We are now into headless chicken mode. With a week to “save the Union”, we are contemplating fundamental constitutional reform at breakneck speed, driven by a timetable drafted on the back of a fag packet by Gordon Brown. Decades of unresolved debate about conflicting options will now be sorted out in months.
We all know about the Dangerous Dogs Act, “emergency” legislation which turned out unworkable. This time we’re not just talking about dangerous dogs. We are talking about the dangers of a botched constitutional settlement and national disintegration.
For politicians who don’t understand, this is not just about abstract ideas like regional government or an English Parliament. It is about organisation. It is about making sure there is one authority for each necessary task, not three or zero. It is about the jobs of those who skivvy for you politicians and do these tasks. It cannot be set up in a fortnight.
In their wisdom, Westminster politicians think they know what to do – listen to other politicians, local ones, and give those who shout loudest what they want, It is proudly called messy devolution. So Labour want city-led devolution, as cities tend to get run by Labour. If you live somewhere boringly peripheral – Scunthorpe, Rutland, Clacton (to mention a few!) – you can go hang. Meanwhile, the Tories no doubt plan Tory-friendly systems instead.
So Salmond is right. Westminster is panicking, and irrespective of whether it’s Yes or No, if Westminster actually try to stick to the Brown Master Plan it will be an unholy mess.
Canada, we hear, held on to Quebec with a last-minute rally in Montreal by people from all across Canada declaring “we are your friends, please stay!” Emotionally, this Englishman would be tempted to act similarly. The currency muddle adds to that temptation. It will be a drawn-out saga which will hurt rump UK, and as Paul Krugman points out, hurt Scotland more.
However, there is no sign of a mass march on Glasgow by English friends of union, politicians excepted. There are two good reasons. First, the Scottish Yes campaign has a dream of escaping a Britain dominated by City finance and creating an independent state with a social conscience. It is hardly for us English to tell them to abandon that dream.
The second reason is more novel but equally important. If Scotland votes Yes, they will also rescue rump UK from Devo-Instant. We will quietly be able to abandon it while struggling with independence negotiations. Until this week, I hoped Scottish independence could catalyse devolution within rump UK. Now we have seen the Brown Master Plan, I am afraid our hopes should be quite the opposite – that Scottish independence should put an end to Devo-Instant.
Actually, there is a sensible promise which Westminster could instead have offered. It is this.
Within a reasonable five-year timescale, with a constitutional convention, we shall develop real, workable, agreed proposals for “Devo-Supermax” throughout the UK, including Scotland if they vote “No”. Within the five years, we will hold a referendum to confirm the proposals, requiring a majority both in the UK and separately in Scotland. Further, if we fail to achieve the timescale or the confirmation, we have a Plan B. We would then re-run the Scottish independence referendum, giving Scotland the opportunity to react by choosing independence in 2020. So – we had better use our five years to agree a non-instant devolution plan which will work.
Sadly, Westminster have not made that offer. They have offered Devo-Instant. We should all reject it.
* David Allen was a Lib Dem activist for more than 25 years, including being a Borough Councillor and local party Chairman in Rushcliffe. However, he opposed the Tory coalition, and finally left the Party in 2020. Since then, he has been politically independent. He would be delighted to support a centre-left Coalition including the Lib Dems.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Violent Bonham Carter features on Fake or Fortune?
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Chloe
GWYN WILLIAMS
Alex Macfie
Peter Martin
John Smith
25 Comments
In all the posts I’ve read on LDV, I don’t think one has made me so angry so quickly!
Let’s get something clear. Firstly, what Gordon Brown is proposing – and the others have agreed to – is not rushed or ill thought out. They are proposals which have been considered by the parties – not least our own Campbell Commission – and amount to things which all three UK parties agree on therefore which can be put through parliament relatively quickly. Just because they haven’t been thought out and discussed fully by England (until now) doesn’t suddenly make them invalid and unworkable.
