Question Devolution

     In recent times, it has become in vogue in British politics to talk about the need for political and constitutional reform. This particularly means the devolution of political power from the UK Parliament at Westminster to other governing administrations within the UK – namely the devolved governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, as well as local council areas and regions within those areas and England, the largest part of the Union.

     With regard to Scotland in particular, politicians both nationalist and pro-union from all parties are of the opinion that more powers need to be exercised by the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood in isolation from the rest of the UK. For nationalists, they see devolution as another stage towards their ultimate goal of breaking up Britain, but both they and some pro-union politicians use similar language about how Scotland needs more powers to provide Scottish solutions to Scottish problems, and improve outcomes in critical areas such as health and education. Indeed, one of the sentiments expressed here is that policies in Scotland are better made by the people of Scotland.

     This is a fair sentiment to hold, but it ignores the reality that issues that affect Scots are issues that affect all Britons throughout the United Kingdom. As much as there may be issues better decided by the people of Scotland through their elected representatives in Edinburgh alone, there are also matters that may be better decided on a UK-wide basis by the British people as a whole (including Scots) through their elected representatives in London.

     Some politicians and commentators – particularly the nationalist sort – will go on to say that “left-wing” Scotland and “right-wing” England are so different (and drifting apart) politically and culturally that Scotland must be able to decisions for itself in isolation from the rest of the UK in order to reflect the values and aspirations of the Scottish people.

     Not only are such claims of vast Anglo-Scottish differences questionable to say the least, but it must be said that the MP’s elected to the UK Parliament are there to represent the interests of the UK as a whole in conjunction with the interests of their local constituents. Attempting to break British MP’s down to being English or Scottish (with regard to how they vote on issues or their political philosophies) and to say that the Scots and English are monolithically and irreconcilably different in their socio-economic outlook risks pitting the constituent parts of the UK against each other. This ought to be avoided – especially by those who want the UK to stay together – lest it lead to unhelpful perceptions and stereotypes that put the Union at risk.

     There is no problem in acknowledging and celebrating the differences amongst the peoples in the United Kingdom, for there is strength in diversity that can actually lead to bringing the British people together, just as has been done for over 230 years in the United States with 50 states and various nationalities and ethnicities. These differences however, need not be politicized and over-hyped to the extent of driving wedges and dividing people against each other, which gnaws away at the fabric of the Union.

     There are no differences amongst the peoples of the UK that cannot be overcome by the bonds – political, social, cultural, and economic – which bind them together as one. Indeed, there are such things as British values and British aspirations which are derived from the UK’s constituent parts and reflected by its people.

     This does not necessarily mean that there should not be devolution at all, but it certainly should not be done in a way that shreds the critical relationships and structures that allow for all parts of the UK to have an active part in the governing of the country and its political system, or indeed, the ability of the UK Government to govern the UK in its entirety.

     You see, so long as Scotland remains part of the UK, the UK Government must be able to have the tools at its disposal to make the Union work, which means that it must continue to have substantial responsibility over matters such as trade and commerce, fiscal and monetary policy, and lawmaking and law enforcement within the UK. Some of these responsibilities can be shared with the devolved administrations and even local councils, so that each level of government within the United Kingdom has its own ability to set taxes, make laws, and do other things within certain parameters that respect the authority and competence of each level.

     Piecemeal and ad hoc devolution based on what is thought to be “necessary” for one part of the country at a particular time may have been well-intended, but to some degree, it has proven detrimental to the strength of the Union and has not necessarily led to better or more efficient outcomes for those particular areas.

     For example, university tuition fees have been abolished in Scotland on the basis that it helps those with the fewest resources, who come from the lower strata of society. However, in terms of university entry rate amongst such people, Scotland lags behind England, Northern Ireland, and Wales. According to the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), England – with tuition fees – has an entry rate nearly two times greater than that of Scotland for those in the poorest quintile of the population. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that according to the Scottish Funding Council, only 6.7% of poor Scots attain the average exam grades required to earn a university place.

     Furthermore, the Scottish Government’s own survey on literacy amongst Scotland’s students (which was taken in May 2014 and released in April 2015) have revealed that literacy rates have fallen, and this is especially pronounced amongst pupils in the second year of secondary education (S2) from the most deprived backgrounds, where only 41% were performing well or very well in writing and 55% in reading.

