Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Constitution

Why everyone is still wrong about timing for the referendum.

May 24

Posted by James in Constitution, Holyrood | 308 Comments

Jings!During the last Holyrood session, when the referendum was something the SNP could strive for without fear, the Yoonyonisht Conshpirashy (please do read that in Alex Neil’s voice) were consistently agin it, all apart from that glorious moment of Wendyism.

As some in Labour now acknowledge, the idea of Bringing It On might have been cack-handed in its implementation – OK, it was hand-deep in cack – but, the whispers go, it’s the only thing that could possibly have saved Labour in May, and possibly saved the Yoonyon when the time now comes, as come it will.

But Wendyism ceased to be, and Holyrood’s Yoonyonishts reverted to anti-referendumism. Odd, and I’d say ill-advised. The polls then were clear – those who were against having a referendum were those who would win it, while those (apparently) pushing for it were those who would lose. Surely everyone was wrong?

In that last session, bold moves to demonstrate the potency of an SNP administration, and by implication, the opportunities of an independent Scotland, could be scuppered by a Parliament on a knife-edge, a situation which gave a limited (but well-used) bully pulpit for Scotland’s theoretically weakest ever First Minister. A Tory government, that notorious recruiting sergeant for independence, was merely a worrying prospect back in 2008.

Once the SNP’s wafer-thin plurality became a substantial (by Holyrood standards) majority, everyone’s timing rhetoric shifted completely. The day before she resigned, for example, Annabel Goldie taunted Alex Salmond to “take a brave pill” and signed up to Wendyism. Her colleague Liz Smith even used the dread phrase itself. Alistair Darling belatedly followed suit – “why not hold it now?“. Nick Clegg, that political black spot incarnate, refused to rule out Westminster setting up their own Scottish independence referendum. I’m sure that would end well.

And yet, and yet, The Great Puddin’, despite his clear “We Are The Masters Now” moment of triumph, committed during the election to a 2015 or 2016 vote, and apparently remains so committed. At Holyrood, it matters not a jot what anyone else thinks. That’s his schedule, and a Presiding Officer drawn from SNP ranks will, on the schedule of Holyrood’s theoretically most powerful ever First Minister alone, consider the legitimacy of an SNP Bill before it goes to a Committee with an SNP majority, and then to a Chamber with an SNP majority.

On one level it’s hysterical. The holders of the anti-democratic position that we simply shouldn’t ever have a referendum all lost seats and votes, and then still thought it their place to try to dictate the schedule themselves during the aftermath while simultaneously falling over each other to resign first. Everyone deserves their view on the referendum, but surely the result tells anyone with ears that a vote will be held when the SNP alone decides to bring it on?

And yet surely everyone’s still wrong about timing?

If the SNP wants to win this referendum – and let us assume that almost all of them do – holding it at the fag end of Holyrood’s first No Excuses Session is a chronic mistake. There’s always a cost to governing, a price for each decision. Whether it’s right or wrong people will disagree with you. Some quick wins like minimum pricing for alcohol won’t take them very far.

By the end of the session the SNP will have indeed implemented a series of destructive cuts to public services. When the Sun endorsed a Salmond administration, it was in part because, to quote the paper itself, the SNP are “tackling the economic crisis head-on by cutting public spending faster than anywhere else in the UK“. That’s going to hurt.

Patrick got rubbished as ‘negative’ for pointing out that the SNP promises Scandinavian levels of public services with American levels of taxation. The choice has been made, though. Council Tax will be retained and frozen, and token supermarket levy aside, none of the various immediate options for additional revenue will be taken. We’re going to be in Kansas, not Copenhagen.

What’s more, SNP Ministers appear determined to stick to their vague and unconvincing formulation for the Question: that the people of Scotland be asked to approve the idea of opening negotiations with Westminster about independence. As Iain MacWhirter says, what kind of independence will it be? How will the people be consulted on what they want? Involved in a way the National Conversation never did, just like Calman never did? There are apparently no plans of that sort, although I’d like to be proved wrong. If what’s asked feels like a politicians’ bounce (like the AV vote or Australia’s republic referendum) it’ll be lost.