Secondly, it’s not England’s place to tell Scotland what sort of devolution it should have. Quite frankly, that’s precisely the attitude which has got us to this point in the first place. Scotland has long argued for greater devolution than was given in 1997, and it’s become more of an issue recently with things like the Bedroom Tax which affects Scotland disproportionately. It’s up to England to come up with a response to devolution, and to find a way which will do so which is fair equally to all four of the UK nations – something it has had 17 years to do, and failed miserably in doing so.
The real problem is a lack of equality within our union. When you have something like 80% of the population in one part of the country, then you have to have some sort of mechanism to create balance. We don’t have that, and frankly for as long as we don’t then we will always have situations where Scotland feels oppressed (and I don’t use that word lightly) by its larger neighbour. That brings me to the last point. Why should a referendum on how Scotland is governed be able to be overruled by people who don’t live there? On that basis, you might as well say that Westminster should just nullify next week’s referendum if it votes “yes”, simply because it doesn’t like it.
“Devo-instant” may not be perfect, but that’s not Scotland’s fault. We (Scotland) should accept it over independence – you (England) need to come to the table and discuss how to implement it.
Stop there! Your reasoning is all Wesminster based. From the Westminster perspective you have a point, but not if Devo Max is driven from Holyrood, as it should be, rather than from Westminster.
Actually, if there is not a swift response the whole issue will quickly become mired in the kind of obfuscation and obstruction that has thwarted progress on UK electoral reform. Unless there is significant and irriversible progress before May 2015, the hot air expounded in promises of devolution will come to nought.
On balance, I feel that a slender YES advantage is the most likely way that Devo Max can be achieved. This would require the Scot Nats government to recognise that out and out independence does not have overwhelming support and that both sides can display the maturity and good sense to find a workable compromise.
Keith Legg,
“Wwhat Gordon Brown is proposing… is not rushed or ill thought out. … Just because they haven’t been thought out and discussed fully … doesn’t suddenly make them invalid and unworkable.”
That’s the sort of reasoning which led people to believe that House of Lords reform was a shoo-in. All we needed to do was to agree the last finickly little details, and Bob would be our uncle. Actually, the devil is always in the detail. Do you really want a rushed, botched devolution in Scotland? I certainly don’t want that – anywhere in the UK.
“Why should a referendum on how Scotland is governed be able to be overruled by people who don’t live there?”
You’re baffling me with that remark. Where do I say anything like that? If Scotland votes for independence, that’s what it will get. If it doesn’t, it won’t.
The palpable smell of panic from the Westminster Establishment reminds me of the reaction of the Royal Family when Diana was killed in a car crash.
Headless chickens are said to run around wildly even after they have lost their head.
Cameron, Clegg, Miliband, Darling, Brown virtually every London Newspaper, the Banks, more than anyone else the BBC are all rushing around as if they are no longer capable of rational thought.
The Unionists ( which for some extraordinary chanincreasing that escapes logic includes the Liberal Democrats ) are coming up with a scare story by the hour or a patched up policy of little more than devo lite.
I am waiting for the BBC to report in shocked tones that The Loch Ness Monster is being shipped down to the Thames if people vote YES, resulting in thousands of job losses in the truism industry north of the border.
That should have said —
I am waiting for the BBC to report in shocked tones that The Loch Ness Monster is being shipped down to the Thames if people vote YES, resulting in thousands of job losses in the tourism industry north of the border.
Martin,
“On balance, I feel that a slender YES advantage is the most likely way that Devo Max can be achieved. This would require the Scot Nats government to recognise that out and out independence does not have overwhelming support and that both sides can display the maturity and good sense to find a workable compromise.”
So – you’d say that the best way to ensure the election of a moderate Democrat would be to let the Republicans narrowly win the election? It doesn’t work like that!
“Unless there is significant and irreversible progress before May 2015, the hot air expounded in promises of devolution will come to nought.”