     Given that education has been completely devolved to Holyrood since 1999 and that the SNP has been in government since 2007, it is an indictment against how education has been handled in Scotland in recent years. For some of the people I have come to know, the Scottish education system has not been served well under an SNP government that needs to do more (after eight years in office) to get more young people into higher education, but appears more interested in showing how different it is to the English system, even if the English system may produce better results, and therefore can provide at least some food for thought for what can be done in Scotland.

     In health – another critical area where Holyrood (not Westminster) has control, and where the SNP has been in charge of for eight years – real-term spending on the NHS rose by only one percent between 2009-2010 and 2015-2016, in contrast to the budget-cutting in Westminster that has seen a real-term rise in health spending in England to the tune of 6% in the same period, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).

     Given that the mechanisms of the Barnett formula (which mean that whenever spending changes in England (for any department), it changes by a proportionate amount for the devolved administrations in the rest of the UK), it would stand that health spending would also go up in Scotland as well. But Holyrood is under no obligation to following in tandem with the spending decisions south of the Tweed when it receives the block grant from the UK Treasury. It could have spent an additional 5% on the NHS, but appear to have chosen not do to so, and instead spent the money elsewhere, like the “free” university tuition, “free” prescriptions, and the council tax freeze – all of which arguably and disproportionately benefit those who have the means to pay for them, while doing little for those most in need.

     Several of my friends and acquaintance in Scotland have spoken about long waiting times at the NHS, run-arounds with various doctors, and delays with getting treatments and surgeries. Now to be fair, it would be a mistake to continuously blame the SNP for all of these things. For example, it may well be – as the BBC's Nick Robinson pointed out – that spending for the Scottish NHS may be historically higher than in England (including before devolution), and that England is merely catching up. Nevertheless, it does appear that any budget cutting is due to the actions of the Scottish Government, and it is therefore disingenuous to blame the UK Government for their own problems with the NHS in Scotland, particularly with regard to missing their own targets for improving A&E waiting times.

     Again, this is not to say that powers should not be devolved absolutely, but rather that it should not happen so hastily, carelessly, and without thinking if it is really necessary or otherwise good for Scotland, for if the constitutional debates are about what is best for Scotland, should there not be a vigorous debate on the merits on the devolution of power – especially with regard to how devolved power has already been used (or not)? If it is natural to question the very existence of the UK, or at least the its constitutional structures, then there should also be questions about the devolution of political power, for it may not always lead to better results. (It is probably for this reason that Scottish Green Party co-convener Patrick Harvie, a supporter of independence, has spoken out against the SNP's policy of achieving Full Fiscal Autonomy for Holyrood.)

     It is for this reason that devolution must be questioned at every stage, as opposed to being meekly accepted as an all-around good thing, and also why changing fundamental constitutional and political structures within the UK must be decided upon by all of the UK, for changing the machinery of the constitution in one part of the UK will have effects on the rest of the UK. This is why myself and others have been advocating for a constitutional convention to settle these matters of British governance, for the current model of piecemeal and ad hoc devolution results in a never-ending merry-go-round, in which one part of the UK receives a devolved power, and another part wonders why it doesn’t receive the same treatment. Such a constant rearranging of the constitutional jigsaw puzzle – almost living in a crisis by crisis scenario – does not bode well for good governance, and threatens to upset the stability of the Union.

     A convention would help to establish the powers and competencies of each level of government in the UK, as well as parameters that allow for the mutual respect of such competencies. Some responsibilities may be exclusive and reserved to a certain level of government, and others jointly shared. This points to federalism, which preserves a strong central government to handle matters and issues that require government action for the whole of the country – something which tends to get forgotten in the drive for devolution – while also featuring significant powers for the federated entities to do their own thing within a federal framework.

     But even if federalism is not the result of such a convention, the aim should be to at least provide a forum on what the British people as a whole want and expect in terms of their governing arraignments. It would be up to the people, with due and careful consideration and debate, to decide on the matter of which powers are better handled by, or otherwise require the action of, the central government. From here, there would be decisions on the powers of the devolved administrations and local government.