If the SNP thinks they can postpone the key decisions (currency, defence, a formal constitution for post-independence Scotland) until after the referendum, then the campaign will be all about uncertainty. A series of open goals will be presented for Jim Murphy or whoever fronts the No campaign. In favour of the monarchy? The SNP can’t guarantee that as Scotland’s long-term post-independence settlement. In favour of a republic? That’s not what’s on offer, chum. Think signing up to the Euro as it implodes might be a bad idea? That might be what the dastardly Nats want to do once you’ve signed their blank cheque.

A late term, vague referendum is the SNP’s plan, and I personally don’t have any confidence in it. If I were part of the Axis of Resignations I’d sit tight and nod and wait. Or if I was really devious I’d argue frantically for an early vote, in a kind of reverse Brer Rabbit approach. They’re surely not that smart though… are they?

Relying on the best electioneering machine Scotland has ever seen and the FM’s personal luck/strategic sense simply won’t be enough to turn the polls round for a late term campaign fought on these terms. The SNP has long been more popular than independence, but remember, the Yes vote will have to win a bigger share of the actual vote than the party did earlier this month. Re-running that same election won’t deliver a win. For one thing there are many who voted SNP (newspaper editors amongst them) who will be against. And many voted for other parties who will be for – not just Greens and Socialists either.

But there is an alternative. A moderately quick, clear, participative and ambitious process could deliver a win. Get on and deliver a couple of quick legislative successes at Holyrood (minimum pricing and ??). And set up a proper constitutional convention, with a steering group, to tour the country for nine months, meeting across the regions, taking in a plurality of views like the last one had.  It could include not just loyal supporters of independence but the open-minded too, and those for whom it’s not their first choice but who’d rather it works if it’s going to happen.

Ask the people what kind of new Scotland they want, what a better nation would look like. Involve them, make the process theirs, turn ideas over in public, and let meetings inspire debate and debates inspire more meetings. Work by consensus – devolution is actually more complicated a project than independence, and consensus worked before. Aim towards a vote in autumn 2012, long enough for due consideration but not so long that staleness creeps in.

Would the outcome be an up-and-down vote or a multi-option vote? I don’t know. Would the offer be a radically democratic Scotland, not beholden to inherited position, wealth or institutional inertia? A place with key freedoms built in and guaranteed by a written constitution? I hope so, and I’d go further – I’d take part to try and help shape it in that direction.

The polls currently ask people a daft question, a question they can’t answer with what we know already. What, exactly, are they saying yes or no to? Even the mighty Deputy First Minister doesn’t know what the answers are. Running an open and participative process instead would be brave, letting control slip from a majority government to the people, but I believe it’s the only way a referendum can be won, and the only way to build a new Scotland worth the effort.

The next step on Scotland’s journey

May 23

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Holyrood | 18 Comments

A guest post today from the newly-elected SNP MSP for Renfrewshire North & West, Derek Mackay.  Derek has been the SNP group leader in Renfrewshire Council since 2004 and became Council leader in 2007, a position he held until his election to the Scottish Parliament earlier this month.  Independence is the word on every political journalist’s radar at the moment, so Derek decided to blog on that for us.

Some UK commentators claim we are already preparing for the creation of our independent Scottish state – what will passports be like, will we keep the monarchy etc. etc.  Well there’s the small matter of a referendum to get through first!

I believed this would be a turning point in Scotland’s political history.  There are now more MSPs who believe in an independent Scotland in the Scottish Parliament than who do not.  The SNP won outright, and every Unionist party lost support.  I’m not delusional in thinking that the historic 2011 election result was a vote for independence outright (I wish!).  But it was a vote of confidence in a competent SNP Government, with a desire to put the question to the people.

Impressive as that 45% of the vote and majority of MSPs is, it doesn’t equate to a mandate on independence – only a plebiscite could deliver that now.  The election signals support for the referendum policy.  Positive has won over negative, opportunity has won over opportunism – and independence can triumph too.

A message I received from an ex-Labour voter sums it up nicely.  He backed the SNP for the first time in May 2011, and in his words thought we were “the best team on the field” and would now give us a few years to convince him of independence.

