It is a shame that there is no direct link to the speech that John Major gave recently in which he made his arguments for Scotland having more powers. It is not really clear from the various reports whether the calls are a positive strategy for Scotland or rather negative tactics for the United Kingdom.
Major’s intervention comes hot on the heels of the two political leaders sitting side by side at Wimbledon in what is surely (surely?) a mere coincidence. Mind you, had Rory McIlroy been sitting one seat further forward, perhaps the golfing complex at the Menie Estate might have had a new, more popular, figurehead (albeit with as dodgy a hairdo as the current leader).
But it is John Major’s points that are of most interest and two of them stick out for me; one in which the former PM makes a lot of sense and one which has long frustrated me, and continues to do so, as unionists seek an alternative argument to the SNP’s persuasive overtures.
Part of Sir John’s speech includes the lines:
“The present quasi-federalist settlement with Scotland is unsustainable. Each year of devolution has moved Scotland further from England. Scottish ambition is fraying English tolerance. This is a tie that will snap – unless the issue is resolved. The union between England and Scotland cannot be maintained by constant aggravation in Scotland and appeasement in London. I believe it is time to confront the argument head on.”
The above passage is excellent, Sir John couldn’t really have phrased it better. The referendum that resulted in a Scottish Parliament is as good as ancient history as the political parties position and posture over what powers should and should not sit either side of the border. With no meaningful constitution or agreement to work with, it is a bit of a free for all with broadcasting, the Crown Estate, gun control, speed limits and countless other policy areas up for grabs. It is an ongoing and endless dialogue that the public don’t ever really get a say in (was the May 2011 result a mandate for Holyrood to have broadcasting powers? Discuss).
The second reading of the Scotland Bill on the 8th of September is no doubt the next opportunity that these issues will get a formal hearing and, as Sir John recommends, a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs coupled with a transfer of powers to Holyrood is the best move in this election-less window up to the independence referendum expected around 2014 as it will provide a more robust Scottish Parliament and a better equilibrium between Scotland and the UK.
However, what Sir John does not explain is why these moves are necessary other than to suggest that they will be a successful way to head off the supposedly inevitable destination of independence. Much like Calman, the thinking seems to be that it makes sense to give Scotland a little more in order to stop them wanting a lot more. This is at odds with Major’s strategy when he was in Number 10, opposing devolution for Scotland as he saw it as a stepping stone towards independence, so it is to the SNP’s momentum’s credit that this position has changed so significantly.
The two problems that I have, and have had for quite some time, are these:
1 – What, presicely, makes the union so precious that politicians have to give goodies that they don’t want to give in order to protect it?
2 – Which Parliament do the leaders of each of the main parties believe is best placed to make fiscal, broadcasting, speed limit, gun law decisions and other areas that remain reserved at Westminster?
John Major is making welcome proposals but for all the wrong reasons, he doesn’t even really believe what he is proposing but is rather just trying to find a way, any way, to block independence from happening. The funny thing is, down here in London, it is quite easy to exaggerate what Scotland’s appetite for independence is, even I’ve been guilty of it when I should really no better. A majority SNP Government with a minority of the votes and many, many voters supporting them at the ballot box but not being in favour of independence does not add up to the freefalling towards independence that many down here believe to be the case. Recent polling has suggested that the appetite for Scottish independence is as strong south of Gretna as it is north of it.
The SNP will, of course, bank any extra powers and any moves towards fiscal autonomy that it can get and it is no wonder that it is so delighted with John Major’s unnecessary intervention over the weekend. The unionists have inexplicably put themselves over a barrel when really all they need to do is wait for this coming referendum, campaign in a positive manner for the union, win said referendum and then go about their business as they so please without worrying about the supposed SNP thorn in their sides. Unfortunately, they are struggling to put even one strand of this simple strategy into operation.