     Not everyone will agree – the members of the US Constitutional Convention certainly did not – but an effort ought to be made to forge some kind of settlement for the United Kingdom going forward that promotes stability, fairness, and the idea that the Union can be made more perfect.

     That would be a hell of a lot better than the seemingly constant and almost unquestioned flow of devolution, which as Tam Dalyell observed, runs the hazard of leading to the breakup of Britain. The people living there – from the most powerful politician to the postman – can and must do better, if for nothing else than the greater good and general welfare of all.

The Folly of Devolution Thus Far and (Worse) EVEL

The Parliament of the United Kingdom
(Credit: Jim Trodel via Flickr cc)

     Ever since the advent of devolution to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland in the late 1990’s, there has not yet been an answer to the infamous West Lothian Question, whereby MP’s from those areas cannot vote on matters that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, or Northern Irish Assembly, but can vote on such issues in the British Parliament at Westminster – even though their own constituents are not directly affected.

     Devolution of certain issues to those legislatures meant that such issues – like health and education – were no longer issues of a UK-wide concern, and were now effectively English issues being decided by the UK Parliament at Westminster – including by Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish MP’s, despite English MP’s having no such say over devolved matters in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

     The West Lothian Question is so named because it was brought up by Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP for West Lothian during the parliamentary debates on devolution in the 1970’s. It was he who asked how such a then-hypothetical situation could be sustained, and as such, he was a prominent opponent of devolution because nobody could provide him with an answer to his question.

     Now with devolution entering a stage in which substantial legislative and fiscal powers are set to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament (in fulfillment of the Vow made towards the end of the independence referendum campaign), there is an increasing need to answer Dalyell’s 40 year old question.

     Labour attempted to answer it by proposing regional devolution within England following the devolution it had established in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Tony Blair's government succeeded in a referendum to devolve power to Greater London, which involved the creation of the London Assembly and a directly elected Mayor of London. However, the attempt to create a devolved assembly in North East England was so heavily defeated by the electorate of that region in a 2004 referendum, that the idea was shelved for all the other regions (bar London), and the government effectively kicked an answer to the WLQ into the long grass.

     The answer that is now set to be pursued by the current Conservative government of Prime Minister David Cameron appears to be English Votes for English Laws (EVEL). This has been Conservative Party policy since devolution came about, and it has different variants, but the gist of it is that the Speaker of the House of Commons will determine which bills going through the Commons are applicable only to England (or England and Wales), and therefore require a majority of only English (or English and Welsh) MP’s to pass such legislation. Some variants of EVEL call for an absolute “veto” in which relevant MP’s will have the ultimate say over such legislation, regardless of how other MP’s may vote. Others merely allow for those MP’s alone to vote at the committee stage (where amendments can be made), whilst allowing the full Commons to vote on the legislation at its final stage.

     Either way, EVEL will likely mean some dilution in the voice of Scottish MP’s in the British Parliament because it is simply becoming more difficult to justify their votes on issues that do not affect their constituents – issues which have essentially become English issues because of devolution.

     What’s ironic is that the Scottish National Party (SNP) campaigned heavily at the last election on a platform of “making Scotland’s voice heard” and “giving a louder voice for Scotland” at Westminster – as if to say that Scotland never had a voice there, which is plainly ludicrous, as Scotland as been sending MP’s to Parliament since the Union began in 1707. (Here, they engage in the art form of conflating Scotland with the SNP.)

     However, as an acquaintance of mine in Scotland – a gentleman named Graeme – has said, devolution has “turned the hypothetical ‘West Lothian Question’ into reality, creating a situation in which Scottish MPs were voting on English affairs that English MPs no longer had any say over in Scotland.” Furthermore, he adds that as devolution was being implemented during the last Labour government (1997-2010), the UK had a Scot – Gordon Brown – “representing a Scottish constituency [and] serving as Chancellor and then Prime Minister formulating policies on health, education, policing, etc in England that were no longer within the remit of the UK Government within Scotland.”

