Acts of non-compliance
There’s very little room for ambiguity in the Electoral Commission’s request that both sides in the independence debate provide voters with information in advance of the referendum about the likely consequences of either a Yes or No vote. Here’s how the Scotsman reported their comments, for example:
In the case of (what we’re finally now able to officially call) the No campaign, that only means – indeed, only can mean – one thing. After all, their platform is the status quo. In every immediate respect, the consequences of a No vote will be that nothing changes, so nothing needs explaining. There is but a single exception.
All three Unionist parties are either promising or hinting heavily at the devolution of new powers to the devolved Scottish Parliament if Scots reject independence, but none will say what they might be. The only conceivable interpretation of the Electoral Commission’s request, then, is that these proposals should be laid out in clear and specific terms and offered to the electorate before they make their decision.
Readers might be forgiven, then, for a degree of surprise when the “Better Together” campaign’s representative on last night’s edition of Scotland Tonight – Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson – flatly refused to comply with the Commission’s wishes, despite the entire No camp having spent most of the last two weeks metronomically chanting the mantra that the Scottish Government must commit itself to accepting the Commission’s report in its entirety.
David Cameron had earlier dodged the issue at Prime Minister’s Questions when the SNP’s Angus Robertson raised it, and when questioned on the show Davidson was keen to do the same, repeatedly focusing instead on events the day after a Yes vote (“Would there still be a Prime Minister? Would UK law still apply?”) rather than a No.
When pressed, she eventually asserted that:
“What you’ll see after a No vote is that we’ll bring forward within our own manifestos, going to the people of Scotland in 2015, to say ‘These are our views on the constitution for the country’.”
So that couldn’t be clearer. In contravention of the Electoral Commission’s express wishes, the Union campaign will NOT offer any sort of position on devolution in the event of a No vote. It will be down to the three individual parties, if they feel like it, to come up with some proposals, test them in a UK-wide election (not a Scottish one, as Davidson disingenuously went on to imply), and then perhaps think about implementing them should they win that election.
That’s not even “jam tomorrow” – it’s “Possibly SOME kind of spread, maybe, at some vague point far in the future, dependent on the permission of England, and whether we’ve got anything better to do or not.”
The curious thing about the No camp’s vision of a more devolved Scotland in the event of independence being rejected is that the more time passes, the fuzzier and more distant the picture gets. Davidson’s words last night reflect almost identically the position previously laid out by Alistair Darling, so it seems fair to assume that they’re the official “Better Together” stance.
We keenly await the findings of Johann Lamont’s “devolution commission”, which is due to present its first report this spring, but unless it turns out to be fiercely independent of Mr Darling’s view (no sniggering at the back), we suspect they may fall some distance short of any kind of concrete commitment, and that the No campaign will therefore definitely not be complying with the Electoral Commission’s request. The Scottish people will have to make of that what they will. You know our opinion already.
I thought this has been handled terribly by the Yes campaign, there was an opportunity to advsise that if it was accepted in its entirety by the No campaign that the Yes camapaign will do so as well. Give them 14 days to confirm all aspects are acceptable and will be carried out to the letter.
If that is the case then despite the outcome not being satisfactory the Yes camapaign will as agesture of goodwill accept the compromise. However, if the No campaign under Darling cannnot agree to all aspects then why should the Yes camapaign, after all it is their commission in the first place and is chock full of unionist MP’s.!
So here is my number, confirm you accept that arrangements and we will move on. If you cannot accept it then we will ask our own question, your call Mr Darling. If you cannot accept the EC why on earth should a Scottish elected parliamnet that has already decided what is right for Scotland? High stakes but they would have had no choice but to capitulate. No campaign would have had to agree.
And so it is, then. Vote no, get nothing indeed.
It is really quite an insult to the nation’s collective intelligence. Vague promises with no consensus (even within the individual parties) on scope or implementation. Mutually contradictory statements from elements of the ‘No’ campaigns. I have every faith that the contrast between this and the ‘Yes’ team’s actual efforts to give a vision of the future will become clear to the public.
Given the past “problems” with postal votes both north and south of the border, does anyone know if the Scottish referendum will remove any potential questions of foul play by only allowing voting in person?
You can’t do that. What about disabled, housebound people?
On the other hand, postal votes for the askeing are indeed dangerous.
The British parties’ refusal to comply with the Electoral Commission’s recommendations is, of course, no more than the duplicity, double-standards and hypocrisy that we would expect of them. But the EC’s “ruling” – as it was called when this suited the unionists – raises another very important question.
