Labour: “Calman does not need a referendum. It is an extension of the devolution process.”
Conservatives: “Our position remains unchanged - we will not support Salmond’s Referendum Bill.”
Liberal Democrats: “As no political party opposes Calman, putting it to a referendum would be a pointless waste of taxpayers' time and money.”
Halftime in America
18 minutes ago
You forgot to mention that the SNP said that Calman "fell far short" and is "extremely disappointing".
(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2009/06/15151304)
So, logically, it's not worth putting to a referendum either.
(See, I can do selective quotation as well as the Nats can...)
"A pointless waste of tyaxpayers money" - we can't have that!
And the proles getting a say...whatever next?
Whatever the SNP says, even if a referendum doesn't come to pass, secretly they will be happy. On these proposed changes, Calman himself says: "How that works could well determine what the next stage is. And it could be that things will develop further. That's the exciting part."
Personally, I'd rather have this than nothing. The proposed tax changes are far from ideal, and if implemented, will continue to highlight the unbalanced constitutional set-up within the UK. Next time around, Scotland will be in a better position to demand full fiscal autonomy, something that Reform Scotland and the (Unionist) Liberal Democrats really wanted.
What does trouble me is the 'Pan-Unionist' insistence that a referendum on Independence/Home Rule/Calman is not required. When constitutional change is being proposed by ALL Scottish parties, then it is time to consult with the people.
Sorry, what I've said is not entirely accurate. One of the main sponsors of Calman, Wendy Alexander, really did/does want a referendum. At least the Lib Dems and Tories have remained steadfast in their view. Hardly Pan-Unionist.
No party opposes Lisbon either, and the Lib Dems want a referendum on that. Oh, wait a minute...
"full fiscal autonomy, something that Reform Scotland and the (Unionist) Liberal Democrats really wanted."
Correction.
That is *not* what Reform Scotland called for.
Their report called for the Scottish Parliament to be responsible for raising all the money that it spends, which is only around 60% of total public spending in Scotland.
http://www.reformscotland.com/index.php/publication/view_details/243/
SU - does your presentation of these quotes without comment imply that you agree with them?
Absolutely, Colin. The constitution is reserved and overall support for Calman's recommendations appears to be near-unanimous among MPs.
So if a major constitutional change is supported by most MPs, you would argue that it shouldn't require a specific popular mandate to be implemented, even if this change was only proposed in the middle of a parliament and wasn't in any manifesto (and was actually opposed by Labour at the last Scottish election)?
I don't think these measures, comprehensive though they are, represent anywhere near the kind of "major constitutional change" for which a 1997-type referendum would be required. There will still be a Scottish Parliament and it will still have tax-varying powers.
The authors of the '97 referendum deemed it necessary to consult the electorate on whether Edinburgh should have the ability to vary income tax by 3%. Now they claim that scrapping this and making it 10% instead doesn't require popular consent. How is this consistent?
Alan Cochrane, who dissents from the pan-Unionist alliance, is worth reading on this.
Brilliant stuff.
I am a bit sceptical about Westminster agreeing to have all this in place by the time of the next Scottish elections but it is still proof positive that voting SNP gets results - whether or not you support independence.
They have all but guaranteed our re-election in 2011.
Actually, the 1997 question didn't specify a percentage rate.
Alan Cochrane is highly insightful when it comes to nationalism in general, but is a devosceptic. I am not. I simply don't believe that good governance in line with subsidiarity principles plays into the SNP's hands.
Colin - there is no pan-unionist alliance.
Alan Cochrane is a unionist and therefore opposes Calman because he can see what it will lead to.
Others either can't see, or they are not really unionists in the sense that Alan Cochrane is.
The only possible outcome of Calman is that Scotland becomes more separate from the rest of the UK, not more integrated.
It's that simple and the SNP can't believe its luck.
Gradualist drivel, Indy.
A more flexible and effective balance of reserved and devolved responsibilities, together with much better cooperation between Holyrood and Westminster, won't make Scotland “more separate from the rest of the UK”.
Rather, it will provide further evidence, for the majority of people who already believe that devolution is working rather well, that Scotland's interests are best served within Britain.
lol, "Pan Unionist Alliance"
They couldnt even get together to form a gov even though they won, what like 60% of the votes ?
Pool the other one SU!!!
SU the more autonomy Scotland has the less integrated it is into the policy and decision making structure of the UK. That cannot be defined as anything other than becoming more separate. As more and more policy decisions diverge, as they will, we become increasingly separate.