     Now with the recent extraordinary success of the SNP in winning 56 of 59 Scottish seats in the Commons and the prospect of further devolution (including the full devolution of setting income tax) to Holyrood, the constitutional anomaly of the WLQ has become “unsustainable” and EVEL “has more or less” become inevitable.

     However, Joyce McMillan in The Scotsman disagrees with such notions, and claims that for decades, Scotland has had to put up with “England’s political preferences.” But this attempt to say that “karma’s a b****” with regard to Scottish influence across the UK ignores the changes wrought by devolution. It also ignores the idea that British general elections ought to be about what the voters across the UK want, as opposed to attempting to break the votes down by certain areas. However, even when you do this, what you find is that since World War II, Scotland has gotten the government it wants more often than not, and indeed on two occasions – in 1964 and 1974 – Scotland voted for and got a Labour government, even though England voted Tory. In a democracy, sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose.

     Nevertheless, devolution was brought about to address a “democratic deficit” with regard to Scotland’s place within the Union, and to lessen “English influence” on “Scottish affairs.” With this, logic follows that some people in England may wish to lessen “Scottish influence” on “English affairs.”

     McMillan says this ignores the “brute fact” that the UK is an asymmetrical union in which 85% of the population resides in one part of the country – England, and that EVEL will shut Scotland out of critical decisions that affect the UK as a whole – including Scotland.

     Unionists such as Graeme are then oft to point out that this is an admission that devolution – at the very least – is a flawed concept whose architects failed to think through its implications on Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole, and its implementation in a piecemeal manner failed to engage the UK as a whole on constitutional matters.

     They also contend that the asymmetry to which McMillan refers did not exist before devolution, for with a single sovereign parliament in London, all of the British people were represented by MP’s who could equally participate in the parliamentary process in full without question. This allowed for many Scots to take their rightful place in powerful and prominent positions in government – defense secretaries, home secretaries, foreign secretaries, chancellors of the Exchequer, and prime ministers – and representing the interests of the UK as a whole (including Scotland).

     Only after the highly-charged and emotive rhetoric of “Tory government’s we didn’t vote for” and “English laws imposed on Scotland” (especially following the eleven years of Margaret Thatcher’s government – 1979-1990 – during which Scotland repeatedly voted Labour, though the UK as a whole voted Conservative) followed by devolution in 1999 did the fundamental nature of Scottish parliamentary representation come under question – first with the reduction of Scotland’s MP’s from 72 to 59, and now the proposals for EVEL.

     McMillan claims that this is “largely designed to massage the wounded pride of English Tory MPs by offering them a bump up the pecking-order in the public-school politics of Westminster.” However, with the West Lothian Question becoming a reality (as Tam Dalyell had warned), English MP’s – whatever their political stripe – have a legitimate constitutional issue. By attempting to solve one democratic deficit, another one was created in the process.

     This is not to say that EVEL is the optimal response, but after the clamor for “more powers” for the Scottish Parliament (including the prospect of Full Fiscal Autonomy (FFA), where all taxes raised in Scotland would go to Holyrood) should anyone be surprised?

     But realistically, given the geographic reality, England will never truly be free of Scottish influence, and Scotland will certainly never be free of English influence.

     Using veteran nationalist Paul Henderson Scott’s description of Scotland’s relationship with England as that of being in bed with an elephant – and the need to be free of the elephant, Kenny Farquharson wrote recently in The Times that this failed to “acknowledge basic geography and economics.” Without the United Kingdom holding them together, Scotland and England may well move to separate beds, but will still have to share the same room – the same island, Great Britain. Being ten times the size of Scotland, Farquharson notes that “England will always be our bigger, more populous, more powerful neighbor” and what it does “politically, economically, culturally — will always have a profound effect on us [in Scotland].”

     In other words – despite what some nationalists may want to believe – Scotland cannot ignore its big sister, the elephant. Farquharson goes on to mention that Scotland’s exports within the UK – to England, Northern Ireland, and Wales – amounted to £44.9 billion, which is a considerable sum when one considers that Scottish exports to the rest of the world combined was £22 billion (and less than half of this was with the European Union).

     Indeed, one of the flaws of EVEL is how to know what issues can be classified as “English only” or “English and Welsh only”, for even though a piece of paper may say that, members from Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland can also argue that because of England’s size, legislation that legally applies only to England can (and will) have affects – particularly financial – on the rest of the UK.