Supposing the British parties did endeavour to comply. What kind of commitment or assurance could they offer the people of Scotland that we could put any faith in? How can the three parties even arrive at a single policy on “more powers”, far less give an irrevocable undertaking to implement that policy regardless of which of them was in power at Westminster.
We know British Labour and the Tories are joined at the hip in the anti-independence campaign. But this is only because of the threat of a YES vote. Remove that threat and all bets are off. We can expect the promise of “more powers” to be disappeared – probably with the magic words, “Royal Commission”.
Essentially, it is a matter of trust. But dingoes don’t make good babysitters. If there is anything less trustworthy than a British Labour politician, it’s a British Labour politician in cahoots with the Tories.
The EC recommendation on post-referendum “clarity” could mean yet another boomerang is heading back towards the no campaign. It would be interesting to count during the Section 30 debate just how many MPs and Lords from all parties exhorted the Scottish Government to *fully* accept the EC recommendations. It must have been mentioned 20 or more times across both houses as they clearly saw the EC as the last vestiges of control of the process that wasn’t in the hands of the Scottish Government.
And given that the No campaign carried out their naff publicity stunt with their “27,000 signatures” – it’s a pretty easy target for the Yes side.
Scenes from the Better Together corner shop in the wee toon of Glaikit in Glasgow;
We are expecting a large delivery of jam soon but in the meantime can we tempt you with this delicious shit sandwich – frozen since 1979 – only the best for our friends in the North.
That will cost you 6 million broken dreams, a self esteem bypass and a decade of global derision.
Thankyou and come again……… just not too soon.
@redcliffe62
I’d disagree with your analysis. Although I have fairly robust views with respect to whether the EC was neutral enough, or on the earlier question of whether an S30 Order was actually necessary or not, I don’t see ANY value in picking a fight on this issue. Despite unionist huffing and puffing, the EC’s recommendations can’t be seen as anything other than a victory for the Yes campaign, hence the panic, confusion and telling silence from unionists and their media lackeys yesterday.
It will be relatively easy over the next 20 months to constantly wrong foot the No campaign if theUK government aren’t seen to comply with the EC’s recommendations on co-operating with the SG to set out what the implications of both potential outcomes are. No doubt the unionists will try t limit such discussions to (at best) pretty high level procedural & timetable type bullet points. It is however quite hard to see how the two sides can square the circle of coming up with a mutually agreed set of principles or agreement like the Edinburgh Agreement. It is surely much more likely that each side of the debate will furnish more or less partisan reports on what the implications are if they win the vote.
As Rev Stu says, the elephant in the room for unionists remains how they justify their promised “jam tomorrow”; what would it involve, when would it be delivered, how would they get it thru Westminster.
Blair Jenkins was right in his interview last night on STV to highlight the issue of the “direction of travel” of the UK. Even more than unrealisable unionist promises of devo-tomorrow, the divergence in values and “moral landscapes” between Scotland and the rest of the UK is the key to persuading more people to support independence, particularly those who are undecided, former devo-max supporters, and/or those who vote SNP but don’t necessarily plan to vote Yes in 2014.
The No campaign has painted itself into a corner; we just need to keep them supplied with paint.
The Electoral Commission man in Scotland claimed live in interview that the Electoral Commission experiment group “were very clear on the meaning Nd implications of Independence”. (independence is detailed in every single dictionary)
The confusion comes when they were asked to describe their understanding of a No vote? I have to concur other than saying the thought of remaining tied to harsh and corrupt London politics fills me with dread. I have little details about what a NO vote entails other than continued austerity, lack of democracy and more ultra-right government attacks upon Scottish values interspersed with the odd invasion of Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe or any other country that rejects deals with the UK. I am unimpressed with the UK’s attempts to thwart democracy both in Scotland & in England. Examples by the Tory pilot to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to gag a man who had embarrassed the Labour Party on war crimes, Torture, Kidnappings & murder.
A yes vote means simply; Sane government & democracy.
And making funding mandatory from companies and individuals registered in Scotland should also have been agreed.
No Scottish labour registered in London, it must come from funds generated in scotland to a Scottish registered politcal party. Labour could do that tomorrow should they wish, they have chosen not to.
Blair Jenkins’ line last night – ‘it’s not about right and left, it’s about right and wrong’ is great. Simple, easy to remember, and useful for defusing ideological squabbling.
“What you’ll see after a No vote is that we’ll bring forward within our own manifestos, going to the people of Scotland in 2015, to say ‘These are our views on the constitution for the country’.”
