|
Now It’s The Independence Debate That Needs To Be Central
Eight years after the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, it is the independence debate that is now more relevant to Scotland’s current position rather than simply a debate on some extension of powers. The issues outwith Holyrood’s existing powers that have caused most concern in recent years will not be addressed short of achieving the authority of an independent state.
We have seen significant achievements since 1999. A new system of governance has been established which is stable and more open and representative than Westminster. The present Holyrood powers have, on the whole, been used to maintain Scotland on a more social democratic course unlike the New Labour direction in England. The powers could have been used more boldly and imaginatively but useful things have been done.
However, many of the central issues of the past decade have highlighted the inability of the Scottish Parliament to act in response to views and values of the Scottish public. The Iraq/Afghan wars, the treatment of asylum seekers, Trident, international aid and the UK policies on Palestine and the Lebanese war – on such central issues as these, Scotland has little more than the role of spectator. While we have some powers in relation to environmental issues, the absence of taxation and trade and industry powers greatly restricts our potential for action. We have simply had to accept the UK exemption from important areas of EU employment legislation. Scottish social inclusion strategies were always going to be seriously limited by the lack of any powers on social security policy. Brown’s Treasury policy was to push PFI for capital projects and the Scottish Parliament’s lack of borrowing powers resulted in limited alternatives.
A debate around extending Holyrood’s powers that excludes all foreign affairs and defence and citizenship powers will immediately concede Scottish impotence on issues of deep concern to many people in Scotland. What other powers short of independence might Scotland seek? It would not be in our interest to seek full fiscal autonomy unless that meant control over all revenues generated here including oil. Is there the slightest chance that a Westminster Government will concede control of oil revenues and oil policy. Not a hope. So asking for fiscal autonomy minus oil would be stupid. Some much more limited extension of fiscal powers might be open for discussion but it would be marginal. The response would be that Holyrood hasn’t used the income tax power that it has.
Would social security be up for debate? At one stage in the Constitutional Convention, Labour and the Lib.Dems were supportive of Scotland taking over the administration of social security but not the setting of payment rates. There are staffing issues relating to this but it might be considered. However the policy decisions on pensions and benefits are not going to be devolved and without a major change in the funding system for Holyrood, this would not be viable anyway.
Could Scotland take over the regulatory powers relating to broadcasting? There is room for change here but the regulatory powers are only part of the story. It is where the money goes that is at least as important and this involves a shift in state policy in relation to BBC. On the environmental front, any transfer of petrol and motor vehicle taxation would be strongly resisted by Whitehall.
Any one of the possible extensions of power within the existing system would require the Scotland Act to be reopened for amendment. A long and controversial process could be expected, not least from Scottish MPs who resent the Scottish Parliament as it is.
This is not to say that consideration of an extension of powers should not take place but there is not much to concede that does not either take us so close to independence that we might as well go there anyway or so marginal that it is not worth a huge effort to achieve. The Scotland Act was the right legislation for its time. Now the right debate is the one that focuses on the case for Scotland as an independent state.
Comments
|
|
Gerry Fisher
05/08/07 |
Interesting piece and views from a former high office-bearer in the SNP who ran to the Labour Party and then abandoned them when they didnt want her as a candidate!
"What other powers short of independence might Scotland seek?" she asks. And then, having argued that all the possible extra powers, fiscal, taxation, social affairs, would be unlikely to be conceded by Westminster, she suggests instead the opening of a full debate on the need for independence - as if it is more likely to be conceded by the British Establishment.
I, for one, want that full debate, because our next big task is to convince the Scottish electorate, the final arbiters, of our case.
But I must say that the total abandonment of the next steps in the stepping stone approach comes as a remarkable turn round from someone who was a major player in the first steps towards a devolved Parliament, which was hardly accepted easily by Westminster! And my nasty suspicious Venetian mind has to ask the reason for this double turn round. |
|
|
Joe Middleton
10/08/07 |
It sounds like Gerry Fisher is sharpening his axe over old grudges which is kind of against the spirit of the independence convention, after all it's supposed to be wide enough to include everyone not just those who are continually (and maybe occasionally unthinkingly) loyal to the official party line of the SNP.
Isobel Lindsay argued that the SNP should involve itself more directly in the devolution debate, her argument was democratically defeated and I for one agreed with the reasons for that at the time, but it was a principled stance to take nonetheless.
Equally the idea that the Labour party might be converted to independence might have been naive, but we know there is support for independence within that party even if it is well hidden.
Isobel's view in this article is correct, there needs to clear strategic thinking behind any demands for more powers which fall short of independence. One of the benefits of the widening of the independence movement though organisations like the Convention and Independence First is that fresh ideas can be expressed from a wider range of people than one particular political party, even if that political party has ultimately been the most important agent for Scottish constitutional change in the past 100 years. |
|
|
W Tone
10/08/07 |
Jerry no need to shoot the messenger stick to the message. Anyway is the old stepping stone theory back in vogue? It would seem that the support for the SNP (the major party supporting Independence) is at least 50% higher and increasing than the support for Independence. At least according to a recent opinion poll. Now that is a major problem. Could it be that the voters are not taking the politics of Independence all that seriously? And it is there that Isobel hits the nail right on the head. 'A debate around extending Holyrood’s powers that excludes all foreign affairs and defense and citizenship powers will immediately concede Scottish impotence on issues of deep concern to many people in Scotland.' It seems that politicians have allowed Independence to slip way back on their agenda. Maybe our political class is has 'conceded its impotence' and the public know it. That's what happens when you focus on not scaring horses. Time to talk of the major issues of state foreign affairs, defense and citizenship would do for starters. After that's sorted we can get onto Trams. |
|
|
Craig Cockburn
11/08/07 |
Aside from broadcasting, the next step should be for the SNP to call for the Scottish parliament to have powers over items which are devolved in Northern Ireland but not in Scotland (e.g. a separate civil service, powers over social security, driving licences, etc). It seems ironic that a so called parliament in Scotland led by a nationalist first minister has in some areas less powers than an assembly led by a unionist first minister. There is clearly no logical counter argument from the Scottish unionists against such a levelling of powers. |
|
|
Paul Gunn 15/08/07 |
I think splitting from the union could and will be the biggest mistake ever. salmond is just trying to make a name for himself at the expense of every1 esle in scotland. If it does happen i can see all the major oil companies jumping ship to london, all the RAF bases closes then where will we be. |
| |
|
William Russell 15/08/07 |
Looking from the outside one thing to be said for Alex Salmond is that at last Scotland has a first minister who looks as if he is a first minister. It is something not seen since the days of Donald Dewar. The problem is that the additional devolved powers have to be given by Westminster and unless Gordon Brown wills it that won't happen, and the more power the Scottish Parliament gets the more urgent an answer to the West Lothian question and any answer would cost quite a few people their ministerial cars - not in that some of them would be missed. The supervision of broadcasting is certainly something that could be devolved, although whether that would improve things is debatable - whatever one thinks of BBC Scotland and the extent to which it is in thrall to England, Scottish Television is hardly evidence that there is an untapped pool of talent languishing around the place. But whatever else at least all the political parties are at last considering the possibility of more devolved powers and that is something. |
Would you like to comment on this Blog?
If so send us your comment and we will upload it.
|
|
