmond is trying to create a space for a new bank to be formed that will be synonymous with a new Scotland. It’s not the worst idea in the world but it is hugely risky. To lose one bank is unfortunate but to lose two would be seen as careless.

Surely the fairest way to apportion out the expense of bailing out of RBS is to work out what percentage of income is realised in Scotland and what percentage is realised in rUK and split the £187bn by this ratio, broadly similar to how Corporation Tax would be applied. A bitter pill for Scotland to swallow but no more bitter than what we are currently having to contend with, and if these oil revenues are as lucrative as suggested then we should be able to help RBS back onto its feet easily enough. Isn’t that the independent, self-standing Scotland that the SNP aspires to?

Of course, Salmond rarely puts a foot wrong and perhaps there is an overriding incentive for the SNP to try winning this argument. A recent poll showed that 65% of Scots would vote for independence if it made them £500 richer as a result. Well, 10% of £187bn is £18.7bn which, spread across Scotland’s 5million people, is £3,740 each. More than enough money to get Scots out voting Yes.

So with a flaky kind of logic, very flaky, that’s potentially the ball game. However, crucially, it also undermines the other Nationalist argument that an independent Scotland could carry RBS’ weight so perhaps this particular ante should not have been upped in the first place.

Why the Coalition is outgunned by the SNP

Jan 10

Posted by James in Constitution, Holyrood, Westminster | 57 Comments

The intensity of the debate/kerfuffle/furore about the independence referendum continues to build with the publication of the UK Government’s consultation document today – which at first glance doesn’t appear to bear much relation to the weekend spin from the Prime Minister.

Despite the legal concerns of Scotland’s finest legal tweeters, I share Jeff’s view that Holyrood could ask a question which is politically equivalent to an independence referendum, even if the previous “open negotiations” one is a poor choice and one that would require a vote on what had been negotiated. No matter: the Coalition proposal is for clarity on Holyrood’s ability to legislate here, and that’s welcome. The date limits and nature of the question are far more problematic, and I’ll return to the latter shortly unless someone gets in ahead of me again here. On the date front it’s long been my view that a late poll with a tired SNP administration (domestically they’ve basically run out of ideas already) is more likely to be lost, so both sides appear to be arguing for the position which suits them least.

In any case, the constitutional battle is truly upon us. But are the armies well-matched? Is the terrain more suited to one side or another? Is there a parity of intelligence? Clearly not. Just consider the main combatants: the Coalition versus the SNP administration.

Starting with the ground war, the former have, at a Ministerial level, the full-time efforts of Michael Moore and David Mundell. Even the most ardent Lib Dem or Tory wouldn’t pretend they were their parties’ most imaginative or tactically shrewd generals. The best you can say for Moore is that he’s tall and looks Ministerial, whereas Mundell is no friend to his notional colleagues at Holyrood and hardly a first-class campaigner. Neither of them appear terribly in touch with matters on the ground – even just working in London rather than Scotland can’t help, and Moore, like most Lib Dems, has the air of someone who knows he’s not got another Parliamentary term awaiting him: time to enjoy the limo, the staff and the state receptions before heading off into oblivion.

The Coalition also have the Prime Minister’s occasional attention, as this week, which typically doesn’t help very much. David Cameron, despite the name, clearly views Scotland as a far-away country where one’s chums go shooting, which makes it more interesting than the North of England, but only marginally. He regularly overplays his hand, as this week, and I have no doubt that every time he discusses the constitution or Scotland a little dial in SNP HQ twitches perceptibly towards the shiny yellow YES end.

And as for the rank and file, who are they? Imagine a non-party No campaign had been set up: other than hacks from the three main anti-independence parties, who joins up? Who volunteers to be the lion led by these donkeys? Who wants to spend their rainy evenings in a forlorn attempt to move David Cameron’s drinks cabinet six inches closer to Edinburgh? And where are the financial backers who’ve waited their whole lives to fund a defence of the Union?

Consider next the Coalition’s air force. The Scotland Office has perhaps three press officers, and no credible sign of a strategy unit. According to Guido, there isn’t even a SpAd in evidence, while the press team’s work is the kind of stolid and neutrally-worded stuff the civil service insist upon. Finally, the big intellectual guns – presumably naval to stick with my metaphor – in other words, Unionist campaign central. What is it? Where is it? There is simply no devoted and organised hard core with the preservation of the Union as its raison d’être, contrary to Alex Neil’s suspicion of a Yoonyonisht Conshpirashy. Admittedly there are first class journalists for whom the Union is crucial, including the trenchant Alan Cochrane, the self-described black-hearted Unionist, and Alex Massie, who deserves a wider audience than Twitter and the Spectator, but the current field of battle regularly leaves them bemoaning their side’s mistakes.