I think you will find that this is actually a fudge. Flavours: sour, bitter and rancid.
I don’t think its even dawned on them yet that Salmond actually has got what he wants from this ruling. I don’t think the unionists have even thought this far about the issues, such as what a NO vote means or what a YES vote would mean to them.
The EC ruling puts them on the spot in a way they never even calculated. The referee is in place and the game is ready to play. The phoney war is over and the indy campaign is rdy to get started. The union campaign still revelling in the beief that it won some sort of victory, is beginning to realise that it has to get into this game as well. It’s pretty clear to me that they haven’t actually thought this far ahead. I am very much of the opinion that they thought this would make Salmond back down and cancel the referendum.
In the next couple of weeks you will see the slow realisation on the unionists side that they have been hoist upon their own petard. In demanding that Salmond abide by the EC rulings (which he was all to willing to do), they are in turn expected to do the same.
I think this is when the campaign kicks into high gear and the Unionists are going to be an utter shambles. Ducking, diving, whinging, complaining and refusing to play by the rules they demanded be set up. All the while Cameron and his chums will implement a series of draconian and cruel reforms like the bedroom tax. Lamont will still bleat about cuts, Miliband will want to be thought of as Thatcher and this is what the Status quo will appear to be. Not willing to promise anything, not able to articulate a postive vision, realisng too late that the word NO will have to appear on every peice of campaign material…they’ll look and sound out of touch. Men of straw clutching at straws, their future closing in front of them like a fist.
I’m going to enjoy watching these wasters squirm.
Now that the good folk of Cumbria have rejected westminster’s plan to dump nuclear waste under sellafield what price ‘planning’ could become a reserved matter following a No vote.
This would give westminster carte Blanche to find a suitable site North of the border to store their dangerous materials and build new nuclear power stations well away from their centres of population and what matter a few disgruntled jocks.
And what about the 27,000 signatories who requested that the EC recommendations were carried out in full? Do they also now agree that Better Together also has a responsibility to inform the Scottish public? Or do 27,000 people believe in double standard?. “Do as we say, not as we do!”
I sincerely hope that 27,000 hard lessons were learned yesterday: Be careful what you wish for – be extremely careful what you demand.
Ruth acting quite unbalanced and potty again at FMQs.
The problem for Better Together and the UK parties is that for them politics is entirely about spin, the superficial point scoring and getting favourable press for themselves and landing punches on the opposition. So petty ‘victories’ and apparent advantages are all that they can see, aim for and play for.
The thing is that for the SNP, they will be attacked and spun against in the MSM whatever they say or do, so they might as well say and do the right thing and disregard the ‘rules of spin’ that the BT crowd play to, so it makes no odds how the press react.
So, for example, deciding to concede and agree with the EC, in terms of orthodox spin is a defeat, but in actual fact it is a victory, because the SNP gets exactly what they want. And doubly, by the NO campaign and wee Wulllie Rennie and all insisting that the Scottish Government comply in full with the EC recommendations they have merely scored a massive own goal (again)! Brilliant.
Both sides therefore know exactly how spin works but the Better Together campaign is right in the middle of that spiral, is trapped there compelled to follow the set rules of orthodox spin and counter spin and can’t really see out; and the SNP are standing on the outside looking at them going down to oblivion in their own self-induced whirlpool of spin.
The thing is, becuase the SNP is playing a different game, the lies and spin are thrown into relief, rather being accepted as reality and the consensus, and that is what after all these years the SNP vote is still riding high and the NO vote is crumbling, whatever the MSM may have us believe.
I am glad that you wrote this blog and concentrated on Ruth Davidson on ‘Scotland Tonight’ last night (is it just me or is she becoming the ‘face’ of the anti-independence argument? Seems to me she is never off the telly! ) I also like your stills of her! 😀
in addition to the blog there are some very good and relevant comments.
The YES campaign should take the initiative now and put the NO campaign on the back foot, on this issue.
They should state two things. Firstly, the unionist parties are going to have to jointly confirm, before the referendum:
-exactly what extra powers, if any, the Scottish Parliament will have in the event of a No vote.
– When and how will any new powers be enacted.
Refusal, would put them in breech of the EC’s recommendations.
Secondly, that the YES campaign, and political parties supporting independence cannot possibly comment upon any new powers in the event of a NO vote, as any new powers are wholly relient upon Westminster.
Sorry guys but I still think the approach is wrong and it should have been put up or shut up. We will put up if you do as well? You arranged the chairs around the table after all.
Questions would have been, when will you confirm that you abide by the EC recommendations in their entirety? And if not do you understand why the SNP and Yes guys do not have to adhere either?
