Scotland is just days away from an
historic decision on whether to leave Britain, but whatever the outcome, there may be wider ramifications for the future governance of the UK than some think, suggests guest blogger Charles Britten.
To begin, I would like to thank Ben for allowing me to be a guest blogger on his site. For the record, no other Liberal Democrat PPC has ever done likewise. Quite a first.
In true parliamentary style I should declare an interest by stating that I am not actually writing this blog from a centre-left perspective. But please don't let that put you off if you have logged on to read centre-left thoughts, for the issues I raise here will have widespread ramifications for the future of the United Kingdom. Plotting the way forward is a
question about which those of all shades of political opinion and none will have much to say.
Aye or Naw for Scotland?
It starts, however, with the dawning reality that Scotland does truly stand on the brink of departure; with different polls now showing each side in the lead the independence referendum may indeed be too close to call, with the yes side potentially gathering the momentum that will take them over the line.
This would have been inconceivable to most even a few months ago, but on two trips to Scotland this summer it was noticeable how much the mood had changed since my previous visit last year. In 2013, people I overheard discussing the issue only spoke of Mr Salmond's project to dismiss it.
Much has changed. Staying in Aviemore in late May I met, for the first time, the kind of person who has been increasingly prominent (mainly online) of late, the sort of nationalist who is more certain of everything than most people are about anything. After getting me to take a photo of him and his son and chatting in a friendly way, he asked me: "So, what will it be like coming up here when we're independent?" For him there was no if, no maybe, about it - just a stone cold certainty, backed with an assertion that "I don't believe what the opinion polls say" (Doubtless he believes at least one of them now).
It can be somewhat difficult to know what to say in such circumstances, whatever the temptation to reply: "Yes...and how will Hell freezing over affect the train times?" It was, for a start, hard to tell if he was genuinely curious about my emotional state, or whether couldn't resist a jibe aimed at any Englishman he came across.
I joked - or perhaps half-joked - that maybe I would need a passport in future, but Mr Certainty was having none of it. That was just "Tory propoganda", as I suspect he imagines everything is - even when Ed Miliband says he would probably have border posts too.
His hubris even extended to the date of independence, which he believed would take effect immediately, rather than by the SNPs hoped-for deadline of March 2016. No, he insisted, there would just be a bit of "tidying up" to do. Indeed, it seemed to me that had this gentleman not existed, he would have to have been made up - ideally for the benefit of the film industry, perhaps wandering the rubble-strewn streets of a post-apocalyptic city with a dustpan and brush for his own bit of tidying up.
Yet could he be right after all? In my second visit to Scotland this summer, during the Commonwealth Games, it was interesting to see far more Yes posters on display than No, particularly where I was staying in Edinburgh. This really was like being in a film, as the windows of some streets resembled the script of When Harry Met Sally.
Many of us had wondered if the Games would affect the referendum, as politicians love to play with sport when it suits them - and Mr Salmond has form for this, as seen by his Saltire-waving when Andy Murray won Wimbledon.
This was certainly a time for Scots to be proud of their team as they smashed their Games medal record, but that was not the whole story; Wales also recorded their highest ever tally, Northern Ireland had their finest Games since 1986 and England went and topped the whole table. Far from providing ammunition for independence, the Games showed one of the 'positive benefits' of the union the SNP claims don't exist - the impact of abundant UK-wide funding to develop our Olympic sports men and women into winners, whether for Team GB or their constituent nations in the Commonwealth Games.
Even with campaigning suspended, there was still much talk about the vote during the event. One lady told me on the train into Glasgow she would vote yes, even though she doubted they would win - and freely recognised how contentious the issue was. Also, it may fairly be noted that she did not share the hostility towards the English displayed by a hard-core minority of Scots, the sort for whom it is still socially acceptable to admit you like
Mel Gibson.
Her generosity even extended as far as handing this Englishman a spare hockey ticket, on the proviso that I supported Scotland in their match. That wasn't hard - they were playing Australia.
By now I knew exactly what was on offer from the SNP. On my earlier trip to Aviemore, someone had helpfully left a copy of the Scottish government's White Paper on Independence in the lounge, so while others went to bed I spent hours ploughing through it, or as much as it was possible to extract from the key chapters in a document that runs to over 500 pages. While it was as extraordinary in its optimism as its length, this prospectus demonstrated an extraordinary naivety that has sowed the seeds for a potentially nasty
divorce.
