Delusions and Deceit (A.K.A. the SNP's Independence Case)

Yes vs. No? People noting their support for keeping the Union for going independent. Image Credit: Brian McNeil via Wikimedia Commons cc

Scaremongering.

Fearmongering.

Talking Scotland Down.

     These were the emotive buzzwords and phrases used by separatist campaigners during the referendum last year as a defensive answer to the claims of pro-Union campaigners that Scotland would not be better off separated from the United Kingdom as an independent country.

     Time and time again, legitimate concerns over currency, central banking, public finances, defense, jobs, and the general economic outlook of an independent Scotland were breezily dismissed as trying to scare Scots into rejecting separation, and met with responses such as:

“Oh, you’re saying we’re too wee, too poor, too stupid?” (Thanks, John Swinney)

“You don’t believe we are capable of running our own country?”

“You would rather have [big, bad] Westminster decide our laws and take our oil, rather than us?” (Blood and soil nationalism?)

     Now to be honest, some claims about what would happen were a bit over-the-top, and it did not help when an insider from the official pro-Union campaign organization, Better Together, made an off-the-cuff quip about calling themselves “Project Fear.” This label stuck and was used as a means to discredit Better Together and any other entities, groups, and individuals in support of keeping the United Kingdom together.

     Arguments meant for highlighting the strengths of the UK overall as a country and in relation to Scotland were misconstrued to accuse those supporting the Union of having no faith in Scotland or not believing in Scotland “taking charge of its destiny”, as was illustrated by the white paper which was released in November 2013, and laid out the SNP’s case for independence. Entitled Scotland’s Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland, it was published by the Scottish Government (and paid for by the taxpayers), presented as the prospectus for an independent Scotland, and billed by then-First Minister Alex Salmond as the “most comprehensive blueprint for an independent country ever published.”

     If fact, it was more like an election manifesto with a wish list of political objectives, rather than a constitutional framework – promising a land of milk and honey built (to a great extent) on oil prices at $110+/barrel, and keeping the currency (and other assets) of what remained of the very country that would have been broken up with a vote for separation.

     The White Paper became a Bible for separatist campaigners and any efforts to question its assertions were met with derision, condescension, and accusations of lying and stoking fear. Even after voters saw through the dodgy claims and chose to maintain the Union, the charge that Scots were “too feart” and scared by Better Together, the BBC, the UK Government, J.K. Rowling, Barack Obama, and others has persisted as a means of shutting down debate and to nurse grievances, while also agitating for another referendum (which some of the more hard-line folks believe is just around the corner and that they will win it).

     Not so fast, says Alex Bell – former head of policy for the SNP and right-hand man of Alex Salmond. From 2010 through 2013, Bell was tasked with coming up with a plan for an independent Scotland and was therefore had a significant hand in the development of the White Paper, and by extension, the model for independence which was the basis on which the SNP and others campaigned, which garnered nearly 45% of the vote on Referendum Day.

     However, in a bombshell post this week on the website (appropriately named) Rattle.scot, Bell not only dismisses that model as “wishful” for the campaign last year, but declares it to be “broken beyond repair” and accuses the SNP leadership of being unable to find a way of “safely” achieving their foremost aim.

     He argued that all things being equal – and without regard for emotive rhetoric – the referendum for most people came down to how people felt about the short-to-medium term economic health of Scotland post-independence, with its effects on the ability of the government to spend and borrow. If people believed that Scotland could afford its way as an independent country and maintain current levels of public spending without resorting to taking on a lot of debt and/or substantially raising taxes, then they would at least be more receptive to the SNP’s vision.

     Indeed, the party’s modern success arguably started with the “It’s Scotland’s Oil” campaign in the 1970’s, and partly built on the idea that revenues from North Sea oil in British waters (mostly off the coast of Scotland) resulted in Scotland paying more into the UK Treasury than it got back. The reasoning therefore was that if Scotland kept the lion’s share of the revenues for itself as an independent country, it would rank as one of the wealthiest countries in the world in its own right and be able to maintain British levels of public spending.

     The problem, as so many people pointed out during the campaign, was that this was flawed logic because of the fact of there being a gap between revenue raised in Scotland and the amount of public spending in Scotland – with the gap being filled in via the block grant allocation that Scotland receives by virtue of being part of the United Kingdom. Not only that, but while Scotland may have contributed more per head than got back in part because of the oil, it also received more per head than the UK average in terms of public spending.

     For this reason alone, Bells says, the SNP’s model for independence was broken because it was not “possible to move from the UK to an independent Scotland and keep services at the same level, without either borrowing a lot more or raising taxes”, and if not those options, then services would have to be cut in order to bridge the gap. All of these options are unpalatable to the majority of voters and all come with costs associated with becoming independent.

     If it wanted to go down the borrowing route, an independent Scottish Government would face higher borrowing costs as a new state – making its anti-austerity agenda expensive by adding costly debt onto its already costly share of the UK’s debt.  But Scotland being part of a currency union – either using the pound or the euro – would limit its ability to borrow anyway, as would the creation of a new currency which “may not be trusted by lenders.” Without the capacity to borrow freely, taxes would have to go up, but then that may not be enough to cover the cost of becoming independent, and Bell pointed to the troubles with regard to the merger of Scotland’s eight regional police forces into a single one and implored readers to multiply this a hundred times over in order to get a sense of how much separation really costs.

     It was therefore ludicrous for the SNP to make all the promises it made to the people of Scotland in the White Paper and throughout the campaign because in there was no “thorough, independent understanding of those additional charges” of separation which would have affected the ability to deliver those promises after the fact. Such obstacles could be overcome, claims Bell, but he also remarked that it would be “stupid to deny they exist.”

     The problem was that the SNP and various other independence campaigners appeared to pretend that these obstacles did not exist, and instead went down the road of talking up the possibilities that would come with independence, without Westminster and the dastardly Tories getting in the way. In short, these concerns were "obscured by lots of noise, and the SNP is accomplished at shouting."