As a unionist you are utterly blind if you do not see that.
SU - fair enough, the referendum was only on tax-varying powers (though I think it was well understood at the time this meant 3%). Still, I wonder if you think it would be constitutional to change it to 20% without a further plebiscite. Or 50%? 100%? Would you draw a line somewhere, or has the referendum given Westminster carte blanche to cede complete control of taxation to Holyrood if it so decides?
Utterly blind, eh?
Tell me: how "separate" are councils? How "separate" are US states? What about component parts of federal nations?
Your problem (one of them) is that you see identity in predominantly political and structural terms. So when the Calman report speaks of a "social union", you don't appear to have any grasp of what that means.
No Scottish Unionist I do not see identity in predominantly political and structural terms.
Indeed I have argued on many occasions that independence for Scotland is not ABOUT identity. It is about political and structural matters - essentially it is about where decision making lies.
The more decisions that are taken in the Scottish Parliament rather than in Westminster the more political power shifts from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament and the more autonomous - and therefore separate - Scotland becomes.
Of course exactly the same is true of local government - the more decision making powers are devolved to local government the more powerful and autonomous it becomes. Many of us would like to see a further devolution of power below that, to communities themselves, whether through community councils or through community planning partnerships or both.
If you feel inclined to reply by suggesting that the end result of devolving further power to local government would be 32 independent countries don't bother. The powers which local government has are over their localities (and I don't think anyone seriously believes that 32 councils is the optimal structure either) . The power which the Scottish Parliament has is over Scotland.
As for saying I have no grasp of what 'social union' means - for gods sake don't you know that it was Alex Salmond who came up with that phrase? Calman is even using the SNP's framework to make his arguments.
What a confused reply.
“If you feel inclined to reply by suggesting that the end result of devolving further power to local government would be 32 independent countries don't bother.”
Why would I advance such a silly argument? You’re the gradualist! Most people in Fife, for example, are quite happy to be Fifers, Scots and Brits. No amount of “devolution” to Fife Council would change that.
“No Scottish Unionist I do not see identity in predominantly political and structural terms.”
Evidently your grey matter rejects the “identity” argument, but it runs like an invisible thread through everything you have said. Do you even know why you see Scotland as a natural political unit and the UK as unnatural?
“As for saying I have no grasp of what 'social union' means - for gods sake don't you know that it was Alex Salmond who came up with that phrase? Calman is even using the SNP's framework to make his arguments.”
Nonsense. Salmond’s “social union” is far inferior to Calman’s.
To Salmond – and I quote – “the social union between Scotland and England in particular, but the other countries in these islands, is the union of families, of relationships, they don't depend on Scotland being devolved or independent”.
Calman’s is so much more. It’s the entire sense of shared experience that can only come from the cultural, political, economic and social bonds that have resulted from Scotland being part of the United Kingdom.
Well I am glad you would not make such a silly argument. Do I know why I see Scotland as a natural political unit?
1. It is a country.
2. It has its own education system, its own legal system, its own laws, its own regiments, its own church, its own local government, its own parliament and its own national government.
In other words it has virtually all of the infrastructure to be a modern independent country already in place, all that is lacking is the powers that other independent countries have.
I believe in transferring all of the powers which are currently exercised by Westminster in Scotland to the Scottish Parliament because the Scottish Parliament is better placed to make decisions which are more closely focussed on Scotland's needs.
It is for unionists to say why they believe that Westminster makes a better job of things like managing the Scottish economy or taking decisions to commit Scottish troops to war than the Scottish Parliament would.
But if all you have to support the notion that Westminster should continue to govern Scotland is some vague waffle about an entire sense of shared experience which comes from being in the Union you have no case.
It has often occurred to me that your commitment to the Union, to your sense of Britishness is very much about a sense of identity. It is not a political argument at all. That's why you argue in such emotive ways and why you cite comments such as Alex Massie's in support of your case.
I will remind people of that quote in case they have forgotten it.
'The Idea of Britishness, difficult and sometimes opaque or mysterious as it can seem, matters precisely because it is so amorphous and capacious. It is open to anyone even, no precisely, because we do not make a fuss and dance over it. Nor, happily, do we make a big deal out of it. That's not the British way. But the Idea of Britain and Britishness is a powerful thing and though we do not, being British, fetishise this, it is open to all. As it has been in the past and as it is now and will be, let's hope, in the future. Regardless of race or creed or colour.'
