Dazed and confused
Perhaps it's because the source of the news is the notoriously thirsty Labour peer Lord Foulkes, but we're amazed more hasn't been made of yesterday's bringing forward of an amendment to the Scotland Bill by the aforementioned Baron of Cumnock. We're not entirely sure how this fits in with the good Lord's previous assertion just last month that the Bill would in fact have to be scrapped altogether, but if passed the amendment would be nothing short of political dynamite.
At a stroke it would grant what amounts to "devo max", massively spiking the SNP's guns by delivering overnight the constitutional arrangement favoured by around 70% of the Scottish people. The battle lines of the independence referendum, which are currently hardening with every passing day around the two most extreme options, would be hugely blurred, and it would seem obvious that full independence would be far more likely to be rejected by the electorate, if only in favour of giving the new settlement a fair crack of the whip first.
We can find no informed commentator anywhere in the professional media offering a view as to the amendment's likely chances of success, and even the blogosphere has shown almost no interest, so we can only assume that they're low. We must admit that, not for the first time, we're at a loss to understand the FUD camp's ineptitude.
A devo-max Scotland Bill would present the SNP with a huge dilemma – refusing to give it assent in the Scottish Parliament would be unthinkable, but accepting it would rob them of their best weapon in the referendum, and arguably also of much of their reason to exist at all.
(As an aside, it would at least be amusing to watch which way Scottish Labour voted on consent, given how venomously they've attacked devo-max in the last seven months despite it being the preferred option of the vast majority of their supporters. And it would also be quite funny if devo-max was implemented by the Tories and Lib Dems, with Labour opposed. It might actually be the final nail in the party's coffin in Scotland, and we wonder if the Coalition is tempted to pass it for that reason alone.)
Of course, looked at from another angle, such a development would be a colossal victory for the Nationalists, delivering 90% of independence, along with the all-important oil revenues, without a single vote having to be cast. They could easily and legitimately defer the referendum in such exceptional circumstances, and then invite Scots to take what would then be a much less traumatic step towards full independence after a few years of competent FFA government. But it's equally possible that the electorate would be happy with what it had, with little appetite for the massive infrastructural upheaval the dissolution of the UK would involve.
Lord Foulkes' amendment might be the last best chance of preserving the Union. Obviously that makes it a bad thing in this blog's view, but all the same we're a little surprised nobody seems to be paying it any attention.
I think it's largely being ignored because it is being proposed by Lord Foulke's sake and his constantly changing message has made many tired.
If it actually passes, I can see it getting insane amounts of attention. Honestly, though, it doesn't have a chance in hell of passing.
I tend to agree with you, but it just shows how little attention the coalition parties in particular are paying. There’s an absolute gift horse looking them in the mouth here – delivering devo max would surely boost both of them very significantly in Scotland, while damaging the SNP and (even more so) Labour. They could also sell it south of the border as a major shoring up of the Union, which would be popular with the Tories’ voters at least. So either they’re a lot thicker than we thought, or Scotland isn’t quite such a drain on the UK economy as we’re constantly told…
Yes I agree it really is a gift. Though, some of them might be wary after devolution failed to stall the SNP machine and are defaulting to inaction/maintaining the status quo while they try to figure out what to do. It would be wise of Labour and the Lib Dems to get behind it before they get themselves completely wiped from Scotland, however (The Tory vote is relatively steady, though decreasing as they succumb to their age).
I think the Tories deep down would like to play politics and do this (Thus endearing themselves with the sections of the UK, especially England, that still believes Scotland are subsidised… at least in the short term.), but the Treasury are standing there and informing them just how disastrous it would be if they did that. Money comes first in the current political climate so they will not want to give up such an important stream of revenue for the rapidly shrinking Treasury.
In the long-term, it would also be a disaster as the other states of the UK start to see that the great lie of Scottish subsidy was indeed a lie and now Scotland is even more better off.
I think what they'd all like to do is appear to promise devo-max so as to head off a yes vote for independence, but then after that aim is achieved, not actually deliver it.
Having said that, if there is a formal amendment proposed to the Calman bill which would deliver devo-max, and that amendment is voted down by Westminster – what was that about gift horses?
"Having said that, if there is a formal amendment proposed to the Calman bill which would deliver devo-max, and that amendment is voted down by Westminster – what was that about gift horses?"
Indeed. A lovely open goal for the SNP there if the amendment is blocked. Thanks, Lord George!
The problem is that I can't find any more detail on what Foulkes is proposing. Is he proposing that all oil revenues go to Scotland with all the Whisky revenues and all the Crown Estate revenues quite apart from VAT, income tax, corporation tax and national insurance. Or is he proposing some crippled form of FFA where Scotland collects only a partial slice of the revenues raised in Scotland?
Full fiscal autonomy or full fiscal responsibility are lovely buzz words but the devil is always is in the detail and when it comes to taxation central government does not want to give up any powers. Sorting out FFA will be much more difficult than any independence negotiations.
Unless the detail of what Foulkes means by FFA is spelt out in the Scotland Bill it would be just the same as the SNP putting FFA on the referendum ballot paper. Nobody would know quite what it meant and there would be no guarantee that the Westminster parliament would implement it when the final details are made plain.
In any case if the Tories, Labour and the Lib-Dems had actually wanted FFA for Scotland they'd have done it years ago. Foulkes is just stirring it for the media.
I’ll have to see if I can find the link, but I believe Foulkes’ amendment centres on removing a specific section of the bill (or possibly the existing Scotland Act) dealing with certain powers being reserved to Westminster. So it should be pretty easy to deduce what it actually means in practice, assuming I can find the thing where the section in question was identified.
I had a hunt in the Lord's Hansard but I couldn't find anything.