     This is why EVEL is quite controversial, for it would create two classes of MP’s – English MP’s with full time access to the Commons and all stages of the parliamentary process in the Commons, and non-English MP’s who would effectively be told to stay out of their own parliament on certain days, even though the legislation and issues debated on those days may indirectly affect their constituents.

     It is also why even though Yes Scotland and the SNP were campaigning on the idea of Scotland being master of its destiny, they were also trying to argue for a form of independence that would retain links with the rest of the UK, but leave it without the ability to shape it, as the continuing Union would continue to substantially influence Scotland – regardless of the constitutional arrangements.

     This points to the importance of maintaining the United Kingdom as something that is in Scotland’s best interests, and maintaining as firm a Union as possible with full and complete parliamentary representation in Parliament for everybody, rather than trying to unravel it and creating more grievances along the way.

     Indeed, one of the reasons for the merger of England and Scotland into the UK was to give Scotland access to the much larger English markets, and this – along with the much wider British Empire – proved to be highly beneficial to Scotland. But even without the Empire, being part of the United Kingdom, as Farquharson points out, has been beneficial to Scotland’s economic prospects more than anything else, and UK as a whole has benefited from Scottish contributions (in terms of human, social, financial, natural, and instructional capital) that have helped to make it a global leader and significant world power, which in turn provides benefits to the UK – including Scotland.

     Attempting to loosen the UK with well-meaning, but ill thought out devolution and EVEL threatens to upset these necessary bonds – political, economic, and social – which keep Britain together. Indeed, one of the disheartening prospects is that there may never again be a Chancellor of the Exchequer or Prime Minister from Scotland representing a Scottish constituency.

     On this point, my friend Graeme believes that:

“Nationalism and devolution has not increased Scotland's power and influence within the Union, it has significantly diminished it. It has rendered much of Scotland's influence within the wider UK intolerable to that part of the UK which forms the majority of its population, and has made it very difficult for it to be [constitutionally] acceptable for any Scottish MP to occupy any cabinet post other than that of Foreign or Defence Secratary, because any other cabinet position would make them responsible for policies in England over which the English have no say over in Scotland, which the English no longer consider to be either fair or acceptable.”

     He further laments that thanks to “poorly handled devolution and [acquiescence] to nationalist demands” Scotland and Scots, “once a powerful and disproportionately influential voice within the Union, have rendered themselves in some respects as bystanders to larger issues within the United Kingdom” – many of which will continue to affect Scotland.

     The result, he fears, will be that “England and the English will come to dominate the UK far more than they have ever done” and that this was perhaps the way the nationalists had planned it, for it certainly would give them “even more grievance fuel to further their agenda”, and that some Scots “will believe them when they say that England is unfairly denying Scotland a voice within the UK by freezing them out of influence at Westminster.” It would make the roar of the Scottish lion “sound more like a cat’s mewling.”

     McMillan attempts to get around this by saying that it would be rather pompous for English Tories to talk about “speaking for England”, as if England is a homogenous community when in fact it is not – pointing out that “the England of the 21st century is a vastly diverse nation, which contains millions of people – from Liverpool to Portsmouth, from Truro to South Shields – who are fully as exasperated with the current Westminster establishment, and its failed politics of austerity, as any Scottish voter.” Her solution is to use the House of Lords as a chamber that represents the nations of the UK, as well as the regions within England, which in her view, would meet the “standards of 21st-century democracy.”

     As it is, I have written on how the Lords can be reformed in such a way. Looking back, this probably should have been the way to go in addressing the asymmetries that she refers to, which have also been noted by many pro-Union politicians such as Gordon Brown. If this had been achieved long ago, it may have averted the need for devolution, because it would have guaranteed a level of Scottish representation in the upper house that would have been on par – or nearly on par – with England, so that Scotland’s voice (or rather voices, since Scotland is just as diverse as England) could be heard and provide wisdom and scrutiny to government legislation. Even if a reformed Lords did not have the absolute ability to block government legislation, it could – with substantial Scots influence – force the government to think again on its agenda.

