Talking shop
Confession time.
I have been just a mite sceptical about the Commission on the constitution due to be set up by Scotland鈥檚 opposition parties.
However, with said parties due to meet again tomorrow, I thought I鈥檇 invite you to join me in taking another glance.
I am not entirely alone in scepticism, it would seem.
Some Labour backbench MPs have been rather inclined to doubt the value of the Commission.
To what burning question, they mutter, does it provide the answer?
Which is in itself a good question.
Those who set up the Constitutional Convention knew their purpose. They wanted Scottish self-government, within the Union.
What 鈥 other than the election of an SNP administration 鈥 is driving the present proposals?
Perhaps you answer: what else do you need? Well, nothing 鈥 if all you want is to form the basis of an inchoate resistance movement, dedicated to opposing independence.
But such a body would meet, growl mutually, agree it was against independence, sign a suitable pledge 鈥 then disperse.
This, I am assured, is about substance. Real substance. To be fair, the Conservatives have long floated the notion of reviewing Holyrood鈥檚 powers.
The Liberal Democrats have gone further 鈥 and organised their own review of devolved finance in an inquiry conducted by Sir David Steel.
But what鈥檚 in it for Labour? Certainly, they achieve the same objective as some sought from the Convention.
They attempt to isolate the SNP 鈥 and enhance the impression that, collectively, Scotland is turning from independence.
But times have changed. Scotland has an entrenched Parliament 鈥 with the SNP in power.
Nationalists 鈥 including those who fretted over the party鈥檚 attitude towards the Convention 鈥 can afford to be more relaxed with regard to the Commission.
Again, though, let鈥檚 look longer-term.
The London meeting (the last one was in Edinburgh) will bring together the Holyrood and Scottish Westminster leaders of Labour, the Tories and the LibDems.
Don鈥檛 expect instant action. No names yet for the expert members of the Commission.
Perhaps more re the framework. Next stage might be to return to Holyrood鈥檚 corporate body with a plan for setting up 鈥 and staffing 鈥 the review body.
And the end game? The objective? To reform the Scotland Act, of course.
To bring about changes in the existing balance of powers between Scotland and Westminster.
The purpose? To review a 10 year old structure 鈥 and forestall further moves towards independence.
All of this, remember, within the context of the United Kingdom. As one participant told me, this 鈥渕ustn鈥檛 be seen as a Scottish land grab鈥.
Changes to financial systems, for example, would have to take account of English concerns about Scottish funding 鈥 and disquiet over the Barnett formula in Wales.
But cautiously, cannily. We鈥檙e back with the old gag. Devolution is like evolution. Just takes longer.
I'm 
Comments
"The London meeting (the last one was in Edinburgh) will bring together the Holyrood and Scottish Westminster leaders of Labour, the Tories and the LibDems."
Surprised to hear that the Labour party would work along with the Tories and Lib Dems to fight against Scottish opinion.....NOT!!!
They, behind a divided front, have always worked together in this regard, look at the evidence from 1974, Gavin Mcrones SECRET document, and how this knowledge was kept from Scottish eyes.
YET WE KNOW BECAUSE OF MCRONES LETTER THAT AS FAR BACK AS 1975, LABOUR AND TORY WORKED TOGETHER TO RUBBISH THE SNP, TO KEEP SCOTLAND DIVIDED AND SO UNDER ENGLISH RULE WITH THE USE OF LIES AND DECIEPT FOR 30 YEARS!
I didn't believe them then and certainly won't be listening to them now!
The opposition parties can do whatever they want with their so-called "constitutional convention". Everyone and their dog knows it is nothing more than a desperate attempt to stop independence and a waste of money as it duplicates the national conversation minus the independence option.
Can鈥檛 believe they are actually announcing meetings in London to allow Scotland's absentee landlords (unionist MPs) to take part! Most of them are dead set against any change; even Gordon Brown has recently undermined Wendy's latest suggestions. Having her at the helm of the project only undermines it further, of course.
We have seen Gordon Brown sign the recent EU treaty giving the EU more of a say on British affairs,we now have the Scots parliament looking to have more control over Scotland,the Welsh assembly is pushing for full law making powers and the Nothern Irish assembly will follow suit.
So tell me Brian what need is there for Westminster except to become an English Parliament.
