Nicholas Watt writes:
David Cameron risks forfeiting the support of the Democratic Unionists in the next parliament after the party warned the Tories are in danger of “abusing” the House of Commons in their handling of Scotland.
In a blow to the prime minister, who is hoping to rely on the DUP in a hung parliament to keep him in Downing Street, the party’s leader at Westminster, Nigel Dodds, warned of the dangers of fuelling “nationalist paranoia” in Scotland.
Writing in The Guardian, Dodds said: “The UK not merely needs good and stable government after 7 May, it needs responsible politicians too, whether in office or opposition. At the moment, the current state of the campaign greatly concerns me.”
The intervention by Dodds could complicate the prime minister’s hopes of clinging to office after a YouGov/Sunday Times poll suggested he would need the support of the DUP to remain in No 10.
The poll projected that a combination of the Tories (278), Liberal Democrats (30) and the DUP (eight MPs in the last parliament) would create a block of 316 MPs.
This would be 10 short of a parliamentary majority but it would be seven seats ahead of a Labour (271), Lib Dem and DUP block on 309 seats.
Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband have rejected agreeing a deal with the SNP.
In a sign of deep DUP unease at the Tory tactics over
Scotland, Dodds is scathing about the commitment in the Tory manifesto to offer
English MPs a veto over parliamentary legislation by introducing what is known
as English votes for English laws. Dodds, who is defending his north Belfast
seat in the election, writes in The Guardian:
“The Commons can’t be used as an ersatz, part-time English Assembly. It’s the Union parliament, and abusing it in this way wouldn’t and couldn’t answer the very real needs England has.”
The DUP had decided to keep out of the general election in Great Britain to focus on its fight to defend its eight seats in Northern Ireland.
It also has high hopes of recapturing East Belfast, the seat held by its leader, and Northern Ireland first minister, Peter Robinson between 1979-2010.
But the DUP leadership has become increasingly alarmed by the Tory tactics in building up the SNP as a way of damaging the Labour party in Scotland.
The tactics reached new heights on Sunday when Theresa May, the home secretary, warned that a post-election deal between Labour and the SNP would pose the gravest constitutional crisis since the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936.
Dodds is highly critical of those who question the legitimacy of SNP MPs at Westminster – as the home secretary did when she told the Mail on Sunday that a Labour / SNP deal would “raise difficult questions about legitimacy”.
Echoing the criticism of the former Scotland secretary Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, Dodds wrote:
“Take the ‘right’ of SNP MPs to vote in the Commons, or the supposed lack of legitimacy that stems from it. No one who purports to be a unionist can question it. They have the right. That’s why we fought and won the referendum: to enshrine the rights of Scots to go on sending representatives, fully equal to every other, to Westminster. Glib and lazy talk about SNP MPs somehow not being as entitled to vote in every division in the Commons as any other British MP simply fuels nationalist paranoia.”
The final straw, which persuaded the DUP to speak out, came when the Tories suggested they would be prepared to vote against the defence estimates as a way of highlighting how the SNP could pose a threat to Trident under a Labour government.
Ben Wallace, a Tory whip, hinted recently that a future Labour government might not be able to rely on the Tories to prevent the SNP from blocking the renewal of Trident.
Wallace tweeted that the Tories might not support Labour defence estimates – the vote to guarantee defence spending – after the SNP deputy leader Stewart Hosie said his party would vote against them if they supported Trident.
Dodds writes: “I can’t take seriously the notion that a responsible party of government would vote against the estimates. That has to have been tweetable overexcitedness by press officers and not a signed-off-on-line from on high.”
In a dig at the Tories, Dodds jokes that no party that professes support for the Union would damage the UK by talking up the SNP.
Adopting a sarcastic tone, Dodds writes: “Since it would neither be in the interests of the country nor those of any other party to intentionally talk up the SNP, we can assume that this hasn’t been happening. No one committed to the Union would deliberately do that. Obviously while we want a stable and secure government to emerge in the next parliament, no stability can come from any conscious effort to ramp up the numbers of anti-UK MPs in the Commons.”
Dodds calls on Scots to vote tactically for the best placed pro-Union candidate who, in most seats, will be the Labour one.
“Since no one ascends to or clings on to office by risking the country, this election calls for something beyond partisanship. In Scotland, pro-union voters should, just this once, give very serious consideration to voting for the unionist best placed to win their seat.”
The DUP insists it still intends to be equidistant between Labour and the Tories if it holds the balance of power in a hung parliament.
A DUP source said: “It is going to be the people who will chose the next government. We will just have to play the cards they deal in the election result.”