Even Brewer would have had to do something sensible.
The No campaign can perfectly well comply with the EC’s recommendation by stating: “Immediately following a vote rejecting independence, nothing will change.” That seems to satisfy the demand for ‘clarity’. It also falls well within the ‘information’ which David Cameron said yesterday he was prepared to give. It’s also probably true.
So why not just say it? Could it perhaps make the issue just a little too stark for those still hoping for some kind of devo plus?
I listened to FMQs today and Labour MSPs sound like they are increasingly losing the plot. Richard Simpson was going ballistic.
kininvie raises a good point which I agree with, it’s all about the ‘devo-maxers’. We know this is by far the most popular choice in the polls, but now that option is not on the table and the Bitter Together mob are under pressure from the EC (not just the Yes campaign) to put forward their ‘vision’ for the future of Scotland. If they don’t do so, as demonstrated by Davidson last night, they are going to come under a lot of pressure.
Ultimately these voters (devo-maxers) may have to make the choice, what’s closer to devo-max, independence or the status quo ?
I wonder whats going to happen over EU membership with Westminster refusing to open discussions on an independent Scotland’s situation ? Does this fall under the remit of the EC’s findings ?
Alex Massie in The Spectator
“Is the press biased against the SNP? Probably. But we are all nationalists now”
link to blogs.spectator.co.uk
The 2015 election and subsequent parliament will be all about the UK’s EU membership. There is a negligible chance that Scotland will get a look-in in the event of a NO vote in 2014, let alone any further devolution. Scotland’s voters need to realise this.
I think the benefits of Salmond offering a second question at the SNP’s annual conference in 2011 are becoming clearer as time goes by. He offered it to unionists knowing that they would reject it because he proposed it. Not only that but they made a massive issue out of doing so, they talked of it being Salmond’s insurance card. More significantly, the more powers option is still being talked about, even after the agreement on a one question referendum. The NO campaign clearly thought that the issue would be over, not realising that they would be forced to explain the consequences of a No vote (as the EC report knows makes clear). They are offering only the vaguest hints at more powers for Holyrood. In truth it looks like they don’t have a clue what they want. It will make them look increasingly shifty to the wider electorate as the campaign goes on.
Westminster is now a place of knee-jerk politics. What is said now by Cameron in respect of not talking with the SNP, over independence negotiations and commitments, will change later in the year. Just like Cameron’s stance this time last year when he tried to dictate proceedings in Edinburgh, it all changed quickly enough. The same will happen again. There is the possibility of secret negotiations going on as per Scottish_Skier’s theory, backed up by Cruddas’ revelations, whatever it is the Tories will probably play ball over EC rules making life harder for Better Together in Scotland. Ruth Davidson, Alistair Darling and Wullie Rennie are the patsies being kept at arms-length from the bosom of Westminster.
We all know that the press and media are controlled by corrupt governments ie. Westminster. So looking beyond all the recent noise about questions, EU, control of the referendum, there is a serious issue approaching of finance or lack of in Westminsters case.
Someone is instigating all this noise to deflect the real fear that the economy is weak and showing no signs of improving. The general public, on the whole have no idea how governments run or even, strangely, who funds them! Luckily, everything has conspired to create the right conditions for self-autonomy. We have no option now other than Independence, and thankfully the coalition is aiding us by deflecting the arrows.
Now we just have to be on the lookout for the ambushes!!
Why on earth did Lamont choose to concentrate on Lucinda Creighton’s comments, when the minister has made it clear – repeatedly – that she’s not happy about how it was reported?:
“I think my comments have been misconstrued or perhaps manipulated by some quarters. I sincerely regret this.”
Ms Creighton repeats her claims that her words were not reported accurately…”I regret that my words seem to have been spun or taken out of context.”
Lamont had to know about that correspondence, between Creighton, Sturgeon, and others who sought clarification. It’s unthinkable that Lamont’s advisors weren’t fully aware of this. I’m baffled.
And as for Ruth Davidson – what was the chin-holding all about? Does she think it gives her gravitas? It doesn’t. It just looks like she’s trying to hide a spot.
@Elizabeth
That is a awful article by Alex Massie. He says there is a case for there being no unionist parties in Scotland?! WTF! Why all the opposition to independence then? Then he argues that a No vote is a vote for more powers! He quotes David Torrance as saying the UK is not a over-centralised state! Massie finishes of by saying that even if there is a No vote the SNP are still likely to win!