Sir John Major is a respected politician either side of the border and is in a position to speak his mind without fear of reprisal so, for me, it is telling that his thinking on the subject is do depressingly shallow and what he proposes (more powers) does not, according to him, have merit in itself but is merely a way to block something else (independence). I really don’t mind either way whether Scotland is independent or part of the United Kingdom but the sheer absence of an argument from the unionist side can only lead me, and presumably others, into that Yes vote in 2014.
Indeed, going back to the supposedly random seating arrangement at Wimbledon, I daresay Northern Irishman Rory McIlroy could make a better fist of explaining why Scotland should stay in the UK but that’s another story and probably not even for any another time.
#1 by ReasonableNat on July 10, 2011 - 5:22 pm
I must admit, I wondered what they were talking about – surely, as you say, this cannot be a coincidence? 🙂
I think we all need to accept that any constitutional opinion coming from a unionist will always have been formed from an intention to prevent independence. Whether positive or negative, logically, it must be designed to satisfy the ambitions of a majority of Scots, and that could only happen if it appeals to a majority of Scots, and subsequent to its implementation, works well.
I think that the polls have long been hiding the truth about the electorate’s collective opinion. I think there is cause to believe that around a third are strongly unionist and a third are firmly nationalist. Most of the remainder,I strongly suspect, aren’t really in love with the union, are relatively apathetic to constitutional matters, but tend to declare support for the union mainly out of fear; partly fear of change (and potential failure) and partly an ethereal kind of fear relating to separation. I think this is borne out by the polls showing majority support for devo max – about half of that support comes from nats seeing it as a big step in the right direction – while the other half reflects that remainder’s unhappiness with the union, and fear of the unknown.
I agree that it is a shame that unionists, including major, can’t seem to get positively behind something that the majority of Scots would probably sign up for tomorrow, but it isn’t surprising, and it isn’t really that different, if we are honest, from nat support for devo max really mainly coming from a belief that it is a step along the path to independence. Neither side really wants this, but both could see advantages in offering and implementing it.
What matters most is that this currently has around 60-70% support – for everyone’s sake it absolutely must be on offer. If it turns out that it satisfies the electorate and prevents independence, so be it – if it turns out to be the next step in the process towards independence, so be it – both sides should have the decency, the courage of their convictions, and the confidence in the strenth of their own arguments, to put it to the people and allow them to decide.
#2 by An Duine Gruamach on July 11, 2011 - 1:11 pm
The problem is that DevoMax really *is* more problematic for British Nationalists than for Scottish Nationalists. In the event of DevoMax coming into force (as it surely will, if it’s on the paper), it’ll be very difficult to counter the idea the Union is, slowly but surely, weakening. Full independence may have been staved off for the time being, but the narrative of milestones – 1999, 2007, 2011, 2014(ish) will unquestionably be one of attenuation of the Union. DevoMax (from a British Nationalist perspective) can only be a shoring-up exercise, not a) what they want or b) a stage on the road to what they *do* want. That’s not a problem for the SNP.
#3 by ReasonableNat on July 11, 2011 - 2:10 pm
Absolutely true, yes, but it is also true that resisting devo-max, if voted for in a referendum, is very bad for the unionists. That’s why making sure it appears as a choice is so important. If it is on the ballot paper then I think history will consider the referendum to have been when the nats created a check-mate position, even if they don’t win independence that time around. If devo-max is not on the paper and we get a no, we’re right back to square one and it’s anyone’s game.
#4 by Jeff on July 11, 2011 - 2:17 pm
Yes, definitely agree ADG, which is why the logic that unionists need to give a little to Salmond to stop him getting everything seems so flawed.
#5 by ReasonableNat on July 11, 2011 - 2:35 pm
I don’t think that unionists can win the argument, ultimately, but then I would think that, because I think they’re wrong.
If I were a unionist I’d like to think that I would be sufficiently convinced that I were right that I could win the argument. I’d like to think that conceding devo-max would be a less risky option than attempting to oppose majority opinion for ever. I’d like to think that devo-max could represent an optimal solution and that implementing it might actually reverse the trend of opinion.
Since unionists will generally do anything to prevent the people from making a choice I can only assume that this is because unionists tend not to be totally convinced by their own case?
