Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Constitution

Devo Plus enters the fray

Feb 28

Posted by Jeff in Constitution | 73 Comments

Who would have thought that a referendum on independence would be this tricky?

We have Calman going through Westminster, Devo Max still floated by nobody but somehow not disappearing and now Devo Plus, the same but different, being pushed to the fore today by former Lib Dem MSP Jeremy Purves.

Ardent supporters will no doubt largely scoff at this proposal while ardent unionists will largely support it if it means full independence will fail. I just hope that somewhere between the two that a real consideration of what is being proposed takes place as the original document from Reform Scotland that Devo Plus is based upon is an excellent piece of work and is that rare thing – a unionist solution that is sensible, lasting and sustainable.

Devo Plus, if I am not mistaken, will give Scotland control of all of its income tax and corporation tax and fund its own spending accordingly, including control of borrowing powers. So there would be no problems with raising one tax rate but not raising another, no complaints about a one size fits all UK policy on Corporation tax and there would be no limit to spending tomorrow’s money today if the Government of the day decided this was necessary, perish the thought.

It’s such a shame therefore that this option follows the Cameron-esque strategy of being a potential solution ‘if Scotland votes no in a referendum’, a carrot for Scots to aim for while we are beaten with the stick into the No vote. Aside from not having as full a debate as we could do come 2014, this is a mistake tactically for anyone in favour of the United Kingdom remaining in place.

The more options there are before Scots in the referendum then the less likely it is that independence will be the final decision. All things being equal, there is a 50% chance that Scots will vote Yes to independence but if you were to include the clearly defined Devo Plus on the ballot slip, that chance reduces to 33.3*%. Today is a better day for David Cameron than it will be for Alex Salmond.

Devo Plus won’t kill nationalism stone dead. It won’t provide a seat at the EU or the UN or give Scotland a fairer share of MEPs for example and it won’t remove nuclear weapons from north of the border, and there will always be a sizeable element of Scots campaigning for those things and more besides.

But for this once-in-a-generation referendum and for those Nationalists who will be satisfied with nothing short of full independence, this Devo Plus has the potential to be a game changer.

*recurring

House of Lords reform – Is ‘jury duty’ the answer?

Feb 27

Posted by Jeff in Constitution, Westminster | 13 Comments

I’m sure this is an idea that’s had an airing before and indeed when I mentioned it to my co-editors here, Comrade Aidan mentioned something apparently similar from Mark Thomas (who I think is a ninny, which drew all manner of opprobrium from BN Comrades plural).

Anyway, I was in the pub, as you do on a Saturday lunchtime and, again, as you do, I was chatting about what one could realistically do about the House of Lords to make it a better place.

My first suggestion was to call it the House of Ladies every other year. Isn’t it about time the gender assumption was turned on its head? Apparently I wasn’t thinking big enough.

Despite the widely perceived nonsensicality around the House of Lords, one must remember that to do nothing might actually be the best course of action. On the one hand you have unelected peers debating policies with the public having no means of recourse to challenge their discussions but on the other hand you have a lot of largely intelligent people providing reasonably objective reviews of legislation for relatively little expense. It is arguably difficult to improve upon that. I mean, does anyone believe that Baroness Williams getting stuck into this NHS Bill is a bad thing?

However, there is a flip side, of course. For one, the idea that Lord Sugar should be a peer for life because Gordon Brown wanted him to be a Business Tsar for four months is bonkers, as is the idea that bishops and landed gentry get a seat in the Lords by dint of their job or birthright, not to mention the unseemly act of PM after PM filling the chamber with as many of their party members as they can get away with.

The House of Lords currently has just shy of 800 members and I, at best, could name a handful of them, which is probably more than the vast majority of people in this country could manage. That is not a healthy state of affairs for any democracy so how can it change for the better? Let’s firstly rule some options out.

A House of Lords that is a pale imitation of the House of Commons would not realistically be fit for purpose. Is there a point in having an elected second chamber that would nod through legislation if it consisted of those from the same party as those in Government, and knock legislation back if it didn’t? I suspect most people out there don’t just want more of the same knockabout Punch and Judy politics.

The other extreme is to have a House of Lords full of independents, full of the heads of science and economics and literature and philosophy, all worthily discussing legislation before them and passing their honest, considered views before taking a vote. It’d be like BBC4 does UK Politics, a tantalising prospect but a bloody nightmare when you start to wonder about the specifics of who, what, when and why these people would be selected.

Something doesn’t necessarily need to be done but improvement is surely within our reach.

There is a worrying, and widening, democratic deficit in the UK right now. Elections went from being typically every four years to fixed every five years without people batting an eyelid, if they even knew it had happened in the first place. Are we happy about this? Who the hell knows.