Above all, the Coalition has lots of purposes, some contradictory, some associated with grinding the faces of the poor, and some day-to-day fire-fighting. The Scottish question is not their main concern, apparently not even for those Scottish Lib Dems for whom the prospect of independence ought to be focusing their minds. Fighting on lots of fronts at once is much harder than a single determined effort, and it shows.

As for the SNP and the Scottish Government, they have an entire team of Ministers with a dedicated interest in the constitutional question. The FM and DFM are truly first class officers, generals with strong tactical nous, irritating as I find the Great Puddin’ in particular. The next tier has brains too, notably Swinney and Russell. They’re all based here in Scotland, which makes for a much stronger connection to the ground campaign, their careers still look like their trajectory is upwards, and their supporters don’t cringe when they come on the telly. And those front-line troops are gee’d up to say the least. They’ve just had the best ever election result in their lifetimes, they’re experienced, and they believe one more push will see them achieve total victory. They can also call on irregulars, ex-SNP fundies and those for whom the current leadership is too right-wing, people who wouldn’t campaign in a local election ever again but who would do anything they could to deliver independence.

And on the air war side the SNP have a staggering array of media professionals. They have a team in the party’s own offices, from where electioneering and campaigning are led – and they buy in strategic support. They have Liz Lloyd’s well-run team on the fourth floor at Holyrood, dedicated to getting backbench SNP MSPs into the papers and on the telly. They have their own vast civil service press team who can’t promote the SNP, but promote the hell out of their Ministers in a pseudo-non-partisan way, just as they did for the last lot (and who seem brighter than the UK equivalents). And they have 11 SpAds, led by the always-on Kevin Pringle (incidentally, the odds on an all-male team like that occurring purely by chance are less than a twentieth of one percent, all other things being equal), bridging the gap between the civil service press teams and Ministers’ partisan positions. Each and every one of these people is based in Scotland, and they know the key Scottish political hacks in a way the Coalition’s press team simply don’t. With the exception of the Record and the Telegraph, all the important papers backed them in May, even if they won’t back a Yes vote whenever it comes.

I felt the disparity when it was just me doing media for the Green MSPs by day and for the party by night and weekend, but the assets the Coalition itself can deploy on a day-to-day basis fall almost as short: the exception will be on rare weeks like this where Scotland is indeed their overall front line.

Finally, the SNP itself is that single-issue big gun the Union side lacks. They have some serious shortcomings – how and by whom the constitution should be written is one, what they want to do with an independent Scotland is another – but they know how to make the case and they have the organisation. They’ve also got an overflowing war chest, from poets to lottery winners, and they’re supported by a series of thinkers like Pat Kane and Gerry Hassan, blogs like Bella Caledonia and, well, there’s actually a bit of a dearth of non-mental SNP-backing blogs, but you see the argument. (edit – this has been taken as an insult to first-class bloggers like Kate and LPW: it’s not, just that neither are exactly uncritical, and there are others too, but many good ones are now sorely missed)

These substantial disparities don’t guarantee an SNP win over how the referendum will be held, nor in the referendum itself, but they’ve certainly put themselves in about the strongest position possible, and the appearance of a UK administration being a larger force is superficial and entirely misleading. In fact the gap between them is almost what Iain Banks calls an Out Of Context Problem in the opposite direction. Your civilisation is getting on swimmingly with swords and pikes when a ship turns up and men with guns get out. Taking account of all these imbalances, the next phases of this war remain the SNP’s to lose.

The Lib Dems and legal considerations – perhaps less is Moore

Jan 10

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 41 Comments

Better Nation is seemingly temporarily turning into a rolling blog on the developments of the referendum’s question of legality but if my *cough* erstwhile esteemed fellow editors won’t pen anything *cough cough*, I shall just keep going. Incidentally, if any readers wish to submit a Guest Post on these potentially historic developments (or anything else), please do so.