For reasons that are obvious, the SNP are keen to pretend that a Yes vote is the only way to achieve the much-vaunted, mysterious “more powers” Scotland wants. This is not the case, not least for the very good reason that even the Scottish Conservatives are inching away from last-ditch, paleo-Unionism. Indeed, one may make a credible argument that there are no Unionist parties in Scotland any longer. Rather, there are four nationalist parties and the difference between them is of degree as much as it is of kind.
Anyway, as David says, this puts the SNP in an awkward spot:
I think this correct. Which leads one to this observation: the SNP are likely to win even if they lose the referendum. A silver medal is no disgrace.
A message to the Better Topgether campaign & the Labour Party (If they rerad this?)
The SNP, Greens, SSP, Yes campaign etc have all been putting a case in front of me to support independence. They speak of a more socially just Scotland, a greener Scotland and a sense of overwhelming positivity.
I urge Alistair Darling and the party I once voted for (I hope I can again some day) to please, please, please give me a vision of what you will do to make my country better.
I don’t care about “the good old days” of empire and industrialising the world. I don’t care about the bragging rights of having a permanent seat on the UN security council. Heck, I don’t even care about winning two world wars (We most certainly wouldn’t have liberated Europe on our own by a country mile!!)
I want to know what your going to do to make the future brighter, better and cleaner for my kids, my grand kids and every generation thereafter.
Can’t any of you see that this country is broken? Are your noses so embedded in the Westminster trough that you can’t see what’s happening around you?
Come on, do as the EC are asking. Tell me what you’re plan is……..PLEASE!!!
They must think we’re really stupid to fall for that old ‘jam tomorrow’ trick again.
@ianbrotherhood lamont kept at it because its in the script – its become very clear to many that Slab don’t have a feel for strategy or cut & thrust debates. No matter if events have rendered it pointless, Slab will just push on regardless.
As for Ruth davidson – she is hopelessly out of her depth.
@Major
The media are already falling into line with Jam Tomorrow (see Torrance, Massie etc).
@muttley79
And the Electoral Commission has now decreed that the NO campaign will have to explain exactly what will be on offer after a NO vote and surely there will be some in the MSM, I’m thinking McKenna, McWhirter, McMillan and McAlpine, will rise to question the substence of their ‘assertions’.
Personally, Ruth Davidson’s response last night was ideal – merely punting it forward to the next election (Scottish or UK) we can only wait and see.
No, seriously, after the Lib-Dems have been exposed as nothing but liars they must think our heads zip up the back if we’ll believe vague promises of a any-flavour jam from that lot.
This has been quite a week;
The Electoral Commission’s recommendations are just fine declares the Yes campaign.
“Scots forced to change referendum wording” according to the I paper.
And reference this article, the NO campaign do not seem inclined to provide a vision of post-independence Scotland either with a Yes or No vote. Nor indeed does PM Cameron. Voters can of course study current events as a guide to future possibilities, of a No vote:-
Bedroom tax, in England
Reduction in Council tax benefit, in England – up to £600pa from April. (ref the I paper).
The Energy Bill, passed by Westminster enables the Energy Minister Ed Davey to “secretly funnel billions of taxpayers’ money” as subsidy to EDF that would pave the way for a new nuclear power generating station at Hinkley Point, Somerset.(ref the I paper). Scotland is currently able to veto planning of new build nuclear stations in Scotland.Would that veto survive a No vote?
Proposed windfarm in Southern Ireland to provide energy to England. i wonder what transmittance costs will be charged to the Irish since the proposed wind farm is quite a distance from the consumers?
PM Cameron’s proposed referendum on EU membership.
Remember Lamont’s “Something for Nothing” speech?
The Irish Minister, whether by intent or happenchance, has aided the Yes /SNP stance on continuation of EU membership. And put the spotlight on BBC misreporting.
At FMQ today Johann Lamont was speaking up sympathetically for the travails of the Herald, the Scotsman and the BBC!
I was surprised that she didn’t propose a vote of support for her husband’s boss, Councillor Mathieson. He has had an eventful week or so with one thing or another.
His Linn Park escapade.
Cancellation of the design proposals for George Sq. Cost to Glasgow taxpayers £100,000? And further demonstrating his astute grasp of pie in the sky strategic planning and expenditure – embracing high speed trains to Glasgow
Oh and Lamont used that word again, at least twice at FMQ. Honesty!
I think it would be good insurance for the Yes camp to press ahead compiling a dossier of information as requested by the EC. If, as expected, the “No” lot don’t deliver, imagine the fun we could have waving the Yes document in front of them on the BBC or indeed in any public debate, and saying “we have complied with the EC request and will publish as soon as you do; why won’t you?”