     Indeed, perhaps another flaw in devolution was that it made changes along the edges of the British constitution without also making changes at the center, and this has left the country with an unbalanced governmental structure that is prone to misunderstandings and grievance-mongering.

     Of course, there would still be people making the case for devolution and decentralization from London. In fact, the idea of revamping the United Kingdom into a federal union like the United States has taken hold in some quarters in the wake of the referendum. But even Gordon Brown has remarked that federalism can only go but so far in a country where 85% of the population lives in one area, and most forms of federalism still mean having a strong central government with the ability to levy and collect taxes, and make an array of laws that directly apply to all people throughout the entire union.

     In essence, federalism means that there are some powers exclusively exercised by the federal government, some powers exclusively exercised by the federated governments, and some powers are exercised jointly. For example, in the US and Germany, the setting of income and corporate taxes are a joint responsibility of federal and state governments. The federal governments and legislatures in both countries are quite powerful – though their power is limited in certain areas.

     Indeed, the authority of the British Parliament at Westminster has already been limited in practice, regardless of the fact that it possesses ultimate sovereignty across the UK. The Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Irish Assembly, and London Assembly are now semi-permanent institutions to the point where no prime minister or his/her government will dare contemplate abolishing them.

     The issue at hand now is how these institutions, the British Parliament, and potential institutions in England can fit into a federal framework for the United Kingdom as a whole. This will require an end to ad hoc devolution (including the proposal for Full Fiscal Autonomy for Holyrood) as well as the crude answers contained in the proposals for EVEL. Joyce McMillan herself acknowledged that the decision to devolve control of setting income tax rates was “strange and hasty”, for the income tax allows for one of the most transparent forms of redistribution from wealthier parts of a country to another, and the concept of pooling and sharing resources throughout the United Kingdom for the benefit of all was one of the main arguments used for keeping Scotland as part of the Union.

     If the Union is to survive at this point, there needs to be the establishment of a UK constitutional convention that will attempt to sort out the issues of British governance and forge a lasting constitutional settlement that is as “fair” as possible to everybody.  It means looking at the United Kingdom as a whole and having a firm understanding of how it ought to work going forward, which – among other things – means defining the powers of a federal UK Parliament (as Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution does for the US Congress), the limits on the federal parliament (Article 1, Section 9), and the powers and limitations on the federated governments of the nations and regions within the UK (Article 1, Section 10).

     It also means defining the values that bring Britain together as a country, and establishing principles upon which the people and their representatives can build on.

     This effort will require an enormous amount of good faith, tact, skill, statesmanship (likely in the face of political party interest), creative imagination, and a sense of vision and purpose to make such a settlement a success. It will also require the participation of people from all walks of life in Britain – including ordinary citizens, civic organizations, and faith groups in an expression of British civic participation that may also facilitate bringing people together and forging a sense of a common identity and common ideals for Britain going forward. 

     The brute reality is that Scotland and England have been “interfering” in each others affairs for centuries, and they really can't help it, given the island they share. The Union simply made it official, and in my opinion, it is in everyone’s interest for Britain to remain together, for Britain has so much collective potential, and its people can achieve much more together – not just for themselves, but for the world at large – than they could ever do apart.

Misrepresentations and Remembrance of a Good Man

“This morning, I was saddened to know that Charles Kennedy passed away, and I must first express my sincere condolences to his family as they mourn his loss, which is our loss as well. Even though we disagreed on the issue of Scottish independence, Charles was a good man and a decent public servant, and especially with regard to the upcoming EU referendum, our political landscape is poorer without him.”

     This is what Alex Salmond, the former First Minister of Scotland – and now MP for Gordon – could have said in the wake of the untimely and tragic death of Charles Kennedy, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats and recently defeated MP for Ross, Skye, and Lochaber, at the relatively young age of 55.

Charles Kennedy in 2005
(Credit: Alison M. Wheeler via Wikimedia Commons cc)

     Alas however, while he did express condolence and sympathy like everyone else, he also managed to insert his cause of independence in the crudest fashion when he actually said this:

“Yes, he was an extremely generous human being. I have had one or two, but not many, people who had a bad word to say about Charles, and that’s very rare in politics. In terms of the independence referendum, I don’t think his heart was in the ‘Better Together’ campaign.