     But according to Bell, it appears that even the higher echelons of the SNP knew that their vision for Scotland did not add up. He claims that a paper – seen by few and probably destroyed – was written by civil service officials in 2012 presenting the idea of ‘independence in the UK’ and basically argued that “the SNP’s case – UK levels of spending, no tax increases, relatively high government borrowing but a stable economy – was more possible within the Union than without.”

     He went on to say that this future for Scotland now seems more likely, and that Finance Minister John Swinney – lest he be unfit for his job – should understand this especially in light of “declining oil revenues and a long period of low growth.” Whatever else the party may say from current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon on down, Bell warns that the brute reality is that:

“The idea that you could have a Scotland with high public spending, low taxes, a stable economy and reasonable government debt was wishful a year ago – now it is deluded.”

     This was particularly devastating, and combined with the other revelations and unvarnished views, they are akin to a semi-Road to Damascus moment for a person so intimately involved in the process of drafting the document used to argue the official line on why Scotland should be independent. It's as though he no longer believes in it (and judging from his post, you wonder if he believed in it all), and for those who had expressed the same shortcomings, this is an act if validation, for they knew the claims and sums did not add up. Based on the most optimistic of assumptions, the White Paper presented a case for separation which rested on flimsy grounds and constituted an act of deceit and political malpractice, which would have had adverse consequences if separation has won out, especially on the working classes.

     Indeed, Bell's statements could have been lifted right from similar statements made by Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown, Ruth Davidson, and almost any pro-Union campaigners who saw the White Paper for what it was: a manifesto of pledges which the SNP could not deliver on upon independence. The collapse in oil prices alone have shown that SNP could not promise their vision of independence based on prices at $110+/barrel any more than Labour could promise that it would form the next UK Government following the general election this year.

     The Bell revelations show how false the SNP’s prospectus was, how close Scotland – indeed all of Britain – came to the brink, and how the people were right to keep the Union together.

     Unfortunately, the time during which this revelation would have inflicted serious political damage has passed and likely will not cause as much as a dent in the SNP’s poll numbers. The party has become so dominant, that it seems almost blasphemy to question the conventional wisdom that they will win an unprecedented third term in government and another majority at Holyrood.

     However, this sense of inevitability breeds arrogance and complacency, and nowhere was this shown more blatantly than SNP MP Pete Wishart (referred to by the Daily Record as “everyone’s favourite whiner”) who wrote in his personal blog about pro-Union parties criticizing his party for its record on health, education, and policing going into the Scottish Parliament election next year.

     According to the MP for Perth and North Perthshire, this strategy of focusing on public services and the SNP’s stewardship of them will not work, because “they have not counted on the real experience of real Scots and their trust in us to manage the services they enjoy.” He further cited a poll which showed that only fewer than 30% of Scots viewed the Scottish Government’s management on education, the economy, and health as “bad” while more people believed its management was “good” in those areas. Only in policing were there more people who thought that the government was doing badly, but then, not by much.

     Furthermore, not only did Scots apparently think so favorably of his party, but he also dismissed the notion that the other parties could offer up an credible alternative plan for government that the people would vote for. Not only this, but the poll also showed that 62% of Scots were planning on voting for the SNP next year, with Labour and the Conservatives in the teens and twenties, and the Liberal Democrats at single digits. From this vantage point, Wishart accuses them of  “talking down” Scotland’s public services in a “forlorn and ultimately self-defeating” bid to attack the SNP’s record on those services and recover themselves north of the Tweed.

     Reading this, you would be forgiven to believe that Wishart is laughing at the notion that his party’s record in government should ever be questioned, as though it is iron-clad and impervious to scrutiny. The people trust us, he says, and the unionists have nothing to use against us; no matter how much they (or anybody else) points out our shortcomings, they are headed to defeat. Bring it on, #HR2016.

     First Minister Sturgeon herself got into this sort of behavior in a big way during a recent exchange at First Minister’s Question’s at Holyrood, where she raged with indignation against Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale for having the audacity to make criticisms of the SNP’s handling of public services, saying (with probably a flair for the dramatic):

“It’s her miserable approach that denies anything good about this country that sees her and her party languishing.”

     Indeed, when they aren’t accusing others of “talking Scotland down”, SNP politicians and activists (especially on Twitter) deflect legitimate criticism of their party and its record by gleefully point out that they are topping the polls, with very little chance for the pro-Union parties – Labour in particular – to catch up to at least a respectable position. They bleat on about how they’re going to win next year, and how there’s nothing to be done about it.

     Again, it cannot be denied that the SNP is currently riding high in the polls, but is it possible that the SNP is “maxing out” its vote? On average for the past few months, it has been in the mid-to-upper 50’s in the constituency vote, while it sits around the high 40’s and low 50’s in the regional list (proportional) vote, and has not gone much higher. If there is no more room to grow and we have reached “peak SNP”, then the likely only one direction from here, and it isn’t up.

     So, the SNP is going more to hold its broad church coalition, so says Alex Massie, who argues that punting decisions on though issues such as fracking beyond the election is about keeping the current converts happy. In similar fashion, “the Scottish government’s ban on the cultivation of GM crops was taken on the basis of political expediency rather than scientific credibility.” In addition, Sturgeon is apparently mulling over whether to support airstrikes against Daesh (which is something that has the potential to divide the party).

     The problem of course is that so often, the party interest is placed above the public interest (and/or common sense), and if this continues, it will contribute to what Massie refers to as the “market correction” that cannot be forever delayed – especially if independence is not forthcoming. Indeed, stripped away of its constitutional obsessions, the SNP would be judged solely by its record of eight years (rather than on airy visions of independence in the distant future or the fights it likes picking with big, bad Westminster).

     In this light, Massie points out that the style-over-substance SNP does have questions to answer with regard to its “ministerial priorities” on education – where poor children still perform below standard, on policing – where the operational issues and breakdowns of Police Scotland have been noted, and on health – where spending in Scotland has barely increased compared to England. On all of these issues, for every positive light the SNP likes to show, there more than a few gray areas and dark corners.