Its time that the Unionist parties looked at the bigger picture of Britain`s place in the world and stopped trying to delay Scotlands progress.
so. Essentially what you're sayig is that a constitutional convention will:
i) annex more powers for Scotland
ii) lead to greater sel-governance and self determination
iii) accelerate our movement towards independence.
iv) further antagonise our southern cousin's as policy position further divide as the media highlights every 'benefit' Scotland gets at the 'expense of the English', and finally
v) accelerate Scotland on the road to independence.
Sounds just like one of New Labour's well thought out plans of action resulting in the opposite of what they intended ...
... either way it sounds good to me - aside from the antagonising bit :?
So the Unionists are all in favour of more powers for Parliament?
What will the electorate think? More powers are obviously a safe option? So the independence option is closer to the safe option now than it once was?
"Slippery slope"? - more like the fastest flume at the local pool!
It's only January and the turkeys are voting for Christmas.
It may not happen tomorrow or the day after but you don't need to be a gambling man to guess how this is going to turn out...
Now, where do I get my new passport?
When I became aware of the Scottish dimension and how it is dealt with at Westminster there have been clear indications that the purchase price for the 鈥榮ilence鈥 of Scotland鈥檚 voters was resultant from a political calculation, with the obvious exceptions of Margaret Thatcher when the in 1989/90 she introduced the Community Charge (Poll Tax) against the wishes of the majority of Scots and the lies told to the Scottish voters about the real value that North Sea Oil would deliver to an independent Scotland.
Wendy Alexander seemed proud to pronounce on Sunday鈥檚 Politics Show her up and coming London visit with her newly acquired bosom buddies, the Scottish Conservatives and the Scottish Liberals; I would have been more impressed with such collaboration in the past and even the present had this been in the interests of the people of Scotland as opposed to such an act that has all the characteristics of a ragbag coalition whose sole purpose seems to be the derailing of the legally elected Government of Scotland.
The aim of this coalition is to show to the people of Scotland that their wishes can be delivered by those other than the SNP; just a pity for Jack McConnell that he was so obsessed with the plans of his 鈥榠nner circle鈥 that he lost sight of the bigger picture.
This ragbag coalition of parties who in reality detest each other is resultant from fear; fear that the traditional Labour majority in Scotland can no longer be taken for granted with its obvious threats to the Labour percentages at the UK General Elections.
Why then would the rumps that are the Scottish Conservatives and the Scottish Liberals join in? The very acts of coalition always reward the minority with the inclusion in a pro rata percentage of their policies and ideas, additionally it as has often been said, 鈥榯here is no such thing as bad publicity.鈥
Brian
we are the independence generation. Its time.
the unionist parties are desperate now and all the SNP have to do now is sit back and watch.
Evolution - is this not what the commission and all these talking shops is stifling. Openness and transparency - only if you are one of the 'in' crowd. Let them talk, the rest of us should just get on with our lives. We can only hope that the hot air can be put to use generating clean, nuclear free, electricity.
So the future of Scotland is to be decided by a few people behind closed doors in London. So no change there.
Scots will be given, and will have taken away, what ever powers these people decree before a word is spoken in public.
The Scottish media's due deference to Westminster will ensure that protest and debate about such deals behind closed doors will be kept to a minimum.
All this to prevent Scots for answering one simple question at the ballot box, "Do you want Scotland to become a sovereign and independent state - Yes or NO?"
Denying Scots their right to self-determination is an affront to democracy and a fundamental breach of the UN charter. But then again when have the Unionist parties and their lackies in the Scottish media ever shown any concern over that?
Wendy has zero credibility left and it doesn't matter what she does any more.
She can expect the authorities to take an interest in the criminal acts committed (and admitted) by her team even if the Labour-appointed Electoral Commission take no action.
The unionist parties are now playing into the SNP's hands. Independence is coming, little by little.
It's true (as it has been mentioned) that the unionists are genuinly scared of the SNP's progress. They know how popular independence is at present and they feel that giving more powers to the Scottish parliament will do for us. As you state, Brian, "Scottish self-government, within the Union". Do you know what that is? That's Australia. That's Canada. That is what the SNP want. We want to keep the monarch (thus keeping the union of the crowns), yet we will be a seperate nation. Australia and Canada still belong to the British Crown, but they ARE seperate countries.