But the source said of the Tory tactics: “It it is going to give us pause for thought if this continues. We are half-depressed, half-bemused by what has happened. We really don’t think this is the behaviour of a responsible party of government. Scotland in the Union is more important to us than who is in No 10.”
And Nigel Dodds himself writes:
The general election is exciting in Scotland and Scotland is exciting the rest of the country.
Not many expected the result now rolling down the length of Britain towards Westminster, but we need to come to terms with what this is going to mean.
For the UK does not just need good and stable government after 7 May, it needs responsible politicians too, whether in office or opposition.
At the moment, the current state of the campaign greatly concerns me.
Naturally the SNP is the first concern. Listening to Nicola Sturgeon’s progressive pan-British rhetoric, you could have thought you were listening to one of the finest unionists of the age – there wasn’t a corner of the kingdom her concern didn’t extend to.
But for all the SNP leader’s talk of the common good, her unionist words are not going to be matched by unionist deeds.
By definition, the SNP does not have the interests of the UK at its heart. More will mean worse, if it’s more SNP MPs at Westminster.
Ironically the problem with the SNP will stem not from nationalist dogmatism, but almost unequalled political opportunism.
A party that pledged itself at Westminster not to vote on non-Scottish issues, that swore the referendum was a once-in-a-generation opportunity and claimed Scotland was economically ready for separation, now reverses all these positions.
It doesn’t matter that on any specific issue – say, full fiscal economy – SNP arguments disintegrate as soon as they hit reality, this is a party whose leaders will shamefully say anything in the expectation that their supporters will credulously go on backing them, whatever the flip flop.
In a hung parliament, regardless of ideology, these are not politicians set on stability and good government, even if they wanted it.
Yet whatever those of us who believe in the continuation of the UK as a pluralist, multi-national state might think, we mustn’t allow ourselves to be provoked into behaving the same way.
And this is where the campaign south of the border has so alarmed me.
Take the “right” of SNP MPs to vote in the Commons, or the supposed lack of legitimacy that stems from it. No one who purports to be a unionist can question it. They have the right.
That’s why we fought and won the referendum: to enshrine the rights of Scots to go on sending representatives, fully equal to every other, to Westminster. Glib and lazy talk about SNP MPs somehow not being as entitled to vote in every division in the Commons, as any other British MP, simply fuels nationalist paranoia.
In the last parliament, William Hague was badly served by the putsch attempted against speaker John Bercow but, if anything, even worse has been the using of him to drum up support for Evel (English votes for English laws).
I have yet to hear from a Tory colleague standing in England that a single door anywhere has been opened with the query, “whither Evel?” But it’s not just a flawed political tactic, it’s also a constitutional mess.
The Commons can’t be used as an ersatz, part-time English Assembly. It’s the union parliament, and abusing it in this way wouldn’t and couldn’t answer England’s real needs.
For far too long now we have blundered into unthought-out, one-sided constitutional change. This fatal habit has to end. Evel, unfortunately, would simply be more of the same.
Some of what has happened in the campaign so far is pure froth.
I can’t take seriously the notion that a responsible party of government would vote against the defence estimates.
Which, because of the Tory-Labour consensus on the nuclear deterrent, is what it would take to give parliamentary effect to the SNP’s bluff about Trident. That has to have been tweetable overexcitedness by press officers and not a signed-off on line from on high.
Since it would be in the interests neither of the country nor any other party to intentionally talk up the SNP, we can assume this hasn’t been happening. No one committed to the union would deliberately do that.
Obviously while we want a stable and secure government to emerge in the next parliament no stability can come from any conscious effort to ramp up the numbers of anti-UK MPs.
Many commentators assume a swift second election is almost inevitable. I don’t share this assumption.
In Northern Ireland we have a particular problem with it in that elections bring out the worst in Sinn Féin.
It has used the current one to run away from what it agreed to at the Stormont House talks last Christmas, and finds itself in an electoral mincing machine, between Westminster, Stormont and the Dail.
Nothing that encourages its tendency towards Micawberism does anything for peace and progress in Ulster.
However, my reading of both Tory and Labour backbenchers alike is that neither will be amenable to sweeping away the Fixed Term Parliament Act, whatever their frontbenches might want.
Since no one ascends to or clings on to office by risking the country, this election calls for something beyond partisanship.
In Scotland, pro-union voters should, just this once, give very serious consideration to voting for the unionist best placed to win their seat.
Brave voices such as Norman Tebbit have risked tribal discontent to urge this, and I urge it too.