     In fact, that poll which Pete Wishart cited in his blog post was a TNS poll from August, and while it is true that it showed less than 30% of Scots giving the (SNP) Scottish Government bad ratings on each of the four issues presented, it also showed that only a quarter to a third of Scots rated it good on those issues: crime and justice (23%), the economy (25%), education (30%), and the health (34%). In fact, the biggest number of respondents said that the government was managing those issues neither good or bad, which means that despite the high ratings for the SNP, voters were less than enthusiastic about its performance.

     What these numbers likely show is that the voters may be giving the SNP in the benefit of the doubt, particularly in the absence of what they believe to be a credible alternative to the SNP. On top of that – as Fraser Whyte points out in his blog – were the number of undecided voters, all of which means that the SNP will be vulnerable if another party does offer a credible alternative, and while that appears to be in the offing and while there are some voters probably not even tuned in to other parties, this can always change. The past year or so in British (and American) politics have shown that what is perceived to be conventional wisdom can turn on a dime within a relatively short period. If it isn’t careful, the SNP may well be seen as the establishment party that has been in government for too long (and stoking up constitutional grievances), and must be replaced by another party offering better options.

     This brings us back to Alex Bell’s stinging criticism, which included the charge that the SNP was becoming less a party of independence and more like the “Scotland party” in the United Kingdom, “while pretending it is still fighting for independence to keep the party together.” The post-referendum debate on independence, he argues, has “gone deathly quiet” as the SNP has co-opted many of the various other forces that fought for independence – though not under the SNP banner and not in accordance to the SNP’s vision of independence – and whipped them into toeing the party line. In doing this to regain control of its raison d’être, the SNP snapped up almost every Scottish seat in the UK House of Commons last May, but also effectively choked off internal debate about independence and the range of possibilities that may come with it.

     On top of this, the Scottish Government itself “makes a virtue of saying it is putting no effort into researching independence” – with the SNP resisting things it once wanted, such as an “independent economic forecasting unit” and academic institutions looking into the tax base. Indeed, this is seen with the SNP’s attitude toward an independent study into the full fiscal autonomy (FFA), as well as its less-than-enthused release of this year’s oil bulletin (which was something it was all too often glad to do when oil prices were much higher).

     This, argues Bell, shows a party that is “incompetent on its core policy” and admitting failure while being rewarded for it. Without “facts and planning” for separation, the cause will not move forward because the “SNP’s ill-prepared version of independence does not plausibly offer any real alternative” and the party fears internal ruptures may result from facts that become known about what separation may entail, because for some people, it may well be that such facts may lead them to diverge from the SNP’s stated vision or abandon the cause altogether.

     The result is that for all the hype about a Scotland that has been changed forever, the reality is that it is “back in the past, dominated by one party, bereft of intelligent debate, doing quiet deals to get by – in short, back to normal.” The party of independence now cares more for its existence than the issue it has run on for over eight decades, and without a credible alternative which features independence as the solution, it may well end up “ultimately settling for a better deal than before” within the UK.

     Going forward, this means that an increasingly less-risky SNP may well look back on 2014 as the “sweet spot” year for their separatist campaign – the period when their claims for independence were as aligned as much as possible with the realities on the ground. Without a new model, it is left trying to wait on a convincing shift in opinion polls which may never come, defending the claims of the old model, and finding itself at the mercy of voters for how it performs on those all-important health, policing, and education issues.

     This isn’t to say that the concept of independence will die, but the deceit and delusions revealed within the White Paper and the SNP's rhetoric via Alex Bell's confessional are unforgivable, and give people reason to pause. If they don’t believe separation is a realistic alternative or does not excite much interest, they may go down the road of the Quebecers in Canada and eventually chuck out the party that wants separation. Charges of scaremongering and the like may not work so well in the future.

     Hope over fear, yes, but also honesty before deceit, especially on a matter such as this.

UPDATE: The latest poll from Ipsos-Mori (taken November 9th-16th) has shown a significant decline in SNP support and a rise for the Tories compared to its last poll, as well as the aforementioned TNS poll. It would still mean that the SNP would end up with 72 seats next year, followed up by Labour's 25, the Tories' 17, the LibDems at seven, and the Greens with eight. It's only one poll, so caveats apply for the fact that it may be an outlier. However, it may show that the upcoming election may not be so inevitable.

A Vow Fulfilled; Time to Move Forward

With the passage of the Scotland Bill, the Scottish Parliament is set to become a very powerful institution within the constitutional structure of Britain. Image Credit: Kim Traynor via Wikimedia Commons CC

     Two days before Scotland voted on whether to secede from the United Kingdom, the Daily Record published as its headline “THE VOW”. In it was a statement jointly signed by the three main UK political party leaders at the time – Prime Minister David Cameron (Conservative), Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrats), and Opposition Leader Ed Miliband (Labour) – which committed them to legislating for “extensive new powers” for the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood if the people of Scotland voted to remain part of the Union.

     This promise – brought on by the newspaper, and brokered by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Scottish Labour – also guaranteed that the Scottish Parliament would become a permanent fixture the British constitution, and stated “categorically” that with the continuation of the Barnett Formula and “powers of the Scottish Parliament to raise revenue”, Holyrood would have the “final say on how much would be spent on the [National Health Service]” in Scotland.

     Two days later, the people voted decisively to reject separation and to keep the United Kingdom together. Since then, the “Vow” has gained an almost mythic status – as though it was our generation’s equivalent of Magna Carta (whose 700th anniversary was celebrated this year), the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Arbroath – because of the belief that it was that declaration “wot won it” for the pro-Union campaign. After all, the opinion polls, which had the pro-Union vote with healthy leads for most of two-and-a-half year long campaign, had begun to markedly narrow in August and culminated with the Sunday Times/YouGov poll which showed the pro-independence vote (barely) ahead for the first time on September 7th.

     For many Nationalists, the Vow was nothing more than a gimmick which revealed the desperation of the pro-Union campaign in the waning days of the referendum to turn the numbers around (especially among undecided voters) and win on September 18th.

     In my opinion, the Vow itself was really a singular restatement of previous pledges made over the course of the campaign that Scotland could have the best of both worlds: a strengthened Scottish Parliament with the ability to make more decisions on behalf of the Scottish people, but within safety and stability of the United Kingdom – hence the Vow’s declaration that voting to retain the Union would “deliver faster, safer, and better change than separation.”

