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.

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.