There is a pressing need for the public to be more immersed in the politics that exists in this country, avoiding the artificial line between politics and normal life that makes the former tantamount to showbusiness for ugly not-as-beautiful-as-celebrities people. I just want people to be interested and if they aren’t interested then perhaps it is best to force them to be, even just a little.

My preferred type of House of Lords reform therefore is quickly becoming a form of jury duty where 800 or so people are selected at random from the UK public and serve for six months or a year, followed by another tranche of 800 people and another tranche and so on. There would be permanent staff at the House of Lords that would simplify legislation and provide the legal support but the revising of the output of the House of Commons would be strictly for the 800 to decide. It’d be like a more honourable Big Brother where the public takes on direct responsibility for part of the UK’s future by being the very ones that have to take the decisions of what should and shouldn’t pass in our name. I’d certainly prefer the public being involved in legislation on an ongoing basis rather than being asked (and, let’s face it, lied to) by politicians twice a decade.

My hope would be that a natural filter for bampottery and inappropriateness would apply whereby anyone unsuitable for the job would elect not to take part if they were selected, but those who did serve in the House of Lords would be paid the same salary, wage or welfare as they would ordinarily. It’s Big Society and the work experience scheme rolled into one. How couldn’t David Cameron sign up to it?

You may well disagree but I see very few faults with this proposal and I believe it would be a marked improvement on the status quo, and not only because the old leftie deep inside me would thoroughly enjoy seeing Lords inhabitants being turfed off their red leather seats and into the cold.

Could Joe Public do a better job in the House of Lords than Lord Blah Blah? It’s debatable but perhaps more to the point, who would dare suggest otherwise?

It’s the Scottish Sun wot won it?

Feb 23

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Media | 26 Comments

Another guest today from Andrew Graeme Smith, a London-based Scot who works in the PR industry, and who previously wrote for us about the No campaign. He grew up in Edinburgh and studied at Dundee, and you can read his blog at www.blackberrybanter.wordpress.com

Since taking to Twitter, Rupert Murdoch has been good at causing a stir, but with 185,000 followers (at time of writing) and a whole host of opinions on issues such as the electoral viability of Rick Santorum (who he likes) and the welfare state (which he doesn’t) he is always going to be an interesting Tweeter. However, of his many rants, the ones that have attracted the most attention this week have been the ones he’s made about Scotland, in which he sang the praises of Alex Salmond, berated nuclear weapons and the British empire and seemed to endorse Scottish independence: all part of a good day’s work for the Dirty Digger.

While the support of Murdoch does not necessarily mean the support of his newspapers it does make it a lot more likely that the Scottish Sun and its new Sunday sister paper will soon fall into line. What will be the impact if they do? What does it mean for the tone of the referendum?

The consensus of most people I know is that it won’t make a blind bit of difference, and I’m sure that you’re all well versed on the numerous arguments for why the influence of newspapers is often overstated, however I’m not so convinced. While backing Scottish independence is not a new position for the Sun (who supported it in 1992) and nor is their support for the SNP (who they backed in 1992 and 2011), the difference this time is that this time their own backs and those of their industry are against the wall, and the referendum itself is still 2 and a half years away.

The first point to make is that, regardless of its depleted influence, the Sun still sells 314,000 copies a day in Scotland, which makes it by far the largest selling daily newspaper in the country. The second point is that when the Sun make a political statement they are usually less than subtle (for example their 2007 opposition to the SNP and their 2011 support). Should the paper get behind Murdoch’s new policy then it could be an effective mouthpiece for the nationalists to address an audience who have traditionally backed Labour in Scotland. The other positive for the SNP is that if they can maintain the support of the Sun then they can expect a far easier ride from one of the most vicious tabloids in the country, and meanwhile Salmond’s opponents will be subjected to more of the humiliation that has been poured onto Iain Gray and Gordon Brown in the past.

The reason why the change is significant is not only because of what it may spell for the campaigns, but also because of the reasoning behind it. While the usual suspects tend to see the Sun’s support for the SNP as a way of beating the Labour Party, there is undoubtedly far more to it. Ultimately, The Sun is a business and during a time of declining newspaper sales and their own inner turmoil it is thoroughly unlikely that the move would be purely to spite the Labour Party (which probably does play a small part when we consider Miliband’s reaction to the Sunday Sun’s launch and how it differed with that of Salmond).

It is also unlikely that should The Sun back independence then they will do it purely because Murdoch does, there has to be a business case for it too (otherwise the Scottish Sun would have backed Cameron in 2010). Rather more likely is because The Sun needs to run at a profit and will make the decision along commercial lines. The equation is very simple. If News International believes that The Sun will sell more copies by supporting independence then that is what they will do. This is nothing new: research from MORI in 2009 confirmed that The Sun has a tendency to follow its readers and if they didn’t then they probably wouldn’t be the biggest selling newspaper in the country. This is significant in itself because it implies that there is already a business case for tabloids to be thinking about backing the YES campaign.