“His heart would have been in a pro-European campaign, that’s a campaign that Charles would have engaged in heart and soul. That is something he absolutely believed in.”

     Here, Salmond implied that that Kennedy was somehow not a supporter of the Union, and more so, was a closet supporter of independence. But as Alex Massie wrote in the Spectator:

“Charles Kennedy had ample opportunity to demonstrate his nationalist sympathies. To my knowledge he declined any and all such invitations. Perhaps because, jings, he wasn’t a nationalist. His heart and his head were Unionist.”

     Now Salmond said that Kennedy was actually a “federalist”, which is true in the sense that the Liberal Democrats tend to believe in devolution and federalism within the United Kingdom, but are nevertheless supportive in the basic notion of keeping the Union together. Allan Massie (Alex's father) attests to this in his Telegraph column, where he said “federalism is very different from Salmond’s Nationalism. Federalists seek to improve the United Kingdom, Nationalists to destroy it.”

     The use of the federalist label was merely Salmond’s attempt to drive a wedge between those who believe in a federal union and those who believe a unitary union, and to imply that federalism is somehow closer to independence in terms of political thought and ideology.

     Ahh, but you may say that Salmond said nothing about Kennedy’s support for the Union – just his lack of prominence in Better Together and his criticism of it. True, but this nevertheless implied that Kennedy didn’t really believe in fighting for the Union in contrast to being “engaged heart and soul” in the upcoming referendum campaign to retain Britain’s membership in the European Union, which as yet does not have an organization officially backed by the political parties.

     In reality, as Massie and others have stated, it was more likely that Kennedy’s health – long plagued by alcoholism – was the reason for his relative absence in the referendum campaign last year to keep Scotland as part of the UK. He may not have had the prominence of people such as Jim Murphy, Alistair Darling, Ruth Davidson, and Gordon Brown, but he did do his bit in speeches and other appearances to keep the UK together. To say the Kennedy’s heart was not in Better Together is like saying that Jim Sillars’ heart wasn’t in the main pro-independence campaign organization, Yes Scotland, because Sillars (more-or-less) carried out his own campaign take Scotland out of the UK, or that his heart isn't in the SNPbecause of his criticism of it as intellectually dumb and totalitarian under Salmond's leadership.

     Since yesterday, Salmond’s comments have attracted controversy for coming so soon after the announcement of Kennedy’s death, with Kennedy's successor as Lib Dem leader (and fellow Scot), Sir Menzies Campbell saying the Salmond's comments were “out of order.”

In response, some of his and the SNP’s supporters have accused others of using Kennedy’s passing to score political points against Salmond and his party. However, I argue that Salmond was attempting to score political points by bringing up Kennedy’s involvement with Better Together (or lack thereof), which made it seem as though he didn’t really believe in keeping the UK together.

     Even if that was not the case, and Salmond was merely referring to Kennedy’s criticisms of the Better Together campaign, and not his commitment to the Union, there was no reason to bring that up so soon, and Salmond should have followed the magnanimous lead of the his new party leader and current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who simply said on Twitter.

“Sad beyond words to hear the news about Charlie Kennedy. A lovely man and one of the most talented politicians of his time. Gone too soon.”

     Other tributes from across the political spectrum – expressed by Gordon Brown, Ruth Davidson, Willie Rennie, Jim Murphy, Sir Malcolm Bruce, Nick Clegg, Prime Minister David Cameron, and several others – were gracious in their thoughts on Kennedy and sympathies to his family. Probably the best tribute came from Tony Blair’s former press officer and adviser Alastair Campbell, who tackled his own issues with drinking and developed a friendship with Kennedy as they faced a “shared enemy.”

     To his credit, Alex Salmond did praise Kennedy for his opposition to the 2003 invasion and war in Iraq – calling it his finest moment – in the face of “enormous pressure” and for his personal connection to his constituents in the Highlands, which helped him to make decisions and keep his seat in Parliament for 32 years.

     However, by bringing up the referendum the way he did and (seemingly) questioning Kennedy’s beliefs, Salmond poured salt on the raw divisions still apparent throughout Scotland in the aftermath of the two year long campaign. Even in this unfortunate circumstance, he found a way to make what appeared to be a snide remark at a departed opponent and in the process, he made himself the story.