Many voters hadn’t decided how to cast their vote in the Scottish elections just weeks before the 2011 election, so nothing can be taken for granted on the independence referendum.  Unionists aren’t as confident of defeating independence as they claim to be, and no Unionist Westminster politician would dare trigger a referendum bill in Westminster.  They just aren’t 100% certain they can win.  The days of second-guessing the Scottish electorate (and First Minister Alex Salmond for that matter) are over.  What they do know is the Scottish electorate are sophisticated and unpredictable.  Labour surge one year, wipe-out the next!

But of course levels of party support aren’t an indication of views on independence.  Many voters of other parties are comfortable with the concept of Scottish independence.  Labour HQ must be well aware of the propensity of independence-friendly Labour voters out there.  Former Labour MSP Charlie Gordon gave us an insight into Labour’s current doubts on their constitutional position;

“Then there’s the independence referendum; can we please stop opposing Scotland’s democratic right to self-determination?  If we still advocate the Union, we had better find reasons for its retention that Scottish voters find credible.”

To fight UK ConDem cuts, to give Scotland the government she elects, to follow a social democratic path – Scottish Labour needs independence, and for that matter so do the Scottish Liberal Democrats.  But the Scottish heavyweights left in these two parties don’t sit in Edinburgh, but comfortably in the green benches in London, and for as long as Westminster dispatches the orders their Scottish sovereignty has no chance.  The London establishment has too much to lose from Scotland leaving the Union, so the forces against independence will be substantial and intense.

The SNP Government will choose the referendum timing.  Opponents say Salmond will choose the optimum timing to win – of course he will.  The Scottish Parliament will determine the question.  The people will determine the result.  Democracy at last!

So what if three of the four so-called mainstream Scottish parties are sticking to opposing independence – the AV referendum showed the electorate will pay no attention to party lines if they so choose.  The SNP will deliver the referendum, but it will be the man and woman on the street who deliver the result.

Civic society must be motivated by our argument, and 2011 showed the electorate want reasons to vote positively.  It will be about hearts and minds.  I believe hearts can be delivered by a positive message of hope and opportunity.  Minds – the constant “can we do it” question.  I can’t think of a country that opted for independence on financial grounds alone, but we cannot win without proving “yes, of course we can!”.

Financial and administrative positions will be the Unionists battleground of choice, with economists bamboozling us with statistics to engender doubt and fear.  Even though we’ve proven Scotland isn’t a subsidy junkie, showing we have contributed more to the UK than we take, the Scots fiscal confidence has been shaken with the international economic turbulence, but some ‘confidence builders’ are coming incrementally – increased competencies and accountability with the Scotland Bill.

Albeit limited, this is progress.  Not just because the parliament’s powers are enhanced, but because the mechanics of the state are gradually being transferred also.  The Scottish Parliament will have a new borrowing ability and greater tax raising powers, HM Revenue and civil service structures will have to change to execute these powers.

The UK Government say they are considering their response to the 2011 results.  Scotland Bill enhancements should be London’s response, and a new clause removing all doubt about the Scottish Parliament’s legitimacy to hold a referendum on independence would be an act of respect and good faith.

Whilst the pace of devolution is slow, at least the direction of travel is in Scotland’s favour.  We have passed the Rubicon, self-belief is rising, and the giant ‘leap’ to Independence is getting smaller by the day.

Derek Mackay MSP
Renfrewshire North & West

Scotland well placed to have casting vote in AV referendum

Apr 22

Posted by Jeff in Constitution, Elections | 22 Comments

One of my favourite cynical rebukes to the AV referendum is the charge that, if the referendum was to be held under AV, the winner could be ‘don’t care’ after both Yes and No were discarded in the necessary two run-off rounds.

Obviously this is not the case and, thanks to the First Past the Post nature of the contest, we will have a winner from this nastily contested debate in a few weeks time, irrespective of turnout.   

Many people will have already considered the possibility of Scotland delivering a resounding ‘Yes’ vote and south of the border returning a shrill ‘No’ vote, with Scotland edging out the latter in the overall result, but how likely is it that will actually happen based on recent polling? Well, somewhere close to ‘quite likely’ as it turns out. 