It’s quite rational to fear that devo-max will be talked inconclusively into the ground. In fact, I’d say that was odds-on. However, an unrealistically rushed timetable is no guarantee against it. Quite the opposite: when the first deadline is missed due to unresolved arguments, the stage is set for it all to fall apart in recriminations. In my last three paragraphs, I propose a different approach which I think is less likely to fall apart, and more likely to establish workable devolved government throughout the UK.
Keith Legg,
Did you really write —
” ……….what Gordon Brown is proposing – and the others have agreed to – is not rushed or ill thought out. ”
You cannot seriously believe this? Gordon Brown was either chancellor or Prime Minister from 1997 until 2010 and never did a thing in those positions of power to increase the powers of the devolved parliament. He pulls a rabbit out of his hat in the last two weeks of the referendum campaign that has been going on for years and you expect us to believe it is a well thought out plan for the future not just of Scotland but England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well?
Sorry Keith but Scotland can’t have whatever devolution it wants and expect the rest of us to just accept it. We are in many ways too centralised as a country and could learn from federations like the US and Germany. But just as the UK can’t demand whatever relationship it wants with the EU – we’ll repatriate everything we like and leave you too it, Scotland can’t expect the UK to rol over to all its demands. Just as the Eurocrats have pointed out that some things are ‘non-negotiable’ the same should be true of the Union and Scotland must accept that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2752029/Another-blow-No-vote-First-banks-threaten-flee-independent-Scotland-appears-Loch-Ness-Monster-relocated-south-border.html
Thanks John Tilley for the link to my namesake – your concern re Nessie has become a reality.
Caractatus, well it must be true if it is in The Daily Mail. 🙂
It’s fairly obvious that RBS and Lloyds would be registered south of the border. I think EU rules now state that banks must be headquartered in the member state that they do most of their business in. So that would be rUK. What would it mean for jobs? Don’t know.
Headless chickens – latest news. If we lose seats in he General selection by small numbers of votes it may be because resources are bing wasted this week on shoring up the NO campaign. As a Liberal Democrat member in Kington upon Thames I have just had an e-mail from my local party, the fundamentals of which are as follows —
How will Scotland vote next Thursday? It is too close to call, but there are things you can do this weekend, or at least before the end of polling day, to help keep Scotland as part of the UK.
1. Make some phone calls.
2. Make a donation
3. Go to Edinburgh or Glasgow to join in the ‘No’ campaign.
I dont think theres any suggestion of Emergency Legislation, this was about pushing Labour & Tories into accepting the principles of Reform, in a vaguely Federal direction. If you read the comments on Labour sites the balance of Labour opinion does seem to have shifted towards the traditional Liberal approach. That seems to me like the only good thing to come out of The Referendum.
“Reform, in a vaguely Federal direction” to quote paul barker – All to be developed, negotiated, finalised, signed, sealed and delivered by next May.
Just like a coalition agreement in 5 days – a recipe for disaster.
There shouldn’t be devo-super max, but there should be a vote of no confidence in Clegg if he backs the rapid dismantling of the UK state. I’m worried about the fashionable trend to give more powers to local politicians. The Tories and UKIP will not accept anything less than the south keeping more of its tax revenue and it is a recipe for disaster. Likewise, northern politicians will want more power to spend other people’s money (broadly).
I think it’s a net vote loser, just like the Party of IN campaign was.
One consequence of giving Scotland Devo-Max is that the Scottish government (of whatever political colour) would be in a strong position to insist that in a referendum on whether or not to leave the EU, the ability of the United Kingdom to leave the EU should be dependent on there being a majority in Scotland as well as in other parts of the kingdom. Has this occurred to David Cameron ?
Lloyds and especially RBS have been bailed out by the British Government because of the difficulties they got into. Would an independent Scotland want to take on responsibility for them?
