The idea of responsibility is a good one, but the Scottish devolved body already has fiscal powers, and Scotland already sends members to the House of Commons, with its unlimited fiscal powers. So this is a solution without a problem. Don't bet against a significant revolt by Labour MPs from Scotland (especially those old enough to retire), as well as by Labour MPs from Wales and the North (who have never been keen on devolution, anyway).
Brown is possibly letting his partisanship take precedence over his patriotism, which will not do in a Prime Minister. The Tories are going to win the majority of English seats next time, but that will always alternate fairly regularly between the two main parties. Whereas in Scotland, at least, Labour really could be on the way out. Scotland has never been the heart and soul of the Labour Movement imagined by the London media. Labour has never won more than two thirds of the seats there, and has never won an overall majority of the total vote there. As recently as 1992, it was the only part of the country to deliver a net gain in Tory seats. Labour would be a lot better off without Scotland.
But, I say again, that sort of narrow partisanship has no place in government. Three quarters of the Welsh did not vote for devolution, and the Tories have slipped from a previously permanent second to a still-falling third place there since making peace with it. In Scotland, devolution took only 1.7 million votes out of an electorate of four million, a minority of the total. The Tories were much more popular there when they were against it. So much for "the settled will of the [conveniently undefined] Scottish People".
And the scale of support for the Union in Northern Ireland is obscured by the sectarian basis of the parties. If the mainland parties all stood there, then neither Gerry Adams nor Ian Paisley would be an MP. Probably half of the Catholics would vote to retain the Union in a referendum, as would practically all of the Protestants, giving about three quarters in total.
No, devolution has not strengthened the Union. But who ever really wanted devolution, anyway? Never mind who really wants any more of it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Labour has never won more than two thirds of the seats"
ReplyDeleteMmmm, Maths is obviously your strong point. In 1997 they won 56 out of 72 seats (77.77% of seats with 45.58% of the vote) and in 2001 they won 55 seats out of 72 (76.38% of the seats with 43.27% of the vote)
I would say that is a fairly convincing power block - albeit based on a skewed voting system.
"Don't bet against a significant revolt by Labour MPs from Scotland (especially those old enough to retire), as well as by Labour MPs from Wales and the North (who have never been keen on devolution, anyway)."
I am sure Alex Salmond hopes they do so they can drive large chunks of the wavering Scottish establishment into his arms. More power to him by making Labour look fragmented and infighting.
"In Scotland, devolution took only 1.7 million votes out of an electorate of four million, a minority of the total. The Tories were much more popular there when they were against it. So much for "the settled will of the [conveniently undefined] Scottish People"."
Well all surveys conducted on the issue show support for home rule and strengthened home rule at that. Indeed the people had the opportunity to vote for anti-devolution parties - the Scottish Unionist Party and the more mainstream UKIP. Not to mention the BNP.
Concerning that old chestnut, "a minority of the total voted", may I point out that on this basis that no UK government in recent times then had no mandate. Particularly since the governing parties have never had a majority of the ballots cast, let alone the overall registered electorate.
And of course in 1951 and Feb 1974 the party with the larger share of the vote came second in terms of seats------
"As recently as 1992, it was the only part of the country to deliver a net gain in Tory seats. Labour would be a lot better off without Scotland."
Mmm, the Tories made a net gain of one seat from 1987. Aberdeen South. It must be remembered that the Tories whipped up a panic in 1992 along the lines of "any vote other than for the Tories will lead to independence". They got their mates in the financial servcies sector and other sectors to distribute letters to their workers warning them of possible job losses if devolution came about, let alone independence. A leading member of that movement was Bank of Scotland governor Bruce Patullio (whose scalp was claimed after the devolution referendum).
An added factor was also due to the recession in the early 1990's, a lot of English people, particularly the Home Counties, fled to Scotland due to booming oil economy in Aberdeen. Many of these people were natural Tories and Major's "Save the Union" call was heeded by them.
All this is recorded in Andrew Marr's 1992-1993 tome "The Battle for Scotland".
The allegation that English voters had pushed up the Scottish Tory vote led to a backlash against the so called "White Settlers" or "Guffies" as the insult went. There was "Settler Watch" and "Scottish Watch" who harassed these people.
Famously one of the members of "Settler Watch" was actually a German who had taken UK nationality and changed her name to a Scottish one and joined the SNP. She was kicked out of the SNP at the time but I saw her back on an SNP broadcast in 2005 I think. She now is a leading history academic at Glasgow University and a high heed yin of the Open University.
(I bet you are bashing your head off the table at that news).
Anyway, it looks like more autonomy is coming. I know you do not like it David but just because you are opposed to it does not mean it will not happen.
"I would say that is a fairly convincing power block - albeit based on a skewed voting system."
ReplyDeleteIt's nothing compared to, say, South Wales, or the North East, among other places.
"making Labour look fragmented and infighting"
A good number of Scottish Labour MPs are now too old to care. And, of course, a good number are profoundly unhappy about devolution.
"all surveys conducted on the issue"
Opinion polls, in other words. Nuff said.
"Concerning that old chestnut, "a minority of the total voted", may I point out that on this basis that no UK government in recent times then had no mandate."
Elections are not straight Yes/No questions. Nor, in themselves, do they change the entire rules of the game.
"Mmm, the Tories made a net gain of one seat from 1987. Aberdeen South."
Their only net gain in any part of the country. In Scotland.
"It must be remembered that the Tories whipped up a panic in 1992"
Blah, Blah, Blah. That's called politics.
"I bet you are bashing your head off the table at that news"
On the contrary, it doesn't surprise me in the least.
"Anyway, it looks like more autonomy is coming. I know you do not like it David but just because you are opposed to it does not mean it will not happen."
There is simply no majority for it in the House of Commons, the House of Lords would in any case kick it out and run no risk whatever of the invocation of the Parliament Act, and there will never be an absolute SNP majority at Holyrood (it's set up that way), without which there will never be an independence referendum, the nuclear option (even though it would always deliver a No vote - the most cautious people on earth will never vote to remove the permanent guarantee of an NHS, state pensions and the rest, otherwise known as the Union).
For that matter, on present form, there will never be an independence referendum even if there were an SNP majority at Holyrood. The SNP has very visibly given on independence.