I’m not exactly getting a ‘confidence in his own argument’ vibe from Major’s comments though, more of a bitter ‘well if that doesn’t shut you up you can *ahem* off’ vibe…
#6 by Ben Achie on July 10, 2011 - 6:05 pm
Well, the British are supposed to have acquired an empire in a prolonged fit of absentmindedness, Jeff! The Scots were a diligent element among those empire builders, and also played an important part in its relatively amicable deconstruction.
As leader of the SNP, Alex Salmond has confounded Unionist manipulation, and is respected, where not feared by them, as a consequence. The prevailing, conventional, post-colonial view in the Tory heartlands (the bit that rules the rest) will be that a deal needs to be done.
Closer to home, just consider Ireland: first the Free State within the Commonwealth, then a republic outwith it. Now we’ve had a historic visit there by the Queen, and a remarkable welcome for her. What would have happened if Gladstone had succeeded in delivering home rule?
There is a core issue here, and that is the inability of England to define itself without reference to its “posessions” and history of dominating others, sparked of by the first Elizabeth. Remember John Major’s references to warm beer and old maids riding bicycles to church in country villages. That’s Brigadoon!
The Scots have a way to go yet, though. Kilts and the Jacobites and “we wuz robbed” I guess are part of that road to a greater understanding, and therefore defining, of ourselves. Currently, perhaps, the Scots mercenary tradition that became part of the imperialism of which the echoes remain in the form of military interventions is the issue we most need to re-examine.
#7 by Angus McLellan on July 10, 2011 - 7:30 pm
Let me start by saying that there seems to be a lot of churnalism going on here as all reports, including Jeff’s but he can be forgiven, quote much the same text. Now it may be that all of the reporters who saw or heard the speech or read a transcript thought that the same parts of Major’s speech stood out. Or perhaps it is rather more likely that they are all lazily quoting from a press release. It’s a very poor show if that’s the case.
Perhaps “devolution max” might be understood as “the maximum degree of legislative, fiscal and executive devolution compatible with the continuation of the Union”. But am I being over-literal in my interpretation here? Even if I am on the right track, this isn’t much help. The world is a big place and when combined with nearly two hundred years of history to choose from – I’ll follow Paul Johnson and start the modern world c. 1820 – almost anything you might think of, with the probable exception of foreign policy, has been devolved. Even defence – most obviously in Imperial Germany from 1871 and in Austria-Hungary from 1867 and in the self-governing dominions of the British Empire beginning with Canada in 1867 – has been in whole or in part a devolved responsibility at some times and places.
So if we began with the assumption that an absolute minimum of powers should be retained over Scotland by the UK government then apart from some parts of defence policy, control of the currency and interest rates, and foreign policy, everything else could in theory be devolved because it has been done somewhere, somewhen already. But if the problem is approached from the other direction, asking which powers should be devolved with a presumption that those for which a “sound case” could not be made would be retained, then we’d inevitably end up with a very different answer.
My view is that the second solution is far more probable given the context. Scotland is not terribly important, radical solutions are automatically suspect and there are many more things dear to the government’s heart to be getting on with. I suspect the outcome is more likely to be a succession of grudging Calmanesque changes which seem unlikely to significantly undercut either support for independence or support for increased powers. All that will happen is that the gap between independence and the status quo will get ever smaller, so that instead of a leap it becomes only a step. I could be wrong though. We’ll find out soon enough.
#8 by Jeff on July 10, 2011 - 7:43 pm
Second solution sounds more probable to me too Angus with Major’s suggestions possibly something of a strawman.
And churnalism? Absolutely, that’s as much as I’m willing to give on a lazy summer Sunday with no full speech text to work with. Still worth a wee post though.
#9 by ReasonableNat on July 10, 2011 - 8:25 pm
All that could possibly lead to is increasing resentment – north and south of the border. I would lead to independence in the end, and possibly to devo max just beforehand. How pointless it would be to put us all through decades more of that, just to end up at the same position anyway.