I fear releasing the Yes information before the No camp does will only provide them with more ammo to spin against us; this is probably what they are hoping for as their current pack of garbage is looking just a tad pathetic.
And btw, what on earth was the photo in yesterday’s Herald of Johann Lamont shaking hands with Pauline Marois, Quebec’s premier and leader of the Quebecois, meant to signify? The heading of the accompanying article “Salmond turns down help from Quebec nationalists” might provide a clue, but Jeez! does the Herald ( or JL) not understand the meaning of irony?
O/T but I’ve just found this on the BBC web site.. I’m sure you have all seen it:
Designated lead campaigns (Yes Scotland and Better Together): £1,500,000 (£750,000)
Scottish National Party: £1,344,000 (£250,000)
Scottish Labour: £834,000 (£250,000)
Scottish Conservatives: £396,000 (£250,000)
Scottish Liberal Democrats: £201,000 (£250,000)
Scottish Green Party: £150,000 (£250,000)
Other registered campaigners: £150,000 (£50,000)
Campaigns spending below £10,000 are not required to register.
Now my queston is.. Who are the “Other registered campaigners:”??
Oh, and is all the funding to be sourced within Scotland, as per the Scottish Governemnts request, or is “Internaional” funding allowed?? I don’t think I’ve seen a statement on that…
Just think back to 2011. We were told that 2014 would be too late, and cause too much uncertainty. The referendum had to be held quickly. the Scottish Government wanted 2014, and the Scottish Government got 2014. The anti independence parties got nothing.
We were told in 2011, that the referendum had to be controlled by Westminster. The Scottish Government wanted it to be controlled in Scotland. The Scottish Government got its way, the anti independence parties got nothing.
We were told in 2011, that 16 year olds would not be allowed to vote. The Scottish Government wanted 16 year olds to vote. The Scottish Government got its way, the anti independence parties got nothing.
We were told in 2011 that everyone in the UK had to be allowed a vote. The Scottish Government said NO, only Scottish voters can decide Scotland’s future. The Scottish Government got its way, the anti independence parties got nothing.
This week, the Scottish Government got its way, and the unionist cabal were left speechless. Once again, the anti independence parties got nothing.
You would have thought that by now, even the dimmest person in the Brit Nats would have realised they are wasting their time, but no, they just keep on banging their collective heads agains the brick wall. It is said, the definition of stupidity, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Perhaps somebody needs to tell the NO campaign.
As an aside, I thought Lamont at FMQ’s was her usual ridiculous self, with the (Labour)stooges around her, even complaining at the Scottish Government policy of NO compulsory redundancies in the public sector and health service.
Even auntie annabel must have been cringing at the nonsense from Ruth Davidson – she really is not up to the job.
I’d be delighted if the NO campaign, Lamont, wee Wullie Rennie, Davidson, Cameron, Al Darling and his eyebrow stylist carried on exactly as they are now right up until the referendum. Ideal.
@Muttley,
‘Jam the morn’
Supporters of increased devolution, be that Devo More, More than More, Even More than More but Not Max, Max Lite, Max Medium, Max and Max Excel should vote ‘Yes’ in 2014. Scotland would be in a much stronger position to renegotiate the terms of a ‘new modern union’ having done that 😉
However, of course there can’t actually be more devolution, nothing meaningful anyway. Already too asymmetric with the West Lothian Question rightly peeing off the English electorate increasingly.
Let’s say it was a narrow No vote and more powers were magically devolved. That included some decent tax varying powers. The Scottish government use these to say, lower corporation tax and increase income tax for very high earners. Maybe the get APD too and lower this. It results in increasing businesses moving to Scotland, increasing jobs etc and at the same time funds better public services through an increased tax take. Stories abound of the Scots getting free this, free that etc in the Daily Mail; even worse than now. However, to keep Scotland in the union the old ‘Scotland is funded by English taxes’ stuff keeps flowing in various ways from the UK government. The shires become increasingly infuriated, calling for Scotland to leave or an English Parliament to be set-up with no Scots MPs.