Eddie Sammon 12th Sep ’14 – 6:22am
There shouldn’t be devo-super max, but there should be a vote of no confidence in Clegg ……
Eddie, the public have given Clegg a resounding vote of no confidence every May and at very parliamentary byelection here we have lot our deposit. We have trailed in fourth place in the opinion polls month after month and are flat-lining in single figures. The evidence tat the voters have no confidence in Clegg is there by the bucket full.
I fundamentally disagree with you about devolving powers. but I do not trust Clegg to achieve it or be any more successful than he was with HoL reform or AV or any number of things in the Coalition Agreement which he has failed to deliver on in four and a half years.
David Allen, I do not understand your transatlantic reference to Republicans and Democrats. My point is that a looser cooperation between Scotland and Westminster can be achieved via a YES or a NO, but that there are better chances of this via a YES.
I realise that my attitude to this is borne of pessimism that has resulted from the 2011 AV campaign and result.
A YES vote in Scotland would be a vote for hope, optimism and a new politics which it would appear has no prospects in England.
I still think that NO will prevail, but I feel that the Liberal Democrat Party will find itself very badly placed to cope with the aftermath. I wish we had been more agnostic over this debate. However, as I understand it, the Party’s position is that of Scottish Liberal Democrats and not prescribed by the national Party (or am I wrong here?), in which case it is the right people making the call.
Martin
A YES vote in Scotland would be a vote for hope, optimism and a new politics which it would appear has no prospects in England.
And, unfortunately, a vote against reality.
Like the anger that is causing people to vote UKIP in England it seems to me this is all about supposing there are easy-peasy solutions, and looking for scapegoats when they are not provided. From what I hear, much of the “Yes” campaign in Scotland involves whipping up emotional sentiment, and hand-wavy claims that independence is the solution to the problem of wanting good state services but not the taxes that would pay for them, and all the other dilemmas in real life politics where whatever way the government goes, there’ll be cheap populists saying they are bad people for going that way.
It seems to me that if this were to be done properly, there needed to be a full worked out plan for how independence would go, yet there seems to be none. The most basic questions on how things are to be organised are going without answer – the most obvious one being the currency issue, but there are many others. Surely this ought all to have been worked out before.
The idea that pulling out of the EU or pulling out of the UK will be a magic solution to all the difficult political issues we are facing is terrible, because it is serving to shut down serious discussion on those issues. In Scotland it seems to be leading to this hand-wavy “North Sea Oil revenues will pay for it all” line, or “We’ll reduce corporation tax, then bug business will come flooding here and pay for it all”. In England pulling out of the EU is supposed to pay for it all, as well as turn the clock back to the nice aspects of the 1950s, and solve all the ecological dilemmas that are building up.
I can’t get worked up about Scottish independence as we are urged to, to me, if the Scots want to go, let them, it’s not going to make a big difference to my life. However, I really do fear the Scots are in for a BIG disillusionment if they get it and find that actually it doesn’t do all these things they are being led to think it will.
Martin
You have perfectly described my view —
Martin 12th Sep ’14 – 9:12am
David Allen, I do not understand your transatlantic reference to Republicans and Democrats. My point is that a looser cooperation between Scotland and Westminster can be achieved via a YES or a NO, but that there are better chances of this via a YES.
I realise that my attitude to this is borne of pessimism that has resulted from the 2011 AV campaign and result.
A YES vote in Scotland would be a vote for hope, optimism and a new politics which it would appear has no prospects in England.
I still think that NO will prevail, but I feel that the Liberal Democrat Party will find itself very badly placed to cope with the aftermath.
But I was interet today to come across the following which seems to go against the Unionist spin aout business figures–
Top energy and defence figure: Why I’ve switched from No to Yes
A leading energy and defence industry figure who was involved in the early stages of the No campaign has come out strongly in favour of a Yes vote on September 18.
Ian Godden says independence will unleash an ‘energy and passion’ that will not only be good for Scotland, but will also lead to a much needed ‘refresh’ of the rest of the UK.