(To be clear, I actually agree with you, I’m just thinking about the consequences.)
#10 by DougtheDug on July 10, 2011 - 8:47 pm
Part of Sir John’s speech includes the lines:
“The present quasi-federalist settlement with Scotland is unsustainable. Each year of devolution has moved Scotland further from England. Scottish ambition is fraying English tolerance. This is a tie that will snap – unless the issue is resolved. The union between England and Scotland cannot be maintained by constant aggravation in Scotland and appeasement in London. I believe it is time to confront the argument head on.”
The above passage is excellent, Sir John couldn’t really have phrased it better.
Actually the above passage is a symptom of how John Major views everything from a metropolitan background and is happy to use impressive but meaningless terms like, “quasi-federalist”. Federalism is a system where a regional parliament’s powers are embedded in the country’s constitution. Quasi-federalist is a roundabout way of saying that the Scottish Parliament is not protected by the constitution and is devolved. Couldn’t he have used the word, “devolved”, in the first place? Devolution hasn’t moved Scotland further from England each year in terms of powers of the Scottish parliament but what it has done is given Scots a renewed sense of their own identity. I love that phrase, “Scottish ambition is fraying English tolerance.” It is so redolent of the British Establishment world view where Scots are upstarts who keep asking for more than they deserve while kindly England pats them on the head tolerantly. The thinking behind that world view is only reinforced by his reference to Scottish aggravation and London appeasment.
In monetary terms Scotland gets exactly the same as England with the Barnett multipier applied and that Barnett formula predates devolution. Student fees, personal care and prescriptions are all paid for in Scotland by saving money elsewhere in the block grant. The Calman commission and the new Scotland bill were not instigated by the SNP who in fact stayed out of the whole business but are the children of all three London based parties so for John Major the request for a Scottish referendum on independence must be the aggravation he refers to.
John Major said “Why not devolve all responsibilities except foreign policy, defence and management of the economy? Why not let Scotland have wider tax-raising powers to pay for their policies and, in return, abolish the present block grant settlement, reduce Scottish representation in the Commons, and cut the legislative burden at Westminster?”
This quote actually shows the incoherence of the unionist attempts to come up with a solution for the local government for Scotland within the Union in an attempt to stave off an independent Scotland and hold onto Scotland and its mineral wealth.
On the one hand John Major says, “Why not devolve all responsibilities except foreign policy, defence and management of the economy?”, which implies to me that Scotland collects all taxes in Scotland and funds all public spending. Yet he then qualifies it by saying, “Why not let Scotland have wider tax-raising powers…”, which implies that the Scottish parliament’s ability to collect all tax raised in Scotland will have limited and definite boundaries.
I strongly suspect that John Major’s vision of, “Devolution-Max”, does not include Scotland getting the oil revenues or whisky revenues which are generated within its borders.
Like many who are now weighing into the debate on Scottish independence John Major is new to the game and like all their pronouncements the devil is always in the detail.
#11 by Angus McLellan on July 11, 2011 - 12:11 am
That’s not really the way to be thanking Sir John for his helpful intervention Doug. We had a few days when the Scottish Question was being squeezed out of the news cycle by Mr Coulson and Ms Brooks and the Messers Murdoch and the News of the World and Ed Miliband’s discovery that he never liked News International anyway. Thanks to Major, we’re back in the news again.
If we’re independent some day soon, we should acknowledge the help that Michael Forsyth, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Michael Moore, David Mundell and John Major provided. They, and all the other Unionist politicians past and present and future who have kept and will keep the matter in the public eye, have saved the “Yes” campaign no end of expense. They’ve also given the SNP an opportunity to recover from seemingly being taken aback by the unexpected scale of victory in May. Now there’s a recess and the silly season in which to get the details settled and the hymn sheets passed round.
#12 by Don McC on July 10, 2011 - 11:27 pm
We are now a few months down the line (even longer if you count the election campaign) and still no one has come forward with a truly positive argument for the Union. Indeed, all arguments put forward so far are all plays on the “too wee, too poor, too stupid” arguments of last resort trotted out by unionists when they are a loss to say anything else.