Nope, devolution was only going to lead to one thing; the end of Britain. Why? Because Scotland would ultimately begin to diverge from the rUK policy-wise and that would create a division that can’t be healed without a complete move to some sort of federal UK. Labour and the Tories have no interest whatsoever in an end to a Westminster parliament/HoL and the setting up of a new PR English parliament / a UK federal one. That would end the whole establishment gravy train/absolute power thing. What’s more, it would require a completely new treaty of union as the removal of Scots MPs from Westminster would end the current treaty. Ergo, we’d have to have a UK-wide vote etc. Even if the English did go for it, you’d need the Scots to go for it too, i.e. vote for a new union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Is London going to be the capital again? Why not have it centrally in Leeds, maybe moving between London, Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh? All sorts of problems here. Just not going to happen without some sort of cross-UK popular revolution supported by at least 2 of the big 3 parties. So nae chance really then.
Scottish independence is inevitable.
Unless magically Scots suddenly all decide they’re going to vote Labour and Tory in roughly the same proportions (say 40%/40%) with the remainder mainly Lib Dem like the good old days of the 50’s, then it’s all over. Not even sure that would be enough even, what with there being no obvious reason for the union now that the sun has long set on the empire.
It’s just a matter of time. Looking good for it sooner (2014) rather than later.
SS
You are correct. Even I as a Scot would hold that the current position of Westminster, with Scottish MP’s cannot be kept if Scotland gains substantial new powers. So, to me the whole notion of ‘further devolution; is not only patent nonsense, it would be grossly unfair to people in other parts of the UK.
The NO campaign will never ‘come clean’ about what further powers they would offer, as they too know that it would be suicidal for them at the English ballot boxes, to offer anything further substantive to Scotland.
The fact is, the current political system in the UK is wholly untenable, in every possible way. If David Cameron truly wanted to ‘save’ Scotland, he would have insisted on a new federal structure via parliamentary legislation, to be added to the referendum. It is oh so telling that neither he nor Labour chose to do so.
As for the Tories, as I have said before, it will be clear to them, Scotland is an electoral liability, not an electoral asset.
The message will be simple, vote NO, get nothing.
In my discussion with folks, the obvious weak spot for the Unionists is the performance and cost of Westminster government. Joe Public does not realise that it costs £1,000 million to run both Houses of Parliament. Add £50 million for the annual costs of running Holyrood and that is the cost of national government for Scots. Take away Westminster and we would be quids in for at least a good few hundreds of millions of pounds. Heck, the recent dispute within the Coalition on boundary changes has paradoxically put up the costs of the House of Lords by another few millions. Do we really need 850 unelected peers at £300 per day plus expenses?
The crazy thing is that Westminster can’t seem to agree on what to do about it, so we can assume that bar a revolution nothing will happen to change that. If you need proof, just check on the recent debate over Europe and the references to the mother of parliaments (factually wrong), the greatest democracy in the modern world (whit!). Nothing will change there in our lifetimes. Time to wave farewell.
The main thing is to make sure that those hankering after more devolution are under no illusions whatsoever that a NO vote will not provide more devolution and will likely roll back the Scottish Parliament’s powers, such as they are, meaning the end to free prescriptions, university tuition fees, etc., etc.
To be honest I think that the NO campaign will make that abundantly clear to the electorate, though not intentionally.
ianbrotherhood
“… And as for Ruth Davidson – what was the chin-holding all about? Does she think it gives her gravitas? It doesn’t. It just looks like she’s trying to hide a spot…”
I’ve noticed she does it regularly. I think it is her … all action, junior army officer, head girl, ready to go chaps, pose.
wHAT FUN, ah bloody ‘caps lock’ on again !! that will be Alex Salmond’s fault, honest.
To get back to reality I must agree with “redcliffe62″s point of pushing the issue on full compliance with the Electoral commissions recommendations for the referendum. Why should we let the unionist parties off with anything, they were the ones bumping their gums about the Scottish government having to follow all the EC’s advice, so the same should follow for them.
At the minimum our government should be hammering that point time and again that we did what they requested, so why did they not do the same. Dont give them an inch, and dont let them off with nothing till the referendum is won.
It was a pleasure to watch FMQ’s today, to watch Johann lamont trying to defend the scotsman, herald and BBC at the same time and try and pass them off as paragons of media excellence was lamentable, honest I nearly pee’d myself.
Ruthie davidson was extraordinary in her performance, she ‘honestly’ looked like one of that nodding dogs in the back of a car being driven fast down a badly rutted farm track while on speed. I thought at one point “goldie” was going to have to catch her head as it whipped past at breakneck speed, weird woman. Also she had no point to make again.
Alba Gu snooker loopy!, vote yes.
The thing that has struck me over the past wee while is the manner in which it seems all the main players on the Yes side are carrying on quite calmly with the long game and not rising to the continual baiting from the No side, including the MSM- they show no desire to get into shouting matches with them. A timetable of the way things are going to played by the Yes folk has obviously been set out and no amount of braying and screeching is going to divert them from this. One by one the pieces are falling into place.