The SNP is trying to get out of England the answer it couldn’t get out of Scotland last year.
No one who believes in Britain should assist them, least of all in England.
David Cameron risks forfeiting the support of the Democratic Unionists in the next parliament after the party warned the Tories are in danger of “abusing” the House of Commons in their handling of Scotland.
In a blow to the prime minister, who is hoping to rely on the DUP in a hung parliament to keep him in Downing Street, the party’s leader at Westminster, Nigel Dodds, warned of the dangers of fuelling “nationalist paranoia” in Scotland.
Writing in The Guardian, Dodds said: “The UK not merely needs good and stable government after 7 May, it needs responsible politicians too, whether in office or opposition. At the moment, the current state of the campaign greatly concerns me.”
The intervention by Dodds could complicate the prime minister’s hopes of clinging to office after a YouGov/Sunday Times poll suggested he would need the support of the DUP to remain in No 10.
The poll projected that a combination of the Tories (278), Liberal Democrats (30) and the DUP (eight MPs in the last parliament) would create a block of 316 MPs.
This would be 10 short of a parliamentary majority but it would be seven seats ahead of a Labour (271), Lib Dem and DUP block on 309 seats.
Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband have rejected agreeing a deal with the SNP.
“The Commons can’t be used as an ersatz, part-time English Assembly. It’s the Union parliament, and abusing it in this way wouldn’t and couldn’t answer the very real needs England has.”
The DUP had decided to keep out of the general election in Great Britain to focus on its fight to defend its eight seats in Northern Ireland.
It also has high hopes of recapturing East Belfast, the seat held by its leader, and Northern Ireland first minister, Peter Robinson between 1979-2010.
But the DUP leadership has become increasingly alarmed by the Tory tactics in building up the SNP as a way of damaging the Labour party in Scotland.
The tactics reached new heights on Sunday when Theresa May, the home secretary, warned that a post-election deal between Labour and the SNP would pose the gravest constitutional crisis since the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936.
Dodds is highly critical of those who question the legitimacy of SNP MPs at Westminster – as the home secretary did when she told the Mail on Sunday that a Labour / SNP deal would “raise difficult questions about legitimacy”.
Echoing the criticism of the former Scotland secretary Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, Dodds wrote:
“Take the ‘right’ of SNP MPs to vote in the Commons, or the supposed lack of legitimacy that stems from it. No one who purports to be a unionist can question it. They have the right. That’s why we fought and won the referendum: to enshrine the rights of Scots to go on sending representatives, fully equal to every other, to Westminster. Glib and lazy talk about SNP MPs somehow not being as entitled to vote in every division in the Commons as any other British MP simply fuels nationalist paranoia.”
The final straw, which persuaded the DUP to speak out, came when the Tories suggested they would be prepared to vote against the defence estimates as a way of highlighting how the SNP could pose a threat to Trident under a Labour government.
Ben Wallace, a Tory whip, hinted recently that a future Labour government might not be able to rely on the Tories to prevent the SNP from blocking the renewal of Trident.
Wallace tweeted that the Tories might not support Labour defence estimates – the vote to guarantee defence spending – after the SNP deputy leader Stewart Hosie said his party would vote against them if they supported Trident.
Dodds writes: “I can’t take seriously the notion that a responsible party of government would vote against the estimates. That has to have been tweetable overexcitedness by press officers and not a signed-off-on-line from on high.”
In a dig at the Tories, Dodds jokes that no party that professes support for the Union would damage the UK by talking up the SNP.
Adopting a sarcastic tone, Dodds writes: “Since it would neither be in the interests of the country nor those of any other party to intentionally talk up the SNP, we can assume that this hasn’t been happening. No one committed to the Union would deliberately do that. Obviously while we want a stable and secure government to emerge in the next parliament, no stability can come from any conscious effort to ramp up the numbers of anti-UK MPs in the Commons.”
Dodds calls on Scots to vote tactically for the best placed pro-Union candidate who, in most seats, will be the Labour one.
“Since no one ascends to or clings on to office by risking the country, this election calls for something beyond partisanship. In Scotland, pro-union voters should, just this once, give very serious consideration to voting for the unionist best placed to win their seat.”
The DUP insists it still intends to be equidistant between Labour and the Tories if it holds the balance of power in a hung parliament.
A DUP source said: “It is going to be the people who will chose the next government. We will just have to play the cards they deal in the election result.”
But the source said of the Tory tactics: “It it is going to give us pause for thought if this continues. We are half-depressed, half-bemused by what has happened. We really don’t think this is the behaviour of a responsible party of government. Scotland in the Union is more important to us than who is in No 10.”