Also (on a seperate note), how can parties be called democratic if they won't let the party who got the most votes make any decisions? Hardly democratic
This proves the SNP have comprehensively outmanoeuvred the other parties over Scotland's future. Salmond has tied them up in knots. He has forced them into a position where they are arguing for a "watered down" version of what he wants!
"Changes to financial systems, for example, would have to take account of English concerns about Scottish funding"
Why are senior Scottish politicians so worried about "English concerns"? Shouldn't they be focussing on the concerns of the Scots they were elected to serve? This is the real giveaway that this "Commission" is nothing more than a desperate attempt to save their precious Union with England.
"the london meeting (the last on was in edinburgh)"
the fact that the scottish "leaders" of the unionist parties have to travel down to their REAL leaders in London for this meeting just goes to prove that they have no real say in their party's policy and that they are puppets to their westminster rulers! the last meeting being in edinburgh does not make one bit of difference.... mundell and browne are elected MP's of scottish constituencies and should be up here anyway looking after their constituents.
this just reinforces the FACT that all decisions over Scottish affairs and constitution should be decided IN Scotland.
Brian,
Reading through most of the comments from posters on your blog from here in England, we could be forgiven for thinking what an ungrateful and unreliable "partner" Scotland has been. At a time of dire financial need, with attempts at establishing a Scottish empire dashed, Scotland, after much debate which is preserved in the British Museum library, decided to enter a union with England. With typical enterprise, many Scots made the most of the opportunity presented, and the evidence of their success can be seen in all corners of the former British enpire. Now that the empire, and with it the opportunity for enrichment, is gone, all we hear is how England has stolen the oil (not a word about the source of the development costs, or the truth behind the claim that it all lies in Scottish waters anyway), or how England has ruled and abused Scotland from Westminster. From an English perspective it feels the reverse: unlike the Scots we have not even the pretence of self government, and the disproportionate representation of Scotland on the benches at Westminster makes us feel like an occupied country, and judging by the vitriol so often evident in this blog, the occupying power is not a benign one.
It is my firm belief that both countries are stronger united than not, but only if the union is fair to all; that includes funding as well as self-government; real devolution for England, as a nation not a collection of artificial regions, is the first step along that road, and only then should the issue of independence be addressed. The break up of the United Kingdom is not a question for the Scottish people to decide alone; all the home nations have an equal stake in our future. England has always been a bigger country than Scotland, but that hasn't stopped Scotland prospering under the union. Instead of labouring under the burden of the huge, artificial chip on their shoulders, the Scottish Nationalists should look to partake in genuine discussions to find an equitable future for all the nations of these islands. Scotland, contrary to popular myth north of the border, has done very well from the union, and she would be unwise to try casting it aside like an old shoe when all that may be needed is a new heel.
Okay first of all:
The unionist parties should take part in Alex Salmond's National Conversation - as far as I understood I thought supposed to be discussion to gather opinions from both Nationalist and Unionist perspectives - the fact they aren't I have to admit is embarrarsing and doesn't help represent the arguements of those of us who do support the union - they need to get invovled
However of course Labour, Libs, Tories are going to oppose and obstruct the SNP's independence initatives - it's in their manisfesto and the majority of their supporters generally oppose independence so they are representing them - so I'm not quite sure how that's supposed to be undemocratic.
At the end of the day their are plently of Scots who support the union and the unionist party's are representing their wishes - however some (not all) the Nats supporters seem to take offence to this rather than welcoming constructive debate which is needed from both sides!
Though I will side with the Nats on one thing - Wendy have been somewhat lacklustre in presenting a decent oppostion!
If I had thought a year ago that the worst case constitutional scenario for Scotland would be more powers for the Scottish Parliament I would have jumped for joy.
But that is the reality.
Unionists trying to spin this as anything but reactionary desperation as they see thier colony disintegrating, is truly pathetic.
A rather splendid comment from someone over at the Herald site (sorry can't remember your name and the Herald have disabled the comments)
"So the losers are going to London for a greetin' meetin'"
Says it all really.
Not such a media smart idea of them to go to London in the first place, so now a news blackout on the 主播大秀 as the penny drops. Apart from the anoraks here there is no coverage of this.