The recent Sunday Times poll has UK voteshare at Yes – 40.0% and No -41.5%. A tight win for the No to AV team. (This is admittedly not in keeping with the recent 16 point lead the No team recorded which, for me, appears to be rogue. Note that the Sunday Times poll that I am using had a sample size of 2,735 to this other poll’s 1,033)

The Scottish element of the Times poll is a believable Yes – 43%, No – 33% while rUK has a voteshare of Yes – 39.7%, No-42.3%.      

Now let’s say that Scots, largely already at the ballot box for the Holyrood elections, are three times as likely to vote in this referendum compared to the rest of the UK (mindful that there are some local elections and a Welsh assembly vote taking place). This would give a result of Yes-40.6%, No-40.2% (calculated by tripling the Scottish subsample size in the Sunday Times poll). 

A wafer-thin win for the Yes team then, handed directly to them by a bigger turnout in Scotland. 

It is difficult to fully comprehend the political carnage that would ensue from this “miserable little compromise” becoming law thanks to Scotland. A horrified right wing Tory group would direct fire towards Lib Dems and Scotland in equal measure, the SNP would struggle to turn down the opportunity to leverage the result to further the cause of independence and David Cameron would have to find a way to accept the result through gritted teeth. Away from Parliament, anti-Scots sentiment down here would reach a new high (low?), many perceiving that England now makes way for Scotland for democratic structure as well as financially. Will many of that Middle England, Daily Mail group decide enough is enough? We’re not all in this together and we cannot go on like this could be the rather ironic refrain. 

This is of course a contrived result from one individual poll but, if a cross-border difference in results were to happen, it would be the third time in as many years. 

In 2009, the Conservatives and UKIP won 59% of the English seats available to them in the European elections. In Scotland that figure was 16%. 

In 2010, the Conservatives won 56% of the available seats in England, in Scotland that figure was 1.7%.

And now, in 2011, Scotland once again has a markedly different take on the issue before us to that of England.  

How many times can Scotland vote one way and England another while still remaining part of the same country? ‘One more’ could be the answer, particularly if the SNP follows through on this week’s poll and is able to form a majority that can offer an independence referendum. 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, whether you believe in the not entirely separate objectives of true proportional representation or Scottish independence, voting Yes on May 5th is your best bet. 

Asking the People (Wales special)

Mar 3

Posted by Malc in Constitution, Governance | 10 Comments

Today is the day that Wales votes in their powers referendum.  To be clear, this isn’t a referendum to extend devolution or bestow more powers on the National Assembly for Wales.  They already have the opportunity to get the powers which will be delivered in the event of a Yes vote in today’s referendum – they were bestowed on the NAW by the Government of Wales Act (2006).

This is more about speed of delivery – rather than having to apply to Westminster for individual powers in each of 20 fields specified in the Act using a lengthy process known as Legislative Competence Orders (LCOs), a Yes vote would allow the NAW to take control of all 20 fields in one go, giving them the power to make more primary legislation than they are currently capable of.

Of course, this is kind of confusing.  How do you run a campaign asking people to vote for something you kind of already have but want a wee bit faster and more efficiently?  And how do you campaign against the powers by opposing the place becoming more efficient?

It has happened over the last 6 weeks,  but really since the announcement of the date of the referendum late last year.

Essentially, Yes for Wales has argued that the NAW could do its job better, and have more of an impact on individual people’s lives in Wales if there was a Yes vote.  It’d mean less hassle in trying to get the powers to pass legislation, more clarity in decision-making and, potentially, more distinctly Welsh policies, passed by the NAW for people in Wales.

True Wales, long opponents of devolution, argue that further powers for the NAW is not what is required, that the NAW itself is a waste of money and that devolution needs to be streamlined, with more focus on all-Wales and not some of Wales.  Essentially they think the NAW is a white elephant so they’ve been taking a large inflatable animal around the country to emphasise the point.  Except the animal is a giant pig… but it apparently makes the same point.

Anyway, most of this is part of what I’m studying, so I have a keen eye on what is going on in Wales today.