     However, the reality is that after September 7th, the polls either had a tie or a pro-Union lead before announcement of the Vow, and analytical research and surveys since the referendum have shown that the Vow had little to no effect on the final outcome.

     Nevertheless, a vow is a vow, and upon the outcome of the vote, David Cameron appointed a commission led by Lord Smith of Kelvin to negotiate the devolution of more powers among the five political parties of Scotland – Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, and the SNP. What emerged was an agreement signed off by all of the parties which became the basis for the current Scotland Bill, which at the UK Parliament at Westminster, completed its final passage in the House of Commons this past Monday, and heads to the House of Lords for further scrutiny.

     Its main provisions include the ability of Holyrood to set income tax rates and bands from April 2017, keep half of the taxes generated through VAT in Scotland, and have control over Air Passenger Duty (aka, the "tourism tax"). Holyrood will also have enhanced authority over welfare, such as control over Disability Living Allowance and elements of Employment Support and Universal Credit. It will have the ability to top-up existing benefits (including tax credits which may be cut by the UK Government) as well as to create new ones. Through these powers, the welfare system in Scotland can be changed and Holyrood will have the ability to tax accordingly in order to pay for such changes here, or in other areas that have been devolved.

     In addition, management of most of the Crown Estate in Scotland will be handed over to Holyrood. It will have increased borrowing powers to fund large capital projects, legislative control over onshore oil and gas extraction, and – more controversially – abortion law. Furthermore, the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government will be recognized as permanent features of the UK’s constitutional structure, with provisions for them to be abolished only through a referendum.

     Taken together with the powers it currently has and the powers already to be phased-in next year from the 2012 Scotland Act, Holyrood will become quite powerful – indeed, one of the most powerful sub-central parliaments in the world, with the ability to decide on policy matters which will affect the day-to-day lives of ordinary Scots.

     The tax powers alone are no joke, and the BBC has calculated that with the devolution of the aforementioned taxes combined with the other taxes Holyrood controls (or will soon control), revenues will stand at £19.3 billion, which represents nearly 60% of the 2012-2013 Scottish budget (which is the latest fiscal year for which there is a known outturn). Even with the 2015-2016 draft budget standing at £37.4 billion, this amount of revenue raised by Holyrood would still amount to a majority (51%) of that budget.

     Earlier this year in the UK Government’s command paper on implementing the Smith Agreement noted the extent to which sub-central governments within OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries like the UK have responsibility for spending and taxation:

“the tax and spending powers of sub central governments varies considerably across OECD countries. The OECD average for sub-central government responsibilities is c30 per cent of spending and c20 per cent of tax, but this ranges from below 10 per cent to above 50 per cent.2 As a result of the Smith Commission Agreement, the Scottish Parliament will control around 60 per cent of spending in Scotland and retain around 40 per cent of Scottish tax. This will therefore make the Scottish Government one of the most powerful sub-central governments in the OECD, just behind the Canadian provinces and Swiss cantons. Importantly, it will therefore give the Scottish Government substantial choices in relation to levels of tax and spending in Scotland.”

     Of course, the how much is actually raised in tax and how much is spent will now be largely be determined by the party that controls Holyrood, which for the foreseeable future is the SNP.

     But the SNP, which once dismissed the Vow as a last-minute gimmick, now complains that it has not been fulfilled via the Scotland Bill. Indeed, it has been complaining from day one, and basically set up the Smith Commission for failure by demanding full fiscal autonomy (aka devo-max) for Holyrood, which would have resulted in independence-in-all-but-name and a serious financial cost for Scotland. It signed off on the Smith Agreement, but kept on whining about how it did not go far enough with more powers.

     This attitude kept on going all the way through to final passage on Monday night, where their 55 MP’s in the House of Commons not only moaned about the bill itself, but the process under which it was passed – saying that the six hours allotted for debating the bill and its amendments was too little time. On Twitter, their supporters complained about the lack of MP’s in the chamber (though as Iain Martin said on CapX, “imagine the SNP’s anger if English Tories had turned up in huge numbers to debate”), and there was more complaining about the traditional voting methods at Westminster.

     They griped about their amendments being shot down, including ones to devolve control over tax credits to Holyrood, as well as to give it the sole authority to call a future referendum on separation. Interestingly however, the party failed to call a vote on their own amendment for full fiscal autonomy.

     In all, over 200 amendments were lodged, including 80 by the government for the purpose of clarifying and strengthening the bill to allay concerns. But Pete Wishart angrily stood before the House to claim that the whole process had shown “gross disrespect” to the debate over Scotland’s future and felt as though the country had been given an “almighty slap in the face and told to just get on with it.” In response, Scottish Secretary David Mundell said that Wishart was “always angry at something”.

     He further noted that Wishart pulled “this sort of stunt” every time the bill was being discussed, but asserted that his anger was not directed him or the House of Commons, but “directed at the people of Scotland because they voted decisively remain part of the United Kingdom, and that is something he just cannot accept.”

     Indeed, it sometimes feels as though the SNP has not accepted the results from last year – with them keeping the independence conversation alive and changing their tune from the referendum being a once in a generation (or lifetime) event, to discussing the possibility of having another one in a vastly shorter time span. Even with the Scotland Bill, some members of party have banged on about Westminster “betrayal” for it not going far enough and believing that there should be another referendum soon.

     All this before actually getting on with the new powers and seeing what Holyrood can do with those powers for Scotland within the United Kingdom, which is what the people expect.

     David Cameron and David Mundell have expressed their belief that the Vow has been fulfilled. So has Labour’s Shadow Scottish Secretary Ian Murray, who said that “significant tax powers mean that new choices will be available to the Scottish government and new welfare powers provide the opportunity to create a social security system fit for the needs of [Scotland].”

     At the end of this week, Lord Smith of Kelvin added his voice as being in agreement that the Scotland Bill “honoured what the five parties agreed” and also declared that his commission’s recommendations on welfare powers had been “delivered in full.” Writing for the Daily Record, Lord Smith expressed praise for the politicians who were on the commission and came to an agreement, which had gone farther than some wanted, and not far enough for others. Nevertheless they reached a deal and got on with the task of putting it into effect – something he hailed as a “significant achievement” in terms of going through the political processes, which he said “was never going to be easy” given the politics and the complexities of the law.