It’s easy to reach the conclusion, as if it needs pointing out, that there are no truly positive arguments for the Union. If that is genuinely the case, what are we even doing talking about it? Lets move to the inevitable as amicably as possible, on our own terms. Keep in mind that sovereignty isn’t Westminster’s (or even England’s) to give, it’s for Scotland to take.
I would still like to know why the likes of Major, Portillo, Cameron, etc. are so desperate to keep Scotland within the Union. I can’t accept that it’s simply a prestige thing or a benevolence thing, there’s more to it than that.
#13 by Jeff on July 11, 2011 - 2:14 pm
Thanks for that Don, and I agree with you. Kenny Farquharson seemed mightily pleased with himself that the Union should continue because we Brits all love fish & chips, a notion that I fould altogether bizarre.
The reason we are still talking about it of course is because the SNP is keen to stick to its timetable of a referendum at the end of this parliamentary term which right and proper as that’s when the manifesto said it would take place. So there’s still time for a decent argument for the union between now and then and I still hope one will emerge and, as you say, some of the reasl reasons for the deep resentment to independence may come through as a result.
We can but wait!
#14 by Don McC on July 11, 2011 - 7:47 pm
As you say, we can but wait and it’s only for few more years (unless Call-me-dave brings his own referendum forward!).
On the subject of Kenny’s article, I see it’s been re-published on LabourHame. When it appeared on the Hootsman, most respondents laughed at the ill thought out arguments and general gist of the article.
I wonder if he’s expecting a different reaction on LabourHame.
#15 by EphemeralDeception on July 11, 2011 - 7:58 pm
I tend to agree with DougTheDug. Majors comments are certainly largely anglocentric and patronising. Us Scots are aggrivating our parents awhom are appeasing us with handouts. This is really getting annoying. Is it any wonder more and more Scots want out of the blinkered London centric world view.
Major is not speaking (except down) to us Scots but his fellows in another country with another culture. Why do we even need to heed words of someone who does not have our countrys future at heart and looks on Scotland as nothing but a resource rich region? Where Majors interest is in keeping a tight reign over us if at all possible? His only salient point to his fellow countrymen was that this is an issue for Scots to decide.
People in Scotland need to make up our own minds and a unionist position needs to be Scottish lead not just the appearance ( Scottish washing an anglo lead pro unionist stance will not fly).
What I absolutely cannot understand, on most reserved issues, is that if it is in both our interests to take a position on say defence or foreign policy then we can have a bilateral agreement post independence as there will be no key differences in policy. However if that cannot be done then it is a cast iron guarantee that Scotland / Wales / NI are right now forced to take the anglo policy in the name of the UK. We add our weight to the Union while our will is ignored nationally and misrepresented internationally. This is certainly true in many UK reserved areas.
Secondly the unionists already know what will happen with fiscal autonomy for Scotland. The Calman commision already reached and reported that Fiscal autonmy would lead to the break up of the UK and had to be excluded as an option since the ‘commission’ could not recommend any measures that benefited Scotland but would endanger the Union. It did so without making any case whatsoever for keeping the union. There should be no denial in this area as both the unionists and nationalists have reached the same conclusions, even if it is not based on the same premise or rationale or not the same timeline.
In any case, I repeat everything that can be a benefit of keeping the union can in any case be a benefit as part of any other trey or bilateral agreement.
Note: When it comes to English autonomy most Scots take the view that it is a matter for the English to determine themselves. However English opinion on Scottish independence is 10-a-penny, with Major the latest on the bandwagon. They all have an opinion whether it is a) We wont let you choose at all b) You need two referendums c) Its up to the Scots d) No you should only have some powers we dictate etc.
The anglo unionists should start practicing what they preach:
So Scottish opinions for Scottish issues please!!
Pingback: Sir John Major’s Ditchley Foundation speech – the full transcript on devolution « Better Nation