Very poetic - but in political terms meaningless. Politics is not about amorphous and capacious concepts. There is a space for amorphous and capacious concepts but it is not in the world of practical politics. Because politics is essentially about taking collective decisions on very practical matters like roads, schools, hospitals, jobs, businesses, how much tax we pay, how big a pension we get, when we go to war, how often the bins get emptied and how we prioritise public spending.
It's about deciding who takes decisions on those kinds of issues and who they are accountable to. The Scottish people have already decided that they want the bulk of decision making brought back to Scotland. Calman - if it is actually implemented in 10 months which I rather doubt but lets assume it is - will increase the proportion of decisions taken in Edinburgh rather than London. I think that will vastly improve decision making, I also think that process will continue until Scotland becomes independent of Westminster. That will in no way stop Scotland working constructively with the other nations of the UK on a whole range of issues, as we do now, nor will it result in a vast electrified fence being erected along the border with gun towers to shoot down any English people who try to sneak in (or possibly out). Such scaremongering is simply nonsense and a sign of the paucity of the unionist argument.
There is no way this argument can be resolved now, of course. Time will tell who is right and who is wrong but I suggest that the evidence so far is on my side.
Everything you say about Scotland is also true of Britain. We live in a country within a country; it's really not that difficult a concept!
I totally disagree with your notion that government is only about nuts and bolts. And nobody's talking about electric fences except you.
Everything you say about Scotland is also true of Britain? No it isn't.
Britain is not a country - it is three countries, or four if you count N. Ireland.
Britain does not have its own education system - it has education systemS plural which are different in each country. It does not have its own legal system - there is Scots law and English law and laws which apply in Scotland but not in England and Wales and vice versa. I could go on - you get the point.
You may well disagree with me that 'government' is about nuts and bolts but you don't say what you think it is about. And I actually said politics not government - not the same thing.
Britain is of course a country. You don't seem capable of accepting the simple fact that some countries (eg. Scotland) happen to exist within other countries (eg. the United Kingdom).
And Britain does of course have its own education system. The differences between England and the devolved nations are part of the British education system. Ditto legal system.
Re: "nuts and bolts", I agree with Alex Massie. Which takes us full circle, because what he said went completely over your head the first time.
Scottish Unionist - by your definition Europe has an education system, a legal system and so on. Therefore Europe is a country.
Utter nonsense.
As for saying Alex Massie’s comments are over my head.
I can appreciate why you might think that because you see politics as an intellectual game. But it’s not.
You simply have no understanding of politics at all and I think that is because, as I can tell from everything you say, you have never been involved in politics. You do not know or understand what drives political parties and crucially you have no real understanding of how they interact with the electorate. That is what is missing from your discourse.
Here is a suggestion – whenever you have booked your summer holiday, don’t go. Stay at home and go to the North East by-election instead. Volunteer for Labour – it’s between Labour and the SNP so you will be supporting the Unionist cause by helping Labour. Spend the time going round the doorsteps, canvassing and talking to voters. Listen to what they say. Listen to their problems, their concerns and try and see how the various policies put forward by political parties can help – or perhaps hinder. That is what politics is about.
Trying to understand politics by analysing the anlysis of the press is simply a waste of your time. Because all they are analysing is what goes on in Parliament or Government. The one vital ingredient is missing – the electorate. What you call the nuts and bolts of politics is what the electorate care about.
The EU is a supra-state union. And you're misunderstanding my point in that regard. Fife Council has its own education policies; that doesn't make it a country!
There's a germ of truth in some of the rest of your comment. You (plural) clearly do see politics as a game in which the electorate are the playing pieces. Hence the SNP's populism and incessant blame games. But I see politics as an honest battle of ideas. Not a game, but certainly intellectual.
Anyway, you stick to your style. But I prefer content.
No you are missing my point. Fife Council may have its own education policies but it does not have its own education system.
You also miss my point on how politics is played. I don't see the electorate as playing pieces.
The politicians are the playing pieces Scottish Unionist - the electorate are the ones playing the game.
"You're misunderstanding my point."
"No you are missing my point."
Well, there we are then. Next!
OK to get back to the argument of Calman.
You say it doesn't require referendum to transfer powers. OK. So is there any reason why powers over matters such as electoral administration, air weapons etc - the powers identified by Calman - should not be transferred immediately?
The tax powers are different. The SNP were told that it would take years for HMRC to adjust for a LIT so tax varying powers cannot be brought in immediately but there is no reason surely why the rest of them should not be transferred immediately.