     Gordon Brown has given his endorsement of the bill as having delivered the Vow, and the Daily Record – which published the Vow and has campaigned on its behalf – is in agreement that with the Scotland Bill due to the Vow, “the powers of future Scottish governments will be greatly enhanced”, while criticizing the SNP for their constant moaning, complaining, and “behaving like they have been handed a soiled nappy” as opposed to celebrating the arrival of the new powers.

     Meanwhile, Stephen Daisley of STV has noted that he was skeptical of the Vow, but now concedes that the Scotland Bill “makes good” on the promise of “substantial new powers” for Holyrood – a “fact no Nationalist demagogue can inveigh away.” He also took aim at the SNP for using the Vow as a means to stoke anger and peddle grievance – quipping that “if Westminster found a cure for the common cold, they would complain it was putting hard-working Scottish pharmacists out of business.”

     However, Daisley agreed with Nationalist claims that the Vow failed to deliver on “home rule” for Scotland. This is perhaps one of the more contentious issues concerning the shaping of the new devolution settlement, for while the Vow said nothing about home rule and was “cautiously worded”, Gordon Brown did mention it in his last minute interventions as the campaign came to a close.

     Daisley points out that Brown was seen as “the savior of the UK” because of the respect that he commanded as a Labour “big beast” amongst the sort of left-leaning voters thought to be wavering on whether to vote for the Union or independence – people who would listen to him when they would not listen to David Cameron, or even Alistair Darling or Ed Miliband. So when the former prime minister unleashed his soaring oratory in a speech on the eve of the referendum, he was celebrated by pro-Union activists of all persuasions – not least for its colorful references to the virtues of British solidarity and the UK’s historic achievements, which depended on the participation (and in many cases, sacrifice) of people from throughout the UK regardless of the home nation from which they came.

     However, Brown also said – either in that speech, or in the days preceding – that Scotland could expect "nothing less than a modern form of Scottish Home Rule”, something "quite close to something near to federalism” if it voted to maintain the Union and reject separation. Driving the point home, he further stated that “the United Kingdom will move as close to federalism as we can go in a country where one nation accounts for 80% of the population.”

     These commitments, claims Daisley, were “more heartfelt oath” than the Vow, and have not been honored by the pro-Union parties. He mentioned some of the powers still reserved at the UK level: industrial relations, broadcasting, the minimum wage, the rail network, equalities legislation, “full oversight of the Crown Estate”, and the ability to administer tax credits (and not just to top them up). Therefore, he says, the Nationalists are not engaging in political spin when they say the Scotland Bill falls short of their expectations for federalism/home rule, and the failure to implement this means that the pro-Union cause is now “constitutionally barren”, with only economics and sentiment to carry it through another vote (which, in his view, may not be enough).

     However, if this sounds like a whiff of Westminster “betrayal”, it is important to understand that there were two parts to the Vow and the Gordon Brown’s home rule/federalism statements.

     With regard to the Vow, it did indeed make a promise for “extensive new powers” for Holyrood, that Holyrood would have the final say over the Scottish NHS, and that Holyrood would be permanent, which is the part the SNP like to quote so often. However, it also said that “the UK exists to ensure opportunity and security for all by sharing our resources…to secure the defence, prosperity, and welfare of every citizen”, and partly to this end, the Vow called for “the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources.” There was also a line about these “principles and values” underpinning the UK’s “future as a country.” In the extended clauses of the Vow, Guarantee Two states in part that:

“the modern purpose of the Union is to ensure opportunity and security by pooling and sharing our resources equitably for our defence, prosperity and the social and economic welfare of every citizen, including through UK pensions and UK funding of healthcare.”

     In other words, part of the Vow was about stating that with further devolution, Scotland would still be very much part of the United Kingdom and therefore still be part of the UK’s system of pooling and sharing for the benefit people not just in Scotland, but throughout the UK as a whole – something that may have been difficult to achieve with what the Nationalists wanted short of independence, which was devo-max/full fiscal autonomy (the implications of which are helpfully explained here by businessman and blogger Kevin Hague).

     This leads to Gordon Brown’s dramatic interventions late in the campaign, for while he did make statements about achieving home rule and federalism, it is also clear that there were limits. Why else would have said “near to federalism” or that the UK would move as “close to federalism as we can go in a country where one nation accounts for 80% of the population”? Was it because he was determined to keep Scotland in “its place”, or more likely because he knew – as a former chancellor and prime minister – that there is a point at which devolution to one part of the UK makes the country as a whole ineffective, ungovernable, and constitutionally unstable to the detriment of everyone, including Scots?

     Is it possible that we have gotten to that point – where devolution can be had without emasculating the Union and the pooling and sharing benefits of being part of a larger country? Yes, I know “pooling and sharing” is becoming a cliche and may ring hollow for some people, but that was a key reason for keeping the United Kingdom together – more so than the “Vow” because of economic pragmatism, as well as the safety and stability of the Union. The new settlement is an attempt to preserve that stability while also making the Union more flexible with further devolution and the ability for Holyrood to make more decisions for Scotland.

     It may well be true, as Daisley wrote, that some politicians “were dragged kicking and screaming by the Record and its editor Murray Foote” in their resistance to parting with the powers they eventually devolved, but it is not as though they were hell-bent on greedily keeping those powers only for themselves, and away from Scots. They, along with many Scots, may have been concerned that going too far would have had adverse effects for Scottish representation in the House of Commons (especially without a solution for the West Lothian Question). There was probably also a fear that the further devolution of power would hollow out the UK by eroding the critical fiscal and political bonds that keep the country together.

     In this light, it is important to note that former Prime Minister Brown spoke of a “stronger Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom” (not half-way in), and that the total sum of the guarantee’s made by the pro-Union parties paved the way to a future with “a great Scotland as a driving, successful and vibrant nation playing its full part in Great Britain.”