     With regard to Charles Kennedy himself, as a young teenager, I remember watching the broadcast of Prime Minister's Questions on C-SPAN in the US and watching him among the many people presenting questions to then Prime Minister Tony Blair. As leader of the Liberal Democrats (as an independent third force in British politics) at the time, Kennedy had a significant role in the political discourse of the Commons, and was almost always seen at some point during PMQ's.

     The first thing that stood out was the fact that he shared the same name as one of our most prominent families, including a beloved president.

     Second, like that president, Kennedy appeared to be a regular guy (or bloke, as is said in Britain) - with a way of talking which suggested that he did not come from an upper crust

background. Indeed, it was an accent that was quite different from the other major party leaders, but I did not believe that this was indicative of him coming from another country - merely that he hailed from the same country as the others did, the United Kingdom - albeit perhaps, a different part of it. Nothing about Kennedy suggested anything other than this, and I treated it in the same way as I treat people with varying accents within the US, who are part of the same country, and in the UK itself, I knew there were many British accents.

     Eventually, I came to understand how the UK itself was a union of countries - a country in and of itself that had developed over time into what is now. It was not until later that I realized that Kennedy was Scottish, but this did not take away from the fact that he was the British leader of a British political party. Indeed, by the time of the 2010 General Election - after a period where I was not observing British politics so closely - I remember thinking that Kennedy was still leading the Liberal Democrats, only to find Nick Clegg and not knowing that Kennedy had been replaced long ago, and I certainly was not aware of the circumstances under which he stood down as leader.

     As time went on and I became more familiar with British politics, I also became more familiar with Kennedy - including the struggles with alcoholism which cost him his job as a party leader. However, I also gained an understanding of him as a decent man and talented political figure who stood for what he believed in, was authentic and had integrity, showed compassion, commanded the respect of his peers, and had a natural common touch and connection with people that many politicians envy (on both sides of the Atlantic).

     For these and other reasons, it was unfortunate that he did not lead the campaign to keep the UK together. Nothing against Alistair Darling (who has his own personal qualities which carried Better Together to victory), but people I have been in contact with believe that Kennedy - with his down-to-earth Highland roots - may have been a better communicator for the Union to the people of Scotland and more effective against Alex Salmond, for as some of my friends can attest, he was engaging as a speaker. Indeed, as Allan Massie said, people such as Kennedy were “actually expressing a stronger faith in the Union than those who preferred to dwell on the weaknesses of the case for Independence and the inadequacy of the SNP’s programme and arguments.”

     In researching for my book on the referendum, I found a video from 2012 which included Charles Kennedy making a remark that spoke of people who need not be political nationalists in order to be nationalistic Scots, so that support for independence and the SNP was not equated with pride in Scotland and being Scottish. This was something I found to be simple and true, and it is a sentiment that especially needs repeating today in the wake of the SNP landslide at the general election nearly a month ago that engulfed many pro-Union politicians, including Kennedy himself.

     His untimely death creates a hole in Scottish and British politics that will be hard to fill, if it is to be filled at all. Like that beloved American president with whom he shares a surname, he was - quite simply - taken away too soon.

     Rest in Peace, Charles Peter Kennedy.

UPDATE (11:00 PM, EDT): Alex Salmond has stressed that he was not suggesting that the late Charles Kennedy was for independence, and was only referring to his criticisms regarding the Better Together campaign - saying that Kennedy “was one of the first unionist politicians to realise that the result would be close and said publicly that he felt that the actions of the No campaign were contributing to this.”

     In light of this, the younger Massie has acknowledged on Twitter that his article (which was quoted here) had been “over the top”, and I must admit that my own tweets/retweets on the issue were just that - especially on the day when we should have been focused on honoring Charles Kennedy.

     For that reason, I still believe that Salmond should have at least made it clear during his original comments that he was not questioning Kennedy's commitment to the Union, for it did sound as though he was, and he ended up becoming the story.

     Nevertheless, he has clarified his statements, I understand what he was attempting to say, and all of us should move forward.