The way in which everyone seems to be able to keep calm heads in the face of severe provocation is admirable as I don’t think I could do it. The effect is that the No side are flinging more and more outrageous muck about the place- they can’t cope with reasoned debate. I think even the decision to let Alex Neil and Fiona Hyslop send a shot across the BBC bows has also been thought out, it would do no good for Salmond, Sturgeon, Blair or Canavan to get involved and the less well known faces are sent to calmly, but forcefully state the case.
Westminster politicians and their acolytes, as someone stated above, know only one way to campaign-spin and talking over people- and that is not very attractive to voters who are learning that it is done to hide the empty vessels that the Tories, Labour and Libdems are. I think part of the Yes campaign may have been to realise and accept that this was always going to happen and to bypass the shouting matches and instead talk calmly to the electorate, treating them in a grown up manner. The unionists don’t know how to do this and are floundering as a result.
I also think their is one other crucial difference- unionist, Westminster loyal, politicians think they are elected to govern people and do so with an ever increasing iron fist and a condescending attitude. The SNP know that they are elected to govern ON BEHALF of the electorate and that’s a big and crucial difference to what people have been used to.
I feel like that huge big boulder we have all been pushing uphill for generations is on the last plateau before we reach the top and the unionists can put all the obstacles in the way they want but we have fresh forces joining us every day and we can’t be stopped now and when we get it to the top and let it go the momentum will be unstoppable.
Excellent post, Fiona
@Fiona
politicians think they are elected to govern people and do so with an ever increasing iron fist and a condescending attitude. The SNP know that they are elected to govern ON BEHALF of the electorate and that’s a big and crucial difference to what people have been used to.
Well said, Fiona. The other parties have held power for too long and, as a consequence, can no longer tell the difference between ruling us and representing us, as they are elected to do.
Its simple really for at the moment the unionists are convinced that they are going to win the referendum hands down so its no surprise that they are unwilling to divulge what will happen after a YES result as they have convinced themselves that won’t ever happen.
Unionists are keeping their options open in the hope they won’t have to make any more “concessions” to the troublesome Scots and might even roll back devolution if the NO vote has a substantial majority.
“Would UK law still apply?”
What is this UK law she speaks of? There is Scots Law in Scotland and English Law in England (and Wales)… I’m no expert on this but I would expect the leader of even one of Scotland’s minor political parties to understand this difference.. So is Davidson really that incompetent or is this just ridiculous scaremongering to encourage viewers to think if they vote YES they will wake up in some kind of leaderless, lawless anarchic wasteland?
So, will the NO camp come clean about all the cuts they will make to the Scottish budget etc after the recommendations by the EC should Scotland vote NO the the referendum? I eagerly await the truth but I doubt that they will have the guts to do this.
I agree with the previous comments that more jam tomorrow, would eventually lead to the breakup of the UK. Either way, the British “constitution” would not be able to accommodate the resulting divergence between a quasi-independent Scotland and a centralised rUK. As there can be no substantive powers devolved, the No campaign will be unable to comply with with the EC ruling. However, I do not think this should stop the Yes campaign from setting out their case, as there is one killer difference between the two positions. That is is SG’s commitment to a written constitution.
As a non-aligned reluctant voter, I am not particularly up on realpolitik, which frankly turns me cold. However, who says the Yes campaign has to publish all of its case all in one go. I think the Yes campaign would put the unionists in an extremely embarrassing and possibly untenable position, if it were to outline the potential benefits of a written constitution. To me, the most significant of these is the protection of civil liberties, which Westminster has effectively dismantled in the last couple of decades. If that does not kill the No campaign stone dead, we have plenty more ammunition.
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to youtube.com
The Scottish No camp sound a lot like the idiots who thought voting no to AV was in some way a yes to PR, hey?
So we know that there is a strong view amongst Scots for more powers to be devolved and that such an option could hurt a YES vote.
We also see in new poll analysis that the prospect of either a Tory or Labour UK Gov at the next election will in contrast bolster a YES vote.
We also know that no strand of the Bitter Together campaign is prepared to comply with the EC and describe what a NO vote means ie they won’t commit to any new devolved powers.
Therefore any undecided voter can’t risk more serious austerity and has to vote YES!
Who says the YES campaign is flawed? It hasn’t even started fully yet and the message should be clear, but just wait until we start to paint a picture with our new constitution in a just and wealthy independent country. ‘Mon the people!