     This, I believe, was as much of a heartfelt declaration as those statements relating to more powers. They speak to the pragmatic belief that the benefits of staying in the UK outweigh the costs, and that Scotland can (as it always has) play a significant role in shaping it. In short, it appears that Gordon Brown believes that Holyrood should be more powerful within the UK and that the UK should be able to work as a country for all of its constituent parts.

     This situation is probably better explained in section 2.1.1 of the command paper, which stated:

“The United Kingdom (UK) has a strong and successful economy because currency and monetary policy, taxation, spending and financial stability policies are coordinated across the UK. If one part of the UK faces an economic challenge – from a fall in tax revenues, pressure on public services or a temporary increase in unemployment – the impact and the cost is shared across all parts of the UK. This is achieved by the UK Government pooling and redistributing tax revenues across the UK to ensure sustainable and secure levels of spending on public services. The implementation of the Smith Commission Agreement, including an updated fiscal framework, must therefore underpin Scotland’s devolution settlement while retaining the existing benefits of the UK.”

     On this last point about an updated fiscal framework, Lord Smith has said that this is the “final interlocking piece of the jigsaw” of the agreement reached by the parties last year. With the ability of Holyrood to set several taxes in a few years, the new fiscal agreement needs to take that into account so that it can be fair for Scotland and the rest of the UK. Negotiations are ongoing, and Lord Smith expects that a framework will be agreed to, for it underpins Scotland’s finances, and therefore is vital for everything else to work, including the use of the new powers.

     Aside from these matters - which may not be settled until early next year - he wrote that the “question now turns to how Scotland’s parties choose to use these powers.” On this point, the pro-Union parties need to begin a massive information campaign to educate the people on what is going to be devolved and how they are looking forward to using those powers for the benefit of the people of Scotland - with an emphasis on moving away from the SNP's constitutional/separatist obsessions, and explaining how they intend to do a better job on bread-and-butter issues such as health, education, and policing than the SNP.

     Indeed, if the SNP's real gripe has been that the British constitution does not work in the interest in Scotland, then after going through all this constitutional rearranging, it should at least try out the new powers that are coming its way and see the results.

     But of course, it cannot do that, because using those new powers may demonstrate that the constitutional arrangements work and therefore deprive them of grievances with which to pick fights with big, bad (evil) Westminster. It may also demonstrate the challenges of having to make tough decisions in the face of economic reality, such as deciding the level of income tax and deciding between winners and losers, which inevitably happens and causes governing parties to lose popularity (i.e,. the reason they moan about “fiscal traps”). Of course, it will be daft to assume that Westminster-Holyrood rows will cease, but as the Daily Record's Torcuil Crichton noted in his break-down of the Scotland Bill, "having responsibility for making difficult tax decisions could change how voters choose their MSPs at Holyrood."

     Either way, it distracts from the independence cause, and the griping shows that the SNP has no interest in making the UK work in some form or fashion. The only, overriding thing that matters is separation, and they need the grievance narrative – the sense of Scotland being treated badly because well...its Scotland – in order to carry that ambition forward, which is why the SNP cannot really be a party of government because its focused on complaining about what powers it does not have, rather than getting on with the powers it already has, and will soon have.

     In this sense, the SNP is not "stronger for Scotland" so much as it is stronger for itself and for the separatist movement, which are not the same as Scotland, and as Iain Martin explains, it may become “apparent to reasonable people that complaining about powers always was cover, created by a party elite obsessed with breaking up the UK.”

     For that matter, “more powers for Scotland” is a bit of a misnomer in my opinion, because Scotland has exercised powers over taxation, welfare, health, and other areas in conjunction with the rest of the UK. The powers were exercised at the UK level and decided upon by politicians representing the people of the UK as a whole for the UK as a whole. The only difference in relation to Scotland is that instead of these matters being decided by and for the UK as a whole at Westminster, they will now be decided by and for Scotland alone at Holyrood.

     In other words, power is not being transferred to Scotland or the Scottish people (who have had these powers anyway with the rest of the UK) so much as it is being transferred from one central authority (Westminster) to another central authority (Holyrood). If anything, as Lord Smith said, there needs to be “improved parliamentary oversight in the Scottish Parliament” and an effort to “make sure decisions are properly scrutinised.”

     Going forward, if the UK is moving in the direction of federalism, there must still be a central authority which is still responsible for governing the UK as a whole. Under such a system, there will be some exclusive responsibilities for a federal UK government, exclusive responsibilities for the sub-central administrations, and shared responsibilities between each level of government.

     With the passage of the Scotland Bill and it becoming an Act of Parliament upon receiving Royal Assent, some shared responsibilities will be born out in the arena of welfare, where the SNP complained that ministers at the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) could “veto” changes to benefits that Scottish ministers want, despite Holyrood being given £2.5 billion worth of new welfare powers. But, as was said in the Record, DWP ministers in Whitehall “explained that under a joint system, with benefits still administered by the DWP, the agreement of both governments would be needed for practical reasons.” Among the 80 amendments made to the bill on Monday were ones designed to ensure that language regarding the two governments working together were not construed as a “veto” against Holyrood setting policy.

     The Bill also gives Holyrood a formal consultative role in reserved matters such as broadcasting (including the BBC), telecommunications, postal affairs, and energy regulation. In foreign affairs, Scottish ministers will be able to speak on behalf of the UK in EU discussions on issues like fishing and work in conjunction with UK ministers on the UK’s position in such matters. Furthermore, the Bill itself has to be given legislative consent by Holyrood, and on this point, the SNP have indicated that they may refuse consent if Holyrood "loses out financially from the budget settlement" via the updated fiscal framework. With so much riding on the line however, it is in the best interest for everyone to come to an agreement on this.

     Indeed, Lord Smith commented in his Daily Record article that there must be “a continuation of efforts to improve the relationship between the Scottish and UK Governments”, for the constitutional settlement depends on the two working well in everyone’s best interest. This is similar to the interaction between the federal government and state governments in the United States, and may mark another point on the UK’s road to federalism.