Just something I’d like to ask though, if I may.  Below is what will be appearing on ballot papers in Wales today.  The preamble is pretty long and, I’d argue, slightly confusing (but then, so is the LCO system, so I suppose that makes sense).

Welsh referendum Question 2011:

The National Assembly for Wales – what happens at the moment:

The Assembly has powers to make laws on 20 subject areas, such as agriculture, education, the environment, health, housing, local government.

In each subject area, the Assembly can make laws on some matters, but not others. To make laws on any of these other matters, the assembly must ask the UK Parliament for its agreement. The UK Parliament then decides each time whether or not the assembly can make these laws.

The Assembly cannot make laws on subject areas such as defence, tax or welfare benefits, whatever the result of this vote.

If most voters vote ‘yes’ – the Assembly will be able to make laws on all matters in the 20 subject areas it has powers for, without needing the UK Parliament’s agreement.

If most voters vote ‘no’ – what happens at the moment will continue.

Do you want the Assembly now to be able to make laws on all matters in the 20 subject areas it has powers for?

 

And I know that the Government of Wales Act (2006) made a referendum prior to the move to full law-making powers mandatory… but doesn’t it seem crazy to consult the public on the minutia and intricacies of law-making?  To be clear again – this isn’t really consulting them on constitutional change, since the powers have already been granted – its basically about asking whether they support efficient governance or not.

I hope the Welsh public – who in opinion polls, for what they are worth, have been backing a Yes vote by a margin of 2:1 – do go and vote Yes today.  A No vote would set back devolution in Wales a long way.

Davis and Straw versus ECHR (2011)

Feb 10

Posted by Malc in Constitution, Democracy, Europe, Westminster | 82 Comments

Westminster is getting its collective knickers in a knot today over the issue of prisoner voting rights.

On the one side we have the European Court of Human Rights which suggests (nae, demands!) that the UK comply with their view that denying prisoners a vote in UK elections – at all levels – represents a breach of their human rights.  Failure to comply will result in… well, I’m not sure, to be honest.  Apparently the prisoners can sue for compensation, though how you put a monetary value on the freedom to vote I don’t know.

Anyway, on the other side we have Tory MP David Davies leading the charge, ably supported by former Home Secretary Jack Straw, arguing that when prisoners break their contract with society by committing a crime and are subsequently incarcerated, they give up their right to vote for the duration of their stay at Her Majesty’s pleasure.  Further, they argue, that while prisoners are of course covered by the Convention on Human Rights, that only extends as far as being fed and treated with respect – it does not extend to their ability to determine the government of the day.  Finally, neither seems to think the UK Government should be held to ransom by the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that “democratically elected lawmakers” of a sovereign state should have more say over their electoral arrangements than unelected judges and law-interpreters.

The upshot of it, as far as I can gather, is that we have a motion in parliament on the issue, and that both government and opposition front benches have been instructed to abstain in the vote while backbenchers have a free vote, though the vote itself is non-binding on the government.  David Cameron and the Conservative element of the government have signalled their displeasure with the European Court’s decision, though suggest that the UK has no choice but to comply, while the Liberal Democrats are likely to be (though I haven’t seen this in print) more sympathetic to prisoners’ claims.

Wherever you stand on the issue of prisoner voting rights (and though I tend to be more of a “rehabilitation-ist” than a “punish-punish-punish” type, I agree with the PM – it makes me a little ill to think that a prisoner who has no respect for the rights of others when s/he murders/rapes/assaults/burgles another citizen should be allowed to vote) this case opens up a lot of constitutional questions which the UK and the European Union are not prepared for.

In particular, can the UK continue to defy the European Court of Human Rights?  If so, what are the sanctions for such defiance?  When the UK signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights did it cede so much sovereignty that it no longer has control over its own franchise?  What are the ramifications for UK Parliamentary democracy if it has to take direction from Europe on law and order?

Needless to say, I’m just asking the questions – I don’t have all (or indeed, any) of the answers.  Perhaps some of our legal-minded colleagues may shed some light?  Either way, I watch this process unfold and await the outcome with some interest.