Today’s log of the independence debate will no doubt revolve around Michael Moore’s statement to the House of Commons on the legal status of a referendum on Scottish independence as the unionist camp seek to put the troubles of the past 48 hours behind them. The day looks set to basically boil down to a challenge to Alex Salmond to ascertain whether the FM wishes to risk holding a referendum that may be open to legal challenge or whether he will negotiate with Westminster in order to ensure any referendum is as watertight as possible in terms of rebuffing any potential subsequent challenges. It looks set to be a more difficult day for Michael Moore than it will be for the First Minister though, and that is for two reasons.

The first reason is, the Lib Dem camp continues to be the harbingers of gloom. Michael Moore, and Danny Alexander who was uninspiringly bumping his gums on Radio 4 this morning, need to find a way to be, or at least appear to be, excited about taking part in this referendum, about having the opportunity to celebrate Scotland and direct its trajectory. However, instead, they are solemnly trying to hold back a Nationalist surge with trembling tones and careworn expressions. Who in their right minds wants to buy into that? Who is being pulled closer to the Lib Dems as a result of the party’s leadership on this issue?

Well, not (the excellent) Lib Dem blogger Andrew Page for a start:

“there are Liberal Democrats who are independence-leaning. They see a liberal vision for a truly liberal Scotland and recognise that having an open mind on the question is not anathema to liberalism. In a previous conversation with Willie Rennie I argued that independence could yield benefits for both Scotland and our party that should not be lightly dismissed; I also suggested that the Liberal Democrats’ best position could be in supporting whichever option gives Scots most freedoms and being open to the notion of independence even if we remain skeptical about the details. It would certainly be preferable to entrenched, cynical opposition. The Home Rule Commission is welcome, if somewhat overdue, but while it is right to formulate our own preferred option there is no place for political arrogance that refuses to even countenance other perspectives that would help bring about our liberal aims – you know, the kind of arrogance some might view as extreme.”

There is clearly a sense that the Lib Dem position on this, or should that be lack of a position, is not only losing them support outwith their party, but also support from within. People get into Politics to do something or argue for something, they don’t tend to get into Politics to stop other parties pushing their objectives. Michael Moore could well be inadvertently sapping his own party’s morale when he takes to the podium today.

The second reason that today might be a bad day for Moore is simply because there is a good chance that many Scots simply don’t agree that Westminster needs to hold open the legal door for Scotland to hold its referendum and deliver a result that must be abided by on both sides of the border. After all, what part of ‘Yes’ won’t Cameron or the courts understand?

Let’s be honest and realistic, a referendum carrying a Yes vote that is held within Scotland will result in independence whether it is ‘legally binding’, advisory or whatever. The Scottish people advising their two Governments to negotiate a settlement for separation is beyond successful challenge (how can a single legal complaint ever trump the will of an entire nation?). So there is an element of timewasting about today’s discussions and Michael Moore, rightly or wrongly, will be the face and name of that wasting of time. The Scottish Parliament having the legal competence to hold the referendum would be nice, but it is not at all necessary.

The only possible bone of contention from a legal perspective will be the Electoral Commission and to what extent it, or a similar independent body, will be involved. It is perfectly reasonable for Alex Salmond to reject a UK institution’s involvement in a plebiscite that is for Scotland alone to decide and hold, even if that institution is the venerable Electoral Commission, but some sort of independent oversight is certainly required to remove any suggestion of impropriety.

That is arguably the only interesting facet of today’s spectacle, but who in their right minds believes that Alex Salmond and the Scottish Government don’t have something waterproof in mind regarding this that shall be announced in due course? Not me.

Labour and the referendum – whatever happened to Bring it On?

Jan 9

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 50 Comments

It has been over 24 hours since David Cameron made it clear that he would be advancing plans for “decisive” action on the independence referendum. He has since fleshed out his rhetoric with an offer to the SNP that it can hold a referendum in the next 18 months that the UK Government will pave a legal path right up to the country’s break up for. The SNP has, quite reasonably, rejected the notion entirely and remains unmoved from its plans to hold the referendum in the second half of this term. So that’s the two main protagonists out of the way in a new skirmish that isn’t entirely unexpected, but what say Labour and the Lib Dems? What input shall they have that could pull this situation their way? Well, precious little and not a jot so far as far as I can make out, save for Tom Harris who is lockstep behind Cameron (quelle surprise).

So what should Labour and the Lib Dems do about this surprise development? And who are we looking to for leadership, Miliband/Clegg or Lamont/Rennie? This is a big test for how devolved these parties’ strategies and decision making are and it is an opportunity for leaders on both sides of the border.