In terms of the other papers, I would anticipate that the Daily Record will probably strengthen its unionist voice in order to differentiate itself from the newly nationalist Sun. I would expect the broadsheets to be fairly agnostic with a slight tendency towards a no vote from the more conservative among them (aside from The Times who have given Salmond their Politician of the Year award and will probably show a more strained support for a YES vote). I would expect the Daily Star to stay out of it and the Mail and Express to stick to doing what they do best (which is preaching to their respective choirs) while the soon to be reprinted Daily Sport will be lucky if they even mention that a referendum is happening…

Finally, Murdoch’s words themselves are important, “Let Scotland go and compete. Everyone would win.” It is hard to read this without thinking about Murdoch’s immediate business interests. I suspect that his idea of a competitive Scotland is one that is cutting corporation tax, business rates and taxes for the wealthy. Quite how the Digger squares this neoliberal circle with a Scotland that is increasingly moving in a traditionally social-democratic direction I don’t know. Regardless of his own political ideologies, Murdoch has caused quite a stir, and probably not for the last time.

Can Cameron rise above the vacuous on independence debate?

Feb 16

Posted by Jeff in Constitution | 55 Comments

Maybe it’s the media’s fault. Newspapers in this country are not famous for digging into the detail and providing in-depth analysis of a policy or a speech. Left vs right, unions vs Tories or Lib Dems vs Lib Dems will typically suffice for a narrative, so there’s no reason why it should be any different for unionist vs nationalist, even when it is the Prime Minister that is involved.

That said, David Cameron’s speech today is, from the previews available, depressingly vacuous and ever so slightly patronising.

A couple of quotes from media outlets that have been leaked soundbites are as follows:

(Mail):
We are better off together. We’re stronger, because together we count for more in the world, with a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, real clout in NATO and Europe and unique influence with allies all over the world. We’re safer, because in an increasingly dangerous world we have the fourth-largest defence budget on the planet, superb armed forces and anti-terrorist and security capabilities that stretch across the globe and are feared by our enemies and admired by our friends.’

(Sky):
“I am 100% clear that I will fight with everything I have to keep our United Kingdom together.
To me, this is not some issue of policy or strategy or calculation – it matters head, heart and soul. Our shared home is under threat and everyone who cares about it needs to speak out. Of course, there are arguments that can be made about the volatility of dependence on oil, or the problems of debt and a big banking system. But that’s not the point.
The best case for the United Kingdom is entirely positive. We are better off together. Why? Well, first of all, let’s be practical. Inside the United Kingdom, Scotland – just as much as England, Wales and Northern Ireland – is stronger, safer, richer and fairer.”

It is not uncommon for Tory leaders to liken policy debates to wars as they try to tap into the Old Blighty WW2 spirit that they hope still courses through our veins. Churchill was an expert at it and Margaret Thatcher used it to great effect in many a speech in the eighties. David Cameron is, not unsurprisingly given the context, trying to do so again here with his ‘our shared home is under threat’ rhetoric. Alex Salmond the Nazi? That didn’t work out so well for the last person who tried it.

One problem is that it is all too high-handed, too broad brush, when the only way to advance the debate is with detail, facts and figures. The line ‘head, heart and soul’ might have a pleasing cadence to it, and saying the debate in favour of the UK is “entirely positive” may in itself sound positive, but there is no substance there, nothing for Scots to get their teeth into and taste the evidence from.

When Ruth Davidson talks of ‘fantasy figures’ that the First Minister is using to boast that Scotland would be the sixth richest nation, the obvious challenge is to say that at least Salmond is using figures to back up his argument. If the truth is contrary to the SNP’s view of the future, where is the hard-headed evidence otherwise?

If Scotland becoming an independent country is a leap of faith and a step into the unknown, a challenge not denied by Nicola Sturgeon on Good Morning Scotland this morning, then we are as likely to be better off than worse off, safer than more at risk and fairer than ripped off.

Put another way, saying we are ‘stronger, safer, richer and fairer’ doesn’t make it so. I just hope the transcript of David Cameron’s speech today serves up more than his soundbites are promising.

The Independence Referendum: Floating Voters or Flighty Voters?

Feb 12

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Elections, Holyrood | 15 Comments

photo by comedy_nose

A guest today from Dr Paul Cairney, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Head of Department of Politics and International Relations at Aberdeen University.