#15 Malcolm,
I'm truly sorry you see it that way. At the time of the union, Scotland was indeed in serious financial trouble. England took advantage of this by threatening trade sanctions and giving considerable bribes to key Scottish MPs. Remember that this was a period in history when the vast majority of Scots didn't have the vote and there were riots in the streets when the act was passed. If Scotland had been a democracy in the modern sense at that time I have no doubt there would have been no union, for better or worse.
You are correct that within the union, Scotland made the most of Empire. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. You also forgot that it could be argued that the western world as we know it, and the British empire, were largely the result of the Scottish Enlightenment.
Anyhow, those days are past now, and in the past they must remain... This is OUR future, for those of us entitled to vote today, and vote we will. The union has served its usefulness, to Scots at least, and its days are surely numbered.
Who would have thought we'd ever see Labour and the Tories cuddling up so closely. Strange bed-fellows indeed. mind you, it's getting harder and harder to tell them apart. To me it's a sign of an increasingly desperate rear-guard action. If they were really interested in serving the Scottish people, they'd join in the National Conversation instead of vetoing it.
*Sits back, popcorn in hand*
Malcolm,please tell me how Scotland has done very well under the union?
The oil development was not done by the English,Westminster gets the taxes but that is quite a different thing.
My, my...so much angst. So much anger. Somehow this reminds me of the USA's own historical "secession" issues. The "South" thought it could go it alone and base its economy on cotton...and slavery of course.
Imagine, if you will, what the "South" would be without the "North"? Then and/or now.
Of course, this seems so much different as well, and with it's own inherent historical animosities. I must admit that myself, as an Irish-American, have had my fill with historical and histrionic anger and prejudices, and somehow agree with Malcolm's post above. And more so, considering that this is a Scottish blog, I give credit for your honesty Malcolm, but you must must have seen the responses, such as the one from "disgusted" Dot.
Sadly, this seems a done deal nevertheless. Scotland will become independent, and Britain will never be the same. And, neither will Scotland. What's next, the Euro? Scotland will become nothing more than an afterthought when it comes to Europe, and the world at large...something of a Greece or Norway type country.
Like an unfaithful wife Malcolm, just let them go and allow them their independence. Their happiness, and misery, seems assured, no matter whom is ruling them.
ps
Thanx for the memories...
RRR
Is it not deeply concerning that Westminster should appoint a taxpayer-funded scheme for the specific purpose of enabling Holyrood鈥檚 unionist opposition parties to (more effectively) oppose independence?
These parties are already in a position where they can and will use their parliamentary vote to block the Scottish government鈥檚 democratic referendum on the constitution 鈥 simply on the grounds that it would include the option of independence!
Perhaps these parties are wary of the obvious anti-democratic element in their stance, or disturbed by the fact that Scotland鈥檚 constitutional debate continues to develop and evolve in spite of their backward-looking and self-interested unionist protests?
We already have an open forum in the National Conversation, which is intended to air all options, viewpoints and shades of opinion on the country鈥檚 constitutional future 鈥 and in which the unionists are freely invited to participate.
Instead, of course, they have secured public funding and the blessing of their London masters to promote alternatives to the National Conversation 鈥 which very well entail using any available means, including Scottish Parliamentary structures and resources, to further frustrate or block the independence option 鈥 all under the guise of offering 鈥榤ore devolved powers鈥 to Scotland.
If they seek to be taken seriously, would it not be better to engage in a single, open debate, encompassing all constitutional options, rather than in efforts using public money to deny the Scottish public a democratic choice offered by the government they elected?
Here is one Scottish taxpayer who objects to the appropriation of his contributions to fund a unionist-driven agenda!
what do the unionist parties actually believe in these days?
there was a time when the labour party stood up for the common man. we can forget that. labour politicians join the party to get to westminster and if they fail in that THEN they start thinking about getting into the scots parliament.
they are careerists and nothing else. it's only the tribalism of the west that keeps them going.
i simply don't believe the tories.