     However at this point, with the Vow having been fulfilled (and for further perspective on it, please read this piece by Fraser Whyte), any further devolution and/or constitutional change really needs to be done a UK national basis. The constitution may well continue to evolve as it always has, but needs to be done in a more coordinated fashion, such as at a constitutional convention, where the interests of the UK as a whole and its constituent parts can be well-considered. Perhaps this can lead to a written constitution or at least something more durable, comprehensive, and lasting than the current set of ad hoc and piecemeal arrangements, which include the controversial EVEL (which I have written about here and here) and devolution to English cities and regions.

     In 1787, few (if any) of the signers of the US Constitution were satisfied with the document they signed, and their feelings toward it were probably best summed up by Benjamin Franklin when he said: "I consent to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure it is not the best."

     As it was, they went on to make the Constitution work, and over 200 years later, we the American people have strived to make the Constitution work for all us. It is in many ways, still an imperfect document, but nonetheless still aims to create a more perfect Union, while standing the test of time as the backbone of American governance and the guarantor of our democracy.

     In Britain, though more changes may be in store down the line, the British people – whoever they are and wherever they live – should at least try to make their constitutional arrangements work, and focus on achieving better things for the greater good.

Fit for Government or Grievance?

NIcola Sturgeon has gotten by on sheer personal popularity and shaking her fist at Westminster, but How Long Can That LAST? Image Credit: Ninian Reid via Flickr cc

     Throughout much of its history, the SNP has made much use of grievance politics – claiming that Scotland is held back by being in the UK, and in particular, by the UK Parliament at Westminster. Even after devolution and being in government, the party has continued down this path of blaming big, bad Westminster for Scotland’s problems, and using this as a reason for Scotland to secede from the UK.

     Trumped-up and manufactured grievances were a big part of their campaign to break up Britain last year, and though they failed, they have continued to use this tactic to stoke resentment against the Union and the political parties that support it. This resulted in their electoral landslide at the UK general election, and without fail, they intend on doing it again going into the election next year for the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, where they are expected to win another outright majority and an unprecedented third term.

     However, grievances take can take you only but so far in anything, let alone politics, and especially when responsibilities lay at your feet and people demand to know what you are going to do, with an expectation that real action will be taken.

     For the SNP, this has become increasingly true as Holyrood gets beefed up with extensive new powers under the Scotland Bill going through its final legislative stages at Westminster, and in the course of this week, the party – having been in government for eight years – showed signs of being a bit off message with regard to tax credits.

     The main issue at hand was whether the new devolved powers contained within the Scotland Bill would allow Holyood to top-up tax credits in Scotland following them being cut throughout the UK under proposals by Chancellor George Osborne, which ran into a stumbling block last week in the House of Lords.

     Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale announced at her party’s conference last weekend that if elected into government, she would use new Holyrood powers over taxation to retain the current rates paid by top earners (and not going along with planned tax cuts by the Conservatives at Westminster), as well as keep (soon-to-be devolved) air passenger duty as is and not going along with SNP proposals to cut and eventually abolish it in Scotland. Together, these proposals are expected to free up £355 million to restore the tax credits.

     But the SNP’s Social Justice Secretary Alex Neil claimed that Holyrood would not be able to restore the tax credits    and on that basis, the SNP MSP’s voted to reject a Labour motion to have them restored, and instead pushed through a motion that claimed that Holyrood would not have the power to reverse the tax credits unless they were devolved.

  However, the Scottish Parliament's own information service (SPICE) states that with devolution through the Scotland Bill, the Scottish Government will be able to "provide a permanent top-up to a reserved benefit" such as Working Tax Credits. This means that even though tax credits are a reserved policy with the UK Government, the Scottish Government can use devolved powers to restore any tax credits lost to Scottish residents if they are cut by UK Government.

     This had already been confirmed by Scottish Secretary David Mundell, and after repeated statements by the Scottish Government that it could not top up credits - including a press release by Alex Neil just hours earlier to that effect and demanding that credits be devolved - Neil admitted that the government could indeed do so during a rancorous debate at Holyrood.

     In a further sign of the SNP's confusion on the issue, this was the same rancorous debate at which SNP MSP's rejected Labour's motion to restore the credits and claimed that the Scottish Government could do nothing about the issue.

     Speaking on this rather embarrassing U-turn, Labour's public services spokesperson Jackie Ballie lambasted Neil for putting on a "pantomime dame performance" in his defense of the SNP's opposition to Labour's motion, as well as for his apparent waffling and/or incoherence on the issue. She also accused the SNP government of putting "grudge and grievance" above action to help those affected by tax credit cuts, and devastatingly turned a common SNP talking point against it by asking: "Why can't the SNP just embrace the new powers instead of always talking Scotland down? "

     Neil responded by claiming that Labour had "no credibility" on opposing Conservative welfare reforms, and that the SNP would continue to seek a full reversal of the proposed tax credit changes at Westminster. To this end, he further stated that the Scottish Government would wait for the announcement of the final tax credit proposals and George Osborne's autumn statement before considering what "corrective action needs to be taken on tax credits, when such action should be taken, how it shall be funded, and how it will be administered."

     Sure enough, at First Minister's Questions the next day, Nicola Sturgeon said that her government would present "credible, deliverable and affordable plans to protect low-income households" from the cuts and dismissed Labour's plan as "back of a fag packet proposals", though offered nothing in the way of specifics regarding the SNP's plans.

     In his analysis, the BBC's Brian Taylor said that aside from needing to know about the autumn statement and tax credit proposals, Scottish Government ministers - especially Finance Minister John Swinney - were also waiting to understand what kind of fiscal framework they would be working with under the new devolution arrangements (and the full scope of the new powers) before making "costly commitments."

     This is actually a sensible policy, so that public money is spent wisely and effectively. Then again, for a party that claims to be for bold, radical action, and being "stronger for Scotland", this apparent reluctance to set out proposals to deal with the tax credit issue may well represent that whatever else the SNP stands for, their main and overriding objective above all else is secession.