Say what you like about Lord Ashcroft, but he gets things done with money. While most of us might have been muttering under our breaths about the leading nature of the SNP Government’s proposed independence referendum question, Ashcroft just spent some of his money trying to show how leading it was. His comparison of three questions shows that the wording of the question does seem to have an effect on responses. While 41% agreed that ‘Scotland should be an independent country’ when merely asked to agree, 39% agree when invited to agree or disagree. That figure reduces further to 33% pro-independence when people were asked ‘Should Scotland become an independent country or should it remain part of the United Kingdom?’ (oddly, there were no ‘undecideds’ in these polls, so the remaining respondents go down as ‘no’ votes). We have always known that there would be this kind of effect. In fact, it was more marked when the first SNP Government produced the more convoluted question ‘I agree [I do not agree] that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state’. This wording is one of the few to produce a plurality in favour, presumably because many people will feel that they are not yet being asked to choose (although the latest poll takes us from a slim lead for ‘agree’ back to a slim lead for ‘disagree’). In most other cases, and at most other times, a different wording generally produces a lead for the ‘no’ vote (see the 14-plus different ways to ask the question in chapter 7 here; compare the survey approach with Susan Condor’s work (on English attitudes to change in Scotland), which just asks people what they think – it suggests that they care much less about these issues than forced choice surveys suggest).

The usual conclusion is that we should look at longer term trends, to see if the same question shows more or less support for constitutional change over time. For example, support for independence has, for decades, been about one-third to two-fifths when people are given the option of choosing to retain or extend devolution instead. It may fluctuate, and that fluctuation may be a good story for the papers, but the trends are fairly clear. This is not the argument I want to pursue here. Rather, I think we should focus more on the potential for fluctuation. The referendum will be held on a particular day in a particular context after a particular campaign. Therefore, while the trends will give us a broad idea of public attitudes, they will not tell us what will happen if we witness a ‘perfect storm’ of events that produces a particular attitude on a particular day. I am not suggesting that people will radically reverse their views at a moment’s notice. Rather, I am suggesting one or more of four things. First, some people will be torn between the options and, if not given the comfort of further devolution as a choice, will not know what to do. Second, some people will have a clear idea of what they want, but without doing much soul searching to come to that conclusion. Third, some people will base their decision on a very small amount of information. Fourth, some people will get that information from biased sources and might see things differently if subject to a competing view. Overall, if many people are unsure, or their certainty is based on limited and biased information, it may be possible for a strong campaign – combined with key events – to change people’s minds for a little while. The best example for me so far was the Conservative Government gambit on giving permission to hold the referendum in 18 months. This sort of nonsense could produce all sorts of emotional reactions in the most calculating or ambivalent people.

I want to give this issue more thought than Lord Ashcroft, but I have less money. So, with my colleagues in psychology and physics at Aberdeen, I am developing an online project that probes people’s views about independence and examines how likely it is that those views will change when they are presented with new (or newly framed and sourced) arguments. We will gauge people’s existing knowledge and searches for information, then present them with the chance to agree or disagree with new arguments as presented by different people (on the assumption that they will react differently to arguments presented by, say, Alex Salmond or George Osborne). I need your help. I have a decent idea of the key arguments made about independence so far, and can do a trawl of the papers to make sure. However, I am sure that I have not heard them all. Can you think of pro- or anti- devolution arguments that would not fit into these broad categories (for example, I am not sure where to place the idea that the SNP’s image of governing competence will/ will not affect support for independence)? Or, can you think of some unusual examples in each category?

Economic – e.g. an independent Scotland could not have bailed out the RBS/ the Scottish Government would have avoided the catastrophe; an independent Scottish Government can tailor taxes and growth strategies to Scotland; businesses are happy/ will leave in droves; Scots will be better/ worse off in an independent Scotland

Economic deficits and North Sea Oil – Scotland relies on UK subsidies; the UK relies on Scottish oil

The State – Scotland will be a high tax, high spending country; the Scottish Government will reduce taxes to promote growth

European Union – someone will veto Scotland’s EU membership; we can decide whether or not we want to join; we will have to negotiate our entry or exit; we will have a larger or smaller voice in the EU

The Euro – we will have to join it; we can keep the pound until we choose to join it

Defence – will radically change/ not change Scotland’s role regarding the armed forces and nuclear question; Scotland will lose soldiers and defence contracts

Scotland and the UK – we will have to rebuild Hadrian’s wall and present passports at the border; key relationships will not change

Social attitudes – more Scottish than British? Devolution as a compromise between Scottishness and Britishness? People want/ do not want independence or more powers

History – Scotland as a stateless nation which demands self-government; the UK as a stronger, united country

Constitutional Issues – independence will solve the ‘English question’; the English should have their say; a referendum in Scotland has no legal authority; Scotland will keep the Queen as head of state

International affairs – we will have a small international voice; we will have to recruit a new generation of diplomats