10 years ago they were campaigning against a scots parliament altogether, now they want more powers for it. i doubt their motives behind the change.
the liberals are a joke. they are a sort of watery version of the other parties.
they all reek of "the establishment"
aye the union is on a shoogly peg in these folks hands.
to my mind the union is looking old fashioned: defined by the Queen, dreams of a long gone empire, and the so-called "special relationship" with the world bully USA. whereas independence stands for self reliance, belief in ourselves, we are capable, industrious and just as good as anybody else. the unionist message is we are subordinate and second class. when it comes to defence and finance were are subordinate to others. it's an on- going disgrace. independence makes more and more sense.we need to flee the nest, it'll be scary, we need to be brave but we can do it.
i want a say in whether scots soldiers go to foreign lands to fight illeagal wars. that's what a scots parliament should be for!
rant over.
Ah, William, very good question and observations. But, I have another one:
what do the Nationalist parties/movers/shakers actually believe in these days? And why?
Is not Scotland already free?
What would be Scotland's stand on world issues? What would be the stand on national issues? Taxes? National Health? etc...
You mention how you believe that in the Union, Scotland is somehow subordinate, and second class? Hey, there's always the EU, where you'll truly be an afterthought.
Frankly, as an outsider looking in, Scotland w/o the UK would be akin to Alaska w/o the USA. Puerto Rico also comes to mind.
Eh...you'll always have "your" oil I suppose. Or will you????
Sadly, to this American at least, this seems to be so much ado about nothing. Scotland already seems to be an entirely different country with a separate and special identity and even its own national footy team, yet it enjoys a marriage of convenience type union with England, Wales, and NI which would seem to be the best of all possibilities and options with none of the inherent negatives of a separate national state. And yet, soooo many of you seemingly harbor ill will which goes back generations/millennia, and makes you all lose focus on possibilities, and what is actually Great already. You'd think you all as a country would have learned from your cousins the Irish (north and south/black and orange) by now where all that hatred and animosity will get you...
#22 Richard Ryan.
You describe yourself as an Irish-American, who has "had his fill with historical anger".
In which case, does the Boston Tea Party, or even the 1916 Easter Rising, ring any bells?
Do you regret how hard both of your mother countries fought for their freedom from the UK - and should they now give up or stop celebrating their independence??
Incidentally, from certain perspectives it may be easy to overlook just how much the Scots have contributed to the achievements of Britain, or even the modern world.
post independence, Scotland may have the wealth of Norway, but our people have always been our greatest asset, and we will continue to punch well above our weight on the world stage.
Alba gu Brath!
There is an old Scottish saying about " doing something in one's own nest". This is what Labour did when it granted devolution.Instead of creating the eternal power base it envisaged to keep the Tories out of Westminster,it created a a new political animal called the Scottish electorate which saw Labour for what it was, past it's sell by date. The Labour party in London is dying, the Labour party in Scotland is flailing around in it's death throes and now the Scottish people call the tune. Whoever is in power in Scotland now must realise that if they do not deliver what the people want, they will be removed from the Holyrood gravy train, and if neccessary from the Westminster gravy train. Annabel Goldie seems to realise this, the Liberals as yet are too far gone to notice and the greens are an irrelevance that will vanish with the changing fashion trends.
Well Dougie, to answer your question, I am a proud Irish American...to a point. I, too, am embarrassed about "the troubles" as an Irishman.
To think that a western European country, as well as the area/birthplace of so many progressive and democratic ideals could still harbor such historical hatreds based upon religion and historical animosity is, to me, the very definition of unenlightened. Furthermore, this is not just simple animosity, but one that continues to bring death. Yes sir, I am embarrassed as an Irishman.
ps
The American revolution was nothing at all like the Irish "troubles". Nothing at all. Like so many things American, it was all about money and power. But that's another story altogether. As an historian, I've compared the French Revolution, which was a true revolution, to the American revolution, which was nothing more than a land, money, and power grab by the landed gentry of the new United States. Read the history sir.
pps
I'm actually reminded in the case of the North Sea oil of one of my previous "loves" and our relationship. For years I supplied all of the cash and support. When times became temporarily hard, and she came across a sudden influx of cash, guess whose money it was?
#28
UK 'unionists' used the 'subsidised Scotland' argument for generations.
30 years ago, they used it to deceive Scots as to their country's true wealth.
Today, the truth is successfully blowing such myths apart.
It is time to throw off our 'dependency culture' - imposed or otherwise - once and for all.
Saor Alba!