     To this end, almost nothing can be done by the SNP without it being figured into the greater context of advancing the independence cause. Former Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill admitted as much when he explained why he blocked the extension of voting rights to prisoners last year, despite supporting the idea. It was he said, "the wrong thing done, albeit for the right reasons", and for MacAskill, the right reasons were to "avoid any needless distractions in the run-up to the [independence] referendum, to deny the right-wing press lurid headlines that could tarnish the bigger picture."

     In the context of the tax credits debate, if the SNP were truly a party committed to social justice first and foremost, it would not have turned down a motion to support having the tax credits restored via the powers it will soon have at its disposal. But it did to that and then claimed that they didn't have the power to top-up any credits reduced by the UK Government, before having to admit that it did.

      The reason why it did this of course, was so that it could pick another fight with Westminster over constitutional process and powers, and to continue their narrative about Scotland being the helpless, defenseless victim of the Union - always being flogged senseless and mercilessly by Westminster and belonging to a hopeless constitutional structure that does not work for Scotland and the Scottish people.

     God forbid it if the SNP actually used the powers that are - and soon will be - at its disposal as a party of government to help people, because then it would demonstrate that the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom do work for Scotland. If that were to happen, it would blow a massive hole into their argument for independence, and indeed, I remember reading a Herald (or Sunday Herald) article in 2013 which argued that if anything, the SNP's participation in devolved government may have blunted the case for independence because the party was seen as competent in running Holyrood and standing up for Scotland's interests within the safety and security of the Union.

     So the SNP cannot allow such thinking to marinate in the minds of the people of Scotland. This is why they have to almost continuously pick fights over the constitution and keep the constitutional debates going - stoking up manufactured grievances and resentment - so that the very idea of independence remains in people's minds and continue to blame Westminster for all of Scotland's problems and demand still more powers, because after all in their eyes, it does not go far enough.

     Well, of course it does not go far enough for them, because they wanted a "devo-max" arraignment which would have been independence in all but name (though still relying on the pooling and sharing mechanisms within the UK). On top of that, their all-consuming goal remains full and complete separation, which the voters rejected last year, though this has not stopped them from complaining about the supposed "inadequacies" of the Scotland Bill. As the Daily Record said in an editorial this week:

"Moan, moan, bitch, bitch, whinge, whinge. Their response [to the Scotland Bill] has been as negative as it was predictable. A cynic might argue that the SNP don’t actually want those new powers because it makes them more accountable to the people of Scotland."

     Herein lies another reason why the SNP would rather argue over process and powers, because with more powers comes more responsibility and accountability, as well as potential pitfalls for the SNP. With regard to tax credits for example, there is the possibility that they may have to raise (soon-to-be-devolved) income taxes on higher earners and/or hike up other taxes and duties usually paid by the more well-off in order to finance top-ups of welfare benefits.

     Throughout the referendum campaign, one of the many refrains from pro-independence campaigners and writers was that Scotland was a more egalitarian society from that in England, and unlike the English, Scots were more amenable to paying more taxes to help the well off. However, almost all polls and surveys have shown that Scots are not much more interested in having their taxes raised than the English, and the SNP knows this. After all, a big part of their success has been to capture "Middle Scotland" with initiatives such as free tuition, free perscriptions, and the council tax freeze - all of which disproportionately benefit the better off - without having to worry about paying for it out of Holyrood.

     Despite the rhetoric of social justice, the SNP knows that in order to win anything, you must win the middle ground of the electorate, and heaven forbid if they decide to take away those gifts to the middle and upper classes or raise their taxes to pay for topping up tax credits (in other words - talk left, walk right). After a while, people may see them as any ordinary political party that needs to be replaced by another at some point in the near future, and worse, the cause of secession will stagnate and fall by the wayside.

     Against this have been the charge that big, bad Westminster is setting up a fiscal "trap" for the SNP by forcing them to raise taxes to pay for the initiatives they want funded. This is nonsense, for the only reason this is a "trap" is because it will force the SNP to make choices that will be politically unpopular and cost it support from one group or another within its broad church of socialists, neo-liberals, progressives, environmentalists, fossil fuel promoters, free-marketers, social democrats, and hard-core nationalists. Perhaps the "wait and see" strategy is at least partly about coming up with a plan that somehow keeps all of these factions onside and keep the secessionist movement going.

     This is why the SNP is not fit for government, for every decision and policy is thought in terms of not what's best for Scotland, but what's best for "The Cause", and if what may be best for Scotland conflicts with what's best for the The Cause, what do you think is going to win out? As MacAskill said, wrong decisions can be made and justified for the sake of independence.

     This is why the tax credits issue and the issues surrounding other devolved powers of a beefed-up Holyrood may become a big issue going into the 2016 Scottish Parliament election. This presents an opportunity for all pro-Union parties to set out their respective stalls and present the SNP as the party that's so obsessed with independence and getting powers, as opposed to actually using them for the benefit of Scotland and its people.

     For the Labour Party in particular, they can use this in an attempt to reclaim the mantle of acting in the interests of social justice and ordinary working families. Kezia Dugdale and her party were given credit by Iain Macwhirter for “reframing” the tax credit debate and forcing the SNP's U-turn, while Jackie Ballie did well in her sparring match against Alex Neil when she said that the "tax credit debate exposed what really matters to the SNP government – constitutional grievance rather than helping working families in Scotland." Kenny Farquharson of The Times said simply in a tweet: "SNP wants to have powers, Labour wants to use powers."

     First Minister Sturgeon sneers at such a prospect - the idea of Scottish Labour being in power, and partly dismissed their tax credit plans on the basis that they came "from a party that knows it has little chance of ever being in a position to implement them."

     If I were advising Scottish Labour, I'd place that quote around party offices and remember it well as motivation going into next year's elections. Right now, it seems very unlikely that the SNP will be dislodged from government, but as we have seen in the last couple of years, anything can happen in politics within even the shortest space of time - especially in the current febrile atmosphere, and Labour - along with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats - ought to treat this election as though there is all to play for.

     Indeed however, there is much to play for in the upcoming election. It will decide if Scotland will have a government dedicated first and foremost to using its powers for the benefit of the people (and especially the most vulnerable in society), or if it will continue having a grievance machine that puts constitutional questions before everything else. The people must think hard and choose wisely.