Currency Union? You're having a laugh
The currency union question was, and is, the most toxic. Many will wonder why Mr Salmond did not outline a plan B after the main three parties said they would not enter into such an arrangement. I suspect the answer can be found right there in the white paper. It stated unambiguously that there would be a Sterling currency union. Full stop. There was no statement that this was a 'preferred option', or that there would be negotiations aimed at agreeing a currency deal. It appeared never to have entered their thinking that there might be anyone opposed to this, or anything that could stop it. In other words, there just an assumption that it would happen.
Consequently, for Mr Salmond and co to outline a plan B would be to effectively admit that this overconfident statement was either absurdly complacent or extremely short-sighted. The SNP's own document has painted it into a corner. They are left with no choice but to claim their opponents - who are also their prospective negotiating partners - are
"bluffing".
This issue should also provide a reality check in response to the SNP's claim that the remaining UK would be an independent Scotland's new best friend. The economic case against a currency union is very strong, but the political one is impregnable.
What appears to have been forgotten by the nationalists is that the UK will go on without an independent Scotland, and in that UK there is a thing called public opinion. This shows a large majority back the refusal to enter a currency union. It is rapidly hardening against Scotland as the sense of rejection grows, and will give any remaining UK government a mandate to give Mr Salmond a rough ride in the negotiations.
Moreover, there is the specific political context to consider; the UK has a general election to hold less than a year from now. That may not bother the SNP much if Scotland has voted yes by then, but this is the backdrop against which the UK government must negotiate on behalf of England, Wales and Northern Ireland for the best deal in talks with a departing Scotland. The process would unquestionably be an election issue,
both in terms of a judgement on how the current government has started it, and how each party would propose via their manifestos to continue it.
In such circumstances, it would be unthinkable for people who had argued against a Sterling currency union - particularly as they have done so on the same grounds that they have persistently argued against British
membership of the Euro - to suddenly accept it. And what party would dare break rank and be the first to do so, risking the wrath of public opinion and damaging their credibility?
Of course, Alex Salmond has only gone and brazenly claimed that after a yes vote the three main parties will all definitely, without question, change their tune on the currency question the
very next day. Yes, he actually wrote that in an article for the August edition of the Scotsman Magazine. But just imagine the consequences if that was true: It would mean opposing a currency union was a freely-available policy for another party to adopt while accusing the main parties of "selling out". In other words, it would be a perfect gift for UKIP. In short, a currency union would be bad economics and dire politics.
Spot the majority.
All these arguments can be avoided by a no vote. However, even in that event there can be little doubt that some change is coming. And it
will not be confined to the "devo max" announced by Gordon Brown that will increase the powers of the Scottish parliament.
The issue of who exercises power is, however, too hot a topic to pass over. A common refrain from nationalists is that Scotland tends not to get the government it votes for. In fact, in the past century that has not been true. Poorly-informed people
have claimed the Conservatives have never had a majority in Scotland, which is only true if you jump in a TARDIS and go back to the 19th century. In fact, the Conservatives did get a Scottish majority in 1900, 1931 and 1955, as well as the most votes - but fewer seats than Labour - in 1951 and 1959.
Of the 25 general elections since 1910, nine have seen the
Scottish will outvoted by the rest, but that has also been the case in six instances in England, each where the biggest party was the Conservatives but a Labour government resulted. In addition to that, one could also say that while Scotland voted for a Labour majority in 2010, the English voted for a Conservative majority - so neither got what it had ultimately voted for. What the nationalists present as a clear-cut anomaly is far from that.
Indeed, matters get murkier the deeper one probes. Earlier this year, Cornish became an officially recognised nationality. Yet Cornwall has never elected more than one Labour MP and has often had Liberal / Liberal Democrat majorities, including a clean sweep as recently as 2001. So should they split on the basis of not often getting the government they want?
The list goes on: What of Wales, which unlike Scotland really has never had a Tory majority and has had a labour majority in every election from 1922 onwards? There, support for independence is very low, and even the 1997 devolution referendum only backed the assembly by a hair's breadth. And what of the areas that always vote Conservative but sometimes get Labour? Above all else, what if large parts of Scotland vote no but the majority votes yes? They won't even get to be in the country they want.
Other ways to reshape Britain?