And Nigel Dodds himself writes:
The general election is exciting in Scotland and Scotland is exciting the rest of the country.
Not many expected the result now rolling down the length of Britain towards Westminster, but we need to come to terms with what this is going to mean.
For the UK does not just need good and stable government after 7 May, it needs responsible politicians too, whether in office or opposition.
At the moment, the current state of the campaign greatly concerns me.
Naturally the SNP is the first concern. Listening to Nicola Sturgeon’s progressive pan-British rhetoric, you could have thought you were listening to one of the finest unionists of the age – there wasn’t a corner of the kingdom her concern didn’t extend to.
But for all the SNP leader’s talk of the common good, her unionist words are not going to be matched by unionist deeds.
By definition, the SNP does not have the interests of the UK at its heart. More will mean worse, if it’s more SNP MPs at Westminster.
Ironically the problem with the SNP will stem not from nationalist dogmatism, but almost unequalled political opportunism.
A party that pledged itself at Westminster not to vote on non-Scottish issues, that swore the referendum was a once-in-a-generation opportunity and claimed Scotland was economically ready for separation, now reverses all these positions.
It doesn’t matter that on any specific issue – say, full fiscal economy – SNP arguments disintegrate as soon as they hit reality, this is a party whose leaders will shamefully say anything in the expectation that their supporters will credulously go on backing them, whatever the flip flop.
In a hung parliament, regardless of ideology, these are not politicians set on stability and good government, even if they wanted it.
Yet whatever those of us who believe in the continuation of the UK as a pluralist, multi-national state might think, we mustn’t allow ourselves to be provoked into behaving the same way.
And this is where the campaign south of the border has so alarmed me.
Take the “right” of SNP MPs to vote in the Commons, or the supposed lack of legitimacy that stems from it. No one who purports to be a unionist can question it. They have the right.
That’s why we fought and won the referendum: to enshrine the rights of Scots to go on sending representatives, fully equal to every other, to Westminster. Glib and lazy talk about SNP MPs somehow not being as entitled to vote in every division in the Commons, as any other British MP, simply fuels nationalist paranoia.
In the last parliament, William Hague was badly served by the putsch attempted against speaker John Bercow but, if anything, even worse has been the using of him to drum up support for Evel (English votes for English laws).
I have yet to hear from a Tory colleague standing in England that a single door anywhere has been opened with the query, “whither Evel?” But it’s not just a flawed political tactic, it’s also a constitutional mess.
The Commons can’t be used as an ersatz, part-time English Assembly. It’s the union parliament, and abusing it in this way wouldn’t and couldn’t answer England’s real needs.
For far too long now we have blundered into unthought-out, one-sided constitutional change. This fatal habit has to end. Evel, unfortunately, would simply be more of the same.
Some of what has happened in the campaign so far is pure froth.
I can’t take seriously the notion that a responsible party of government would vote against the defence estimates.
Which, because of the Tory-Labour consensus on the nuclear deterrent, is what it would take to give parliamentary effect to the SNP’s bluff about Trident. That has to have been tweetable overexcitedness by press officers and not a signed-off on line from on high.
Since it would be in the interests neither of the country nor any other party to intentionally talk up the SNP, we can assume this hasn’t been happening. No one committed to the union would deliberately do that.
Obviously while we want a stable and secure government to emerge in the next parliament no stability can come from any conscious effort to ramp up the numbers of anti-UK MPs.
Many commentators assume a swift second election is almost inevitable. I don’t share this assumption.
In Northern Ireland we have a particular problem with it in that elections bring out the worst in Sinn Féin.
It has used the current one to run away from what it agreed to at the Stormont House talks last Christmas, and finds itself in an electoral mincing machine, between Westminster, Stormont and the Dail.
Nothing that encourages its tendency towards Micawberism does anything for peace and progress in Ulster.
However, my reading of both Tory and Labour backbenchers alike is that neither will be amenable to sweeping away the Fixed Term Parliament Act, whatever their frontbenches might want.
Since no one ascends to or clings on to office by risking the country, this election calls for something beyond partisanship.
In Scotland, pro-union voters should, just this once, give very serious consideration to voting for the unionist best placed to win their seat.
Brave voices such as Norman Tebbit have risked tribal discontent to urge this, and I urge it too.
The SNP is trying to get out of England the answer it couldn’t get out of Scotland last year.
No one who believes in Britain should assist them, least of all in England.
No comments:
Post a Comment