First of all, the time for fence sitting is over. This isn’t Calman, this isn’t bland attack pieces in the newspaper, this isn’t blocking a minority Government as was the case in 2007-2011. The game has begun and some parties still haven’t laced up their boots. It is of course difficult to predict what Labour will do as it is not at all clear what type of Scotland the party, and the party members, wish to live in in the medium to long term. Assuming that it is somewhere between the status quo and full fiscal autonomy, they should try to restrict the space that Alex Salmond has to operate in.

David Cameron’s proposal is either right or it is wrong, this is a decision for Scotland or it is a decision to be dictated by London and, for me, Labour and the Lib Dems should seek to argue both. David Cameron has served up the ideal opportunity for the Scottish leaders of unionist parties to loosen their ties with London a little bit more. Johann Lamont should stand shoulder to shoulder with Alex Salmond in denouncing Cameron’s intervention, even if she is doubtlessly secretly pleased that the UK Government has made a move and has some sort of strategy up its sleeve to stop the relentless Nationalist march. The way that she can assist, along with Willie Rennie through a Labour/LD alliance on this issue, is to effectively man mark the SNP and dilute their arguments by sharing them, differing only in the result that the hope to achieve whenever the referendum comes around.

Ed Miliband should provide lukewarm but convincing support of David Cameron’s proposal, stating his commitment to the UK and desire that Scotland remains a part of it while Johann Lamont can rail just as much as Salmond is doing currently from Edinburgh, pushing for that second question that Labour still needs to own and shape in order to get back into the driving seat of Scotland’s political journey. Labour can win support of those who wish to go early or go later on a vote, the SNP is restricted to the latter; Labour can win support for proponents of fiscal autonomy, the status quo, devo max, the SNP is increasingly restricted to independence. (This of course comes with the caveat that full fiscal autonomy and devolution max are de facto victories for all but the most fundamentalist of SNP members. It, again, all hinges on precisely what Labour actually wants from this plebiscite).

So that is Labour, and to an extent the Lib Dems should try the same, but Willie Rennie and Nick Clegg have more to lose. The Tories have shown that they do not need Scottish MPs in order to win a UK General Election and they won’t need any in 2015 to win a craved majority. So even if Scotland collectively bellows with anger at an early referendum being forced upon us, it’s no skin off David Cameron and all but one of the Conservative MPs’ noses as long as the result is a No. The Lib Dems however, if seen as the handmaidens of a dastardly ruse by the Bullingdon elite, will have to pay a very heavy price for a longer period than they already face. A quarter of the Lib Dems’ MPs are north of the border, the Tories only have one, so this is a bigger risk for Clegg than it is for Cameron and to what extent depends on the attitudes of Scots.

Alex Salmond has tried to use Scottish nonchalance to his advantage by gambling that the public doesn’t mind waiting until 2014, 2015 or 2016 to have the referendum that we provided “an overwhelming mandate” for (as opposed to just a standard mandate of course); David Cameron is trying to use that same apparent unbothered opinion of Scots to bounce the public into an early referendum with insignificant backlash, and he may yet pull it off. Labour and the Lib Dems have the opportunity to come through the middle and actually stir the public’s imagination by owning the constitutional settlement that most Scots seem to prefer, but if they haven’t done it yet then why would they do so now?

Time is running out for them and irrelevance beckons as events currently unfold, and particularly as Cameron and Salmond escalate their positions, taking the headlines with them.

The choice of silence is no longer an option for Labour and the Lib Dems. It’s time for a bit of Bring it On.

UPDATE:
Scottish Labour have a very short news item on their website. They want the referendum “as quickly as possible” and want it to be “quick, clear and decisive”, wording that is remarkably similar to that of David Cameron’s on Andrew Marr yesterday, though they have ducked answering the question of whether they agree with Cameron’s bribe or not.

For me, it is a mistake for Scottish Labour to line up too closely and too cosily with the Tories on this and leave so much vacant space for the SNP to take the anti-London, anti-Tory, seemingly pro-Scotland line on its own. I reckon holding firm to an anti-SNP line has clouded Labour’s better judgement. The SNP did after all win its majority after devolved parties stated that if people wanted a referendum on SNP terms then Scots would have to vote for it. The perception across surely is this – Salmond won, he gets to make the rules.

However, the biggest problem for Labour is this (and this news story doesn’t help answer it at all)…:

What powers do Scottish Labour want Scotland to have going forward? It’s not enough to be the negative party saying No for the next 18 months.