The international businessman, who has more than 40 years’ experience in the oil, aerospace and security sectors, says a No vote would be “a vote for the long-term decline of Scotland” and would be ‘tragic’.
Mr Godden, who comes from Edinburgh, is founder and chairman of independent oil company Glenmore Energy plc, a non-executive director of the Bristows Helicopters Group, and until recently chairman of Farnborough International, the company behind the Farnborough Airshow and other global aerospace, defence and security events.
He is also chairman of KBC Advanced Technologies plc, a public consulting and Software Company involved in oil and gas production, and a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society.
To read the full piece go to —
http://www.yesscotland.net/news/top-energy-and-defence-figure-why-ive-switched-no-yes
Well this has comments fast and furious
For 2 years I have hoped and prayed that Scotland would stay now I am more 51% hoping they vote yes! I never understood how much perhaps half the Scottish dislike the English while I can sympathise with the dislike of Westminster and the clear preference all parties have for London
What really has began turning me is the total disregard of facts as scaremongering as far as I know just about everyone says they could be independant and only question the wisdom how on earth is that scaremongering
rUKneeds to be clear if they don’t wish to be part of our union then rUK is not going to accept all they tell us to do, if Westminster rolls over on sterling or for me a border control I truly think that voters will be Very angry
The offer of Devo Max is wrong never put to rUK before put on the table and I am disgusted that we roll over for what seems almost terror threats of we will vote yes
Politicians need to act with speed if the vote is yes set Scotland free ASAP and no way should Scotland form part of our general election in 2015 if they are going
I still feel great respect for the Scottish but it should be recriprical or they should vote yes
Martin, John Tilley,
If I were Scottish I would be very tempted to vote for independence and freedom. But it would be an irrevocable split and it would not be a way toward devo-max. Ireland should be our exemplar in predicting how an independent Scotland would most likely relate to the UK. Sure, when Eire first became independent there was far more antipathy with England than is currently the case for Scotland. However, things will get worse as Salmond fights long, wearing battles over the currency and the EU. That will not be conducive to friendly links – it will be a real divorce I’m afraid.
Home Rule for Scotland within the UK would be a better option, one which is struggling to reach the table. (Gladstone was right – it would probably have been better for Ireland, too!) I fear that Gordon Brown’s panicky timescale will fall apart. Keith Legg points out that the Scottish unionist parties have some measure of consensus about what they want – which helps. But it is not complete, and as FrankBooth points out, an equitable settlement has first to be hammered out with the rest of the UK. That can either be done quickly, or else it can be done in a way that will work. It won’t be both!
And meanwhile, Clegg and others are calling for rushed and messy devolution to be extended to the rest of the UK as well. Because I want to see that work , I don’t want to see it done in a panic.
David Allen, there is a great deal in what you say. I agree the tranisition to independence for Ireland possibly is closest to what will happen if Scotland vote YES. Although it all depends on how genuine the Westminister and Whitehall powers will be in their approach to post referendum negotiations.
Ireland of course had an unplesant stream of violence starting with the arming of the Unionists before 1914 , the use of special branch and the Black and Tans by UK governments, the IRA and Orange lodges. Given the history of atrocities in Ireland especially by Cromwell it is surprising tht things were not worse. But the vast majority of people in Ireland carried on much s before moving to the UK for jobs, volunteering for the UK army, watching UK TV, pegging theirmcurrencybto the pound for thirty yers fternoon independence. Scotland fortunately hs not nd the history of violentce in the last three hundred years and it would be reasonable to assume that a very amicable settlement could be achieved. The Czech Republic and Slovakia parted company without problems, as did Norway and Denmark. a hundred years earlier.
the obvious answer is england breaks free from the celtic fringe,having proper borders and immigration controls.of course there would be no grandfather rights for the peoples of the celtic fringe..removal of all non english service personell from the ENGLISH armed forces..local and national government…then a period of deceltification can begin and englishness reaserted..and the removal of the anti english celts from government will speed this…..we can hope