For all that, the issue of the spreading of power to a more local level is a live one. It is no longer the subject of serious left-right disagreement. All parties now accept devolution and the use of city mayors has been championed by the current government - even if most of them could never enjoy the profile of someone like Boris Johnson in London.
Talking of the blonde one, Boris has stumbled into the debate in an intriguing way, railing against the idea of Scotland getting more powers as reward for a no vote and arguing that "instead" there should be more tax-raising powers for England's big cities.
His either-or line was unfortunate, for it was picked up on by the nationalists for propaganda purposes. However, the idea of
more local power for city regions is one worth considering. Perhaps that should be tried in Glasgow and Edinburgh too, rather than lumping all the eggs of tax powers in the Holyrood basket. After all, Glaswegians should, in any normal circumstances, enjoy an economic and reputational boost from the positive image created by the Commonwealth Games, just as Manchester did after 2002.
Talk of empowering regional English cities is significant. The accusation of Britain being geared up too much towards the interests of London and the south-east is not confined to Scotland, but it has been a popular nationalist campaigning tool, not least as the current 'toff' government has been seen as epitomising the preservation of such a situation.
However, to claim this - as so many do - is to perform a truly Orwellian piece of doublethink. The Scottish government's own white paper quoted a major political figure as stating that the UK economy is indeed too focused on London and the south, and this means action is needed to change that. The identity of this apparently staunch supporter of the SNPs argument? None other than David Cameron himself. You could not make it up.
In fact, it has been a clear and obvious feature of coalition government policy to shift wealth-creation away from a London-centric approach. Not everyone will agree it is being done in the best ways (HS2 being particularly contentious) and Labour has developed some ideas of its own on the matter, but the commitment is there.
As an example, George Osborne may be a southerner from a public school, but he is one of those for whom moving north - in his case, as the MP for Tatton in the shadow (or vapour trails) of Manchester Airport - has apparently been an epiphany. He said as much in a recent speech in Manchester where he talked about the importance of HS2 coming north to the city (as well as Leeds and Sheffield) and how a trans-Pennine HS3 may further help turn the big cities of the north combine their strengths to become a new economic "powerhouse", a counterbalance to London.
Of course, none of this interests the nationalists much, who claimed in the white paper - and this also isn't made up - that the UK government was neglecting the north of England by only taking HS2 to Manchester and Leeds. Sadly, I was bereft of a pen at the time of reading with which to add some observations in the margin.
The response from these apparently not very northern city regions has been to present Mr Osborne with a major new £16 billion transport and infrastructure plan for the region, with this enterprise representing a partnership across party lines as Liverpool's Labour mayor presented the blueprint to a Tory chancellor. Significantly, the plan for an area stretching over 100 miles from the west coast to the east also been devised without there being any kind of single northern regional authority in place to come up with such
ideas.
Having devolved English regions is an idea that has been championed in past Liberal Democrat manifestos (though not in 2010) and was toyed with by New Labour - until the North East, seen as most likely to accept this idea, gave it short shrift in its own referendum in 2004. This was immediately followed by the cancellation of other northern regional plebiscites
and the idea died quietly.
So if not English devolution, then what? If Scotland is being offered devo-max, the rest of the UK will be asking, quite reasonably, about what they are going to get. And it is this, whatever the outcome of the referendum, that means things will never quite be the same again.
In view of this, it will be necessary for a wide-ranging national conversation to take place about just what kind of roles the national, devolved and local government authorities should play in each part of Britain. Already the situation varies across the UK and creates some anomalies, like the West Lothian Question. But it is a conversation the country needs to have, not just in Scotland, but everywhere.
The chief aim of this should never be to shore up the power of the locally dominant political party, but to spread economic growth. It should seek to ensure, above anything else, that national efforts to secure and sustain the recovery are bolstered by local decision making that reflects the specific needs of each area.
A federal Britain is only one idea for doing this and some in Ben's party may still favour that, but as long as English regional devolution is off the agenda, alternatives need to be devised; perhaps through looser partnerships between neighbouring city regions, or simply more spending decisions being taken locally.
In summary, while working out how (and if) Scotland can fit into the UK, there are other pieces of the jigsaw we need to consider too, but without a one-size fits all approach. For like a real jigsaw they are very different in size, shape and other ways. When the dust has settled on the referendum, the question of just how, and to what extent, Britain should be decentralised will be our next national debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment